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 No. IPR2016-01397
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Petitioners’ Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2016-01397
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Petitioners’ Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, 2-3 (Oct. 15,
`2014) ...................................................................................................3, 15
`
`Rules
`Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, 14 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...........................................3, 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) .............................................................................................1
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petitioners hereby submit their Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observations (Paper 44) (“Motion”) regarding the cross-examination of
`
`Mr. Ian Crayford on July 21, 20171. Petitioners respond and object to each of Patent
`
`Owner’s observations (“Obs.”) as follows:
`
`Response to Obs. No. 1: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading and
`
`irrelevant. The entirety of the excerpt quotes a portion of the examining attorney’s
`
`(Mr. Lewry) question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony, and it notably excludes Mr.
`
`Lewry’s preceding statement “I'm not talking about isoEthernet now.” Ex. 20552,
`
`25:9-13. Mr. Crayford’s uncited response to this question (Id., 25:14-22) and related
`
`uncited testimony3 is consistent with his opinions that various examples in Hunter
`
`1 Chrimar’s Motion could be expunged because it references a deposition transcript
`
`(Ex. 2055) that was not in the record in contravention of 37 CFR 42.6(c). Chrimar
`
`did not try to rectify this deficiency until August 8, 2017, after which the parties
`
`reached an agreement on August 11 (Paper 51) and the transcript was admitted on
`
`August 14, 2017.
`
`2 Cites to Ex. 2055 in this paper include the errata sheet (Ex. 1049) filed herewith.
`
`3 See id. at 16:20-18:23 (“[W]hen we're talking about IsoEthernet, we're talking
`
`about 10Base-T and ISDN next to each other, over the same wire and with different
`
`modes of operation supported, which allows either stand-alone Ethernet connection,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`teach Ethernet terminal equipment (e.g. 10Base-T equipment and systems) and
`
`a stand-alone ISDN connection, and then layers of both of those . . . to co-exist . . .
`
`So [IsoEthernet] has . . . more and more bandwidth, different services for the
`
`isochronous so you can support video conferencing.”); 24:2-25:7 (“[Hunter] says
`
`‘The draft standard 802.9a provides for the integration of . . . video, voice, and data
`
`services to a desktop computer system.’ . . . [S]ome of the data services he’s referring
`
`to are very specifically Ethernet data services . . . he’s trying to implement a system
`
`that includes . . . a 10Base-T element and an ISDN or isochronous element”); 33:17-
`
`34:11; 34:23-35:6; 41:7-43:20 (“AU we know is terminology for access unit in
`
`802.9. ISTE we know is terminology used for terminal equipment in 802.9”), 23:10-
`
`24, 25:3-7, 44:3-9, 50:13-18, 56:1-4, 57:6-18, 60:19-23, 61:9-62:3, 110:25-112:19,
`
`115:20-117:23, 118:22-120:12, 125:12-126:20, 128:5-129:9, 129:18-130:17,
`
`132:10-134:8, 134:3-8, 135:4-9, 135:19-23, 138:8-10, 138:16-18, 139:8-23, 146:14-
`
`148:4, 149:22-151:2, 178:11-181:10, 182:11-183:11 (“[Hunter 32:16-33:2] says . . .
`
`‘multimedia hub 120 contains the following functions: 10Base-T hub repeater’ . . .
`
`[A] POSITA would [not] have any issue understanding that . . . would be an Ethernet
`
`repeater. These are isoEthernet interfaces . . . [A] POSITA would [not] have any
`
`problem understanding that isoEthernet includes an Ethernet function. So the
`
`isoEthernet interface includes Ethernet.”)
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Ethernet communications (e.g. 10Base-T, 100Base-T, and isoEthernet, which
`
`includes Ethernet and ISDN). Pet., 7-8, Reply, 15-23; Ex. 1046, ¶¶65-89; see infra
`
`Obj. Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 2: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes testimony at Ex.
`
`2055, 27:19-28:10), misleading (ignores related testimony at id., 152:23-153:22)
`
`and irrelevant. None of the challenged claims require powering a PC over Ethernet
`
`cables. Reply, 1, 8; Pet. 2-5; Ex. 2055, 40:14-25. Mr. Crayford’s testimony is
`
`consistent with Petitioners’ arguments that the Hunter-Bulan combination teaches
`
`every limitation of such claims. Pet, 7-15, 22-41; Reply, 15-27. He also testified
`
`that Hunter teaches “provid[ing] enough power to maintain [] the phone network.”
