`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Gregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 57,063
`Marie McKiernan (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00135
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to evidence served in
`
`connection with the Patent Owner’s Response on August 24, 2022. These
`
`objections have been timely filed and served within five business days of service of
`
`the evidence to which the objections are directed.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 2044 and 2020
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2044, the Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2020, which purports to be an appendix to Exhibit
`
`2044.
`
`Petitioner objects to ¶¶ 77, 82, 119, 121-126, 128-129, 229-235 and Exhibit
`
`2020 under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703 as unhelpful, not based on sufficient facts or
`
`data, and not the product of reliable principles and methods, to the extent this
`
`testimony relies on documents that have not been established as authentic under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), that are not relevant to an issue in this proceeding under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 401, or that lack foundation.
`
`Petitioner further objects to ¶¶ 121, 123-126, 128-129, 229-230, 234-235,
`
`and Exhibit 2020 under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to the extent that Dr. Williams bases this
`
`testimony on reliance on the work of others, including Mr. Matt McKune or source
`
`code reviewers, whose competence and expertise has not been established.
`
`Petitioner objects to ¶¶ 122-123, 126, 128-129, 229-234, and Exhibit 2020
`
`as reciting out of court statements from others, or the content of documents, for the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, making the testimony hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`and inadmissible Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to ¶¶ 77, 82, 119, 121-126, 128-129, 229-235 and Exhibit
`
`2020 as lacking foundation.
`
`II. Exhibits 2014-2025 and 2029-2043
`
`Petitioner objects to each of Exhibits 2014-2025 and 2029-2043 as lacking
`
`foundation.
`
`III. Exhibits 2014, 2018-2019, 2025, and 2028-2043
`
`Petitioner objects to each of Exhibits 2014, 2018-2019, 2025, and 2028-2043
`
`for these reasons:
`
` Each of these exhibits is inadmissible because Patent Owner has failed
`
`to authenticate any of these exhibits in accordance with Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901(a). Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to support
`
`a finding that each Exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is; has not
`
`explained what each document is; has not provided evidence
`
`regarding the origin or preservation each document; has not
`
`established that each is a true and accurate copy; and has not
`
`otherwise authenticated each document.
`
` To the extent Patent Owner attempts during this proceeding to rely on
`
`any statement within these exhibits as evidence to prove the truth of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`the matter asserted, such statement is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
` Due to at least these deficiencies, Patent Owner has failed to establish
`
`that these exhibits are relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, and therefore
`
`the exhibits are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`IV. Exhibits 2015-2017 and 2045
`
`Petitioner objects to each of Exhibits 2015-2017 and 2045 under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401 and 402 because Patent Owner has not established that these exhibits are
`
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding. Specifically, the Patent Owner relies on
`
`these exhibits as evidence of the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSA). Because Patent Owner takes the position that the date of invention for
`
`each challenged claim is October 8, 2009, Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate
`
`that Exhibit 2015 (dated 2022), Exhibit 2016 (dated 2022), Exhibit 2017 (dated
`
`2015), or Exhibit 2045 (dated 2011) have any relevance to the knowledge of a
`
`POSA in 2009.
`
`V. Exhibits 2021-2024
`
`Petitioner objects to each of Exhibits 2021-2024 for these reasons:
`
` Each of these exhibits is inadmissible because Patent Owner has failed
`
`to authenticate any of these exhibits in accordance with Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901(a). Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to support
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`a finding that each Exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is; has not
`
`explained what each document is; has not provided evidence
`
`regarding the origin or preservation each document; has not
`
`established that each is a true and accurate copy; and has not
`
`otherwise authenticated each document.
`
` For at least these reasons, Patent Owner has failed to establish that
`
`these exhibits are relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, and therefore the
`
`exhibits are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
` Petitioner further objects to these exhibits because they are misleading
`
`and incomplete under Fed. R. Evid. 106 and therefore, even if they
`
`were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 401, would be inadmissible
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`VI. Exhibits 2026-2027
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2026-2027 because they are misleading and
`
`incomplete under Fed. R. Evid. 106 and therefore, even if they were admissible
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401, would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is
`
`improper for Patent Owner to attempt to rely on partial trial transcripts without
`
`providing Petitioner access to the full, unredacted transcripts of the trial.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2026-2027 as violating 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53. Rule 42.53(a) states that uncompelled direct testimony “must be submitted
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`in the form of an affidavit.” Exhibits 2026-2027 include direct testimony that is
`
`not submitted in the form of an affidavit and the witness has not been made
`
`available for cross examination by Petitioner. Exhibits 2026-2027 also include
`
`testimony that was not developed in cross examination by Petitioner in deposition
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2026-2027 as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Patent Owner relies on statements within these exhibits as evidence to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted. However, the exhibits provide testimony from a
`
`different proceeding in which Petitioner did not have an opportunity to cross
`
`examine any witness. These statements are hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and
`
`are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`VII. Exhibits 2028
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2028 under Fed. R. Evid. 402 because Patent
`
`Owner has failed to establish relevance under Fed. R. Evid. 401.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc.
`
`By: /Michael N. Rader/
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`I certify that on August 31, 2022, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits filed therewith, to be served via electronic mail,
`
`as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas M. Dunham
`
`Elizabeth A. O'Brien
`
`
`
`Date: August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`elizabetho@ruyakcherian.com
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`