`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
` CRUSOE ENERGY SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UPSTREAM DATA INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2023-00039
`Patent 11,574,372
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. PGR2023-00039
`Attorney Docket No: 54598-0001PS1
`Pursuant 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects to evidence submitted by
`
`Patent Owner in their Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response filed October 24, 2023.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner objects to the following exhibits submitted by Patent Owner
`
`for the bases noted below:
`
`Exhibit
`EX2002
`
`EX2003
`
`Objections (FRE)
`401-402: This exhibit is not relevant because its purported
`date (December 8, 2020) is after the earliest possible
`priority date (February 8, 2017), and thus is not probative
`of the obviousness of the ’372 patent. Further, it relates to a
`different technology (e.g., combining and synchronizing
`high-voltage outputs) and is not relevant to the obviousness
`of the claims at issue.
`
`403: This exhibit should further be excluded because, in
`view of its post-priority date status, any purported
`relevance would be substantially outweighed by a danger
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Further, the
`quoted part of EX2002 (2:35-42) is misleading because it
`relates to a different technology, only identifies a
`commercial need and is not related to obviousness.
`401-402: This exhibit is not relevant because its purported
`date (the filing date of August 1, 2019) is after the earliest
`possible priority date (February 8, 2017), and thus is not
`probative of the obviousness of the ’372 patent. Further, it
`relates to a different technology (e.g., combining and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. PGR2023-00039
`Attorney Docket No: 54598-0001PS1
`synchronizing high-voltage outputs) and is not relevant to
`the obviousness of the claims at issue.
`
`403: This exhibit should further be excluded because, in
`view of its post-priority date status, any purported
`relevance would be substantially outweighed by a danger
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`401-402: This exhibit is not relevant because Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding
`that this exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`801-803: To the extent statements therein are relied on for
`the truth of the matter asserted, they should be excluded as
`hearsay without any exception.
`
`901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is what Patent Owner
`claims it is. This appears to be a video that contains no date
`of publication, and is not sufficiently authenticated.
`Upstream failed to establish that this is the same reference
`cited during prosecution of the ‘372 patent.
`401-402: This exhibit is not relevant because Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding
`that this exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is. Further,
`it is not relevant because it relates to a different product
`(“Blockbox”).
`
`2
`
`EX2006
`
`EX2007
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. PGR2023-00039
`Attorney Docket No: 54598-0001PS1
`
`
`901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is what Patent Owner
`claims it is. This appears to be a website printout and is not
`sufficiently authenticated. Upstream failed to establish that
`this is the same reference cited during prosecution of the
`‘372 patent.
`
`
`
`These objections have been timely filed and are being concurrently served on
`
`the Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John C. Phillips/
`John Phillips, Reg. No. 35,322
`Jia Zhu, Limited Rec. No. L1372
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 858-678-5070
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. PGR2023-00039
`Attorney Docket No: 54598-0001PS1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on February 5, 2024, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was provided by email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`James M. Heintz
`Clayton Thompson
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Robert Anton Nissen
`Nissen Patent Law
`11044 82 Ave. N.W., Suite 401
`Edmonton, AB T6G 0T2
`CANADA
`
`Email: jim.heintz@us.dlapiper.com
`clayton.thompson@us.dlapiper.com
`robbie@nissenlaw.ca
`DLA-Crusoe-Upstream-PGR@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
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
