`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JI-SOO LEE.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00045
`Patent No. 6,233,518
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner hereby objects as follows to ¶¶
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00045
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0344IP1
`
`
`42-44 and 46-52 of Exhibit 2014 under Fed. R. Evid. 701/702/703. In particular,
`
`Exhibit 2010 includes opinions that are not admissible under FRE 701, 702, or
`
`703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Mr. Cole is
`
`lacking the requisite qualifications to opine regarding the view of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the purported invention. Mr. Cole
`
`admits that the ’518 patent relates to “providing image vector-based traffic
`
`information,” and that the applied references relate “to the creation and use of
`
`geographical and traffic information for the purpose of assisting the driver of a
`
`vehicle.” Ex. 2014 at ¶¶ 40-41. Nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Cole has
`
`past experience with any such systems or with any navigation systems. Ex. 2014 at
`
`¶¶ 5-18 and App. A. Instead, by his own admission, Mr. Cole’s experience appears
`
`to be limited to fields other than navigation systems, such as hardwired computer
`
`network communication and device cabling (¶¶ 12-15), writing HTML web pages
`
`(¶¶ 15-16), and data conversion from old legacy systems (¶ 17). There is no
`
`material overlap between Mr. Cole’s technical qualifications and the pertinent field
`
`of endeavor for the ’518 patent (even as characterized by Mr. Cole in ¶¶ 40-41)
`
`and certainly no overlap with the specifically claimed subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Cole’s testimony in ¶¶ 42-44 and 46-52 of Exhibit
`
`1
`
`
`
`2014 should be excluded as inadmissible opinions of a non-expert in the pertinent
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00045
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0344IP1
`
`
`field.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Michael T. Hawkins/
`Michael T. Hawkins, Reg. No. 57,867
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 612-337-2569
`F: 612-288-9696
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00045
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0344IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) et seq. and 42.205(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on August 2, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Evidentiary Objections were provided via electronic service, to the Patent Owner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Email:
`
`Jae Youn Kim
`Sang Ho Lee
`Novick, Kim & Lee, PLLC
`3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404
`Fairfax, VA 22030
`
`Ref. No. LLK3140047
`
`docket@nkllaw.com
` skim@nkllaw.com
` slee@nkllaw.com
` hnovick@nkllaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
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
