UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DELL, INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`and
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DELL, INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`and
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-1157
`Patent No. 7,274,933
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONERS’ EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner 3G Licensing S.A.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby submits the following objections to Petitioners Dell, Inc.,
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE Corporation, (collectively “Petitioners”) evidence filed
`
`with the Petition.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections to the alleged evidence, identified in the table
`
`below, are timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Patent Owner’s objections
`
`provide notice to Petitioners that Patent Owner may move to exclude these exhibits
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Brief Description of Grounds for Objection
`Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 702: alleged
`expert’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts or
`data, and is not the product of reliable principles and
`methods.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: The paragraphs in Ex. 1003
`that are not cited in the Petition are irrelevant. Any
`belated attempt to rely on any of these irrelevant
`paragraphs would violate at least 37 C.F.R. §
`42.6(3).
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and
`therefore inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if
`relevant, a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s)
`any probative value, rendering the exhibit
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 403.
`Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 702: alleged
`expert’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts or
`data, and is not the product of reliable principles and
`methods.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: The paragraphs in Ex. 1010
`that are not cited in the Petition are irrelevant. Any
`belated attempt to rely on any of these irrelevant
`paragraphs would violate at least 37 C.F.R. §
`42.6(3).
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 902: lack of authentication.
`
`FRE: 801 and 802: This exhibit contains unsworn,
`out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`matter asserted, and thus is inadmissible as hearsay
`pursuant to F.R.E. 801 and 802, with no exception
`provided by Petitioners.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit as not relevant under F.R.E. 401, and therefore
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 402. Even if relevant, a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`and/or wasting time substantially outweigh(s) any
`probative value, rendering the exhibit inadmissible
`under F.R.E. 403.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Dated: March 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
`Timothy Devlin
`Registration No. 41,706
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`(302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`TD-PTAB@devlinlawfirm.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objection to Evidence was served electronically via e-mail on March 3, 2021, in
`
`their entireties on the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Counsel for ZTE
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`
`John R. Hutchins (Reg. 43,686)
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: 202-824-3000
`Fax: 202-824-3001
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`
`C. Andy Mu (Reg. 58,216)
`
`amu@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`Craig W. Kronenthal (Reg. 58,541)
`
`ckronenthal@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`Wesley W. Jones (Reg. 56,552)
`
`wjones@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`Shambhavi Patel (Reg. 73,478)
`
`spatel@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Tel: 202-824-3000
`Fax: 202-824-3001
`
`
`
`Additional email for service: ZTEIPRService@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. 39,125)
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Phone: (202) 955-8500
`Fax: (202) 467-0539
`
`Counsel for Dell, Inc.
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Paul Torchia (Reg. 55,683)
`ptorchia@gibsondunn.com
`
`Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Phone: (212) 351-3953
`Fax: (212) 351-6352
`
`ADDITIONAL BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Nathan R. Curtis (Reg. 70,471)
`ncurtis@gibsondunn.com
`
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 698-3100
`Fax: (214) 571-2900
`
`Additional email for service: Dell-IPRService@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
`Timothy Devlin
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
