`
`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