`
`Ex. 2055, 28:9-10, see also id. 26:19-27:7, 33:17-20; 158:15-18.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 3: This excerpt is misleading because, as Mr. Crayford
`
`explained in his rebuttal declaration (Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-68) and uncited testimony (e.g.
`
`Ex. 2055, 32:15-34:11, 43:15-44:10), based on a proper analysis of the disclosure of
`
`the reference as a whole, Hunter teaches Ethernet in several different ways including
`
`“both an isoEthernet/802.9 network and also with parts of the network operating as
`
`10Base-T LAN elements in that network.” Ex. 2055, 33:13-34:11; see also id., 18:9-
`
`12 (Hunter specifically references the “802.9 standard.”); supra No. 1.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 4: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it does
`
`not quote Mr. Crayford but rather quotes Mr. Lewry reading portions of a document
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`(Ex. 2050 to Mr. Crayford’s deposition) that the Board denied Chrimar permission
`
`to file in this proceeding. Paper 42, 3. Petitioners have also moved to exclude Ex.
`
`2050 and any related testimony, including that which Chrimar includes in Obs. No.
`
`4. Paper 46. Chrimar’s citation to its attorney’s questions constitutes an improper
`
`introduction of new evidence and argument in its Motion, and an attempt to bypass
`
`the Court’s order rejecting its request to file a Sur-Reply. Id.; Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No.
`
`157, 14 (Aug. 14, 2012); Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper
`
`37, 2-3 (Oct. 15, 2014); Ex. 2055, 37:12-21, 38:11-19. Accordingly, Obs. No. 4
`
`should be expunged. The excerpt is also irrelevant to any of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims (supra Nos. 2, 3) and to the state of the art at the time of the
`
`invention (April 10, 1998) as the underlying unauthorized evidence is from 1999.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 5: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony in which he identified two different examples of references in
`
`the record (Ex. 1010, 165; Ex. 1032, 19, 377) that further support his opinion that a
`
`POSITA reading Hunter would understand “AU interface” is an “access unit
`
`interface” and would not make the mistake that such disclosure refers to an
`
`“attachment unit interface.” Ex. 2055, 47:13-51:21, 33:17-34:11, 41:7-43:20, 45:11-
`
`16, 51:10-21, 53:8-54:25, 55:23-56:4; Ex. 1046, ¶81. Chrimar’s mischaracterization
`
`is also inconsistent with its own expert’s testimony that Hunter’s abbreviation “AU”
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`referred to “access unit” in the 802.9 standard. Reply, 23 citing Ex. 1020, 123:4-13.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 6: This excerpt is irrelevant as the 802.9 specification (Ex.
`
`1032) was properly included in Petitioners’ Reply to rebut Chrimar and its expert’s
`
`unsupported statements in its Response. Ex. 2055, 21:7-22:4; Resp. 41
`
`(“isoEthernet® interfaces were part of an IEEE standard called 802.9a. isoEthernet
`
`used ISDN signals, not Ethernet signals, to transmit data . . . isoEthernet
`
`connections [] carried ISDN (not Ethernet) traffic.”) (emphasis in original); Ex.
`
`2038, ¶¶250-251; Paper 52, 11-12.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 7: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question in part and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes
`
`Mr. Crayford’s preceding testimony (“there's no evidence that pre-existing wiring or
`
`cables required BSTs and CMCs in April, 1998, which is the . . . claimed invention/
`
`priority date of the patents-in-suit”). Ex. 2055, 64:22-65:11; 73:9-74:1. The excerpt
`
`is also irrelevant as “pre-existing wiring or cables”, BSTs, CMCs, and compliance
`
`with FCC regulations, are not relevant to any issue in this IPR including the scope
`
`of the challenged claims. Id., 78:7-22, 177:12-183:11; Reply, 2-5; Paper 52, 8-9.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 8: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question in part and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes
`
`Mr. Lewry’s clarification, during this line of questioning, that he was using the word
`
`“termination” “in its generic sense” and not “as a Bob Smith termination.” Ex. 2055,
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`67:13-23. The excerpt also notably excludes Mr. Crayford’s succeeding testimony
`
`that “when I was building 10Base-T systems in 1990, I knew nothing about [BSTs]
`
`and so -- nor did pretty much anybody else. So we built 10Base-T systems by the
`
`millions that did not have [BSTs] and yet met FCC. So there were . . . in this April,
`
`'98 timeframe . . . literally millions of 10Base-T connections out there which did not
`
`have [BSTs] . . . [A]fter the [Bob Smith patent] filing . . . the 10Base-T industry . . .
