`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`Case CBM2014-001021
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2014-00103 has been consolidated with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................................ 1
`
`Patent Owner Smartflash Timely Objected to Petitioner’s Exhibits ............... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Argument ......................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Exhibit 1002 is Inadmissible Other Evidence of the Content of a
`Writing, Irrelevant, and Cumulative ..................................................... 2
`Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1010, 1019, 1027, 1028, and 1029 are Uncited
`and thus are Irrelevant ........................................................................... 3
`Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, and 1020 are Not Alleged to
`be Invalidating Prior Art and thus are Irrelevant .................................. 4
`Exhibit 1018 is not the Basis for any Invalidity Grounds for Which
`CBM2014-00102/103 was Initiated and thus is Irrelevant ................... 5
`Exhibit 1021 Lacks Foundation, is Unreliable, and Relies on
`Irrelevant Exhibits ................................................................................. 5
`Certain Portions of Exhibit 1031 – (Deposition Testimony of Patent
`Owner’s Expert Dr. Katz) Should be Excluded as Eliciting Testimony
`Outside the Scope of this Proceeding and as Irrelevant ........................ 8
`Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 are Cumulative and Subject to
`Exclusion for the Reasons Cited Above .............................................. 13
`Exhibit 1121 is Cumulative and Subject to Exclusion for the Reasons
`Cited Above for Exhibit 1021 ............................................................. 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`I.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c), Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`moves to exclude Exhibits 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1010, 1012, 1017,
`
`1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1027, 1028, and 1029. To the extent that Exhibits 1101 –
`
`1120 and 1122 – 1129 from CBM2014-00103, which was consolidated with this
`
`action, are considered to be in the record in this action, Patent Owner moves to
`
`exclude them as duplicative of their corresponding exhibits from CBM2014-
`
`00102. Patent Owner also moves to exclude Exhibit 1121 and portions of Exhibit
`
`1031.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner Smartflash Timely Objected to Petitioner’s Exhibits
`
`Patent Owner Smartflash LLC timely objected to CBM2014-00102 Exhibits
`
`1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1010, 1012, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021,
`
`1027, 1028, and 1029, as well as CBM2014-00103 Exhibits 1101 – 1120, 1122 –
`
`1129 and 1121. Exhibit 2051. Patent Owner lodged objections to Exhibit 1031
`
`during the deposition of Dr. Jonathan Katz.
`
`
`
`III. Argument
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in
`
`Covered Business Method Review proceedings.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`A. Exhibit 1002 is Inadmissible Other Evidence of the Content of a
`Writing, Irrelevant, and Cumulative
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1002, (Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`Complaint) on grounds that it is: inadmissible other evidence of the content of a
`
`writing under FRE 1004; inadmissible under FRE 402 because it fails the test for
`
`relevance set forth in FRE 401; and, even if relevant, is cumulative evidence under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`The Petition cites Exhibit 1002 for the sole purpose of showing Patent
`
`Owner’s description of the subject matter of U.S. Patent 8,118,221 (“the ‘221
`
`Patent”) as “cover[ing] a portable data carrier for storing data and managing access
`
`to the data via payment information and/or use status rules” and “cover[ing] a
`
`computer network … that serves data and manages access to data by, for example,
`
`validating payment information.” Petition at 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Petitioner
`
`does not need to cite to Exhibit 1002 to show the subject matter of the ‘221 Patent,
`
`however, because Exhibit 1001, the actual ‘221 Patent, is in evidence without
`
`objection. Under FRE 1004, other evidence of the content of a writing (here the
`
`‘221 Patent) is admissible if the original is lost, cannot be obtained, has not been
`
`produced, or the writing is not closely related to a controlling issue. None of those
`
`conditions apply here, given that the ‘221 Patent is in evidence and is the subject of
`
`the trial.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s description of the ‘221 Patent in Exhibit 1002 is not relevant
`
`to any of the issues here. Petitioner’s expert, Anthony J. Wechselberger’s
`
`Declaration, Exhibit 1021, (“first Wechselberger Declaration”) does not cite
`
`Exhibit 1002. The Board’s September 30, 2014 Decision – Institution of Covered
`
`Business Method Patent Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 (“PTAB Decision”), Paper 8,
`
`does not cite Exhibit 1002. Exhibit 1002 does not appear to make a fact of
`
`consequence in determining this action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without Exhibit 1002. As such, Exhibit 1002 does not pass the test for relevant
`
`evidence under FRE 401 and is not admissible per FRE 402.
