UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Patent 9,767,955
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Patent 9,767,955
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner objects to the following evidence submitted by Petitioner with
`
`its Petition for Inter Partes Review filed June 17, 2021 (“Petition”).
`
`A. EX1003 - Declaration of Dr. Mark Allen, paragraphs 37, 41, 42,
`66, 77, 90, 119, 120, 122, 123, 141, 155, 156, 160, and 161
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802:
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 37, 41, 42, 66, 77, 90, 119, 120, 122,
`
`123, 141, 155, 156, 160, and 161 of EX1003 as hearsay and being at least partially
`
`based on documents which themselves are both unauthenticated and hearsay. In at
`
`least these paragraphs, Dr. Allen appears to assert as fact statements for which he
`
`does not possess personal knowledge.
`
`B.
`
`EX1010 - Frederick Emmons Terman, Electronic and Radio
`Engineering (4th ed.) (“Terman”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1010 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1010
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1010 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1010 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`evidence proving that EX1010 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and that the
`
`information contained therein was the knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner
`
`further objects to EX1010 under FRE 401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting
`
`time, and confusing the issues due to its lack of authentication.
`
`C. EX1016 - Klaus Finkenzeller, RFID Handbook (“RFID
`Handbook”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1016 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1016
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1016 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1016 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1016 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1016 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`D. EX1017 - Kathleen O’Brien, Inductively Coupled Radio
`Frequency Power Transmission System for Wireless Systems and
`Devices (Ph.D. dissertation, Technical University of Dresden)
`(“O’Brien”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1017 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1017
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1017 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1017 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1017 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1017 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`E.
`
`EX1018 - Ned Mohan, et al., Power Electronics (2d ed.)
`(“Mohan”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`Patent Owner objects to EX1018 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1018
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1018 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1018 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1018 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1018 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`F.
`
`EX1020 - Xun Liu & S.Y. Ron Hui, Equivalent Circuit Modeling
`of a Multilayer Planar Winding Array Structure for Use in a
`Universal Contactless Battery Charging Platform (“Liu”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1020 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1020
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1020 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1020 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1020 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1020 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`G. EX1021 - IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
`Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields 2
`kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Standard C95.1-2005 (“IEEE C95.1-
`2005”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1021 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1021
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1021 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1021 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`evidence proving that EX1021 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1021 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`H. EX1022 - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
`Protection, Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying
`Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 74 Health Physics
`494 (“ICNIRP Guidelines”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1022 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1022
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1022 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1022 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1022 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1022 under FRE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`I.
`
`EX1023 - H. Sakamoto et al., Large Air-Gap Coupler for
`Inductive Charger, 35 IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 3526
`(“Sakamoto”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1023 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1023
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1023 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1023 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1023 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1023 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`7
`
`
`
`J.
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`EX1025 - Chwei-Sen Wang, Design Considerations for
`Inductively Coupled Power Transfer Systems (Ph.D. thesis,
`University of Auckland) (“Wang”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1025 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1025
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1025 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1025 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1025 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1025 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication.
`
`K. EX1027 - Mahendra Pratap Singh & Manoj Kumar Jain,
`Evolution of Processor Architecture in Mobile Phones 90
`International Journal of Computer Applications 34 (“Singh”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`Patent Owner objects to EX1027 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1027
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1027 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1027 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1027 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1027 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication and because it is never cited in the Petition.
`
`L.
`
`EX1028 - Sascha Segan, The Evolution of the Blackberry, PC
`Mag (“The Evolution of the Blackberry”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1028 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1028
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`date of EX1028 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1028 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1028 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1028 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication and because it is never cited in the Petition.
`
`M. EX1029 - Tom Hormby, A History of Palm, Part 1: Before the
`PalmPilot, Low End Mac (“History of Palm”)
`Grounds for objection: FRE 401-403, 801-802, 901-902:
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1029 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner additionally objects to EX1029
`
`under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within any of the
`
`hearsay exceptions. In addition, Patent Owner objects to the alleged publication
`
`date of EX1029 under FRE 801-802 as inadmissible hearsay that does not fall
`
`within any of the hearsay exceptions for lacking evidence of authentication. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to EX1029 under FRE 401-402 as irrelevant for lack of
`
`evidence proving that EX1029 was publicly available prior to the critical date,
`
`Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380, and that the information contained therein was the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner further objects to EX1029 under FRE
`
`401-403 as unfairly prejudicial, wasting time, and confusing the issues due to its
`
`lack of authentication and because it is never cited in the Petition.
`
`II. Conclusion
`To the extent the exhibits are admitted, their scope should be restricted to the
`
`purpose for which they were originally submitted. FRE 105.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Kenneth J. Hoover/
`Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Kenneth Hoover, Reg. No. 68,116
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-01116
`Attorney Docket No: 25236-0270IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on January 19, 2022, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was provided via electronic service, to the Petitioner by
`
`serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`Inge A. Osman
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`Jeffrey G. Homrig
`Blake R. Davis
`Michael T. Pierce
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`
`E-mail: jonathan.strang@lw.com
`inge.osman@lw.com
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`jeff.homrig@lw.com
`blake.davis@lw.com
`mike.pierce@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
