`
` Paper ____
`
`
`
` Date filed: December 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Nichia Corp.
`
`
`
`
`By: Martin M. Zoltick, Lead Counsel
`Robert P. Parker, Back-up Counsel
`Derek F. Dahlgren, Back-up Counsel
`Michael H. Jones, Back-up Counsel
`Mark T. Rawls, Back-up Counsel
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`Emails: mzoltick@rfem.com
`
` rparker@rfem.com
`
` ddahlgren@rfem.com
`
` mjones@rfem.com
`
` mrawls@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
` VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NICHIA CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FILED
`WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Nichia Corp. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files the following objections to evidence filed in support of
`
`Petitioner Vizio, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) and the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756-73
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Patent Owner’s objections and the basis for each objection are below.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence Submitted by Petitioner
`Ex. 1017
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield
`in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections
`Fed. R. Evid. 701/702/703
`(Inadmissible as unreliable and
`improper opinion and expert
`testimony): Declarant’s testimony is not
`reliable, and any opinion and/or expert
`testimony of Declarant based thereon is
`not based on sufficient facts or data; has
`not applied reliable principles and
`methods; and/or has not reliably applied
`such principles and methods to the facts
`of the case. In addition, Declarant is not
`qualified as an expert, and lacks the
`knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
`education to testify as an expert in a
`manner that is helpful to the Board.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(Inadmissible as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the
`issues, and a waste of time): The
`exhibit is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R.
`Evid. 402. Declarant is not qualified as
`an expert. To the extent this exhibit has
`any marginal relevance, it should be
`excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the issues,
`and/or a waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Evidence Submitted by Petitioner
`Ex. 1026
`Webster’s Third New International
`Dictionary, MerriamWebster,
`Incorporated, 2002
`
`Ex. 1027
`Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,
`Oxford University Press, Sixth Edition,
`2007
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 (Inadmissible as
`improper hearsay): The exhibit is
`inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`therein.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(Inadmissible as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the
`issues, and a waste of time): The
`exhibit is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R.
`Evid. 402. To the extent this exhibit has
`any marginal relevance, it should be
`excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the issues,
`and/or a waste of time.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 (Inadmissible as
`improper hearsay): The exhibit is
`inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`therein.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(Inadmissible as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the
`issues, and a waste of time): The
`exhibit is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R.
`Evid. 402. To the extent this exhibit has
`any marginal relevance, it should be
`excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the issues,
`and/or a waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Evidence Submitted by Petitioner
`Ex. 1028
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-
`cv-246-JRG, (E.D. Tex.), Plaintiff
`Nichia Corporation’s Submissions
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3-1 and
`3-2, dated October 20, 2016
`
`Ex. 1039
`IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer
`Hardware Terminology, IEEE Std
`610.10-1994, October 12, 1995
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(Inadmissible as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the
`issues, and a waste of time): The
`exhibit is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R.
`Evid. 402. To the extent this exhibit has
`any marginal relevance, it should be
`excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the issues,
`and/or a waste of time.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 (Inadmissible as
`improper hearsay): The exhibit is
`inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`therein.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(Inadmissible as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the
`issues, and a waste of time): The
`exhibit is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R.
`Evid. 402. To the extent this exhibit has
`any marginal relevance, it should be
`excluded under FRE 403 as unfairly
`prejudicial, tending to confuse the issues,
`and/or a waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`These objections are timely served within five business days of the
`
`Petitioner’s December 11, 2018 Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 24).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`Date: December 18, 2018
`
`
`/ Martin M. Zoltick /
`Martin M. Zoltick, Reg. No. 35,745
`
`
`
`
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Nichia Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 18th day of December, 2018, a true and correct
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`FILED WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served, via electronic
`
`mail, upon the following counsel of record for Petitioner Vizio, Inc.:
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`Christopher M. Bonny
`James F. Mack
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: 650-617-4000 | Facsimile: 650-566-4090
`Emails: Gabrielle.Higgins@ropesgray.com
`James.L.Davis@ropesgray.com
`Christopher.Bonny@ropesgray.com
`James.Mack@ropesgray.com
`VIZIO2NichiaIPRs@ropesgray.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-6807
`Phone: 202-508-4740 | Facsimile: 617-235-9492
`Email: Scott.McKeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`/ Erik van Leeuwen /
`Erik van Leeuwen
`Litigation Operations Coordinator
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
