`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00811
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. submits the
`
`Case IPR2015-00811
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`
`
`
`following objections to certain exhibits submitted by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811. Patent Owner’s objections apply equally to Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on these exhibits in any subsequently-filed documents. These objections
`
`are timely, having been served within ten business days of the Board’s decision to
`
`institute a trial in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibits 1005, 1022, 1023, and 1043
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence to the extent that Exhibit 1005 contains testimony unrelated to
`
`the grounds of rejection on which the Board instituted inter partes review. See,
`
`e.g., at least testimony related to U.S. Patent No. 8,850,009 and Beser. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to Exhibit 1005 because it does not constitute evidence, but
`
`instead appears to supplement Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition and
`
`circumvents the page limit. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012). If the
`
`descriptions in Exhibit 1005 were included in the Petition, the Petition would have
`
`exceeded the 60-page limit. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1022, 1023, and 1043 under Rule 802 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence because the testimony in these Exhibits constitutes
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1007, 1015-1017, 1024-1041, and 1044-1048
`
`Case IPR2015-00811
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1007, 1015-10171, 1024-1041,
`
`and 1044-1048 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the
`
`grounds that these exhibits contain evidence not relevant to issues in this
`
`proceeding because the evidence lacks a nexus to the grounds of rejection on
`
`which the Board has instituted inter partes review.
`
`Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1015-1017, 1024-1041, and 1044-1048
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1015-1017, 1024-
`
`1041, and 1044-1048 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`because Petitioner never relied on these exhibits in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`1 While the Petition cites to Exhibit 1015, it is Patent Owner’s understanding that
`
`the intended citation is to Exhibit 1012. Exhibit 1015 is not relied upon in the
`
`Petition and lacks a nexus to the grounds of rejection on which the Board has
`
`instituted inter partes review.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2015-00811
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`
`I hereby certify that on this 25th day of September 2015, a copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Exhibits was served by
`
`electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`
`
`
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Dated: September 25, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.