UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS INC.,
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`and NETGEAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-013971
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Ruckus et al.”) filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00720, and Ruckus
`
`et al. has been joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS INC.,
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`and NETGEAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-013971
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Ruckus et al.”) filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00720, and Ruckus
`
`et al. has been joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Chrimar”) submits the following objections to evidence filed by Petitioners
`
`Juniper Networks Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems,
`
`Inc. and Netgear, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) on July 7, 2017 in
`
`support of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`A. Exhibit 1020
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1020 (“Madisetti Deposition”), and any
`
`reference to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1020, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 801, 802
`
`(“Hearsay”) and to the extent Petitioners rely on the testimony in Exhibit 1020
`
`regarding improper Exhibits 1031 and 1034 objected to below. Further, Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1020 to the extent Petitioners’ reliance on Exhibit 1020
`
`covers subject matter beyond the scope of the grounds raised in the original Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1021 (“Level One”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1021, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1021
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1021. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1021. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1021
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1021 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`1021.
`
`C. Exhibit 1022
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1022 (“Pulse”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1022, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1022
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1022 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`1022.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`D. Exhibit 1023
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1023 (“Valor”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1023, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1023
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1023 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`1023.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1024 (“Halo”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1024, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1024
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1024 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`1024.
`
`F.
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1025 (“Fisher or ‘998 patent”), and any
`
`reference to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1025, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”); and
`
`because Exhibit 1025 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to
`
`this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through
`
`their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1025 as a truthful depiction of the state
`
`art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1025.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`G. Exhibit 1026
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1026 (“’911 Patent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1026, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”); and
`
`because Exhibit 1026 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to
`
`this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through
`
`their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1026 as a truthful depiction of the state
`
`art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1026.
`
`H. Exhibit 1027
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1027 (“De Nicolo or ‘468 patent”), and any
`
`reference to or reliance thereon.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1027, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”); and
`
`because Exhibit 1027 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to
`
`this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through
`
`their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1027 as a truthful depiction of the state
`
`art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1027.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1028 (“’356 patent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1028, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”); and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`because Exhibit 1028 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to
`
`this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through
`
`their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1028 as a truthful depiction of the state
`
`art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1028.
`
`J.
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1029 (“Smith”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1029, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”); and
`
`because Exhibit 1029 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through
`
`their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1029 as a truthful depiction of the state
`
`art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1029.
`
`K. Exhibit 1030
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1030 (“Chrimar Presentation to IEEE”), and
`
`any reference to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1030, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1030
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`L.
`
`Exhibit 1031
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1031 (“Belden white paper”), and any reference
`
`to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1031, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1031
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1031 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`1031.
`
`M. Exhibit 1032
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1032 (“IEEE 802.9”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1032, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);; and
`
`because Exhibit 1032 constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement
`
`Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent
`
`Owner objects to this exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or
`
`through their expert, rely on any portion of Exhibit 1032 as a truthful depiction of
`
`the state art at a particular time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted
`
`with respect to Exhibit 1032.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`N. Exhibit 1033
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1033 (“IEEE Dictionary”), and any reference
`
`to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1033, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1033
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1033 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`1033.
`
`O. Exhibit 1034
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1034 (“Madisetti Deposition Exhibit 1”), and
`
`any reference to or reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1034, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1034
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`P.
`
`Exhibit 1035
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1035 (“Lucent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1035, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”);
`
`F.R.E. 901, (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); and because Exhibit 1035
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues. Finally, Patent Owner objects to this
`
`exhibit as hearsay to the extent that Petitioners, directly or through their expert, rely
`
`on any portion of Exhibit 1035 as a truthful depiction of the state art at a particular
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`time period, or for the truth of any other matters asserted with respect to Exhibit
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`1035.
`
`Q. Exhibit 1036
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1036 (“Agenda”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1036, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1036
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`R. Exhibit 1037
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1037 (“Muir”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1037, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1037
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`S.
