UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-004361
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED
`WITH PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-004361
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED
`WITH PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Magna Electronics, Inc.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`
`
`(“Magna”) objects to Exhibit Nos. 1013, 1015-1034, 1037-1065, and 1067-1071,
`
`which accompany Petitioners’ Reply (Paper No. 28) as filed January 19, 2016.
`
`Magna timely files these objections within five business days2 of Petitioners’
`
`Reply, and hereby provides notice that Magna may move to exclude under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`FRE 402 and FRE 403 (Relevance)
`
`Magna objects to Exhibits 1013, 1015-1034, 1037-1065, and 1067-1071 as
`
`irrelevant. None of the purported facts are of consequence to the issues instituted
`
`for trial. In addition, even if relevant, the probative value of the evidence is
`
`outweighed by its tendency to confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and waste the
`
`time of the Board and Magna. For example, Ex. 1018, 1019, 1021-1026, 1029-
`
`1034, 1037-1040, 1042. 1046, 1056, and 1060-1064 do not relate to the state of the
`
`
`2 The USPTO was closed on Monday, January 25, 2016 and Tuesday,
`
`January 26, 2016. The USPTO announced it considers Monday, January 25, 2016
`
`and Tuesday, January 26, 2016, to be a “Federal holiday within the District of
`
`Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. § 21 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195, and
`
`2.196. Accordingly, the due date for the objections is January 28, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`art or knowledge of a POSA regarding passive-pixel CMOS image sensors, vehicle
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`vision systems, or any fact of consequence. For another example, Ex. 1020 has
`
`been advanced as evidence of the state of the art, but it lacks any publication data.
`
`In particular, the Kozlowski declaration (Ex. 1071) is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The declaration includes sections on terminologies,
`
`background, and erroneous analysis that have no bearing on whether the
`
`challenged claims are patentable in light of the grounds of institution in this
`
`proceeding. See, e.g., ¶¶ 53-100.
`
`FRE 702 (Improper Expert Testimony)
`
`Magna objects to Ex. 1071 as improper expert testimony. The testimony is
`
`based on insufficient facts or data. See, e.g., ¶¶ 263-265. The testimony is not the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods. See, e.g., ¶¶ 249-256. And the expert
`
`has not reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See,
`
`e.g., ¶¶ 266-290.
`
`FRE 802 (Hearsay)
`
`Magna objects to Exhibits 1013, 1015-1019, 1021-1026, 1030-1034, 1036-
`
`1065, and 1067-1070 as inadmissible hearsay. Each cited statement is offered “for
`
`its truth” because it is cited in the Petitioner’s Reply in support of the
`
`characterization of the state of the art at the time of the ’001 Patent or other issues.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`Because Petitioner has not identified any applicable hearsay exception for the
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`statements in the reference, the reference constitute inadmissible hearsay. To the
`
`extent the reference quotes other references, such statements, if cited, constitute
`
`hearsay within hearsay.
`
`FRE 901 (Authentication)
`
`Magna objects to Exhibits 1013, 1015-1017, 1020-1023, 1027, 1028, 1044,
`
`1046, 1048-1051, 1054-1065, 1069, and 1070 as lacking proper authentication.
`
`Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to support a finding that the reference
`
`is what the Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Exhibits 1013, 1015-1034, 1037-1065, and 1067-1071 are objectionable for
`
`the reasons detailed above. In view of Magna’s Objections herein, Magna may file
`
`one or more motions to exclude this portion of the exhibit under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(c).
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Reg. No. 43,447
`Counsel for Patent Owner –
`Magna Electronics, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 28, 2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED WITH PETITIONERS’
`
`REPLY was served electronically via email on January 28, 2016 in their entireties
`
`on Petitioner TRW:
`
`Jon Trembath (Lead Counsel)
`A. Justin Poplin (Back-Up Counsel)
`Timothy K. Sendek (Back-Up Counsel)
`Allan J. Sternstein (Back-Up Counsel)
`Douglas W. Link (Back-Up Counsel)
`Dan Cleveland Jr. (Back-Up Counsel)
`Hissan Anis (Back-Up Counsel)
`
`
`Jtrembath@lathropgage.com
`jpoplin@lathropgage.com
`tsendek@lathropgage.com
`asternstein@lathropgage.com
`DLink@lathropgage.com
`DCleveland@lathropgage.com
`HAnis@lathropgage.com
`patent@lathropgage.com
`
`
`Lathrop & Gage LLP
`IP Docketing, Inter Partes Review
`2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 2400
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Registration No. 43,447
`Attorney for Patent Owner
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
