`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00131
`Patent 8,061,598
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER
`SMARTFLASH LLC’S EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”), hereby submits
`
`the following objections to Patent Owner Smartflash, LLC’s (“Patent Owner”)
`
`Exhibits 2076 and 2105, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without
`
`limitation. Petitioner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the new material served
`
`by Patent Owner on February 17, 2016.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`The following objections apply to Exhibits 2076 and 2105 as they are
`
`actually presented by Patent Owner, in the context of Patent Owner’s February 17,
`
`2016 Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 18) and not in the context of any other
`
`substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner expressly objects to any other purported use of these Exhibits, including
`
`as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be untimely and improper
`
`under the applicable rules, and Petitioner expressly asserts, reserves and does not
`
`waive any other objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibits 2076 and 2105 And Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 2076 (“Deposition Transcript of Anthony J.
`
`Wechselberger dated July 22, 2015 taken in CBM2015-00028, -00029, -00031, -
`
`00032 and -00033”); 2105 (“Transcript of Deposition of Justin Douglas Tygar,
`
`Ph.D. dated January 19, 2016 taken in CBM2015-00126 and -00129”).
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401 (“Test for Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E.
`
`402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (“Filing of documents,
`
`including exhibits; service”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 1002 (“Requirement of the Original”); and F.R.E. 1003
`
`(“Admissibility of Duplicates”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`Petitioner objects to the use of Exhibit 2076 under F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003,
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Patent Owner failed to file or
`
`serve Exhibit 2076 and fails to provide the authentication required for the
`
`document. Although Patent Owner’s Response appears to rely on an Exhibit 2076
`
`(see Paper 18 at 39), which it labels “Wechselberger Transcript,” Patent Owner
`
`failed to file or serve an Exhibit 2076, include an Exhibit 2076 in its Exhibit List,
`
`or provide any authenticating evidence.
`
`Petitioner further objects to the use of Exhibits 20761 and 2105 under F.R.E.
`
`401, 402, and 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 as the cited testimony (see, e.g., Paper 18
`
`at 19-20, 39) is not relevant to the issues in the present proceeding. Apple’s expert
`
`in this proceeding is Dr. John Kelly. Exhibit 2076, however, appears to intend to
`
`refer to a transcript from the deposition of Anthony J. Wechselberger, who served
`
`as an expert for Apple in other CBM proceedings (i.e., CBM2015-00028, -00029, -
`
`00031, -00032, -00033), which challenge different patents—not the ’598 Patent
`
`1 For the purposes of these objections and based on the exhibit filed by Patent
`
`Owner as “Exhibit 2076” in other related proceedings (see, e.g., CBM2015-00130,
`
`Exhibit 2076), Petitioner assumes that Patent Owner’s citation to Exhibit 2076 in
`
`its Patent Owner Response is intended to refer to the deposition transcript of
`
`Anthony J. Wechselberger, dated July 22, 2015 and taken in CBM2015-00028, -
`
`00029, -00031, -00032 and -00033.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`challenged here—and is cited in connection with arguments about preemption
`
`and/or non-infringing alternatives, neither of which is the proper inquiry under the
`
`Mayo test for patent eligibility. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`
`788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt
`
`all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce
`
`setting do not make them any less abstract.”); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
`
`F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting claims as patent ineligible despite
`
`(vacated) prior opinion stating there were “myriad ways to accomplish th[e]
`
`abstract concept that do not infringe the[] claims,” (722 F.3d 1335, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (vacated))); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687
`
`F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Sun Life’s alternative assertion of
`
`noninfringement does not detract from its affirmative defense of invalidity under §
`
`101.”); Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00015, Pap. 28 at 2 (“[E]vidence
`
`of non-infringement and non-infringing alternatives … is not inconsistent with
`
`Apple’s assertion ... that the challenged claims are unpatentable.”); Paper 18 at 39.
`
`Exhibit 2105 appears to be a transcript from the deposition of Dr. Justin D.
`
`Tygar, who is not an expert for Apple in this proceeding, and appears instead to
`
`have served as an expert for Google Inc.—who is not a party to this proceeding—
`
`in other CBM proceedings (i.e., CBM2015-00126, -00129), which again challenge
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`different patents than the ’598 Patent challenged here —and is cited in connection
`
`with arguments about patent eligibility of system claims (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
`
`v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (“[T]he system claims are no
`
`different from the method claims in substance . . . . This Court has long warned …
`
`against interpreting § 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the
`
`draftsman’s art.”) (internal quotations omitted); Paper 18 at 19-20). Additionally,
`
`admission of that evidence would be doubly improper because Apple is not a party
`
`to CBM2015-00126 and CBM2015-00129 and was not given the opportunity to
`
`attend the deposition of Dr. Justin D. Tygar. Moreover, for these reasons, Apple
`
`further reserves the right to raise additional objections not already stated on the
`
`record in that deposition, including objections to form and relevance in connection
`
`with the questions in the cited portions of the transcript.
`
`Apple hereby expressly repeats and reserves all of the objections stated on
`
`the record in these depositions (Exhibits 2076 and 2105) as well as the deposition
`
`of Dr. John Kelly (Exhibit 2108), and affirmatively maintains all such objections.
`
`Accordingly, these Exhibits do not appear to make any fact of consequence
`
`in determining this action more or less probable than it would be without them and
`
`are thus irrelevant and not admissible (F.R.E. 401, 402); permitting reference
`
`to/reliance on these documents in any future submissions of Patent Owner would
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`also be impermissible, misleading, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial to Petitioner
`
`(F.R.E. 402, 403).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 44,334
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`P: 212-596-9336 /F: 212-596-9000
`ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com
`
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`Megan F. Raymond
`Reg. No. 72,997
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`P: 202-508-4606 / F: 202-383-8371
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`megan.raymond@ropesgray.com
`Mailing address for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM – Floor 43, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-
`3600
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER APPLE
`
`INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER SMARTFLASH LLC’S EXHIBITS
`
`was served on February 24, 2016, to the following Counsel for Patent Owner via e-
`
`mail, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Wayne M. Helge
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`SmartFlash-CBM@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Smartflash, LLC
`
` /s/ Sharon Lee
`Sharon Lee
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`