`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: March 6, 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 FOURTH 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”) Exhibit 1074. 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. 1074, “Relevance of Deposition Questions
`
`Summary”.
`
`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).
`
`On February 10, 2018, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file a 10-page
`
`combined motion to strike and motion for sanctions relating to testimony from Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher and Dr. Divsalar that was elicited from out-of-scope questions.
`
`Paper 41. Petitioner was authorized to file a 10-page response. Id. The Board also
`
`authorized the parties to include a tabular listing “to supplement the parties’ papers
`
`and should not be used for substantive argument.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s tabular listing (Ex. 2037) followed these instructions,
`
`identifying the offending lines in Dr. Mitzenmacher and Dr. Divsalar’s deposition
`
`transcripts, and providing a short, neutral description of the subject matter. By
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`contrast, Petitioner put forth extensive substantive argument in its tabular listing.
`
`Every row in Petitioner’s listing includes substantive arguments regarding why
`
`Petitioner believes the identified testimony is relevant. Exhibit 1074 itself labels
`
`the descriptive column as “Relevance to [Mitzenmacher/Divsalar] Declaration.”
`
`Indeed, Petitioner admits that, “[a]s detailed in Exhibit 1074, Petitioner’s questions
`
`were entirely directed to topics addressed and opinions given in Dr. Divsalar’s and
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher’s declarations.” Opp. Motion for Sanctions, Paper 47, p. 2. But
`
`detailed explanations of relevance are precisely what the Board forbade the parties
`
`to include in the tabular listing.
`
`For these reasons, Exhibit 1074 should be excluded for exceeding the
`
`relevant scope of the Board’s authorization regarding the tabular listing. FRE 401;
`
`402. Exhibit 1074 should also be excluded for prejudicing Caltech because it gave
`
`Petitioner essentially nine additional pages of briefing, a significant extension of
`
`the 10-page briefs the Board authorized for each party. FRE 403.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Exhibit 1074 was filed and served on February 27, 2018. These objections
`
`are made within five business days of service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Fourth Notice of Objection to
`
`Evidence was served on this 6th day of March, 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: March 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
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
