`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DELL INC.,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`and
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`3G LICENSING S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01157
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,274,933
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners hereby object to Exhibit 2005,
`
`Second Declaration of Stuart Lipoff in Support of Patent Owner, submitted in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s Response and Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`Petitioners object to the entirety of Exhibit 2005 for lacking relevance under
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 402, and as being unsupported opinion
`
`testimony lacking sufficient probative value under Rules 702 and 703. Specifically,
`
`Exhibit 2005 is inadmissible at least because (i) the testimony of Mr. Lipoff
`
`(particularly Paragraphs 32 – 89) will not help the Board to understand the evidence
`
`or to determine a fact in issue; and (ii) the testimony (particularly Paragraphs 32 –
`
`89) is not based on sufficient facts or data. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`For example, Mr. Lipoff opines that in the prior art “there is no disclosure of
`
`a random list of many SIDs out of order that cause the display of a single tag. It is
`
`this in addressing this latter situation that renders the ’933 patent particularly
`
`innovative . . . .” Ex. 2005 ¶ 37. But Mr. Lipoff does not cite anything in the
`
`’933 patent regarding disclosure of a “random list” of SIDs or other identifiers “out
`
`of order that cause the display of a single tag,” nor does he explain his basis for
`
`contending this feature is “innovative.”
`
`By way of another example, Mr. Lipoff states that the ’933 patent describes a
`
`“new file” (i.e., HPLMN list) that is stored “in a way that does not compromise
`
`compatibility between previous, current, and future versions of UE and SIMs.” Id.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶ 65. But Mr. Lipoff does not include any citations to the ’933 patent in this
`
`paragraph, let alone citations that support his conclusion that this aspect of the
`
`’933 patent addresses “compatibility” issues. See id.
`
`As another example, Mr. Lipoff states that if a POSITA “decide[d] to try to
`
`put more than one MCC/MNC home network identifiers into the HPLMN Selector
`
`with Access Technology file,” “phones already in circulation would not be able to
`
`function—they would be incapable of interpreting this new HPLMN Selector with
`
`Access Technology file structure.” Id. ¶ 76. But Mr. Lipoff provides no explanation
`
`as to why such a POSITA would not be able to successfully implement multiple
`
`MCC/MNC home network identifiers in the HPLMN Selector with Access
`
`Technology file, even for phones already in circulation. See id.
`
`Further, because Mr. Lipoff’s testimony is unsupported opinion for the
`
`reasons explained above, Exhibit 2005 is inadmissible under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 401, 402, and 402 because it (i) is irrelevant for lacking any tendency to
`
`make a material fact more or less probably than it would be without it; and (ii) could
`
`confuse the issues, mislead the Board, and/or cause unfair prejudice. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 28, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brian M. Buroker/
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Phone: (202) 955-8500
`Fax: (202) 467-0539
`Email: bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Dell Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) has been
`
`served on this 28th of May, 2021, via email to the following attorneys of record
`
`pursuant to Patent Owner’s consent:
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Lead Counsel
`Back-Up Counsel
`Timothy Devlin, Reg. No. 41706
`Neil Benchell
`Devlin Law Firm LLC
`Devlin Law Firm LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Phone: (302) 449-9010
`Phone: (302) 449-9010
`Fax: (302) 353-4251
`Fax: (302) 353-4251
`TD-PTAB@devlinlawfirm.com
`nbenchell@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Stephanie Berger
`Devlin Law Firm LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Phone: (302) 449-9010
`Fax: (302) 353-4251
`sberger@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Andrew DeMarco
`Devlin Law Firm LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Phone: (302) 449-9010
`Fax: (302) 353-4251
`ademarco@devlinlawfirm.com
`Additional email for service: dlflitparas@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 28, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brian M. Buroker/
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Phone: (202) 955-8500
`Fax: (202) 467-0539
`Email: bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Dell Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