`
`Even if Exhibit 1002 was found to be relevant, it should also be excluded
`
`under FRE 403 as cumulative of Exhibit 1001.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1010, 1019, 1027, 1028, and 1029 are Uncited
`and thus are Irrelevant
`
`Neither the Petition, nor the Wechselberger Declaration, nor the PTAB
`
`Decision cite to Exhibit 1003 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598), Exhibit
`
`1004 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772), Exhibit 1010 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,754,654), Exhibit 1019 (JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289
`
`(translation)), Exhibit 1027 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720), Exhibit
`
`1028 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317), or Exhibit 1029 (File History
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458)(“the Uncited Exhibits”). The Uncited Exhibits do
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`not appear to make a fact of consequence in determining this action more or less
`
`probable than it would be without the Uncited Exhibits. As such, the Uncited
`
`Exhibits do not pass the test for relevant evidence under FRE 401 and are not
`
`admissible per FRE 402.
`
`C. Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, and 1020 are Not Alleged to
`be Invalidating Prior Art and thus are Irrelevant
`
`Although cited, neither the Petition nor the Wechselberger Declaration assert
`
`that Exhibit 1005 (U.S. Patent No. 5,675,734), Exhibit 1006 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,999,806), Exhibit 1007 (U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245), Exhibit 1012 (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,103,392), Exhibit 1017 (PCT Application Publication No. WO 99/43136), or
`
`Exhibit 1020 (Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Franz-Peter Heider,
`
`“The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE (1997))(“the Unasserted
`
`Exhibits”) are potentially invalidating prior art, either alone or in combination with
`
`any other reference. The PTAB Decision did not base any of its analysis on the
`
`Unasserted Exhibits. Thus, the Unasserted Exhibits do not appear to make a fact
`
`of consequence in determining this action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without the Unasserted Exhibits. As such, the Unasserted Exhibits do not pass the
`
`test for relevant evidence under FRE 401 and are not admissible per FRE 402.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`D. Exhibit 1018 is not the Basis for any Invalidity Grounds for
`Which CBM2014-00102/103 was Initiated and thus is Irrelevant
`
`The PTAB Decision did not adopt any of the proposed invalidity grounds
`
`based on Exhibit 1018 (JP Publication No. H11-164058A (translation)(“Sato”)).
`
`Compare, PTAB Decision at 2-3 (chart showing grounds for challenging
`
`patentability including alleged prior art reference Sato), with PTAB Decision at 24
`
`(instituting covered business method patent review on grounds other than Sato).
`
`Thus, Exhibit 1018 fails the test for relevant evidence because nothing in Exhibit
`
`1018 makes a fact of consequence in determining this action more or less probable
`
`than it would be without Exhibit 1018. FRE 401(b). Being irrelevant evidence,
`
`Exhibit 1018 is not admissible. FRE 402.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1021 Lacks Foundation, is Unreliable, and Relies on
`Irrelevant Exhibits
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:
`
`RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
`A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
`skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the
`form of an opinion or otherwise if:
`(a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
`knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
`evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
`(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
`(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and
`methods; and
`(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and
`methods to the facts of the case.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`FRE 702. Patent Owner moves to exclude to Exhibit 1021, the first Wechselberger
`
`Declaration, in its entirety as the first Wechselberger Declaration does not state the
`
`relative evidentiary weight (e.g., substantial evidence versus preponderance of the
`
`evidence) used in arriving at his conclusions. “A finding is supported by
`
`substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the
`
`finding.” Q. I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee, 752 F.3d 1371, 1378-1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014)(citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 L.
`
`Ed. 126 (1938)). Proof by a “preponderance of the evidence” means “that it is
`
`more likely than not.” See, O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`449 Fed. Appx. 923, 928 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Board cannot assess whether Mr.
