UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01304
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01304
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) submits the following objections to certain exhibits submitted by
`
`Patent Owner Thales Visionix, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) with its Patent Owner
`
`Response filed in answer to the inter partes review petition IPR2022-01304
`
`(“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 (“’632 patent”). These objections apply
`
`equally to Patent Owner’s reliance on these exhibits in any subsequently filed
`
`documents. These objections are timely filed and served within five business days
`
`of the filing and service of the Patent Owner Response on June 14, 2023. See Paper
`
`No. 30.
`
`I.
`
`CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibits 2007 and 2008
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2007 and 2008 under the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) 702(a) because the declarant is not an expert. See Ex. 2007,
`
`Section II; Ex. 2008.
`
`Petitioner also objects under FRE 401–403, FRE 702(b)-(d), FRE 703, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65 to Exhibit 2007, Sections V, VII, VIII, IX, and X, because the
`
`declarant has not based his testimony on sufficient facts or data, reliably applied the
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case, or provided testimony that is the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods. For example, the declarant bases certain
`
`claim construction arguments on purported dictionaries submitted as Exhibits 2011–
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`2016, although such dictionaries are not technical dictionaries and Patent Owner has
`
`not shown that either experts or persons of ordinary skill in the particular field would
`
`reasonably rely on them, and those exhibits are additionally inadmissible for the
`
`reasons discussed below and therefore do not form a proper basis for the declarant’s
`
`opinion. See Ex. 2007, Section VII.
`
`Petitioner additionally objects under FRE 401–403 and FRE 702–703 to
`
`Exhibit 2007, Sections VII, VIII, IX, and X as relying on inadmissible evidence that
`
`an expert in the particular field would not reasonably rely on, specifically the
`
`exhibits objected to below. Relatedly, Petitioner objects under FRE 802 to the extent
`
`that the declarant relied on hearsay statements from the below-referenced exhibits in
`
`these Sections.
`
`Petitioner additionally objects to all portions of Exhibit 2007 that are not cited
`
`and expressly discussed in Patent Owner’s Response, as such portions are irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401–403 and may not be incorporated by reference per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3). To the extent Patent Owner attempts to rely on any such uncited and/or
`
`undiscussed portions of Exhibit 2007, such incorporation by reference is
`
`impermissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2010
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 under FRE 702–703, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.2,
`
`42.9, 42.10, 42.53, 42.61, and 42.65 as offering inadmissible testimony improperly
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`elicited by non-party Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”). Petitioner further objects to
`
`this exhibit under FRE 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial,
`
`confusing the issues, wasting time, and/or presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`As noted during the May 23, 2023 deposition of Petitioner’s expert as to a
`
`separate petition IPR2022-01294, and as Petitioner noted in an email to the Board
`
`on May 26, 2023, Gentex is not the Patent Owner, but only a licensee without all
`
`substantial rights. Counsel for Gentex improperly posed cross-examination
`
`questions to Petitioner’s expert, despite Petitioner’s objections that questioning by
`
`counsel for a licensee is not permitted and despite the presence of Counsel for Patent
`
`Owner. EMC Corp. v. Actividentity, Inc., IPR2017-00338, Paper No. 9 at 2
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 3, 2017) (“[a]ccording to 35 U.S.C. § 313, it is the patent owner, not
`
`a licensee, who has the right to participate in inter partes review proceedings”).
`
`Petitioner timely sought authorization to preclude the submission into the record of
`
`the portions of the deposition transcript containing cross-examination conducted by
`
`Counsel for Gentex. As the Board confirmed on May 31, 2023, “[t]he parties to
`
`these proceedings are Petitioner and Patent Owner. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.2, 42.10(a).
`
`Accordingly, only counsel for which Patent Owner has filed a power of attorney
`
`(and subsequent mandatory notices) may ask questions of Petitioner’s expert in a
`
`deposition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). The panels are not aware of any Rule or other
`
`authority that permits a real party in interest to conduct a deposition of an opposing
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`party’s expert.” As Counsel for Gentex improperly posed all cross-examination and
`
`re-cross questions to Petitioner’s expert, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61(a).
`
`C. Exhibits 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 under
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, and/or presenting cumulative evidence. Petitioner further objects to
`
`these exhibits under FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible hearsay not falling within any
`
`recognized exception and under FRE 805 as hearsay within hearsay—to the extent
`
`Patent Owner relies on these exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted. Petitioner
`
`objects to these exhibits under FRE 901 as Patent Owner has failed to show that
`
`these documents are authentic or self-authenticated under FRE 902. For example,
`
`Exhibit 2015 bears a 1996 copyright date but Patent Owner refers to it as a 1999
`
`reference. Petitioner objects to these exhibits under FRE 106 to the extent they
`
`exclude any other part of the writing that in fairness ought to be considered at the
`
`same time. For example, Exhibits 2012 and 2015 provide the definition for
`
`“configure” and “enumerate” from a particular dictionary, but exclude the definition
`
`of “couple.”
`
`D. Exhibits 2017 and 2018
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2017 and 2022 under FRE 401, 402, and 403 as
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues, wasting time, and/or presenting
`
`cumulative evidence. Petitioner further objects to these exhibits under FRE 801 and
`
`802 as inadmissible hearsay not falling within any recognized exception and under
`
`FRE 805 as hearsay within hearsay—to the extent Patent Owner relies on these
`
`exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted. Petitioner objects to these exhibits under
`
`FRE 901 as Patent Owner has failed to show that these documents are authentic or
`
`self-authenticated under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/W. Todd Baker/
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner (No. 54,503)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Joshua Popik Glucoft (No. 67,696)
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice)
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served on June 22, 2023 via electronic mail directed to counsel of record for the
`
`Patent Owner at the following:
`
`Thales-Meta-IPRs@addyhart.com
`
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Todd Baker/
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
