`IPR2015-00698
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER UNDER ARMOUR INC.’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of evidence served with Petitioner Under Armour Inc.’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, and 19-170 of the
`
`exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`introduced sufficient to show that he witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matters asserted
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, and 19-170
`
`of the exhibit include opinions that are not admissible under FRE
`
`701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509
`
`U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, and 19-170 of
`
`the exhibit includes statements that are inadmissible hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within hearsay.
`
`FRE 1006: the exhibit provides an improper summary of the
`
`evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65: the exhibit includes expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data and improper
`
`discussion of patent law.
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner has not shown that the exhibit is prior art.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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,
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner has not shown that the exhibit is prior art
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner has not shown that the exhibit is prior art.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision, IPR2015-
`
`00698, paper 9, at pp. 17-18 (“FURTHER ORDERED that no
`
`other ground of unpatentability alleged in the Petitioner for any
`
`claim is authorized for this inter partes review”).
`
`FRE 403: 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.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`
`PATENT OWNER UNDER ARMOUR INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW was served via email on the date below, upon the following:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anish R. Desai
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7103
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`9