UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DAEDALUS PRIME LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-01333
`Patent No. 10,049,080
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner:
`Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357)
`Joseph J. Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218)
`Scott Hughes (Reg. No. 68,385)
`Damon M. Lewis (pro hac vice)
`Ryan Stephenson (Reg. No. 76,608)
`Nicholas Rotz (Reg. No. 75,959)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202.637.5600
`Facsimile: 202.637.5710
`
`Helen Trac (Reg. No. 62,250)
`Jiaxing (Kyle) Xu (pro hac vice)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`Four Embarcadero, #3500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-374-2300
`Facsimile: 415-374-2399
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DAEDALUS PRIME LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-01333
`Patent No. 10,049,080
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner:
`Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357)
`Joseph J. Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218)
`Scott Hughes (Reg. No. 68,385)
`Damon M. Lewis (pro hac vice)
`Ryan Stephenson (Reg. No. 76,608)
`Nicholas Rotz (Reg. No. 75,959)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202.637.5600
`Facsimile: 202.637.5710
`
`Helen Trac (Reg. No. 62,250)
`Jiaxing (Kyle) Xu (pro hac vice)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`Four Embarcadero, #3500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-374-2300
`Facsimile: 415-374-2399
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”) asserts the following objections to the below exhibits submitted by
`
`Patent Owner Daedalus Prime LLC (“Patent Owner”) with its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (“Response”) in this inter partes review. As required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.62, Petitioner’s objections apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`These objections apply equally to Patent Owner’s reliance on these exhibits in any
`
`subsequently filed documents.
`
` EX2003, U.S. Patent No. 5,889,679 Henry et al.;
`
` EX2004, U.S. Patent No. 8,892,931 Kruglick;
`
` EX2005, U.S. Patent No. 9,086,883 Thomson et al.;
`
` EX2006, Declaration of Michael C. Brogioli, Ph.D.;
`
` EX2007, Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition
`
`(2002), pp. 378 (“operating system”), 518 (“thread”).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2003
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2003 because any probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by other considerations under F.R.E. 403, including
`
`unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`Exhibits 2004-2005
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2004 and 2005 under F.R.E. 401-402 because
`
`they are not relevant, at least to the extent that they are not relied upon in the
`
`Patent Owner Response. Petitioner also objects to Exhibits 2004 and 2005 because
`
`any probative value of these exhibits is substantially outweighed by other
`
`considerations under F.R.E. 403, including unfair prejudice, confusion of the
`
`issues, and waste of time.
`
`C. Exhibit 2006
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006 under F.R.E. 702 and 703, because the
`
`testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods, and does not reflect a reliable application of the principles
`
`and methods to the facts of the case. See, e.g., EX2006, ¶¶25-66. Further, the facts
`
`and data that the declarant relied upon are not those on which experts in this field
`
`would reasonably rely. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2006 under F.R.E. 602 to
`
`the extent that the declarant’s testimony is not based on his own personal
`
`knowledge. See, e.g., EX2006, ¶¶30, 43, 65.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 because it is not relevant under
`
`F.R.E. 401-402, at least to the extent that it is not relied upon in the Patent Owner
`
`Response. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2006 because any probative value of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this exhibit is substantially outweighed by other considerations under F.R.E. 403,
`
`including unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and waste of time.
`
`D. Exhibit 2007
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007 because any probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by other considerations under F.R.E. 403, including
`
`unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and waste of time.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`These objections are timely filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), within five
`
`business days of the Response served on May 7, 2024. To the extent Patent Owner
`
`fails to correct the defects associated with the challenged exhibits in view of
`
`Petitioner’s objections herein, Petitioner may file a motion to exclude the
`
`challenged evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Celine Jimenez Crowson
`
`
`
`Celine Jimenez Crowson (Reg. No. 40,357)
`Joseph J. Raffetto (Reg. No. 66,218)
`Scott Hughes (Reg. No. 68,385)
`Damon M. Lewis (pro hac vice)
`Ryan Stephenson (Reg. No. 76,608)
`Nicholas Rotz (Reg. No. 75,959)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: 202.637.5600
`Facsimile: 202.637.5710
`
`Helen Trac (Reg. No. 62,250)
`Jiaxing (Kyle) Xu (pro hac vice)
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`Four Embarcadero, #3500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-374-2300
`Facsimile: 415-374-2399
`Counsel for Petitioner Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.105, the foregoing was served on May 14, 2024 in its entirety upon the
`
`following parties via electronic mail:
`
`Tarek Fahmi (Lead Counsel)
`Ascenda Law Group, LLP
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`Date: May 14, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ky-Yen Wong
`Ky-Yen Wong
`
`5
`
`
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
