`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-00754
`
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT
`OWNER WITH ITS REPLY TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) objects to the admissibility of evidence
`
`served by Patent Owner Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) on
`
`April 13, 2017 with its Reply in support of its Motion to Amend as follows:
`
`Objections
`Exhibit
`2136 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit allegedly shows.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The exhibit is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`2137 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit relies upon inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The declaration is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3): Patent Owner improperly incorporates by
`
`reference arguments from the declaration.
`
`2138 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit allegedly shows.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The exhibit is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`Exhibit
`
`Amend.
`
`Objections
`
`2140 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit relies upon inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The declaration is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3): Patent Owner improperly incorporates by
`
`reference arguments from the declaration.
`
`2141 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit allegedly shows.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The exhibit is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`2144 FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has not identified any fact made more
`
`or less probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit relies upon inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b): The declaration is improper reply evidence
`
`because it is not responsive but rather new evidence that could have
`
`been presented earlier in support of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3): Patent Owner improperly incorporates by
`
`reference arguments from the declaration.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`
`
`Date: April 19, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Marcus E. Sernel
`Marcus E. Sernel (Reg. No. 55,606)
`Joel R. Merkin (Reg. No. 58,600)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`marc.sernel@kirkland.com
`joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys For Petitioner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted By Patent Owner: IPR2016-00754
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`that a copy of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT
`
`OWNER WITH ITS REPLY TO MOTION TO AMEND was served on April
`
`19, 2017 to attorneys of record for Patent Owner by electronic transmission:
`
`Jennifer Albert
`Stephen Schneiner
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`jalbert@goodwinprocter.com
`sschreiner@goodwinprocter.com
`DG-PMC-Apple@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Douglas Kline
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`Exchange Place
`53 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`dkline@goodwinprocter.com
`DG-PMC-Apple@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Krupa K. Parikh
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202). 346.4059
`Fax: (202) 346-4444
`kparikh@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`/s/ Marcus E. Sernel
`Marcus E. Sernel
`
`
`
`Thomas J. Scott
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450
`Sugar Land, TX 77478
`tscott@pmcip.com
`
`
`
`April E. Weisbruch
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202). 346.4306
`Fax: (202) 346-4444
`aweisbruch@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Date: April 19, 2017
`
`