UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`1
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`respectfully submits, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the following objections to
`
`Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Incorporated,
`
`America, Inc., and Apple Inc.’s (“Petitioners”) Exhibits as set forth in more detail
`
`below, as well as any reference thereto or reliance thereon. Patent Owner’s
`
`objections apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`1
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`respectfully submits, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the following objections to
`
`Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Incorporated,
`
`America, Inc., and Apple Inc.’s (“Petitioners”) Exhibits as set forth in more detail
`
`below, as well as any reference thereto or reliance thereon. Patent Owner’s
`
`objections apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`§ 42.62. These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the evidence filed by
`
`Petitioners on February 24 and 25, 2016 and refiled on August 29, 2016.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits identified herein as actually
`
`presented by Petitioners in their February 24 and 25, 2016 Petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petitions”) (Paper 4 and IPR2016-00616, Paper 1, respectively), and their
`
`updated exhibit list filed August 29, 2016 (Paper 18), and not in the context of any
`
`other substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner expressly objects to any other purported use of these
`
`Exhibits, including as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be
`
`untimely and improper under the applicable rules, and Patent Owner expressly
`
`asserts, reserves, and does not waive any other objections that would be applicable
`
`in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibits 1015 and 1055 And Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay within
`
`Hearsay); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal Knowledge”); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibits 1015 and 1055 under F.R.E. 901
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Petitioners have not properly authenticated these
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`documents. Moreover, the documents are not self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1015 and 1055 as impermissible
`
`hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, because the documents contain or
`
`reproduce out-of-court statements that are offered for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for which no hearsay exception or
`
`exclusion applies (F.R.E. 801, 802, 805).
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1015 and 1055 under F.R.E. 602 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61 because the statements and assertions set forth therein are not
`
`premised upon personal knowledge.
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit 1029 and 1041-1054 and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”);
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay within Hearsay); F.R.E.
`
`602 (“Need for Personal Knowledge”); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibits 1029 and 1041-1054 under
`
`F.R.E. 901 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Petitioners have not properly
`
`authenticated
`
`these documents.
`
` Moreover,
`
`the documents are not self-
`
`authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1029 and 1041-1054 as impermissible
`
`hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, because the documents contain or
`
`reproduce out-of-court statements that are offered for the truth of the matters
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for which no hearsay exception or
`
`exclusion applies (F.R.E. 801, 802, 805).
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1029 and 1041-1054 under F.R.E. 602
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because the statements and assertions set forth therein are not
`
`premised upon personal knowledge.
`
`III. Objections to Exhibit 1030-1032 and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for Personal Knowledge”); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibits 1030-1032 under F.R.E. 901 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Petitioners have not properly authenticated these
`
`documents. Moreover, the documents are not self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Miranda Y. Jones
`Miranda Y. Jones (Reg. No. 64,721)
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Rosetta-Wireless Corp.
`
`4
`
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITIONERS’ PETITION
`
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW was served on September 6, 2016 in its entirety
`
`by causing the aforementioned document to be electronically mailed, pursuant to
`
`the parties’ agreement, to the following attorneys of record for the Patent Owner
`
`listed below:
`
`Megan Raymond
`Steven Baughman
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`Megan.Raymond@ropesgray.com
`Steven.Baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Anish R. Desai
`Megan H. Wantland
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`Brian.Ferguson@weil.com
`Anish.Desai@weil.com
`Megan.Wantland@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Miranda Jones
`
`Miranda Y. Jones (Reg. No. 64,721)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Rosetta-Wireless Corp.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
