IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2014-01181*
`PATENT 8,532,641
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONERS’ REPLY EVIDENCE
`
`
`*Case Nos. IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 were consolidated with the instant
`
`proceeding. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 15; IPR2014-01182, Paper 15; IPR2014-
`
`01184, Paper 15. Patent Owner therefore submits this single set of objections to
`
`exhibits submitted in conjunction with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2014-01181*
`PATENT 8,532,641
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONERS’ REPLY EVIDENCE
`
`
`*Case Nos. IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 were consolidated with the instant
`
`proceeding. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 15; IPR2014-01182, Paper 15; IPR2014-
`
`01184, Paper 15. Patent Owner therefore submits this single set of objections to
`
`exhibits submitted in conjunction with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Affinity Labs of Texas,
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`
`
`LLC, hereby submits the following objections to certain evidence filed by
`
`Petitioners on August 31, 2015.
`
`I.
`
`General Objections to Exhibits 1025-1061
`
`Grounds for objections: 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (“Oppositions and replies”), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223 (“Filing of supplemental information”), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1025-1061 to the extent they could have
`
`been presented in a prior filing and are proffered in support of arguments that are
`
`presented for the first time in Petitioners’ Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A
`
`reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . .patent owner
`
`response.”); OFFICE TRIAL PRACTICE GUIDE, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(“Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include …
`
`new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.”) Petitioners’ Reply
`
`exceeds the permissible scope for a reply by introducing 36 new exhibits, including
`
`a new, 180-page declaration from Dr. Schuyler Quackenbush. This new evidence
`
`constitutes improper supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223. Patent
`
`Owner reserves its right to challenge Dr. Quackenbush’s testimony via deposition
`
`and bring all appropriate motions to exclude evidence submitted in support of
`
`Petitioners’ Reply.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`II.
`
`Objections to Exhibit 1025
`
`Evidence objected to:
`
` Exhibit 1025 – “Rebuttal Declaration of Schuyler Quackenbush”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`403 (“Exclusion for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, Other Reasons”).
`
`
`
`The witness providing the declaration attached to Petitioners’ Reply as
`
`Exhibit 1025 provides insufficient underlying facts or data upon which the
`
`opinions contained in Exhibit 1025 could legitimately be based, in violation of
`
`F.R.E. 702. For example, Dr. Quackenbush opines repeatedly about the
`
`functioning of specific pieces of hardware in his declaration. However, Dr.
`
`Quackenbush’s CV indicates that his experience in hardware design was limited to
`
`designing a SONAR system and a RADAR jamming system, hardware generally
`
`described as relating to audio encoding and decoding, and hardware generally
`
`described as related to image, speech, and audio codecs. (See Ex. 1025 at ¶ 2; Ex
`
`1023.) There is no indication that Dr. Quackenbush has adequate experience in
`
`hardware design sufficient as underlying facts or data upon which his opinions
`
`could legitimately be based. As such, his testimony will not help to understand the
`
`evidence or to determine a fact at issue. Accordingly, permitting any reliance on
`
`Exhibit 1025 would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Patent Owner under
`
`F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Objections to Exhibits 1040 and 1049A
`
`Evidence objected to:
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
` Exhibit 1040 – “Bluetooth Whitepaper,” AU-System, (January 2000);
`
` Exhibit 1049A – Website Excerpt – SoftSound.com, (March 2000)
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 402, 403
`
`(“Relevance/Exclusion for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, Other Reasons”);
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Exhibit 1040 appears to be a paper compiled by “au-system,” an unknown
`
`entity, that was simply downloaded by Petitioners’ from the following web
`
`address: www.roggeweck.net/uploads/media/Bluetooth_Handout.pdf. (See Ex.
`
`1060, Moncreif Decl. at ¶ 8.) Similarly, Exhibit 1049A is a March 2000, single-
`
`page excerpt from the website SoftSound.com that purports to describe “an
`
`established low complexity waveform coder.” (See Ex. 1049, Butler Decl. ¶ 8.)