`
`didn't go back and design or redesign all the 10Base-T receivers to have [BSTs] . . .
`
`because, one, they didn't need them, and, two, they use more components than the
`
`existing terminations . . . which were terminating just fine and passing FCC.” Id.,
`
`68:21-71:6, 67:4-11. The excerpt is also irrelevant to any IPR issue (supra No. 7).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 9: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes the
`
`portion of Mr. Crayford’s answer in which he states BSTs/CMCs are “not relevant
`
`at all” because Chrimar’s claims “don't require any of this” and “millions and
`
`millions of devices out there [] don't have BSTs and CMCs” (Ex. 2055, 77:24-79:2)
`
`and is irrelevant to any limitation in the challenged claims (see supra Nos. 7, 8).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 10: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and notably excludes
`
`the portion of Mr. Crayford’s answer in which he states:
`
`The rationale for bringing [the Fisher patents and DeNicolo patents] in
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`now is Dr. Madisetti made some statements to the effect that the
`phantom powering didn't exist in the timeframe of interest. And that's
`clearly not true. We have Hunter. We have Fisher. We have DeNicolo.
`We have -- all have shown embodiments of phantom powering, not
`power over Ethernet, but proprietary phantom powering over Ethernet
`data lines, and so we see, you know, multiple examples of evidence that
`. . . [p]hantom powering over Ethernet data cables was both known
`about and practiced in the April, 1998, timeframe for the priority date
`of the patents. Ex. 2055, 80:10-81:10; see also id. 84:9-18; 82:8-83:18.
`Mr. Crayford’s testimony is consistent with Petitioners’ Reply (p. 5-8) and identified
`
`reasons for including this rebuttal evidence. Paper 52, 9-10.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 11: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`irrelevant. Chrimar mischaracterizes (Motion, 4-5) Mr. Crayford’s rebuttal opinion
`
`in which he disagreed with Dr. Madisetti’s assumptions that because 10BASE-T and
`
`100BASE-T used Cat-3 and Cat-5 cables with RJ-45 connectors, this necessarily
`
`meant there were always 4 pairs available and connected, only two of which were
`
`used for data. Mr. Crayford’s testimony is that 2-pair Cat-3 and Cat-5 cables existed
`
`at the time of Chrimar’s alleged invention. Ex. 2055, 86:3-87:5, 89:16-17, 93:10-
`
`22, 94:18-24, 96:1-8; Reply, 14-15; Ex. 1046, ¶¶60-64; Ex. 2039, 145:14-21, 146:2-
`
`147:13, 149:17-20, 151:19-152:2. The excerpt is also misleading and irrelevant to
`
`any issue in this IPR as Chrimar does not and cannot show the accuracy of, and
`
`critically a nexus between the challenged claims and, its alleged skepticism
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`regarding Ethernet phantom powering. (Reply, 9-10; Paper 46, 11-12).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 12: This excerpt is misleading, mischaracterizing and
`
`irrelevant to any of the limitations in the challenged claims. Mr. Crayford explained
`
`in his rebuttal declaration (Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-68) and uncited testimony (e.g. Ex. 2055,
`
`33:17-34:11, 43:15-44:10), that Hunter teaches Ethernet in several different ways
`
`including “both an isoEthernet/802.9 network and also with parts of the network
`
`operating as 10Base-T LAN elements in that network.” Id., 32:15-33:16, 182:11-
`
`183:11; supra No. 1. Mr. Crayford relies on the 10Base-T and 100Base-T teachings
`
`of Hunter, and not exclusively on the Ethernet® teachings. Pet. 25-28; Reply, 15-
`
`16. Chrimar also mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s testimony at Ex. 2055, 30:24-
`
`31:21.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 13: These excerpts are misleading, mischaracterizing and
`
`incomplete. Chrimar mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s opinions and testimony.
`
`(Motion, 5-6). Mr. Crayford is not relying on Hunter’s reference to a “bus” as
`
`teaching 10Base-T or Ethernet data signals but rather many other explicitly
`
`identified examples of such teaching in Hunter (e.g. Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-69, 80-81; Ex.
