`
`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
`
`
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