`
`Petitioners rely on Exhibits 1040 and 1049A for the truth of the matter asserted,
`
`specifically the existence of particular technology prior to March 2000. Patent
`
`Owner therefore objects to Exhibits 1040 and 1049A as inadmissible hearsay that
`
`is otherwise irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
`
`IV.
`
`Objections to Exhibits 1041A-1045
`
`Evidence objected to:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
` Exhibit 1041A – “Philips Shows Central Gateway for the Home,”
`
`Electronic Engineering Times, (December 1999);
`
` Exhibit 1042 – “Ericsson Demonstrates Bluetooth at CeBIT ’99,”
`
`Mobic.com, (March 1999);
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1043 – “Ericsson Received Innovations Award for Driving
`
`Bluetooth Development, CeBIT 2000,” Business Wire, (February
`
`2000);
`
` Exhibit 1044 – “CTIA Wireless 2000 View From The Floor - Day 2,”
`
`wirelessdevnet.com, (February/March 2000);
`
` Exhibit 1045 – “Ericsson’s Bluetooth Modules,” Ericsson Review,
`
`(1999);
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 402, 403
`
`(“Relevance/Exclusion for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, Other Reasons”);
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Exhibits 1041A-1045 are articles describing tradeshow demonstrations and
`
`developmental technologies. Petitioners rely on Exhibits 1041A-1045 for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, specifically the capabilities and benefits of Bluetooth
`
`technology, as well as its commercial implementation, prior to March 2000. Patent
`
`Owner therefore objects to Exhibits 1041A-1044 as inadmissible hearsay that is
`
`otherwise irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`V. Objections to Exhibits 1048A, 1052-1053, 1054A-1054B, and 1057A
`
`Evidence objected to:
`
` Exhibit 1048A – “Casio Introduces New Cassiopeia Model E-10,”
`
`Casio Press Release, (January 1998);
`
` Exhibit 1052 – “NTT DoCoMo to Offer Mobile Music Downloads,”
`
`InternetNews.com, (October 1999);
`
` Exhibit 1053 – “Sony and Liquid Audio Integrate Music Delivery
`
`Systems,” Sony Press Release, (January 2000);
`
` Exhibit 1054A – “Toshiba to Market ‘GENIO,’ a Pocket Size Mobile
`
`Communicator with WWW and High-Speed PHS Communication
`
`Capabilities,” Toshiba Press Release, (February 1997);
`
` Exhibit 1054B – Toshiba GENIO Specifications, Toshiba Web Site
`
`Excerpt from February 10, 1999;
`
` Exhibit 1057A – “Samsung Builds TV Function Into Cell Phones,”
`
`CNN.com, (December 1999)
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 402, 403
`
`(“Relevance/Exclusion for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, Other Reasons”);
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”). Exhibits 1048A, 1052-1053, 1054A-1054B, and
`
`1057A identify or describe tradeshow demonstrations, developmental technologies,
`
`and/or prospective service features. Petitioners rely on Exhibits 1048A, 1052-1053,
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1054A-1054B, and 1057A for the truth of the matter asserted, specifically
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`technology known to one of skill in the art prior to March 2000. Patent Owner
`
`therefore objects to Exhibits 1048A, 1052-1053, 1054A-1054B, and 1057A as
`
`inadmissible hearsay that is otherwise irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Ryan M. Schultz/
`Reg. No. 65,143
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I hereby certify that on this 8th day of September, 2015, a copy of this Patent
`Owner’s Objections to Petitioners’ Reply Evidence has been filed with the PTAB
`and served in its entirety by e-mail on the Petitioners:
`
`
`
`For Samsung petitioners:
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`SamsungIPRService@ropesgray.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Ryan M. Schultz/
`Registration No. 65,143
`Attorney 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
