`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-006221
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting in
`
`a representative capacity for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (“Petitioners”), hereby submit the
`
`following objections to Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) Exhibits as indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon,
`
`without limitation. Petitioners’ objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`(“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the new material served by
`
`Patent Owner on November 28, 2016.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Patent Owner, in the context of Patent Owner’s November 28
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 28), and not in the context of any other substantive
`
`argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this proceeding. Petitioners
`
`expressly object 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 Petitioners expressly assert, reserve, and do not waive any other
`
`objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibits 2018-2021 and 2028-2029 And Any Reference
`to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay
`
`within Hearsay); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibits 2018-2021 and 2028-2029 as
`
`impermissible hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, to the extent to which the
`
`out of court statements therein, or the out of court statements referenced therein, are
`
`offered for the truth of the matters asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for
`
`which Patent Owner has not demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the rule
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802, 805).
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on these documents in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly
`
`prejudicial to Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit 2026 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (Authenticating or Identifying Evidence);
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 1002 (Requirement of the Original); F.R.E. 1003 (Admissibility of
`
`Duplicates); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibit 2026 under F.R.E. 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2026 is illegible/cut-off and, thus, the document is not admissible to the same
`
`extent as the original (e.g., F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003).
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in Patent Owner’s Response
`
`or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`III. Objections to Exhibit 2017 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for
`
`Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for
`
`Personal Knowledge”); F.R.E. 701 (“Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses”); F.R.E.
`
`801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay within Hearsay).
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibit 2017 under F.R.E. 602 to the extent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`evidence has not been introduced sufficient to support a finding that the declarant has
`
`personal knowledge of the matters set forth in Exhibit 2017.
`
`
`
`Petitioners further object to the use of Exhibit 2017 under F.R.E. 701 to the
`
`extent the declarant is not being offered as an expert witness, and to the extent the
`
`matters in Exhibit 2017 are: (a) not rationally based on the declarant’s perception;
`
`(b) not helpful to clearly understanding the declarant’s testimony or to determining a
`
`fact in issue; or (c) based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
`
`within the scope of Rule 702.
`
`Petitioners further object to the use of Exhibit 2017 as containing
`
`impermissible hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, to the extent to which the
`
`out of court statements referenced therein are offered for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for which Patent Owner has not
`
`demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the rule against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802,
`
`805).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in Patent Owner’s Response
`
`or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`Dated: December 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/Megan Raymond
`Megan F. Raymond (lead counsel)
`Reg. No. 72,997
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006- 6807
`P: 202-508-4741/F: 202-383-8347
`megan.raymond@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorney for Samsung Petitioners
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 36,801
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`P: 202-682-7094 /F: 202-857-0940
`Brian.Ferguson@weil.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’ OB-
`
`JECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`was served on December 5, 2016 in its entirety by causing the aforementioned docu-
`
`ment to be electronically mailed, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, to the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Patent Owner listed below:
`
`Miranda Y. Jones
`Michael F. Heim
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 221-2000
`Fax: (713) 221-2021
`mjones@hpcllp.com
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`rosettaIPR@hpcllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Rosetta-Wireless Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`/s/Bridget McAuliffe/
`Bridget McAuliffe