`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE OY, MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-012091
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC’S
`FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2016-01280 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Evolved Wireless, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “Evolved Wireless”) objects to Petitioner’s Exhibits 1003, 1017, 1020
`
`1031, and 1032. Patent Owner further objects to any reference to or reliance on the
`
`foregoing, including but not limited to citations in the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”). Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`I. Exhibit 1003
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1003 (Declaration of Jonathan
`
`Wells). Evolved Wireless further objects to any reference to or reliance on Exhibit
`
`1003, including but not limited to citations in the Petition.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections are based on the following grounds: F.R.E. 702
`
`(“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence
`
`for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`The witness providing the declaration attached as Exhibit 1003 provides
`
`insufficient underlying facts or data upon which the opinions contained in Exhibit
`
`1003 could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702. Accordingly,
`
`permitting any reliance on this purported expert testimony in the Response or other
`
`submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`II. Exhibit 1017
`
`Evolved Wireless objects to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1017 (“N. Abramson, THE
`
`ALOHA SYSTEM—Another alternative for computer communications”). Evolved
`
`Wireless further objects to any reference to or reliance on Exhibit 1017, including
`
`but not limited to citations in the Petition.
`
`Evolved Wireless’s objections are based on the following grounds: 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Petitioner has not provided any evidence or declaration to authenticate this
`
`document, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Petitioner cites to pages of and statements in
`
`Exhibit 1017 as evidence of the ALOHA protocol, thus improperly attempting to
`
`offer these statements from Exhibit 1017 to prove the truth of the matter asserted,
`
`which is inadmissible hearsay to which Petitioner has not demonstrated any
`
`exception. F.R.E. 801, 802. Accordingly, the statements are inadmissible and
`
`permitting any reliance on Exhibit 1017 for this purpose in the Petition or other
`
`submission of Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Evolved
`
`Wireless under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`III. Exhibit 1020
`
`Evolved Wireless objects to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1020 (“D.C. Chu,
`
`Polyphase codes with good periodic correlation properties”). Evolved Wireless
`
`further objects to any reference to or reliance on Exhibit 1020, including but not
`
`limited to citations in the Petition.
`
`Evolved Wireless’s objections are based on the following grounds: 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Petitioner has not provided any evidence or declaration to authenticate this
`
`document, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Petitioner cites to pages of and statements in
`
`Exhibit 1020 as proof of the development of CAZAC sequences, thus improperly
`
`attempting to offer these statements from Exhibit 1020 to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, which is inadmissible hearsay to which Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated any exception. F.R.E. 801, 802. Accordingly, the statements are
`
`inadmissible and permitting any reliance on Exhibit 1020 for this purpose in the
`
`Petition or other submission of Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly
`
`prejudicial to Evolved Wireless under F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`IV. Exhibit 1031
`
`Evolved Wireless objects to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1031 (“Motorola, Inc. 2004
`
`Annual Report to Stockholders”). Evolved Wireless further objects to any
`
`reference to or reliance on Exhibit 1031, including but not limited to citations in
`
`the Petition.
`
`Evolved Wireless’s objections are based on the following grounds: 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Petitioner has not provided any evidence or declaration to authenticate this
`
`document, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Petitioner cites to pages of and statements in
`
`Exhibit 1031 as proof that Motorola “touts the global reach of their handset
`
`business, and emphasizes its sales to the largest national cellular carrier around the
`
`work [sic],” thus improperly attempting to offer these statements from Exhibit
`
`1031 to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is inadmissible hearsay to
`
`which Petitioner has not demonstrated any exception. F.R.E. 801, 802.
`
`Accordingly, the statements are inadmissible and permitting any reliance on
`
`Exhibit 1031 for this purpose in the Petition or other submission of Petitioner
`
`would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Evolved Wireless under F.R.E.
`
`403.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`V. Exhibit 1032
`
`Evolved Wireless objects to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1032 (“WCDMA for
`
`UMTS: Radio Access for Third Generation Communications, Holma and
`
`Toskala”). Evolved Wireless further objects to any reference to or reliance on
`
`Exhibit 1032, including but not limited to citations in the Petition.
`
`Evolved Wireless’s objections are based on the following grounds: 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (“Hearsay”).
`
`Petitioner has not provided any evidence or declaration to authenticate this
`
`document, in violation of F.R.E. 901. Petitioner cites to pages of and statements in
`
`Exhibit 1032 as proof of how “cellular systems of the mid-2000’s ‘enables such
`
`competitive advantages as global roaming”, thus improperly attempting to offer
`
`these statements from Exhibit 1032 to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which
`
`is inadmissible hearsay to which Petitioner has not demonstrated any exception.
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802. Accordingly, the statements are inadmissible and permitting any
`
`reliance on Exhibit 1032 for this purpose in the Petition or other submission of
`
`Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Evolved Wireless under
`
`6
`
`F.R.E. 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Ryan M. Schultz
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`Registration No. 65,143
`RSchultz@RobinsKaplan.com
`Tel: 612-349-8408
`
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this January 4, 2017, a copy of this document has been
`
`
`
`served in its entirety via e-mail (as was consented to by Petitioner) on Petitioner at the
`
`James M. Glass
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`John McKee
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Todd M. Briggs
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`following e-mail addresses:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`renner@fr.com
`Roberto J. Devoto
`devoto@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`IPR00035-0006IP2@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`Martin Bader
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`Ericka J. Schulz
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Ryan M. Schultz
`Registration No. 65,143
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue,
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`2
`
`IPR2016-01209
`Patent 7,746,916 B2
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2017