throbber
Attorney Docket No.: C024742/0349058
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00150
`U.S. Patent No. 7,093,086
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`Patent Owner Symantec Corporation hereby objects to the admissibility of
`
`the following documents submitted in connection with the Petition by Veeam
`
`Software Corporation, which requests inter partes review of claims 1, 11, 12 and
`
`22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,093,086. Patent Owner requests that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board deny admission and consideration of the following documents on the
`
`following bases.
`
`Symantec 2006
`Veeam v. Symantec
`IPR2013-00150
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Exhibit VEEAM 1004 (Lim)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1004 on the grounds
`
`that the document does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit VEEAM 1005 (VMWare ESX)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1005 on the grounds
`
`that:
`
`a. Petitioner failed to authenticate the document as required by
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 901;
`
`b.
`
`the document is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and is,
`
`therefore, inadmissible under FRE 802; and
`
`c.
`
`the document does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a). For example, Petitioner fails to offer any admissible evidence regarding
`
`the date or the manner in which the document was made available to the public.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit VEEAM 1012 (June 23, 2001 WebArchive captured through the
`WayBackMachine)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1012 on the grounds
`
`that:
`
`901;
`
`a. Petitioner failed to authenticate the document as required by FRE
`
`2
`
`

`

`b.
`
`the document is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and is,
`
`therefore, inadmissible under FRE 802; and
`
`c.
`
`the document is irrelevant under FRE 401 as it fails to support that
`
`VEEAM 1005 (VMWare ESX) was available, or even included with, the product
`
`allegedly identified in VEEAM 1012 and is, therefore, inadmissible under FRE
`
`402.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit VEEAM 1006 (VMWare GSG)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1006 on the grounds
`
`that:
`
`901;
`
`a. Petitioner failed to authenticate the document as required by FRE
`
`b.
`
`the document is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and is,
`
`therefore, inadmissible under FRE 802; and
`
`c.
`
`the document does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). For example, Petitioner fails to offer any admissible evidence regarding
`
`the date or the manner in which the document was made available to the public.
`
`3
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Exhibits VEEAM 1007-1009 (Suzaki)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1007-1009 on the
`
`grounds that:
`
`a. Petitioner failed to authenticate the documents as required by FRE
`
`901;
`
`b.
`
`the documents are inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and are,
`
`therefore, inadmissible under FRE 802; and
`
`c. the documents do not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`For example, Petitioner fails to offer any admissible evidence regarding the date or
`
`the manner in which the documents were made available to the public.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit VEEAM 1010 (Wang)
`
`Patent owner objects to the admissibility of VEEAM 1010 on the grounds
`
`that:
`
`901;
`
`a. Petitioner failed to authenticate the document as required by FRE
`
`b.
`
`the document is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and is,
`
`therefore, inadmissible under FRE 802; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`c.
`
`the document does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). For example, Petitioner fails to offer any admissible evidence regarding
`
`the date or the manner in which the document was made available to the public.
`
`This objection is made within 10 business days from the August 7, 2013
`
`institution of trial.
`
`Date: August 21, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Reg. No. 47,024
`Lawrence G. Kurland
`Reg. No. 24,895
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner – Symantec
`Corporation
`
`5
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) was served electronically via e-mail on August 21, 2013, in its entirety
`
`on the following:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`& FOX P.L.L.C
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Michael Q. Lee
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`& FOX P.L.L.C
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 47,024
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner – Symantec
`Corporation
`
`Date: August 21, 2013
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket