`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: February 28, 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 IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S THIRD NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`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”) 1044-1049, 1053, 1055, 1057-1061, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1071,
`
`and 1072. 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. 1044, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Fig. 2 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710”; Ex. 1045, “Block Diagram of Accumulator”; Ex.
`
`1046, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar”; Ex. 1047, “Tanner Graph
`
`for Code Described by Luby98 Code 14”; Ex. 1048, “Tanner Graph for Code
`
`Described by Ping”; Ex. 1049, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by MacKay
`
`Profile 93y”; Ex. 1053, “Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata”; Ex. 1055,
`
`“Confidential Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin (Case No. 16-cv-
`
`3714)”; Ex. 1057, “Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar (q=5)”; Ex.
`
`1058, “Tanner Graph for IRA Code”; Ex. 1059, “Systematic Version of Divsalar
`
`Figure 3”; Ex. 1060, “Divsalar Figure 3 and Frey Figure 1”; Ex. 1061, “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. 1065,
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`“Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey”; Ex. 1068, “Simulation of Regular and Irregular
`
`Divsalar Codes”; Ex. 1071, “Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described
`
`in Ping”; and Ex. 1072, “Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described in
`
`Ping”.
`
`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 1044-1047 and 1057-1061 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.
`
`In addition, Exhibits 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072 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.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`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 Exhibits 1053 and 1055 as lacking relevance. Although
`
`these exhibits are cited in Petitioner’s reply, Petitioner only cites them “for the
`
`reasons set forth in its Reply in [IPR2017-00210].” However, the Reply in
`
`IPR2017-00210 does not cite to or rely on the corresponding versions of Exhibits
`
`1053and 1055. 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.
`
` Caltech further objects to Exhibit 1068 and the portions of Exhibit 1065 that
`
`rely on Exhibit 1068 for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Caltech further objects to Exhibit 1067 (“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
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`other writings or recorded statements in fairness ought to be considered at the same
`
`time.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Exhibits 1044-1049, 1053, 1055, 1057-1061, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1071, and
`
`1072 were filed and served on February 21, 2018. These objections are made
`
`within five business days of service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Third Notice of Objection to
`
`Evidence was served on this 28th 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 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`