`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ACHATES REFERENCE PUBLISHING, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No.: IPR2013-00080 & IPR20l3-00081
`
`Patents 6,173,403 & 5,289,889
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Lead Administrative Patent Judge,
`HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`1
`E
`
`_.._-,..C4
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No. IPRZO13-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No. IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
`
`
`
`Cases IPR20l3-00080 & IPR20l3—0008l
`
`Patent 6,173,403 & 5,289,889
`
`In accordance with Rule 42.64(b), Patent Owner hereby objects to the following
`
`documentary evidence:
`
`0 United States Patent No. 6,859,533 entitled “System and Method for Transferring the
`Right to decode Massages in a Symmetric Encoding Scheme”;
`
`0
`
`January 2005 PowerPoint presentation entitled “On DRM Interoperability and
`Compatibility”;
`
`0
`
`2005 article entitled “Rights Expression Languages in Digital Rights Management”; -
`
`0 United States Patent No. 6,519,700 entitled “Self-Protecting Documents”;
`
`0 April 2013 Expert Report of John P. Pettitt;
`
`0 August 2001 article entitled “Technical Details on Microsoft Product Activation for
`Windows XP”; and
`
`-
`
`February 2002 article entitled “The Windows XP Product Activation Guide.”
`
`All of the seven above-listed evidence post-dates date the filing of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,173,403 &
`
`5,289,889, which are the subject of these two review proceedings. As such, none are relevant to
`
`the issues pending before the Board.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to the aforementioned document and the below~listed
`
`documentary evidence:
`
`0 United States Patent No. 7,139,736 entitled “Content Rendering Repository”;
`
`0 May 1994 article entitled “Fact Sheet on Digital Signature Standard”; and
`
`0 November 1996 article entitled “The SSL Protocol Version 3.0.”
`
`None of these ten documents were cited by Petitioner in its Petition to initiate either of the two
`
`review proceedings. Moreover, the Board did not utilize any of these documents to support a
`
`ground of rejection for any of the claims-in-question. As such, these documents do not provide a
`
`proper basis for consideration by the Board.
`
`2
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No.
`|PR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No. IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
`
`
`
`Cases lPR20l3-00080 & IPR2013—0008l
`
`Patent 6,173,403 & 5,289,889
`
`Petitioner is not entitled to use these documents as rebuttal evidence given that Patent
`
`Owner made no amendment to any claim in the proceedings. And, to the extent that Petitioner
`
`otherwise seeks to utilize these documents, it must satisfy its burden to explain why they could
`
`not have been earlier produced. Petitioner has made no effort to meet this burden. By providing
`
`these specific grounds of objection, Patent Owner does not waive its right to identify further
`
`grounds of objections upon formal service by Petitioner.
`
`Patent Owner hereby reserves its right to file a motion to exclude one or more of the
`
`above-listed documents from consideration in this review proceeding. Patent Owner further
`
`reserves its right to object to, and exclude, any supplementation attempted by Petitioner pursuant
`
`to Rule 42.64(b)(2). This objection should not be construed as an admission by Patent Owner
`
`that the matters which are objected to are, in fact, an evidentiary issue for which Rule
`
`42.64(b)(2) would apply.
`
`Dated: November 27, 2013
`
`/Eric H. Chadwicld
`
`Brad D. Pedersen (Reg. No. 32,432)
`Eric H. Chadwick (Reg. No. 41,664)
`Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.
`80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2100
`Telephone: (612) 349-5740
`Facsimile: (612) 349-9266
`Email: pede1'sen@ptslaw.con1
`chadwick@ptslaw.com
`prps@ptslaw.com
`
`Attorneysfor Patent Owner
`
`3
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No.
`|PR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
`
`APPLE v. ACHATES
`Case No. IPR2013-00080
`Achates Ex. 2044
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