`
`Exhibit 1038
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1038 (“Frazier”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1038, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1038
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Petitioners fail to provide the authentication required by F.R.E. 901 for
`
`Exhibit 1023. Petitioners have not provided sufficient testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of Exhibit 1023. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit 1023
`
`without providing any sufficient authenticating evidence to support a finding that
`
`the items are what Petitioners claim they are, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and therefore
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
`
`of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`T.
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1039 (“Karam”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1039, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1039
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`U. Exhibit 1040
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1040 (“Nootbar”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1040, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1040
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`V. Exhibit 1041
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1041 (“Love”), and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1041, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1041
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`W. Exhibit 1042
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1042 (“Nakamura”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); F.R.E. 403 (“Unfair Prejudice”); and because Exhibit 1042
`
`constitutes untimely evidence offered to supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the
`
`Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401
`
`and therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit under F.R.E. 403 because its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusing the issues.
`
`X. Exhibit 1043
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1043 (“’012 Patent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1043, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); and because Exhibit 1043 constitutes untimely evidence offered to
`
`supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402.
`
`Y. Exhibit 1044
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1044 (“’107 Patent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1044, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); and because Exhibit 1044 constitutes untimely evidence offered to
`
`supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402.
`
`Z.
`
`Exhibit 1045
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1044 (“’760 Patent”), and any reference to or
`
`reliance thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1044, and Petitioners’
`
`reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under F.R.E. 401, 402
`
`(“Relevance”); and because Exhibit 1044 constitutes untimely evidence offered to
`
`supplement Petitioners’ arguments after the Petition was filed.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401 and
`
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`AA. Exhibit 1046 and Reply Brief
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), Patent Owner Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby submits the following objections to Petitioners’ following
`
`citations and any reference to these citations made in either the Reply Brief or the
`
`Declaration as new evidence and arguments that are presented that were not
`
`previously presented in the petition or corresponding declaration nor are they in
`
`response to any argument made by the patent owner. The citations are representative
`
`but may not be inclusive of all citations to the new evidence or arguments presented
`
`in the Reply Brief and Declaration.
`
`Hunter - Exhibit 1003:
`
`Hunter, 2:22-23, Reply Brief, p. 10, Crayford-2, ¶46.
`
`Hunter, 8:14-16, Reply Brief, p. 11, Crayford-2, ¶46.
`
`Hunter, 15:9-13, Reply Brief, p. 10, Crayford-2, ¶46.
`
`Hunter, Table VII; Reply Brief, page 16, Crayford-2, ¶68.
`
`Hunter, 16:13-25, Crayford-2, ¶ 72.
`
`Hunter, 19:13-17, Reply Brief p. 6, Crayford-2, ¶29.
`
`Hunter, 19:18-19, Reply Brief p. 22, Crayford-2, ¶78.
`
`Hunter, 20:11-16, Reply Brief pp. 6-7, Crayford-2, ¶29.
`
`Hunter, 20:24-21:9, Reply Brief p. 13, claims 1, 11, Crayford-2, ¶56.
`
`Hunter, 21:24-27; Reply Brief p. 7, Crayford-2, ¶29.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Hunter, 22:1-23:2 Reply Brief p. 13, Crayford-2, ¶56.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Hunter, 23:16-17, Reply Brief p. 16.
`
`Hunter, 23:21-24, Reply Brief p. 16, Crayford-2, ¶68.
`
`Hunter, 32:16-33:2, Reply Brief p. 16, Crayford-2, ¶67, 70, 74.
`
`Hunter, 32:16-22, Reply Brief p. 16, Crayford-2, ¶70, 74.
`
`Hunter 33:19-21, Reply Brief p. 10, Crayford-2, ¶46.
`
`Hunter 34:19-20, Reply Brief p. 16, Crayford-2, ¶67.
`
`Hunter 38:25-27, Reply Brief p. 20, Crayford-2, ¶72, 78.
`
`Hunter 42:21-23
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
