`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: February 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S THIRD NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner California Institute of
`
`Technology (“Caltech”), submits the following objections to Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1244-1251, 1253, 1255, 1257-1262, 1264-1265,
`
`1267, and 1268. As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections
`
`below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`
`Caltech objects to Ex. 1244, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Fig. 2 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710”; Ex. 1245, “Block Diagram of Accumulator”; Ex.
`
`1246, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar”; Ex. 1247, “Tanner Graph
`
`for Code Described by Luby98 Code 14”; Ex. 1248, “Tanner Graph for Code
`
`Described by Ping”; Ex. 1249, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by MacKay
`
`Profile 93y”; Ex. 1253, “Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata”; Ex. 1255,
`
`“Confidential Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin (Case No. 16-cv-
`
`3714)”; Ex. 1257, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar (q=5)”; Ex.
`
`1258, “Tanner Graph for IRA Code”; Ex. 1259, “Systematic Version of Divsalar
`
`Figure 3”; Ex. 1260, “Divsalar Figure 3 and Frey Figure 1”; Ex. 1261, “D.Divsalar,
`
`S. Dolinar, J. Thorpe, and C. Jones, ‘Constructing LDPC Codes from Simple
`
`Loop-Free Encoding Modules,’ IEEE International Conference on
`
`Communications, Seoul, South Korea, pp. 658-662, August, 2005”; Ex. 1262,
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00210
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`“Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher”; Ex. 1264, “Transcript of
`
`Deposition of Dr. Dariush Divsalar”; Ex. 1265, “Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey”;
`
`Ex. 1268, “Simulation of Regular and Irregular Divsalar Codes”.
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant
`
`Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons)
`
`Exhibits 1244, 1245, 1248, 1249, 1253, 1255, 1259, and 1260 are not cited
`
`in the petition that initiated this proceeding or Petitioner’s reply. As such, these
`
`exhibits are not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as they have no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
`
`it would be without the evidence. Further, to the extent any of those exhibits are
`
`deemed relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading,
`
`and a waste of time.
`
`Exhibits 1244-1250, 1257-1261, 1265, and 1268 are new evidence not
`
`disclosed to Patent Owner until after the filing of its Patent Owner response. To
`
`the extent those exhibits were cited in Patent Owner’s reply they were cited in
`
`support of arguments that were not made in the petition and are therefore improper
`
`to raise for the first time in Petitioner’s reply. The exhibits that were not cited in
`
`Petitioner’s reply also appear to be in support of new arguments. As such, these
`
`exhibits are not relevant to the instituted ground of review. Further, to the extent
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00210
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`any of those exhibits are deemed relevant admission of the exhibit would be
`
`unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a waste of time, as the prejudice to Patent
`
`Owner for being surprised and unable to respond to Petitioner’s new evidence
`
`outweighs the relevance of this evidence.
`
`Caltech objects to Exhibits 1262 and 1264 to the extent testimony was
`
`elicited from questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such
`
`testimony is both not relevant and prejudicial to Caltech, as well as in violation of
`
`F.R.E. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Caltech further objects to Exhibit 1268 and the portions of Exhibit 1265 that
`
`rely on Exhibit 1268 for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Caltech further objects to Exhibit 1267 (“California Institute of Technology
`
`v. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, 2015 WL
`
`11089495 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015)”) under F.R.E. 106 (“Remainder of or Related
`
`Writings or Recorded Statements”). If Exhibit 1067 is deemed admissible then
`
`other writings or recorded statements in fairness ought to be considered at the same
`
`time.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Exhibits 1244-1251, 1253, 1255, 1257-1262, 1264-1265, 1267, and 1268
`
`were filed and served on February 7, 2018. These objections are made within five
`
`business days of service.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00210
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Third Notice of Objection to
`
`Evidence was served on this 14th day of February, 2018, on the Petitioner at the
`
`electronic service addresses of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Dominic Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`James M. Dowd
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Arthur Shum
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`james.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`arthur.shum@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`