`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHESTNUT HILL SOUND INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00794
`U.S. Patent No. 8,090,309
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0016IP2
`Petitioner renews its objections served and filed on December 2, 2016 to the
`
`admissibility of the evidence served on November 23, 2016, which was again
`
`served on December 8, 2016 in connection with Patent Owner’s filing its Patent
`
`Owner’s Response. Thus, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects as
`
`follows to the admissibility of the evidence:
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2008
`(“Review: Chestnut Hill
`Sound George”, allegedly by
`Macworld)
`
`Exhibit 2009
`(“Chestnut Hill Sound
`George,” allegedly by
`PCMag)
`
`Exhibit 2014
`(“Pl. First Amnd.
`Complaint”)
`
`Objections
`FRE 801 (Hearsay): To the extent Patent Owner
`relies on the exhibit or any part thereof for the
`truth of the statements made therein, the
`statements are hearsay. For example, the
`statements regarding the alleged features and
`critical reception of the George™ system cited in
`the Patent Owner Response (“POR”) are hearsay.
`See, e.g., POR, p. 27.
`FRE 801 (Hearsay): To the extent Patent Owner
`relies on the exhibit or any part thereof for the
`truth of the statements made therein, the
`statements are hearsay. For example, the
`statements regarding the alleged features and
`critical reception of the George™ system cited in
`the Patent Owner Response (“POR”) are hearsay.
`See, e.g., POR, pp. 27-28.
`FRE 801 (Hearsay): To the extent Patent Owner
`relies on the exhibit or any part thereof for the
`truth of the statements made therein, the
`statements are hearsay. For example, the
`statements describing Petitioner’s previous
`relationship to Patent Owner cited in the POR are
`hearsay. See, e.g., POR, pp. 24-25, 28.
`
`FRE 901 (Authentication): Patent Owner has
`failed to produce any evidence to show that this is
`an authentic copy of the documents.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2015
`(Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Pl. First Amnd.
`Complaint, No. 15-261-
`RGA (D. Del), Ex.1)
`
`Exhibit 2016
`(Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Pl. First Amnd.
`Complaint, No. 15-261-
`RGA (D. Del), Ex.2)
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No: 39521-0016IP2
`
`Objections
`FRE 801 (Hearsay): To the extent Patent Owner
`relies on the exhibit or any part thereof for the
`truth of the statements made therein, the
`statements are hearsay. For example, the
`statements regarding the commercial success of
`the Georgetm product cited in the POR are
`hearsay. See, e.g., POR, pp. 1, 25, 26.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit or any part thereof to
`support any argument related to the ’309 patent,
`the exhibit is not relevant because it describes the
`George™ product, and does not include any
`statements regarding the ’309 patent.
`FRE 801 (Hearsay): To the extent Patent Owner
`relies on the exhibit or any part thereof for the
`truth of the statements made therein, the
`statements are hearsay. For example, the
`statements regarding the commercial success of
`the Georgetm product cited in the POR are
`hearsay. See, e.g., POR, pp. 1, 25, 26.
`
`FRE 402 (Relevance): To the extent that Patent
`Owner relies on the exhibit or any part thereof to
`support any argument related to the ’309 patent,
`the exhibit is not relevant because it describes the
`George™ product, and does not include any
`statements regarding the ’309 patent.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No: 39521-0016IP2
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joshua A. Griswold/
`Joshua A. Griswold, Reg. No. 46,310
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`P.O. Box 1022
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`T: 214-292-4034
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2016-00794
`Attorney Docket No. 39521-0016IP2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on December 14, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Admissibility of Evidence was provided via email to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hamad M. Hamad
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY, P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`Email: hhamad@caldwellcc.com
` acurry@caldwellcc.com
` chillsound@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`