Case IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TESLA, INC., and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONER VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
`REPLY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`1 Ford Motor Company filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00764,
`and General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed their own motion for joinder and petition in IPR2023-
`00961. Both motions were granted, and, therefore, Ford Motor Company, General
`Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American Honda Motor
`Co., Inc., have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TESLA, INC., and
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONER VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
`REPLY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`1 Ford Motor Company filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00764,
`and General Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., filed their own motion for joinder and petition in IPR2023-
`00961. Both motions were granted, and, therefore, Ford Motor Company, General
`Motors LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Tesla, Inc., and American Honda Motor
`Co., Inc., have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Patent Owner Neo Wireless LLC hereby objects to the following
`
`documents submitted by Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`Nothing in this paper should be construed as an admission that any rights of
`
`Patent Owner would have been waived or forfeited had the paper or any objection
`
`herein not been filed, or that 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) applies to any of the objections
`
`herein if § 42.64(b) would not otherwise apply. The objections herein are
`
`premised upon § 42.64 potentially being determined to apply to the document in
`
`question and are submitted solely to preserve the rights of Patent Owner should
`
`§ 42.64(b) be determined to apply.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 401/402/403 to all references and
`
`documents that do not form the basis of the instituted review, including Exhibits
`
`1035-1045.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1035-1037, and 1040
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely because it is relied
`
`upon to establish Petition’s case-in-chief and could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. Under FRE 401/402/403, these documents are inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds,
`
`and their probative value is outweighed by other considerations including
`
`prejudice, confusion and waste of time.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Exhibits 1038-1039
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely because it is relied
`
`upon to establish Petition’s case-in-chief and could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay to the extent they are relied upon for the proof of the matter
`
`asserted. Under FRE 401/402/403, these documents are inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds,
`
`their public availability date is after the priority date of the Patent, and their
`
`probative value is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice,
`
`confusion and waste of time. Under the applicable law, including 37 C.F.R. §42.6
`
`(a)(3), these exhibits are not cited or discussed in the Petition or the Reply, and
`
`therefore constitute improper incorporation by reference. Under FRE 901, these
`
`documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to be authenticated
`
`or identified.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1041
`
`
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely because it is relied
`
`upon to establish Petition’s case-in-chief and could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it does not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and
`
`its probative value is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice,
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents
`
`constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1043
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely because it is relied
`
`upon to establish Petition’s case-in-chief and could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), this document is incomplete and is not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under FRE 801/802, this document constitutes and
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay to the extent relied upon for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it does not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and
`
`its probative value is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice,
`
`confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901, this document is inadmissible
`
`because it has not been shown to be authenticated or identified.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1044
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this testimony is untimely because it is relied
`
`upon to establish Petition’s case-in-chief and could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document includes testimony not
`
`relevant to the instituted review, because, among other things, it has not been
`
`shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to testify competently
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that the declarant’s
`
`testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by reliable principles,
`
`procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case, or that the
`
`declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead than to
`
`enlighten. Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document
`
`includes testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand knowledge including
`
`of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on speculation, and constitutes
`
`and contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`this document does not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document includes testimony on patent law and
`
`practice. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it does not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and
`
`its probative value is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice,
`
`confusion and waste of time.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 1045
`
`
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to a different patent with different
`
`specification and claims, and its probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`____/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /_________
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`
`
`Date: November 16, 2023
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512 B2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following document was served by
`electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date signed below:
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONER VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.’S
`REPLY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`Ryan C. Richardson
`David W. Haars
`Michael D. Specht
`Daniel E. Yonan
`
`John S. LeRoy
`Christopher Smith
`Kyle G. Konz
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Usman A. Khan
`
`John T. Johnson
`Jeffrey C. Mok
`Reginald J. Hill
`Nicole A Keenan
`
`
`
`
`rrichardson-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dhaars-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`mspect-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dyonan-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`FPGP0139IPR@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`IPR18768-0206IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`rhill@jenner.com
`nkeenan@jenner.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Robert Pistone /
`
`Date: November 16, 2023
`
`
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
