`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`Case Nos. IPR20l7-00210, IPR20l7—O021 1, IPR20l7-00219, IPR20l7-00297,
`IPR20l7—O0423, .IPR20l7-00700, IPR20l7—OO70l, IPR20l7—00728
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN E. BARBEE IN SUPPORT OF
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO SUBMIT REPLACEMENT EXHIBITS
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`ActiveUS l6l096079v.l
`
`Apple vs. Caltech
`IPR2017—00210
`
`Apple 1026
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1, Jonathan E. Barbee, am an attorney and work with the counsel of
`
`- record for Petitioner Apple Inc. in the captioned inter partes review proceedings,
`
`Richard Goldenberg.
`
`I assisted Mr. Goldenberg in the preparation and filing of the
`
`petitions and accompanying exhibits in the captioned inter partes review
`
`proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration is tiled in support of Petitioner’s Unopposed Motions
`
`to Correct Clerical Errors in the captioned inter parzes review proceedings.
`
`I
`
`understand that these motions will be filed to correct exhibits filed with the
`
`captioned inter partes review proceedings, which are directed to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,116,710 (the “’7l0 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 (the “’78l Patent”), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (the “’032 Patent”) (collectively, the “’7l0, ’78l, and
`
`*032 IPRS”).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner inadvertently filed incorrect versions of the following
`
`exhibits in the captioned inzerpartes review proceedings:
`
`° Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular Turbocodes,” Proc.
`
`37172 Allerlorz Conf.’ on Comm., Control and Computing,
`
`Monticello, Illinois, 1999 (the “Frey exhibit”).
`
`° D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems for
`
`‘turbo—like’ codes,” Proc. 36th Allerton Com’. on Comm., Control
`
`and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, 1998 (the “Divsalar exhibit”).
`
`ActiveUS l6l096079v.l
`
`
`
`° Declaration of Paul H. Siegel (the “Siegel Declaration exhibit”).
`
`4. V
`
`For each petition in the 710, ’78l, and ’032 IPRS, I assisted Mr.
`
`Goldenberg in collecting the exhibits for each petition and directed legal staff to
`
`upload the exhibits for each petition. Due to clerical errors, I inadvertently and
`
`unintentionally collected incorrect versions of the Frey exhibit and the Divsalar
`
`exhibit and omitted the “Exhibit 1” attached to the Siegel Declaration exhibit.
`
`Unaware of this oversight, I sent incorrect versions of these exhibits to my firm’s
`
`legal staff to be uploaded.
`
`5.
`
`For the Frey exhibit, my firm had several copies of the Frey reference
`
`in the firm’s document management database, including the inadvertently—filed
`
`exhibits.
`
`I unintentionally selected the wrong documents because the
`
`inadvertently—filed exhibits had been circulated for different purposes. The copy of
`
`the Frey reference uploaded in the ’7l0 Patent IPRS (IPR20l7—002l0, -0021 l, and
`
`—002l9) and the ’78l Patent IPRs (lPR20l7—00297 and —00423) was missing the
`
`table of contents, date stamp, and page numbering of the correct Frey exhibit. The
`
`copy of the Frey reference uploaded in the ’032 Patent lPRs (IPR20l7—00700, -
`
`00701, and -00728) has a date stamp of September 19, 2000 from the University of
`
`Michigan Library and a September 25, 2000 date stamp from the University of
`
`Washington instead of the March 20, 2000 date stamp from the Cornell University
`
`Library that appears on the correct Frey exhibit. The copy of the Frey reference
`
`ActiveUS l6l096079v.l
`
`
`
`that I collected for the ’032 Patent IPRS was also missing sequential page numbers
`
`beginning with page 1, which were needed to match the citations in the petitions in
`
`the ’032 Patent IPRS.
`
`6.
`
`For the Divsalar exhibit, I inadvertently directed legal staff to upload
`
`the Divsalar exhibit without adding sequential page numbers beginning with page
`
`1 below the original page numbers of the exhibit. The addition of the sequential
`
`page numbers was required for the Divsalar exhibit to match the citations in the
`
`petitions for the ’7l0, ’78l, and ’032 IPRs.
`
`7.
`
`For the Siegel Declaration exhibit, the Siegel Declaration and “Exhibit ‘
`
`l” to the declaration were sent by Professor Paul H. Siegel to my firm as
`
`attachments in separate emails-—~l inadvertently overlooked the email attaching
`
`“Exhibit 1” while preparing the Siegel Declaration exhibit. Consequently,
`
`“Exhibit 1” to the Siegel Declaration was not attached before I directed legal staff
`
`to upload the inadvertently—filed exhibit in the ’7l0 Patent IPRS and the ’032
`
`Patent IPRS.
`
`8.
`
`All statements in this declaration are made under penalty of perjury
`
`and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
`
`/\ctiveUS l6l096079v.l
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Jonathan E. Barbee
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`7 World Trade Center
`
`250 Greenwich Street
`
`New York, NY 1.0007
`
`Tel: (212) 937-7275
`Fax: (212) 230-8888
`
`ActiveUS l61096079v.1
`
`