`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 IPR2015-00812
`Patent No. 8,850,009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00812
`Patent No. 8,850,009
`
`
`
`following objections to certain exhibits submitted by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812. 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 relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,868,705 and Aventail. Patent
`
`Owner similarly objects to Exhibits 1022, 1023, and 1043 under Rules 401-403 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence because they contain testimony unrelated to the
`
`grounds of rejection on which the Board instituted inter partes review. Patent
`
`Owner further 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. 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,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`the Petition would have exceeded
`
`§ 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`Case IPR2015-00812
`Patent No. 8,850,009
`
`the 60-page
`
`limit.
`
` See 37 C.F.R.
`
`Exhibits 1001, 1002, 1009-1041, 1043-1048
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1001, 1002, 1009-1041, 1043-1048 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 1001, 1002, 1006, 1009-1041, 1043-1048
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1001, 1002, 1006, 1009-1041, 1043-1048
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2015-00812
`Patent No. 8,850,009
`
`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.