`
`2055, 32:15-34:11, 43:15-44:10, 182:11-183:11). Mr. Crayford’s testimony in the
`
`cited and uncited excerpts and in his declarations is consistent with this. See supra
`
`No. 1.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 14-30, 33: The “Crayford Testimony” excerpts (Obs. No.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`14) are incomplete, mischaracterized and misleading. Chrimar deletes relevant
`
`testimony within each of the block citations and ignores related testimony (e.g. Ex.
`
`2055, 152:23-153:22, 143:7-18, 139:3-23, 135:19-23, 123:3-23, 120:1-12, 119:8-18,
`
`115:13-117:23, 107:20-108:4, 108:16-109:14). These Obs. are improper and should
`
`be expunged under the Trial Practice Guide, Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, 14 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) because they only allege the excerpts are relevant to Mr. Crayford’s
`
`credibility without providing “a concise statement of the relevance of identified
`
`testimony to an identified argument or portion of an exhibit.” In reality, all of these
`
`excerpts are consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony that a POSITA would
`
`understand Hunter teaches a generic phantom power scheme applicable to
`
`IsoEthernet (in its various modes), 10Base-T, 100Base-T, and ISDN, and describe
`
`various examples in which one or more phantom power sources can be located in (i)
`
`hub 120 (of Figure 1) to provide Ethernet and/or ISDN data and power to, for
`
`example, PC 125, each of hubs 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (of Figure 1), and (ii) in each
`
`of hubs 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (of Figure 1), or (iii) on multiple ports in each of
`
`such hubs, to provide Ethernet and/or ISDN data and power to devices connected to
`
`them. Ex. 2055, 143:7-18, 152:23-153:22, 54:6-15, 56:1-4, 110:25-112:19, 125:12-
`
`126:20, 127:17-19, 128:5-129:9, 129:18-130:17, 132:25-133:17, 134:3-8, 135:4-9,
`
`135:19-23, 138:8-10, 138:16-18, 139:8-23, 146:14-148:4, 149:22-151:2, 178:11-
`
`181:10; Pet. 7-8, 25-28; Reply, 20-23; Ex. 1046, ¶¶73-79; Ex. 2039, 116:14-117:3,
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`124:15-25. These excerpts are also consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony that a
`
`POSITA would understand Hunter’s disclosure is not limited to the example
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 and that not all of the “Connectors” illustrated in Figure 2 are
`
`required for each of the phantom power examples described in Hunter. Ex. 1046,
`
`¶¶77-79; Reply, 15-16; Pet., 22-23; Ex. 2055, 143:7-18, 134:20-135:9, 109:23-
`
`110:1, 110:12-19. These excerpts are further consistent with Mr. Crayford’s
`
`testimony to rebut Dr. Madisetti’s overly narrow interpretation of “terminal
`
`equipment” (Resp. 35-36; cf. Ex. 1034) and his opinions (Resp. 35-40) that Hunter
`
`only teaches a phantom power source in hub 120 to provide ISDN data to an ISTE
`
`card in hub 150, and that Hunter’s description is limited to the example illustrated
`
`in Figure 2 including each of its “Connectors”. Ex. 1046, ¶¶69-79.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 14: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 57:6-18); is consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter; and
`
`is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in part
`
`(Id., 57:20-25) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 15: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 105:4-7); is consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter; and
`
`is mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in part (Ex. 2055,
`
`104:22-25) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 16: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 17: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 107:20-108:4, 108:16-109:14), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 18: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 115:13-117:23, 119:8-18), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 19: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 120:1-12), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 20: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 121:10-122:10), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with
`
`Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 21: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 22: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 128:11-129:9), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 23: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 24: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33), and
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical (Ex. 2055, 130:21-131:2).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 25: This excerpt is incomplete and misleading (deletes the
`
`relevant hypothetical of Mr. Lewry (Ex. 2055, 130:21-131:2 and 131:22-132:1) and
`
`relevant testimony within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 26: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33),
`
`and is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in
`
`part (Ex. 2055, 134:12-14) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 27: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 135:19-23), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 28: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33),
`
`and is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in
`
`part (Ex. 2055, 136:1-5) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Response to Obs. No. 29: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 30: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 139:3-23, 141:13-142:5, 143:7-18), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 31: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading because Chrimar deletes the relevant context for the first excerpt, namely
`
`that Hunter’s disclosed examples include a Hub (e.g. 10Base-T hub 170 providing
`
`24 SNMP-managed 10Base-T ports), which includes a protective device for each TE
`
`(Ex. 2055, 143:22-144:17 citing IPR2016-01391, Ex. 1046, ¶87 citing Hunter 42:21-
`
`23 (“Under conditions wherein a high current power supply is used for supplying
`
`multiple ISTE's, current limiting on each port should be used to protect against
`
`shorting.”). Chrimar also deletes Mr. Lewry’s relevant hypothetical for the second
`
`excerpt (Ex. 2055, 165:13-18: “two phones plugged into the ISTE card that’s in
`
`computer 125 and one of the phones shorts”) without any further explanation of
`
`context (see id., 166:6-14). When taken in the proper context, Mr. Crayford’s cited
`
`testimony is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 32: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as the
`
`entirety quotes a portion of Mr. Lewry’s question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony;
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`notably excludes the context of Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical (Ex. 2055, 144:21-145:1);
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s response (id., 145:15-146:1); and deletes Mr.
