PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`WITH PATENT OWNER’S REPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2015-00369
`Patent 6,128,290
`_____________________
`
`
`WITH PATENT OWNER’S REPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2015-00369
`Patent 6,128,290
`_____________________
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) objects under the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 to Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
`
`2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2017 (the “Challenged Exhibits”) cited in
`
`DSS Technology Management, Inc.’s (“DSS”) Patent Owner Response to Petition
`
`(Paper 17). DSS served the Challenged Exhibits on Apple on Monday, October 5,
`
`2015. Monday, October 12, 2015 was a federal holiday; therefore, Apple’s
`
`Objections to Evidence are timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Apple files and
`
`serves DSS with these objections to provide notice that Apple may move to exclude
`
`the Challenged Exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EXHIBITS AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`1.
`Exhibit 2003 is purportedly a printout of an article by Myk Dormer. Such
`
`Exhibit 2003 – Dormer Article
`
`documents are not self-authenticating under FRE 902. Apple thus objects to Exhibit
`
`2003 under FRE 901. Apple also objects to Exhibit 2003 as hearsay under FRE
`
`801, without any applicable exception.
`
`On its face, Exhibit 2003 appears to be dated well-after the earliest filing date
`
`of the ’290 patent. Exhibit 2003 is thus irrelevant to claim construction or
`
`validity/patentability and Apple objects to this exhibit under FRE 401.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2012
`
`2.
`Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2012 are purportedly U.S.
`
`patents which DSS alleges define words related to the ’290 patent. But on their
`
`face, these documents appear to all be dated well-after the earliest filing date of the
`
`’290 patent. The documents are thus irrelevant to claim construction or
`
`validity/patentability and Apple objects to these exhibits under FRE 401.
`
`Additionally, DSS purports to rely on these documents for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted therein. Therefore, Apple objects to Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2006,
`
`2007, 2008, and 2012 as hearsay under FRE 801, without any applicable exception.
`
`Exhibit 2009 – Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology
`
`3.
`Exhibit 2009 is purportedly a copy of a portion of a technical dictionary. On
`
`its face, Exhibit 2009 appears to be dated well-after the earliest filing date of the
`
`’290 patent. Exhibit 2009
`
`is
`
`thus
`
`irrelevant
`
`to claim construction or
`
`validity/patentability and Apple objects to this exhibit under FRE 401. Apple also
`
`objects to Exhibit 2009 as hearsay under FRE 801, without any applicable
`
`exception.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 2010 – Encyclopedia of Networking &
`Telecommunications
`
`Exhibit 2010 is purportedly a copy of a portion of a book. On its face,
`
`Exhibit 2010 appears to be dated well-after the earliest filing date of the ’290
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`patent. Exhibit 2010 is thus irrelevant to claim construction or validity/patentability
`
`and Apple objects to this exhibit under FRE 401. Apple also objects to Exhibit
`
`2010 as hearsay under FRE 801, without any applicable exception.
`
`Exhibit 2011 – U.S. Patent No. 3,598,914
`
`5.
`Exhibit 2011 is a patent which DSS alleges defines words related to the ’290
`
`patent. DSS purports to rely on this document for the truth of the matter asserted
`
`therein. Therefore, Apple objects to Exhibit 2011 as hearsay under FRE 801,
`
`without any applicable exception.
`
`Exhibit 2013 – Yurcik Article
`
`6.
`Exhibit 2013 is purportedly a webpage printout of an article by William J.
`
`Yurcik. Such documents are not self-authenticating under FRE 902. Apple thus
`
`objects to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 901. Apple also objects to Exhibit 2013 as
`
`hearsay under FRE 801, without any applicable exception.
`
`On its face, Exhibit 2013 appears to be dated well-after the earliest filing date
`
`of the ’290 patent. Exhibit 2013 is thus irrelevant to claim construction or
`
`validity/patentability and Apple objects to this exhibit under FRE 401.
`
`Exhibit 2014 – User’s Manual
`
`7.
`Exhibit 2014 is purportedly a user’s manual. Such documents are not self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902. Apple thus objects to Exhibit 2014 under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`Apple also objects to Exhibit 2014 as hearsay under FRE 801, without any
`
`applicable exception. Moreover, to the extent that DSS relies on the date on the face
`
`of Exhibit 2014 as a date of publication, Apple objects under FRE 801. And
`
`because DSS has not established a publication date for Exhibit 2014, Apple objects
`
`to Exhibit 2014 under FRE 401 as
`
`irrelevant to claim construction or
`
`validity/patentability.
`
`Exhibit 2017 – Auppu Article
`
`8.
`Exhibit 2017 is purportedly a printout of an article by Wmat Auppu. Such
`
`documents are not self-authenticating under FRE 902. Apple thus objects to Exhibit
`
`2017 under FRE 901. Apple also objects to Exhibit 2017 as hearsay under FRE
`
`801, without any applicable exception.
`
`Exhibit 2017 is also undated. Apple therefore objects to Exhibit 2017 under
`
`FRE 401 as irrelevant to claim construction or validity/patentability.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`To the extent that DSS fails to correct the defects associated with the
`
`Challenged Exhibits in view of Apple’s objections herein, Apple may file one or
`
`more motions to exclude the Challenged Exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/DAVID K.S. CORNWELL/
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`David K.S. Cornwell, Registration No. 31,944
`Mark W. Rygiel, Registration No. 45,871
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “PETITIONER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REPONSE” was served in its entirety on October 13, 2015, via e-mail upon the
`
`following counsel of record for the patent owner:
`
`Andriy Lytvyn (Lead Counsel)
`Anton J. Hopen (Back-up Counsel)
`Nicholas Pfeifer (Back-up Counsel)
`
`SMITH & HOPEN, P.A.
`180 Pine Avenue North
`Oldsmar, FL 34677
`
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.com
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`/DAVID K.S. CORNWELL/
`
`
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple
`Registration No. 31,944
`
`
` Date: October 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
` (202) 371-2600
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
