`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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 1202, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216 and 1219. 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
`
`A. Objections to Ex. 1202 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1202, “Frey, B.J. and MacKay, D.J.C., ‘Irregular
`
`Turbocodes.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 106 (Remainder of or Related Writings or
`
`Recorded Statements); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); F.R.E. 901
`
`(Authenticating and Identifying Evidence); F.R.E. 1002, 1003 (Admissibility of
`
`Duplicates).
`
`Ex. 1202 is purportedly an excerpt of the Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh
`
`Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing and, as
`
`such, it is incomplete and omits parts of the record “that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time.” In addition, the exhibit represents impermissible
`
`hearsay. Moreover, the exhibit has not been authenticated. Finally, the exhibit is
`
`not the original writing and “the circumstances make it unfair to admit the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`duplicate,” including illegibility of aspects of the document.
`
`B. Objections to Ex. 1212 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1212, “Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay).
`
`Ex. 1212 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1212 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition. In addition, Ex.
`
`1212 is a declaration prepared for and submitted in another proceeding in which
`
`the witness was not made available for cross-examination. Ms. Fradenburgh is not
`
`a witness in this proceeding. As such, the exhibit represents impermissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`C. Objections to Ex. 1213, and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1213, “Frey, B.J. and MacKay, D.J.C., ‘Irregular
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`Turbo-Like Codes.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1213 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1213 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent this exhibit
`
`is deemed relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`D. Objections to Ex. 1215 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1215, “Table of Contents of Proceedings of the
`
`37th Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 106 (Remainder of or Related Writings or
`
`Recorded Statements); F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay).F.R.E. 801, 802
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`(Impermissible Hearsay); F.R.E. 901 (Authenticating and Identifying Evidence);
`
`F.R.E. 1002, 1003 (Admissibility of Duplicates).
`
`Ex. 1215 is purportedly an excerpt of the Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh
`
`Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing and, as
`
`such, it is incomplete and omits parts of the record “that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time.” In addition, the only citation to Ex. 1215 in the
`
`petition that initiated this proceeding appears to be a typo. As such, this exhibit is
`
`not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of this
`
`proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
`
`be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1215 is additionally not relevant to the
`
`instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of no
`
`consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent it is deemed
`
`relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the petition. In addition, the
`
`exhibit represents impermissible hearsay. Moreover, the exhibit has not been
`
`authenticated. Finally, the exhibit is not the original writing and “the
`
`circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate,” including illegibility of
`
`aspects of the document.
`
`E. Objections to Ex. 1216 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1216, “Joint Claim Construction Statement.”
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1216 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1216 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent this exhibit
`
`is deemed relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`F. Objections to Ex. 1219 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 1219, “Richardson, Shokrollahi, and Urbanke,
`
`‘Design of Provably Good Low-Density Parity Check Codes.’”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other
`
`Reasons).
`
`Ex. 1219 is not cited in the petition that initiated this proceeding. As such,
`
`this exhibit is not relevant to the instituted ground of review or any other aspect of
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`this proceeding as it has no tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence. Moreover, Ex. 1219 is additionally not relevant to
`
`the instituted ground because any asserted facts to which the exhibit relates are of
`
`no consequence in determining this proceeding. Further, to the extent this exhibit
`
`is deemed relevant admission of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`This proceeding was instituted on June 30, 2017. These objections are made
`
`within ten business days of institution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`Patent 7,116,710
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence
`
`was served on this 30th day of June, 2017, on the Petitioner at the correspondence
`
`address of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Brian M. Seeve
`Dominic Massa
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`brian.seeve@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
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
