UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALARM.COM INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIVINT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIVINT, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALARM.COM INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIVINT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`Patent 6,147,601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIVINT, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Vivint Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) timely objects to evidence submitted with the Alarm.com Inc.’s
`
`(“Petitioner”) November 14, 2016 Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 26).
`
`Patent Owner serves Petitioner with these objections to provide notice that Patent
`
`Owner may move to exclude the challenged exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`unless Petitioner cures the defects associated with the challenged exhibits
`
`identified below.
`
`Exhibit 1130—Reply Declaration of Zatarain
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Reply Declaration of Zatarain under FRE 703 as
`
`relying on improper evidence under FRE 401–403, 801, and 901—as the
`
`prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs any probative value that it may have.
`
`E.g., Reply-Declaration-of-Zatarain ¶¶72, 99 (citing Ex. 1120, Verbatim Owner’s
`
`Manual); ¶128 (citing Ex. 1122, SQL*Plus User’s Guide and Reference); ¶138
`
`(citing Ex. 1124, RFC 822); and ¶158 (citing Ex. 1125, RFC 1541). Specific
`
`objections to at least one of the documents that the declarant references in his
`
`declaration are discussed in greater detail below. To the extent the declaration
`
`relies on these inadmissible documents, Patent Owner objects to the declarant's
`
`testimony for the same reasons.
`
`Nowhere in the record does Petitioner rely on paragraphs 35-36 and 60 in
`
`the Reply Declaration or identify with any particularity how these paragraphs are
`
`relevant to the issues in this proceeding. Paragraphs 35-36 deal with an allegation
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`that Patent Owner’s expert has misconstrued terms found in claims 19 and 20.
`
`Paragraph 60 appears to characterize Exhibit 2015. Petitioner’s Reply never
`
`addresses these points, so there is no conceivable way that paragraphs 35-36 and
`
`60 could be relevant to the proceeding. Accordingly, these paragraphs are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 401-402. Patent Owner objects to the declarant's
`
`testimony for at least the foregoing reasons.
`
`Exhibit 1120—Verbatim Owner’s Manual
`
`To the extent Petitioners rely on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted (for example, to establish public accessibility as a printed
`
`publication), Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE
`
`803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this document as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the
`
`document is authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403
`
`because this document is inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as explained
`
`above.
`
`Exhibit 1122—SQL*Plus User’s Guide and Reference
`
`To the extent Petitioners rely on the contents of this document for the truth
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`of the matter asserted (for example, to establish public accessibility as a printed
`
`publication), Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE
`
`803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this document as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the
`
`document is authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403
`
`because this document is inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as explained
`
`above.
`
`Exhibit 1124—RFC 822
`
`
`
`To the extent Petitioners rely on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted (for example, to establish public accessibility as a printed
`
`publication), Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE
`
`803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this document as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the
`
`document is authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403
`
`because this document is inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as explained
`
`above.
`
`Exhibit 1125—RFC 1541
`
`To the extent Petitioners rely on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted (for example, to establish public accessibility as a printed
`
`publication), Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE
`
`803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this document as not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the
`
`document is authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403
`
`because this document is inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as explained
`
`above.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Reg. No. 43,447)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 21, 2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,601
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing EXCLUSIVE
`
`LICENSEE PATENT OWNER LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’
`
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1) was served electronically
`
`via e-mail on November 21, 2016, in their entirety on the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner:
`
`William H. Mandir (Lead Counsel)
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`
`Roger G. Brooks (Back-up Counsel)
`rgbrooks@cravath.com
`
`Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal
`(Back-up Counsel)
`tsankoorikal@cravath.com
`
`Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason D. Eisenberg/
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Reg. No. 43,447)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Brian K. Shelton
`(Back-up Counsel)
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, D.C., 20037
`
`
`
`Date: November 21, 2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 6 -
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
