`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) serves the
`
`following objections to evidence served with the Patent Owner’s Response of
`
`California Institute of Technology (“Patent Owner”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, Declaration of Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2004 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2004 as improper expert testimony by a lay
`
`witness and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005, Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2005 on the on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2005 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`2
`
`
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2005 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006, Kienle et al., “A synthesizable IP Core for
`
`DVB-S2 LDPC Code Decoding,” IEEE, 2005 as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007, Gomes et al., “Factorizable modulo M
`
`parallel architecture for DVB-S2 LDPC decoding,” Proceedings of the 6th
`
`Conference on Telecommunications, CONFTELE, 2007 as not relevant (FRE
`
`401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2007 on the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2007 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2007 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008, Liva et al., “Design of LDPC Codes: A
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`petitioner objects to exhibit Survey and New Results,” Journal of Communications
`
`Software and Systems, 2(3):191-211, 2006 as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2008 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2009, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) User
`
`guidelines for the second generation systems for Broadcasting, Interactive
`
`Services, News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications (DVB-S2),
`
`ETSI TR 102 376, V11111 (2005-02), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2009 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2009 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010, Kim et al., “Development of Rate-
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Compatible Structured LDPC CODEC Algorithms and Hardware IP,” Project
`
`Final Report, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology, December 2006, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2010 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2010 as incomplete (FRE 106).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011, Richardson et al., “Efficient Encoding of
`
`Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,” March 6, 2001, as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2011 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012, Lestable et al., “Irregular Repeat-
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Accumulate LDPC Code Proposal – Technology Overview,” IEEE 802.20
`
`Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access, March 5, 2007, as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2012 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2012 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2012 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013, DVB-S2 Factsheet, DVB Project Office,
`
`August 2012, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2013
`
`on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2013 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2013 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014, DVB-S2 Technology to Stimulate
`
`Demand for Broadband Interactive Services via Satellite, DVB Press Release,
`
`March 30, 2004 (obtained from https://www.dvb.org/news/dvb-s2-technology-to-
`
`6
`
`
`
`stimulate-demand-for-broadband-interact...), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2014 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2014 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2014 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015, New SKY Perfect DVB-S2 Satellite
`
`service for Japan, DVB-S2 Press Release, October 13, 2008 (obtained from
`
`https://www.dvb.org/news/new-sky-perfect-dvb-s2-sattellite-service-for-japan), as
`
`not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2015 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016, BBC HDin DVB-S2 move, DVB-S to
`
`DVB-S2 Press Release, June 2, 2011 (obtained from
`
`https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/06,02,bbc-hd-in-dvb-s2-move/).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2016 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017, Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal
`
`with Prejudice in California Institute of Technology vs. Hughes Communications,
`
`Inc. et al., 2:13-CV-7245 MRP-JEM (March 6, 2014) as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2017 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2017 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018, Amended Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement Prejudice in California Institute of Technology vs. Hughes
`
`Communications, Inc., et al., 2:13-CV-7245 MRP-JEM (March 6, 2014), as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2018 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`8
`
`
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2018 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019, Lee, (LDPC Codes, Application to
`
`Generation Communications Systems,” Hughes Network Sys. presentation,
`
`October 8, 2003, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2019 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2019 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2019 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020, Declaration of Dr. Hui Jin, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2020 on the ground that its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner objects to
`
`Exhibit 2020 as lacking personal knowledge/foundation (FRE 602). Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2020 as improper expert testimony by a lay witness
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021, March 7, 2000 Email from Dr. McEliece,
`
`as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2021 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2021 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2021 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2021 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate
`
`alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support
`
`a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate
`
`an inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022, Dr. McEliece’s Lab Notebook, as not
`
`relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2022 on the ground that
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2022 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2022 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2022 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2022 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023, Jin, IRA.h code file, Head file for IRA,
`
`March 10, 2000, first version, is not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2023 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed
`
`by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE
`
`403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801,
`
`802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as lacking authentication (FRE
`
`901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2023 as incomplete (FRE 106).
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2023 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner
`
`11
`
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2023 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support
`
`a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate
`
`an inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024, Jin, IRA.cpp code file, Implementation
`
`file for class IRA, March 10, 2000, first version, as not relevant (FRE 401).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024
`
`as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2024 as violating FRE
`
`1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2024 as unwitnessed and
`
`insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is
`
`insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to practice.”); Brown v.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n inventor’s own
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s testimony about
`
`inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025, RA15_6 code file, as not relevant (FRE
`
`401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2025 on the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2025 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2025 as
`
`violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2025 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026, Jin, IRAsimu.cpp code file, March 20,
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`2000, first version, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2025 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2026 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also
`
`objects to Exhibit 2026 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2026 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to
`
`practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of
`
`reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`(“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an
`
`inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2027, makefile.bak code file, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 7n the ground that its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`14
`
`
`
`presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`2027 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2027 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2027 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2027 as
`
`violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2027 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2028, Jin, GenINter.cpp code file, April 12,
`
`2000 modification, as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit
`
`2028 on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2028 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also
`
`15
`
`
`
`objects to Exhibit 2028 as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Exhibit 2028 as unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to
`
`practice. Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“[A]n unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of
`
`reduction to practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`(“[A]n inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an
`
`inventor’s testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2029, IRA48_8prm code file, as not relevant
`
`(FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2029 on the ground that its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2029 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2029 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner further objects
`
`to Exhibit 2029 as incomplete (FRE 106). Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2029
`
`as violating FRE 1002, 1003. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2029 as
`
`unwitnessed and insufficient to corroborate alleged reduction to practice.
`
`Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n
`
`unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a claim of reduction to
`
`16
`
`
`
`practice.”); Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A]n
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`inventor’s own unwitnessed documentation does not corroborate an inventor’s
`
`testimony about inventive facts.”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2030, Error floor, Wikipedia (obtained from
`
`https://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_floor), as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2030 on the ground that its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2030 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2030 as
`
`lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2031, Declaration of Dr. Dariush Divsalar, as
`
`not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2031 on the ground
`
`that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting
`
`time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902). Petitioner
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 as lacking personal knowledge/foundation (FRE 602).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2031 as improper expert testimony by a lay
`
`IPR2017-00701
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`witness and/or as unreliable and lacking a sufficient basis (FRE 701, 702).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2032, Curriculum Vitae of Dr. of Dr. Dariush
`
`Divsalar as not relevant (FRE 401). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2032 on
`
`the on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence (FRE 403). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2032 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802). Petitioner
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2032 as lacking authentication (FRE 901, 902).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`____________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00701
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 29, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following correspondents of record as listed
`
`in Patent Owners’ Mandatory Notices:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`________________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`
`
`19
`
`
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
