`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: February 16, 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 IPR2017-002971
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00423 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`
`
`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 1027-132, 1045-1046, 1048, 1049, 1051, and 1052.
`
`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. 1027, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Fig. 2 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710”; Ex. 1028, “Block Diagram of Accumulator”; Ex.
`
`1029, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar”; Ex. 1030, “Tanner Graph
`
`for Code Described by Luby98 Code 14”; Ex. 1031, “Tanner Graph for Code
`
`Described by Ping”; Ex. 1032, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by MacKay
`
`Profile 93y”; Ex. 1045, “Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher”; Ex. 1048, “Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described
`
`in Ping”; Ex. 1049, “Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey”; Ex. 1052, “Simulation of
`
`Regular and Irregular Ping 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 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, and 1048 are not cited in the petition that
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`
`
`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.
`
`In addition, Exhibits 1027-1032, 1048, 1049, and 1052 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
`
`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 Exhibit 1045 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)
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Caltech further objects to Exhibit 1052 and the portions of Exhibit 1049 that
`
`rely on Exhibit 1052 for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Caltech objects to Exhibit 1046 (“Excerpt from Transcript of the Deposition
`
`of Dr. Hui Jin (IPR2017-210, 219, 700, 701, and 728)”), because Dr. Hui Jin is not
`
`a witness in this proceeding and use of his testimony is a violation of the Board’s
`
`rules regarding additional discovery. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i). Caltech
`
`further objects to Exhibit 1046 under F.R.E. 611(b) as the witness has no direct
`
`testimony in this proceeding.
`
`Caltech objects to Exhibit 1051 (“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 1051 is deemed admissible then other writings
`
`or recorded statements in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Exhibits 1027-132, 1045-1046, 1048, 1049, 1051, and 1052 were filed and
`
`served on February 9, 2018. These objections are made within five business days
`
`of service.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00297
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence
`
`was served on this 16th 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 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
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