`
`Wechselberger’s opinion testimony is “the product of reliable principles and
`
`methods” or if Mr. Wechselberger “reliably applied the principles and methods to
`
`the facts of the case” given that Mr. Wechselberger did not disclose the standard
`
`against which he measured the quantum of prior art reference evidence in arriving
`
`at his opinions. Specifically, when Mr. Wechselberger concludes “in my opinion,
`
`the challenged claims would have been in the possession of or at minimum obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art from the disclosures in one or more of the
`
`identified prior art references” (Exhibit 1021 at ¶ 69) is he saying that he examined
`
`the prior art references and a reasonable mind would find sufficient evidence to
`
`support that one of ordinary skill in the art had possession of the claims / would
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`find the claims obvious (substantial evidence); OR is he saying that he examined
`
`the prior art references and it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art had possession of the claims / would find the claims obvious
`
`(preponderance of the evidence). There is no basis for the Board to know, because
`
`the first Wechselberger Declaration is silent on the standard he used. As such the
`
`first Wechselberger Declaration should be excluded because it lacks foundation.
`
`FRE 602.
`
`In addition, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not sufficiently state
`
`the criteria used to assess whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have been motivated to modify a reference or combine two
`
`references. For example, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not state
`
`whether he considered evidence tending to show that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have made his proposed combination. Moreover, the first
`
`Wechselberger Declaration treats the components of the prior art as if one could
`
`mix and match any and all combinations and does not address sufficiently why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make specific
`
`combinations rendering the ‘221 Patent obvious. As such it should be excluded
`
`because it lacks foundation. FRE 602.
`
`Additionally, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not prove that Mr.
`
`Wechselberger is an expert whose testimony is relevant to the issue of what is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`taught and/or suggested by the cited references. While Mr. Wechselberger may
`
`opine that he was “one of ordinary skill in the art,” he does not state that he is an
`
`expert in the types of methods and systems defined by the challenged claims, nor
`
`does he provide proof that he is an expert. Mr. Wechselberger does not show that
`
`he is “a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education” such that he “may testify in the form of an opinion.” FRE
`
`702. Thus, Mr. Wechselberger has not proven that his opinions are proper expert
`
`opinions upon which the PTAB can rely as opposed to inadmissible lay opinions.
`
`FRE 701 and 702.
`
`Certain specific paragraphs in the first Wechselberger Declaration should be
`
`excluded because they rely on exhibits that are irrelevant. Paragraphs 29, 30, 31,
`
`32, 34, 35, and 36 contain testimony about the Unasserted Exhibits. Paragraphs
`
`40, 67, and 68 contain testimony about Exhibit 1018, an exhibit not relied upon by
`
`the PTAB to institute this proceeding. As such, Paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35,
`
`36, 40, 67, and 68 should be excluded as not being relevant under FRE 401, and
`
`therefore being inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`F. Certain Portions of Exhibit 1031 – (Deposition Testimony of
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Katz) Should be Excluded as Eliciting
`Testimony Outside the Scope of this Proceeding and as Irrelevant
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude portions of Exhibit 1031 (Katz Deposition
`
`Transcript) on grounds that the questions asked were outside the scope of Dr.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`Katz’s declaration and thus outside the scope of this proceeding as not in
`
`compliance with 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii) (“For cross-examination testimony, the
`
`scope of the examination is limited to the scope of the direct testimony.”) and/or
`
`irrelevant.
`
`Exhibit 1031 36:10-37:11 – This line of questioning asked Dr. Katz whether
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that access to stored
`
`data could be restricted based on whether or how much payment had been made or
`
`based on payment validation. Patent Owner objected based on relevance and
`
`scope. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that “Dr. Katz repeatedly testified he
`
`is ‘not sure’ what a POSITA would have understood regarding” various subjects.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply To Patent Owner’s Response (“Petitioner’s Reply”), Paper 34,
`
`at 2. This testimony is not relevant because it relates to conditional access and
`
`none of the claims at issue relate to conditional access to stored data. Moreover,
`
`the question was asked in terms of “payment validation” and not “payment
`
`validation data.” Because the question went to claims and terms outside the scope
`
`of the proceeding as instituted, it was beyond the scope of Dr. Katz’s declaration.
