`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01493
`Patent 8,457,676 B2
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2016-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`On May 22, 2017, Patent Owner filed its Response. Paper 12. In connection
`
`with its Response, Patent Owner filed Exhibits 2001 through 2007. Pursuant to 37
`
`CFR § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner hereby submits the following objections to Patent
`
`Owner’s Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007, and any reference to or
`
`reliance on the foregoing.
`
`II. Objections Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
`
`a. Exhibit 2001
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2001 as not authenticated under FRE 901 or
`
`902. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2001 as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because the cited portions are of no consequence in determining the action.
`
`Exhibit 2001 is further inadmissible because it confuses the issues, causes undue
`
`delay, and wastes time under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2001 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner requests the
`
`introduction of the entire work, which in fairness ought to be considered in order to
`
`put the filed excerpts in context.
`
`b. Exhibit 2002
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002 as not authenticated under FRE 901 or
`
`902. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2002 as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because the cited portions are of no consequence in determining the action.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`Exhibit 2002 is further inadmissible because it confuses the issues, causes undue
`
`IPR2016-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`delay, and wastes time under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2002 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner requests the
`
`introduction of the entire work, which in fairness ought to be considered in order to
`
`put the filed excerpts in context.
`
`c. Exhibit 2003
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2003 as not authenticated under FRE 901 or
`
`902. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2003 as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because the cited portions are of no consequence in determining the action.
`
`Exhibit 2003 is further inadmissible because it confuses the issues, causes undue
`
`delay, and wastes time under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2003 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner requests the
`
`introduction of the entire work, which in fairness ought to be considered in order to
`
`put the filed excerpts in context.
`
`d. Exhibit 2004
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004 as not authenticated under FRE 901 or
`
`902. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2004 as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because the cited portions are of no consequence in determining the action.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is further inadmissible because it confuses the issues, causes undue
`
`delay, and wastes time under FRE 403.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`e. Exhibit 2005
`
`IPR2016-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005 as not authenticated under FRE 901 or
`
`902. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2005 as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because the cited portions are of no consequence in determining the action.
`
`Exhibit 2005 is further inadmissible because it confuses the issues, causes undue
`
`delay, and wastes time under FRE 403.
`
`f. Exhibit 2007
`
`Petitioner objects under FRE 702 and 703 to the testimony of Patent
`
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Jay P. Kesan, in Exhibit 2007 to the extent he relies on the
`
`above objected-to evidence.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`IPR2016-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`These objections are timely presented, as they are being filed within five
`
`business days of the service of the evidence to which the objections are directed.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Petitioner reserves the right to file a motion to exclude
`
`the evidence objected-to herein.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew S. Ehmke /
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Registration No. 50,271
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Dated: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: 214-651-5116
`Facsimile: 214-200-0853
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`IPR2016-01493
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,676
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service May 25, 2017
`
`Manner of service Electronic mail to:
`tsaad@bcpc-law.com;
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com;
`dolejko@bcpc-law.com; and
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`Persons served Terry A. Saad;
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone;
`Daniel F. Olejko; and
`Nicholas C. Kliewer of
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500 - West
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`
`
`/Andrew S. Ehmke/
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Reg. No. 50,271
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Dated: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
