`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD.,
`SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC LIGHTING CO., LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.,
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN FLORIDA),
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN CHINA),
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, NATURE’S MARK, RITE AID CORP., SMART
`SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE PRODUCTS CORP.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,429,827
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00938
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner, Simon Nicholas Richmond
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner”), hereby submits its notice of objections to certain evidence that
`
`Petitioner, Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd., Jiawei Technology (USA) Ltd., Shenzhen
`
`Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co., Ltd., Atico International (Asia) Ltd., Atico
`
`International USA, Inc., Chien Luen Industries Co. Ltd., Inc. (Chien Luen Florida),
`
`Chien Luen Industries Co., Ltd., Inc. (Chien Luen China), Coleman Cable, LLC,
`
`Nature’s Mark, Rite Aid Corp., Smart Solar, Inc., and Test Rite Products Corp.
`
`(collectively “Petitioner”), submitted for the first time in connection with its Reply in
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938.
`
`
`
`
`
`Objected to Belated Exhibits citing Hearsay statements:
`
`Patent Owner objects to the following exhibits under FRE 602 (as lacking
`
`personal knowledge), FRE 801 and 802 (as including hearsay statements) and for
`
`being belated under Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I:
`
`• Exhibit 1047, ¶¶ 26-27 – Dr. Peter W. Shackle’s Declaration citing Exhibits
`
`1048-57.
`
`• Exhibit 1048 – George Mueller’s LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1049 – Alfred Ducharme's LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1050 – Ihor Lys' LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1051 – Kevin Dowling’s LinkedIn profile
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`• Exhibit 1052 – Frederick M. Morgan's Equilar Atlas profile
`
`• Exhibit 1053 – Mike Blackwell's LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1054 – Alex Chliwnyj's LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1055 – Steven Watts’ LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1056 – Bethanne Felder's LinkedIn profile
`
`• Exhibit 1057 – LaDell Swiden's LinkedIn profile
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to certain testimony of Peter W. Shackle submitted as
`
`part of Exhibit 1047 (Declaration by Dr. Shackle). Specifically, Patent Owner objects
`
`to paragraphs 26 and 27 of Exhibit 1047 to the extent they include hearsay statements
`
`and/or to the extent Dr. Shackle offers factual observations without laying foundation
`
`or otherwise demonstrating personal knowledge (FRE 602, 702, 703, 801, and 802).
`
`
`
`Paragraphs 26 and 27 reference Exhibits 1048-57 which appear to be profiles
`
`obtained from third-party websites (i.e., LinkedIn.com and people.equilar.com) and,
`
`as such, are hearsay. Additionally, one cannot substantiate the information contained
`
`in the underlying exhibits. Thus, the underlying exhibits 1048-57, too, violate FRE
`
`801 and 802.
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioner’s hearsay exhibits are belated, in violation of Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I, in that they could have been, but were not, submitted
`
`with the revised Petitions or Dr. Shackle’s Original Declaration.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`Accordingly Exhibits 1047-57 violate FRE 602, 801, and 802 and violate Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I. Patent Owner reserves the right to move to
`
`exclude the noted exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`Objections to Additional Non-Probative and Belated Exhibits:
`
`Patent Owner objects to the following additional exhibits because they were
`
`belatedly submitted by Petitioner, in violation of Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,767 ¶ I:
`
`• Exhibit 1047, ¶ 35 - 38 – Dr. Peter W. Shackle’s Declaration.
`
`• Exhibit 1047, ¶¶ 50 and 69 – Dr. Peter W. Shackle’s Declaration citing Exhibits
`
`1061-63.
`
`• Exhibit 1058 – Synonyms for "Varying" from Roget’s A-Z Thesaurus, Wiley
`
`Publishing, 1999
`
`• Exhibit 1059 – Definition of "Varying" from The American Heritage
`
`Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978
`
`• Exhibit 1060 – Definition of "Varying" from Webster’s New Universal
`
`Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes and Noble Publishing, Inc., 2003
`
`• Exhibit 1061 – Definition of “Accessible” from Webster’s Ninth New
`
`Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989
`
`• Exhibit 1062 – Synonyms for “Accessible” from Roget’s A-Z Thesaurus, Wiley
`
`Publishing, 1999
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`• Exhibit 1063 – Expert Report of A. Ducharme, Docket Entry #111-3 through
`
`#113-13, Case 3:09-cv-02495, U.S. District Court of New Jersey
`
`Petitioner’s citation to Dr. Shackle’s experience in ¶ 35 – 38, which was not
`
`introduced until Petitioner’s Reply, is belated in violation of Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I, in that it could have been, but was not, submitted with the
`
`Petitioner’s revised Petition or Dr. Shackle’s Original Declaration.
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioner’s exhibits 1058-63 are belated in violation of Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I, in that they could have been, but were not, submitted
`
`with the Petitioner’s revised Petition or Dr. Shackle’s Original Declaration. Likewise,
`
`Dr. Shackle’s new testimony that relies on these belated exhibits (exhibit 1047, ¶¶ 50
`
`(citing Exs. 1061 and 1062) and 69(citing Ex. 1063)), equally violates the Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 ¶ I. Furthermore, regarding Exs. 1058 – 60 (citing
`
`definitions of the term “varying”), these Exhibits are of questionable relevance, under
`
`FRE 403, since both Petitioner (at pg. 9 of the Reply) and Patent Owner (at pg. 18 of
`
`the Response) both are applying the Board’s construction given in its Decision for
`
`purposes of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Accordingly Exhibits 1058 -60 violate FRE 401 and 403, and Exhibits 1047 (¶¶
`
`35 – 38, 50 and 69), 1058 -63 and 1066 violate Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,767 ¶ I. Patent Owner reserves the right to move to exclude the noted exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/Theodore F. Shiells/_______
`Theodore F. Shiells
`Reg. No. 31,569
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM P.C.
`Pacific Place Building
`1910 Pacific Avenue - Suite 14000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 17, 2015
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`
`
`certifies that on August 17, 2015, a copy of the PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE
`
`OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE was served on Lead and Backup Attorneys for
`
`Petitioner, via the consented to method of email to the following email addresses:
`
`mark.nelson@dentons.com, lissi.mojica@dentons.com,
`
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com, daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com, and
`
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`______/Theodore F. Shiells/________
`Theodore F. Shiells
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 17, 2015