`
`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
`
`