`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Under Armour Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01532
`
`Patent No. 8,652,009
`
`PATENT OWNER ADIDAS AG’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF
`EVIDENCE SERVED WITH PETITIONER UNDER ARMOUR INC.’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner adidas AG 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. 8,652,009.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,652,009
`IPR2015-01532
`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: portions of the exhibit, including but not limited to
`
`Paragraphs 46-49 and 80-83, are 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.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 9-11, 12-15, 16-20, 21-24, 25-26, and 27-
`
`85 of the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has not
`
`been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,652,009
`IPR2015-01532
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 9-11, 12-15, 16-20, 21-24, 25-26,
`
`and 27-85 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 9-11, 12-15, 16-20, 21-24, 25-26, and
`
`27-85 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 1007
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,652,009
`IPR2015-01532
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`By: /s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell_________
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2016
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,652,009
`IPR2015-01532
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER
`
`ADIDAS AG’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER 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: 202-682-7516
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2016
`
`
`
`Anish R. Desai
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7103
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`By: /s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell_________
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
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