`
`The testimony should thus be excluded under FRE 402 and 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 70:1 – 73:9 – This testimony relates to whether the Stefik ‘235
`
`reference would exclude the use of a credit card and whether the credit card
`
`number could be payment data. Petitioner cites it to allege that Dr. Katz was “not
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`sure” what a POSITA would have understood about passages of the cited prior art.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 2. Patent Owner objected on grounds of relevance and
`
`incomplete hypothetical. Even if Stefik ‘235 does not exclude the use of a credit
`
`card, that does not mean that it discloses it, which is the relevant issue. Further,
`
`with respect to Figure 3 transaction, the hypothetical is incomplete as to how a
`
`credit card would be used if it were used in a Figure 3 transaction, even assuming
`
`that it could be used. The testimony should thus be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`Exhibit 1031 110:7 – 111:4 – This testimony relates to Petitioner’s question
`
`“when does payment data happen vis-à-vis the receipt of content?” and Dr. Katz’s
`
`“understanding of what the differences are between the two embodiments
`
`described in the ‘221 Patent, Column 23, Lines 1 through 7.” Patent Owner
`
`objected to the prior on form and the latter on scope grounds. Petitioner cites the
`
`testimony in a litany of items about which Dr. Katz purportedly “was ‘not sure’”.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 23. But the first question is nonsensical because “payment
`
`data” does not “happen.” The second question about the differences between two
`
`embodiments in the ‘221 Patent has not been linked to any relevant issue on which
`
`Dr. Katz provided his opinion in his Declaration. Thus, cross-examination on
`
`those differences was not within the scope of his direct testimony, and this
`
`testimony should thus be excluded under 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`Exhibit 1031 114:3 – 116:13 – This testimony generally relates to whether
`
`there was anything that would have hindered a POSITA from implementing two
`
`alternative embodiments described in the ‘221 patent and whether the ‘221 Patent
`
`explains how the system would need to change to switch from one embodiment to
`
`the other. Patent owner objected to the scope of the questions. Petitioner cites the
`
`testimony to claim that “Dr. Katz’s own testimony supports a finding that a
`
`POSITA would not have been hindered from implementing either of the two
`
`embodiments… and that the ‘221 Patent itself does not explain any changes
`
`needed to switch the system between those two embodiments.” Petitioner’s Reply
`
`at 15. The subject testimony should be excluded because it goes to the issue of
`
`enablement, which is not an issue in this proceeding as instituted. Such questions
`
`were outside the scope of this proceeding, and Dr. Katz had not been asked to
`
`formulate an opinion on those subjects for his declaration. As Dr. Katz noted this
`
`subject “was not something that [he] thought about before. It wasn’t part of [his]
`
`declaration.” Exhibit 1031 at 116:3-4. The testimony should be excluded as not
`
`being limited to the scope of the direct testimony. 37 CFR CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 124:10 – 128:11 – This testimony relates to whether certain
`
`things would be an example of, or constitute, “prepurchase processing.” Patent
`
`Owner objected on scope grounds. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that “Dr.
`
`Katz was thus unable to explain how these relevant disclosures in Ginter relate to
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`his opinion…” Petitioner’s Reply at 15. The problem, however, was with the
`
`questions, not Dr. Katz’s answers. Counsel for Petitioner never established a
`
`definition of what he meant by “prepurchase processing” and never asked for Dr.
`
`Katz’s understanding of that term. See Exhibit 1031 190:11-19 where Dr. Katz
`
`indicated that he did not know what Petitioner’s counsel meant by “preusage
`
`processing” and “prepurchase processing.” As such, Dr. Katz was unable to
`
`answer the questions as presented. The testimony should be excluded as not being
`
`limited to the scope of the direct testimony. 37 CFR CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 145:6 – 146:8 – This testimony relates to a time stamp in the
`
`Poggio reference and how it “could be” used. Patent Owner objected on relevance
`
`grounds. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that Dr. Katz was “not sure in
`
`Poggio what a time stamp is used for. Petitioner’s Reply at 24. The only relevant
`
`issue is what Poggio disclosed the timestamp is used for, not irrelevant issues of
`
`what a timestamp could be used at an unknown time (e.g., now) and by an
`
`unknown system (e.g., a non-prior art system). This testimony is not relevant
`
`under FRE 401 and should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`Exhibit 1031 152:7 – 156:12 – This testimony is purported to relate to
`
`“POSITA’s understanding of passages of the ‘221 Patent.” Petitioner’s Reply at 2.