`
`Crayford’s relevant testimony (id., 146:9-148:4). Mr. Crayford’s actual testimony
`
`is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 33: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`(Ex. 2055, 149:10-150:3, 150:11-151:2)), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 34-37: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading.
`
`The excerpts, entirely (Nos. 34, 36) or in part (No. 35), are quotes of Mr. Lewry’s
`
`questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. They also exclude the context of the
`
`questions (Ex. 2055, 151:3-6 “the example . . . [of] multimedia hub connected to the
`
`PC 125”), Mr. Crayford’s characterization of this context as “one of the
`
`embodiments that’s covered by Figure 2” (id., 151:8-9), or delete Mr. Crayford’s
`
`relevant testimony. (Id., 151:17-24, 153:2-22 (“[T]here's nothing generically,
`
`though, in Hunter's Figure 2 that would stop the Ethernet device being phantom
`
`powered or a traditional -- ISDN phone being phantom powered or an internet --
`
`Ethernet internet phone being phantom powered. So I don't want to say, you know,
`
`phantom power can't work for the Ethernet portion of the system. Phantom power is
`
`provided.”), 154:13-24, 155:14-18, 156:14-157:6, 157:24-158:8, 158:15-21, 159:13-
`
`161:6, 161:24-162:3, 162:13-162:22). Mr. Crayford’s testimony is consistent with
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination. The excerpts in Nos. 35 and
`
`36 are also irrelevant. See supra No. 2.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 38: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading as Chrimar deletes the relevant context for the excerpt at 144:14-20 (see
`
`supra No. 31 citing Ex. 2055, 143:22-144:17) and as Mr. Lewry provided no further
`
`explanation of context for his hypothetical (Id., 165:13-18 which Mr. Crayford
`
`identified at 166:6-14). When taken in the proper context, Mr. Crayford’s cited
`
`testimony is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 39-41: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading.
`
`They do not quote Mr. Crayford; they quote Mr. Lewry reading from a document
`
`(Ex. 2054 to Mr. Crayford’s deposition) that the Board denied Chrimar permission
`
`to file in this IPR. Petitioners also moved to exclude Ex. 2054 (and related
`
`testimony), including that which Chrimar includes in Obs. Nos. 39-41. See supra
`
`No. 4. Chrimar’s citation to its attorney’s testimony constitutes an improper
`
`introduction of new evidence and argument in its Motion, and an attempt to bypass
`
`the Court’s order rejecting its request to file a Sur-Reply. Id. Accordingly, Obs.
`
`Nos. 39-41 should be expunged. The excerpts are also misleading and irrelevant to
`
`any issue in this IPR. See supra No. 11. Obs. No. 40 also is incomplete as Mr.
`
`Crayford’s actual testimony is at Ex. 2055, 175:5-14 which states in part “I don’t
`
`have any opinion on this because . . . this is a brand new document.”
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Date: August 16, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Talin Gordnia
`Talin Gordnia (Reg. No. 76,214)
`
`Talin Gordnia, Reg. No. 76,214
`tgordnia@irell.com
`Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`mfleming@irell.com
`Jonathan Kagan, pro hac vice
`jkagan@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Nima Hefazi, Reg. No. 63,658
`nhefazi@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Fax: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01397 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO CHRIMAR'S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE are being served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, the
`
`same day as the filing of the above-identified documents in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`CHRMC0111IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffman (Reg. No. 33,711)
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 1850
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffman@reising.com
`
`August 16, 2017
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
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
