throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket