`IPR2015-00698
`Petitioner’s Responses to Patent Owner’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Under Armour, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`______________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UA-1019.001
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Petitioner’s Responses to Patent Owner’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence
`
`Petitioner Under Armour, Inc. is in receipt of Patent Owner’s Objections To
`
`Admissibility Of Evidence Served With Patent Owner Under Armour Inc.’s
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review dated August 28, 2015 in case IPR2015-00698.
`
`With respect to each of Patent Owner’s objections, Patent Owner has failed
`
`to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), which states that “[t]he objection must
`
`identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow
`
`correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” For example, the Patent Owner
`
`contends that the expert declaration is inadmissible because “the exhibit’s
`
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” This statement
`
`simply copies the language of FRE 403 without more. Patent Owner must provide
`
`with sufficiently particularity how the expert declaration is unfairly prejudicial,
`
`confuses the issues, creates undue delay, wastes time, and needlessly presents
`
`cumulative evidence such that Petitioner can correct deficiencies in the expert
`
`declaration, to the extent that it can, with supplemental evidence. Each of Patent
`
`Owner’s objections suffers this deficiency.
`
`Petitioner is available to meet and confer regarding each objection raised by
`
`Patent Owner. Petitioner requests that Patent Owner be prepared during the meet
`
`2
`
`
`
`UA-1019.002
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Petitioner’s Responses to Patent Owner’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence
`
`and confer to identify the grounds for each objection “with sufficient particularity
`
`to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence” per 37 C.F.R. §
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Ferguson
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 36,801
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7516
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`3
`
`42.64(b).
`
`Dated: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UA-1019.003
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Petitioner’s Responses to Patent Owner’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 9, 2015, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`
`ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE was served via electronic mail, upon the
`
`following:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Wab P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Ferguson
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 36,801
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7516
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UA-1019.004
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
