`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`BOT M8 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01288
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`Patent Owner, Bot M8 LLC (“Patent Owner”), objects under the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to the admissibility of the following
`
`documents submitted by Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“Petitioner”) in its
`
`Petition. Paper 1.
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of the above-captioned case on
`
`February 16, 2021. Paper 11. Thus, Patent Owner’s objections are timely under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Patent Owner serves Petitioner with these objections to
`
`provide notice that Patent Owner will move to exclude these exhibits as improper
`
`evidence.
`
`I.
`
`Anand Lal Shimpi’s Intel 815 Chipset (2000) (Ex. 1035)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Anand Lal Shimpi’s Intel 815
`
`Chipset (2000) (“Intel 815 Chipset,” Ex. 1035) for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel 815 Chipset is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a
`
`hearsay exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks
`
`authentication.
`
`Intel 815 Chipset is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible
`
`under FRE 402 because it does not make a fact more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the evidence. Further, Intel 815 Chipset, and
`
`the assertions it supports, are not of consequence in determining the
`
`action. Moreover, the introduction of Intel 815 Chipset is confusing,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`of minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste
`
`of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`II. Apple II Motherboard (1977) (Ex. 1044)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Apple II Motherboard (“Apple
`
`II,” Ex. 1044) for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Apple II is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a hearsay
`
`exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks authentication.
`
`2.
`
`Apple II is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402 because it does not make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Further, Apple II, and the assertions it
`
`supports, are not of consequence in determining the action.
`
`Moreover, the introduction of Apple II is confusing, of minimal
`
`probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and
`
`therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`III. Dell 1702FP (Ex. 1047)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Dell 1702FP (Ex. 1047) for at
`
`least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Dell 1702FP is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a
`
`hearsay exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks
`
`authentication.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`Dell 1702FP is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`2.
`
`FRE 402 because it does not make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Further, Dell 1702FP, and the
`
`assertions it supports, are not of consequence in determining the
`
`action. Moreover, the introduction of Dell 1702FP is confusing, of
`
`minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of
`
`time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`IV. Dell Dimension 8200 (Ex. 1048)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Dell Dimension 8200 (“Dell
`
`8200,” Ex. 1048) for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Dell 8200 is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a
`
`hearsay exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks
`
`authentication.
`
`2.
`
`Dell 8200 is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402 because it does not make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Further, Dell 8200, and the assertions
`
`it supports, are not of consequence in determining the action.
`
`Moreover, the introduction of Dell 8200 is confusing, of minimal
`
`probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and
`
`therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`3
`
`
`
`V. Dimension 8250 (Ex. 1049)
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Dimension 8250 (“Dimension
`
`8250,” Ex. 1049) for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Dimension 8250 is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a
`
`hearsay exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks
`
`authentication.
`
`2.
`
`Dimension 8250 is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible
`
`under FRE 402 because it does not make a fact more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the evidence. Further, Dimension 8250, and
`
`the assertions it supports, are not of consequence in determining the
`
`action. Moreover, the introduction of Dimension 8250 is confusing,
`
`of minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste
`
`of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`VI. Declaration of Expert Dr. Andrew Wolfe (Ex. 1003)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Declaration of Dr. Andrew
`
`Wolfe (“Wolfe Declaration,” Ex. 1003) for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Wolfe’s opinions are conclusory, do not disclose underlying facts
`
`or data in support of his opinions, and are unreliable. Therefore, Dr.
`
`Wolfe’s opinions are inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the Wolfe Declaration because it does
`
`2.
`
`not introduce evidence of Dr. Wolfe’s personal knowledge of the
`
`subject matter of the testimony contained therein, rendering such
`
`testimony inadmissible under FRE 602.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the Wolfe Declaration because the Wolfe
`
`Declaration is hearsay under FRE 801, does not fall within a hearsay
`
`exception under FRE 802 or FRE 803, and lacks authentication.
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Wolfe’s opinions are not relevant under FRE 401 and are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Dr. Wolfe’s opinions are
`
`confusing, of minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice,
`
`and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner reserves its right to file motions to exclude
`
`evidence and exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2020-01288 (U.S. Patent No. 7,664,988)
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Jonathan S. Caplan (Reg. No. 38,094)
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.7502 Fax: 212.715.8302
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: March 2, 2021
`
`(Case No. IPR2020-01288)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date of Service
`
`March 2, 2021
`
`Manner of Service Electronic Mail
`(eric.buresh@eriseip.com,
`callie.pendergrass@eriseip.com,
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com; ptab@eriseip.com)
`Documents Served PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Persons Served
`
`Eric A. Buresh
`Callie Pendergrass
`Jason R. Mudd
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`James Hannah
`Registration No. 56,369
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`
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
