`
`Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Andrew B. Karp
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`Case IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`_____________
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner files the following
`
`objections to evidence that Petitioners submitted with their Reply. A chart listing
`
`Patent Owner’s objections and its basis for the objections is provided below.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1031
`(Microsoft Press
`Computer Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1032
`(Focal Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1033
`(Webster’s Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1034
`(Computer Desktop
`Encyclopedia)
`
`Objection
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1035 (Second
`Declaration of
`Zygmunt Haas)—all
`uncited portions
`
`Ex. 1035 (Second
`Declaration of
`Zygmunt Haas)—
`beyond the allowable
`scope
`
`Objection
`Relevance: All portions of Ex. 1035 that are not relied on
`by the Reply are not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`These sections of Ex. 1035 are beyond the proper scope
`of a reply declaration. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). This is
`evidenced by the following non-limiting examples:
` ¶¶ 11–21 (new theories regarding “packet,” “packet
`switching,” “virtual circuits,” “ATM cells,”
`“datagram,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 22–33 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “packet,” “packet-switching,”
`“circuit-centric,” “virtual circuits,” “ATM cells,”
`“datagram,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 34–42 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “data packets,” “ATM,”
`“segmentation,” “IP-over-ATM,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 43–50 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “IP-over-ATM,” “segmentation,” the
`provisional application to the ’629 patent, etc.)
` ¶¶ 59–60 (new theory regarding the availability of
`Dyson)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1038 (Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary)
`
`Objection
`Relevance: This exhibit is not relied on by the Reply, and
`therefore not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1040 (MILCOM
`’97 Proceedings,
`Technical Sessions)
`
`Objection
`Relevance: This exhibit is not relied on by the Reply, and
`therefore not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`Ex. 1041 (ISDN: An
`Introduction by
`William Stallings)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`Dated: April 26, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Office: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence was served on April 26, 2019 via email to
`
`counsel for Petitioners at the following:
`
`Ericsson_629IPR@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
