throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`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

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