`June 9, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00357
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,445 B2
`
`PAPER NO. 18
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`June 9, 2017
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner, Image Processing
`
`Technologies LLC (“IPT”) objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits
`
`filed by Petitioners.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “FRE” means the Federal Rules of Evidence and
`
`“’445 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 8,989,445.
`
`IPT’s objections are as follows:
`
`Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 23–30 (Hart Declaration)
`
`Patent Owner objects to these paragraphs of Exhibit 1002 under FRE 402
`
`(relevance) and FRE 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 177–217 & Table at Pages 201–244 (Hart Declaration)
`
`Patent Owner objects to these paragraphs of Exhibit 1002 under FRE 802
`
`(hearsay). Patent Owner also objects to these paragraphs of Exhibit 1002 under
`
`FRE 402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (confusing, waste of time) at least because the
`
`paragraphs are not relevant to any issue in this IPR because the grounds for which
`
`they were submitted have not been instituted.
`
`Exhibit 1005 (Gilbert)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 under FRE 802 (hearsay). Patent
`
`Owner also objects to Exhibit 1005 under FRE 402 (relevance) and FRE 403
`
`(unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of time) at least because the document is not
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`June 9, 2017
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because the disclosure is not prior art
`
`and/or Petitioner has not met its burden to show the exhibit to be prior art.
`
`Exhibit 1008 (Altan)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008 under FRE 802 (hearsay). Patent
`
`Owner also objects to Exhibit 1008 under FRE 402 (relevance) and FRE 403
`
`(unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of time) at least because the document is not
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because the disclosure is not prior art
`
`and/or Petitioner has not met its burden to show the exhibit to be prior art.
`
`Exhibit 1009 (Trier)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 under FRE 901 because authenticating
`
`information has not been provided. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1009
`
`under FRE 402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of
`
`time) at least because the document is not discussed in the Declaration of Dr. Hart
`
`(Exhibit 1002) nor cited to or discussed in the Petition.
`
`Exhibit 1010 (Glauberman)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010 under FRE 901 because authenticating
`
`information has not been provided. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1010
`
`under FRE 402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of
`
`time) at least because the document is not discussed in the Declaration of Dr. Hart
`
`(Exhibit 1002) nor cited to or discussed in the Petition.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1011 (Grenier Declaration)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1011 under FRE 802 (hearsay).
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Chris J. Coulson/
`Chris J. Coulson (Reg. No. 61,771)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`chriscoulson@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Michael Zachary (pro hac vice)
`michaelzachary@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`Mark Chapman (pro hac vice)
`MarkChapman@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`Rose Prey (pro hac vice)
`RosePrey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Dated: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 18
`June 9, 2017
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on June 9,
`
`2017, the foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence was
`
`served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of record for the Petitioner:
`
`John Kappos (Reg. No. 37,861)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`jkappos@omm.com
`
`Nicholas J. Whilt (Reg. No. 72,081)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`nwhilt@omm.com
`
`Brian M. Cook (Reg. No. 59,356)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`bcook@omm.com
`
`IPTSAMSUNGOMM@OMM.COM
`
`/s/Chris J. Coulson
`Chris J. Coulson
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`