`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DIVX, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00614
`Patent 7,295,673
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00614
`Patent 7,295,673
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Patent Owner objects to the following documents submitted by
`
`Petitioners Netflix, Inc. and Hulu, LLC.
`
`Nothing in this paper should be construed as an admission that any rights of
`
`Patent Owner would have been waived or forfeited had the paper or any objection
`
`herein not been filed, or that 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) applies to any of the objections
`
`herein if § 42.64(b) would not otherwise apply. The objections herein are
`
`premised upon § 42.64 potentially being determined to apply to the document in
`
`question and are submitted solely to preserve the rights of Patent Owner should
`
`§ 42.64(b) be determined to apply.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to another matter, a different patent, a
`
`different specification and different technology, and its probative value, if any, is
`
`outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1019
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, presents a new
`
`theory of unpatentability, and cites to new, untimely evidence, including, but not
`
`limited to, all paragraphs citing to the Exhibits objected to herein, as well as ¶¶ 28-
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`34. Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document or documents include testimony
`
`not relevant to the instituted review, because, among other things, it has not been
`
`shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to testify competently
`
`regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that the declarant’s
`
`testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by reliable principles,
`
`procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case, or that the
`
`declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead than to
`
`enlighten. Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document or
`
`documents include testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand
`
`knowledge including of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on
`
`speculation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this
`
`document or documents include testimony on patent law and practice.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1020
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to another matter, a different patent, a
`
`different specification and different technology, and its probative value, if any, is
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1021
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, as it could have
`
`been presented with the Petition, and is relied upon to support a new argument or
`
`to support Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Under FRE 801/802, this
`
`document or documents constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents
`
`are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a
`
`basis of the instituted grounds, their public availability date is not shown by any
`
`admissible evidence, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to
`
`be authenticated or identified.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, as it could have
`
`been presented with the Petition, and is relied upon to support a new argument or
`
`to support Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Under FRE 801/802, this
`
`document or documents constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents
`
`are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a
`
`basis of the instituted grounds, their public availability date is not shown by any
`
`admissible evidence, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to
`
`be authenticated or identified.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, as it could have
`
`been presented with the Petition, and is relied upon to support a new argument or
`
`to support Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Under FRE 801/802, this
`
`document or documents constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents
`
`are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a
`
`basis of the instituted grounds, their public availability date is not shown by any
`
`admissible evidence, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901,
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to
`
`be authenticated or identified.
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 1024
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents are inadmissible as
`
`irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a basis of the instituted
`
`grounds, and their probative value is outweighed by other considerations including
`
`prejudice, confusion and waste of time.
`
`8.
`
`Exhibit 1025
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, as it could have
`
`been presented with the Petition, and is relied upon to support a new argument or
`
`to support Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Under FRE 801/802, this
`
`document or documents constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents
`
`are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a
`
`basis of the instituted grounds, their public availability date is not shown by any
`
`admissible evidence, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to
`
`be authenticated or identified.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Exhibit 1026
`
`Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely, as it could have
`
`been presented with the Petition, and is relied upon to support a new argument or
`
`to support Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Under FRE 801/802, this
`
`document or documents constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document or documents
`
`are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a
`
`basis of the instituted grounds, their public availability date is not shown by any
`
`admissible evidence, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE 901,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible because they have not been shown to
`
`be authenticated or identified.
`
`10. Exhibit 1027
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to another matter, a different patent, a
`
`different specification and different technology, and its probative value, if any, is
`
`outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`11. Exhibit 1028
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to another matter, a different patent, a
`
`different specification and different technology, and its probative value, if any, is
`
`outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time.
`
`12. Exhibit 1030
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, it relates to another matter, a different patent, a
`
`different specification and different technology, and its probative value, if any, is
`
`outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`____/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /_________
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`Date: July 30, 2021
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2020-00614
`Patent 7,295,673
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following documents were served
`by electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date signed below:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`Harper Batts
`Chris Ponder
`Jeffrey Liang
`
`
`
`HBatts@sheppardmullin.com
`CPonder@sheppardmullin.com
`JLiang@sheppardmullin.com
`LegalTm-DivX-IPR@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Keith Moore /
`
`Date: July 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
