`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD, and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-004141
`Patent 7,643,168 B2
`_____________________
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
` 1 Case IPR2015-00611 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the Petitioner Apple Inc. hereby objects
`
`to the following evidence submitted by Patent Owner in the Patent Owner
`
`Response to the petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,643,168, the
`
`petition for which was filed on December 11, 2014.
`
`1. Exhibit 2004 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402; Exhibit 2004
`
`is from a different inter partes review proceeding involving different prior
`
`art, a different patent, and a different Petitioner and is also not binding
`
`authority on the Board.
`
`2. Exhibit 2004 is further objected to as unduly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, and misleading under Fed. R. Ev. 403; Exhibit 2004 is prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and misleading because it conflates this proceeding with another
`
`proceeding involving different prior art, a different patent, and a different
`
`Petitioner, and Exhibit 2004 cannot be cited as binding authority.
`
`3. Exhibit 2005 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402; Exhibit 2005
`
`is from a different inter partes review proceeding involving different prior
`
`art, a different patent, and a different Petitioner and is also not binding
`
`authority on the Board.
`
`4. Exhibit 2005 is further objected to as unduly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, and misleading under Fed. R. Ev. 403; Exhibit 2005 is prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and misleading because it conflates this proceeding with another
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`proceeding involving different prior art, a different patent, and a different
`
`Petitioner, and Exhibit 2005 cannot be cited as binding authority.
`
`5. Exhibit 2006 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402; Exhibit 2006
`
`is from a different inter partes review proceeding involving different prior
`
`art, a different patent, and a different Petitioner and is also not binding
`
`authority on the Board.
`
`6. Exhibit 2006 is further objected to as unduly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, and misleading under Fed. R. Ev. 403; Exhibit 2006 is prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and misleading because it conflates this proceeding with another
`
`proceeding involving different prior art, a different patent, and a different
`
`Petitioner, and Exhibit 2006 cannot be cited as binding authority.
`
`7. Exhibit 2007 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402; Exhibit 2007
`
`is from a different inter partes review proceeding involving different prior
`
`art, a different patent, and a different Petitioner and is also not binding
`
`authority on the Board.
`
`8. Exhibit 2007 is further objected to as unduly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, and misleading under Fed. R. Ev. 403; Exhibit 2007 is prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and misleading because it conflates this proceeding with another
`
`proceeding involving different prior art, a different patent, and a different
`
`Petitioner, and Exhibit 2007 cannot be cited as binding authority.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`9. Exhibit 2008 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402; Exhibit 2008
`
`is from a different inter partes review proceeding involving different prior
`
`art, a different patent, and a different Petitioner and is also not binding
`
`authority on the Board.
`
`10. Exhibit 2008 is further objected to as unduly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, and misleading under Fed. R. Ev. 403; Exhibit 2008 is prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and misleading because it conflates this proceeding with another
`
`proceeding involving different prior art, a different patent, and a different
`
`Petitioner, and Exhibit 2008 cannot be cited as binding authority.
`
`These objections have been timely made and served within 5 business days from
`
`the September 22, 2015 Patent Owner Response to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2015
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125) (lead)
`Blair A. Silver (Reg. No. 68,003) (back-up)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) of a copy
`
`of this Objections to Evidence by electronic mail on September 29, 2015 on the
`
`counsel of record for:
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Robert C. Curfiss, bob@curfiss.com
`
`David Simmons, dsimmons1@sbcglobal.net
`
`Greg Donahue, gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.:
`
`Steven Park, stevenpark@paulhastings.com
`
`Naveen Modi, naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Elizabeth Brann, elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`
`DATED: September 29, 2015
`
`By: /s/Brian M. Buroker
`
`
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`4