`
`Patent Owner objected on grounds of scope. Review of the cited passage however
`
`shows that it relates to claim 26 of the ‘598 Patent. The ‘221 Patent is not
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`mentioned. As such, the testimony is not relevant to this proceeding under FRE
`
`401, and should be excluded as inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`G. Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 are Cumulative and Subject to
`Exclusion for the Reasons Cited Above
`
`Exhibits 1101-1129 were filed in CBM2014-00103. CBM2014-00102 was
`
`consolidated with CBM2014-00103 (PTAB Decision at 24), the PTAB ordered
`
`that all further filings in the consolidated proceedings be made only in CBM2014-
`
`00102 and the CBM2014-00103 be terminated (PTAB Decision at 25). Exhibits
`
`1101-1120 and 1122-1129 in CBM2014-00103 are identical to Exhibits 1001-1020
`
`and 1022-1029 submitted in CBM2014-00102. The PTAB Decision recognized
`
`this duplication of exhibits and referred only to the exhibits filed in CBM2014-
`
`00102. PTAB Decision at 4, n. 9. To the extent still in the record, Patent Owner
`
`moves to exclude Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 under FRE 403 as needless
`
`cumulative evidence duplicative of Exhibits 1001-1020 and 1022-1029. In the
`
`event that the PTAB does not exclude Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122- 1129 in their
`
`entirety as needless cumulative evidence, Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits
`
`1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1110, 1112, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1127,
`
`1128, and 1129 for the reasons set forth above for their corresponding Exhibits
`
`1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1010, 1012, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1027,
`
`1028, and 1029.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`H. Exhibit 1121 is Cumulative and Subject to Exclusion for the
`Reasons Cited Above for Exhibit 1021
`
`Exhibit 1121, the second Wechselberger Declaration, was filed in
`
`CBM2014-00103 and should be excluded for the same substantive reasons set
`
`forth above for Exhibit 1021: it does not state the relative evidentiary weight (e.g.,
`
`substantial evidence versus preponderance of the evidence) used in arriving at his
`
`conclusions; it does not sufficiently state the criteria used to assess whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to
`
`modify a reference or combine two references; it treats the components of the prior
`
`art as if one could mix and match any and all combinations and does not address
`
`sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make
`
`specific combinations rendering the ‘221 Patent obvious; and it does not prove that
`
`Mr. Wechselberger is an expert whose testimony is relevant to the issue of what is
`
`taught and/or suggested by the cited references.
`
`In addition, certain specific paragraphs in the second Wechselberger
`
`Declaration should be excluded because they rely on exhibits that are irrelevant.
`
`Paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 40 contain testimony about the
`
`Unasserted Exhibits as identified in CBM2014-00103. Paragraphs 41, 46, 49, 63
`
`and 64 contain testimony about Exhibit 1118 (“Sato”), an exhibit not relied upon
`
`by the PTAB to institute this proceeding. As such, Paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 32, 34,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`35, 36, 40, 41, 46, 49, 63 and 64 should be excluded as not being relevant under
`
`FRE 401, and therefore being inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For these reasons, Patent Owner Smartflash, LLC respectfully requests that
`
`the Board exclude Exhibit 1002 as inadmissible other evidence of the content of a
`
`writing, irrelevant and cumulative; Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1010,
`
`1012, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1028, and 1029 as irrelevant; Exhibits 1021
`
`and 1121 in their entirety as lacking foundation, unreliable, and relying on
`
`irrelevant exhibits; Exhibit 1021,¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 67, and 68 as
`
`irrelevant; Exhibit 1121 ¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 46, 49, 63 and 64 as
`
`irrelevant; Exhibits 1101- 1120 and 1122 – 1129 (filed in CBM2014-00103, which
`
`was consolidated with this action) as cumulative; and portions of Exhibit 1031 as
`
`outside the scope and irrelevant.
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`/ Michael R. Casey /
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist
`
`Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00102
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS and
`
`Exhibit 2051 in CBM2014-00102 were served today, by agreement of the parties
`
`by emailing a copy to counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman (steven.baughman@ropesgray.com)
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com)
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`
`
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist
`
`Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`