`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Under Armour Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01891
`
`Patent No. 8,725,276
`
`
`
`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. 8,725,276.
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`Objections
`
`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 61-66, 70-101,110-115, and 130-144, are not relevant
`
`to any ground upon which trial was instituted. See, e.g.,
`
`Institution decision, IPR2015-01891, paper 9, at p. 20
`
`(“FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`alleged in the Petition 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 12-14, 15-22, 23-26, 27-31, 32-38, and 39-
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`144 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.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 12-14, 15-22, 23-26, 27-31, 32-
`
`38, and 39-144 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 12-14, 15-22, 23-26, 27-31, 32-38, and
`
`39-144 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`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 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 1005
`
`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 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
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`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.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`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.
`
`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 1009
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`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 1011
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`Objections
`
`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 1012
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`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.
`
`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 1014
`
`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,
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`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.
`
`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 1016
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has
`
`not been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has
`
`personal knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: the exhibit includes 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: 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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Admissibility of Evidence
`
`Dated: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,276
`IPR2015-01891
`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: April 1, 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
`
`
`
`1