UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of evidence served with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response filed
`
`June 15, 2015.
`
`Evidence
`
`Objection
`
`Exhibit 2001 -
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL] RIM–
`Summit 6 License and
`Settlement Agreement
`(executed October 17,
`2012).
`
`Exhibit 2002 -
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL] Facebook–
`Summit 6 License and
`Settlement Agreement
`(February 8, 2013).
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2003 - Jury Charge
`and Verdict Form, Summit
`6 LLC v. Research in
`Motion Corp. et al., Civil
`Action No. 3:11-cv-00367-
`O (N.D.Tex., April 5,
`2013).
`
`Exhibit 2004 - Excerpts of
`Trial Testimony of Dr.
`Mark Jones, Summit 6
`LLC v. Research in Motion
`Corp. et al., Civil Action
`No. 3:11-cv-00367-O,
`N.D.Tex. (April 4, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`Lack of Foundation: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has not cited to this exhibit in its
`Preliminary Response to rebut any argument
`presented by Petitioner.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2005 - Summit6-
`1876—Correspondence, T.
`Anderson to H. Latham
`of Moore Data
`Management Services
`(September 15, 1998).
`
`
`
`
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006 - Summit6-
`4346—Correspondence, T.
`Anderson to J. Graff of
`RealSelect, Inc., Proposal
`to integrate Rimfire system
`with Realtor.com (April 26,
`1999).
`
`
`
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007 - Summit6-
`1606—Press Release,
`“New Prepare and Post
`Technology from
`PictureWorks Technology,
`Inc. Revolutionizes Use of
`Photos in Internet
`Marketing of Real Estate,”
`(November 7, 1998).
`
`Exhibit 2008 - Summit6-
`1962—Press Release,
`“Moore Data Management
`Services and PictureWorks
`Technology, Inc.,
`Announce Partnership to
`
`
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Revolutionize Use of Real
`Estate Photos on the
`Internet,” (Business Wire,
`November 6, 1998).
`
`Exhibit 2009 - Excerpts of
`Trial Testimony of Lisa
`Wood, Summit 6 LLC v.
`Research in Motion Corp.
`et al., Civil Action No.
`3:11-cv-00367-O,
`N.D.Tex. (March 29,
`2013).
`
`
`
`
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`Lack of Foundation: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2010 - Rimfire
`Functional Specification
`Version 1.0 Core Feature
`Set, revision 4 (April 12,
`1999).
`
`
`
`
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2011 - Summit6-
`4341—Press Release,
`“PictureWorks
`Technology’s
`PictureBay Solves #1
`Frustration of eBay
`Members, Adding Pictures
`to Auctions,” (April 12,
`1999).
`
`Exhibit 2012 - Summit6-
`2415—pbay Marketing
`Plan (PictureWorks
`Technology, Inc., March
`
`
`
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`24, 1999).
`
`Exhibit 2013 - Summit6-
`5246—Press Release
`“PictureWorks
`Technology's
`Auction Photo Service,
`Picturebay, Serves Over
`Two Million Images to
`eBay, Amazon.com and
`Auction Universe,”
`(August 3, 1999).
`
`
`
`
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2014 - White
`Paper, “Rimfire: The End-
`to-End Imaging Solution
`for Content Capture and
`Delivery,” (Internet
`Pictures Corporation,
`2000).
`
`Exhibit 2015 - Market
`Study, “Image Servers -
`Early Adopter Case
`Studies,” (Tony Henning
`and Future Image, Inc.,
`2001).
`
`
`
`
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2016 - Summit6-
`5178—Excerpts of
`Woerner et al., “eBay for
`Dummies,” (IDG Books
`Worldwide, Inc., 1999).
`
`
`
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2017 - Press
`Release, “iPIX Acquisition
`Locks up Internet Picture
`Market,” (March 9, 2000).
`
`Exhibit 2018 - Press
`Release, “iPIX to Acquire
`PictureWorks Technology,
`Inc. to form End-to-End
`Internet Imaging Solutions
`Company,” (PictureWorks
`
`
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Technology, Inc., March 8,
`2000 [Exhibit 99.1 to 8-k
`filing]).
`
`Exhibit 2019 - iPIX
`Presentation, “Enhancing
`Classified Advertising with
`Visual Data,” (Don
`Strickland and Sarah Pate,
`October 2, 2003).
`
`
`
`
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2020 -
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL] Confidential
`Information Memorandum,
`“AdMission” (Swiftsure
`Capital LLC, December 13,
`2004).
`
`Exhibit 2021 -
`
`
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 603: The exhibit is inadmissible because the
`statements made therein were not made under oath.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL] Amendment
`No. 3 to the Visual Content
`Services Agreement
`Between eBay and iPIX
`(June 27, 2003).
`
`Exhibit 2022 - Excerpts of
`Trial Testimony of Scott
`Lewis, Summit 6 LLC v.
`Research in Motion Corp.
`et al., Civil Action No.
`3:11-cv- 00367-O,
`N.D.Tex. (April 1, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`Lack of Foundation: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2023 - Summit6-
`4732—Press Release,
`“PictureWorks Technology
`Streamlines Posting of
`Photos to Internet,”
`(Business Wire, November
`6, 1998).
`
`
`
`
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Patent Owner has personal
`knowledge of the statements made therein.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 - Summit6-
`4770—“Product Picks” at
`realtor.org web site
`(February 1, 1999).
`
`Exhibit 2025 - PX-0937—
`Excerpts of Collier et al.,
`“eBay for Dummies”
`(Hungry Minds, Inc., 2nd
`Edition 2001).
`
`
`
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2026 - Press
`Release, “Admission Corp.
`Granted Web-Based Media
`Submission Patent,”
`(Admission Corporation,
`June 2, 2005).
`
`
`
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`FRE 1002 / 1006: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because Patent Owner has not submitted a
`complete copy of the original document.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: The exhibit is inadmissible
`because it includes opinions that are not admissible
`testimony under FRE 701, 702, or 703.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: The exhibit is inadmissible because
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2027 - Press
`Release, “AdMission
`Directories Wins Gold at
`Yellow Pages Association
`Annual Industry Excellence
`Awards; Enhanced,
`Interactive Ads for IYP
`Recognized as Marketing
`Innovation,” (Business
`Wire, March 14, 2005).
`
`Exhibit 2030 - Claim
`Construction Order,
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC
`Corp. et al., Civil Action
`No. 7:14-cv-00014-O
`(N.D.Tex., May 21, 2015).
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that the item is what Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`upon which trial was instituted. For example,
`Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient
`nexus between the purported secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness allegedly
`disclosed in the exhibit and the invention claimed
`by the patent-at-issue.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes information whose
`probative value to any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed by the danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsa
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
