UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`_________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Page
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY EXHIBITS SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED ...... 1
`
`A.
`
`Ex. 1033: Fonearena.com Nokia E50 ................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Lack Of Authentication ................................................. 2
`
`Alleged Untimely For Failure To Cure Objection ...................... 3
`
`Alleged Untimely Supplemental Information ............................ 4
`
`Alleged Hearsay .......................................................................... 7
`
`Ex. 1036: Article Entitled “Samsung Starts
`Selling World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” ............................ 8
`
`Ex. 1037: Letsgodigital.com
`Article Referencing Samsung SCH-V7770 .......................................... 9
`
`Ex. 1043: Class CCamera From
`Symbian Developer Network, S60 SDK .............................................10
`
`Ex. 1044: Symbian Phones ..................................................................11
`
`Ex. 1045: Wire.com – “By Open Sourcing
`Symbian, Nokia Kicks Off The Mobile Age” .....................................12
`
`Ex. 1047: Symbian OS SDK v8.1
`From Symbian Developer Library ......................................................13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Ex. 1048: “CCamera In Multimedia ECam”.......................................13
`
`I.
`
`Ex. 1049: Samsung Mobile News – “SAMSUNG
`Launches The World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” ..............14
`
`J.
`
`Ex. 1050: “Samsung SCH-B600 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” .......15
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................15
`
`Page i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 1
`
`Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................1, 7
`
`eBay Inc. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01829, 2018 WL 1870503 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) ............................. 8
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) .................................... 8
`
`F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00124, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. April 23, 2018) ..................... 4
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01453, paper 49 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017) .............................................. 3
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChirMar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2016-01389, 2018 WL 557893 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) ................................ 1
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`Case CBM2013–00004, slip op. (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2014) ...............................2, 4
`
`Sdi Techs., Inc. v. Bose Corp.,
`IPR2014-00343, 2015 WL 3749668 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2015) ............................. 3
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ...................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`LIST OF PREVIOUSLY FILED EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibits 1001-1019: Filed and served March 24, 2017 with Twitter’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304.
`
`Exhibit 1020: Filed and served October 18, 2017 with Petitioner’s Unopposed
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Robert T. Cruzen.
`
`Exhibit 1021: Filed and served February 2, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit
`
`List.
`
`Exhibit 1022-1023: Filed and served February 20, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated
`
`Exhibit List.
`
`Exhibit 1024: Filed and served February 23, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit
`
`List.
`
`Exhibit 1025-1026: Filed and served March 6, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated
`
`Exhibit List.
`
`Exhibit 1027: Filed and served March 14, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit
`
`List.
`
`Exhibit 1028: Filed and served March 29, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit
`
`List.
`
`Exhibit 1029: Filed and served April 5, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List.
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Exhibit 1030-1031: Filed and served April 11, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated
`
`Exhibit List.
`
`Exhibit 1032: Filed and served May 3, 2018 with Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List.
`
`Exhibits 1033, 1036, 1037, 1043-1045 and 1047-1052: Filed and served August
`
`10, 2018 with Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owners Response to Petition.
`
`Exhibits 1034, 1035, 1038-1042 and 1046: Identified at Dr. Olivier’s Deposition
`
`on July 24, 2018. Not Filed.
`
`Exhibits 1053 and 1054: Served on August 14, 2018 with Petitioner’s Transmittal
`
`of Supplemental Evidence. Not Filed.
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits this Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 (Paper 59). In the Motion, Patent Owner (“PO”)
`
`bears the burden to show that certain evidence is inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`PO has not met its burden.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY EXHIBITS SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibits 1033, 1036, 1037, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1049, and 1050
`
`were all properly presented to refute arguments made by Dr. Olivier and PO in its
`
`Response to the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`
`805 F.3d 1064, 1078–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Submitting exhibits to respond to a patent
`
`owner’s argument is perfectly appropriate under this Board’s rules, particularly
`
`where exhibits are offered only in support of invalidity grounds articulated in the
`
`Petition. Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChirMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, 2018 WL
`
`557893, at *37 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018), citing Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata
`
`Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, filing a motion to exclude
`
`evidence is not an appropriate vehicle for complaining that a reply raises new
`
`arguments or relies on evidence that should have been presented with the Petition:
`
`“While a motion to exclude may raise issues related to admissibility of evidence, it
`
`is not…a mechanism to argue that a reply contains new arguments or relies on
`
`evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Case CBM2013–00004, slip op. at 62 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13,
`
`2014) (Paper 53) (emphasis added). The appropriate vehicle for such an objection
`
`is a motion to strike, and PO failed to file, or even seek leave to file, such a motion.
`
`Trial Practice Guide Update (available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP), p. 17. PO’s
`
`remaining objections should be denied.
`
`A. Ex. 1033: Fonearena.com Nokia E50
`
`Ex. 1033 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from www.fonearena.com
`
`describing characteristics of the Nokia E50 mobile phone. PO moves to exclude Ex.
`
`1033 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly lacks authentication, was objected
`
`to—which objection was allegedly not timely cured—during deposition, constitutes
`
`“untimely supplemental information,” and constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should
`
`be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Alleged Lack Of Authentication
`
`PO argues that Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1033. “To satisfy
`
`the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent
`
`must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Exhibit 1033 was authenticated by the
`
`archivist for the Internet Archive. Ex. 1053 at pp. 1-2, 88-91. This Board has
`
`repeatedly held that “‘Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge,’ such as an Internet
`
`Archive standard (or nonstandard) affidavit, is one example of evidence that
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`satisfies the authentication requirement.” Sdi Techs., Inc. v. Bose Corp., IPR2014-
`
`00343, 2015 WL 3749668, at *7 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2015) (emphasis added); see id.
`
`at 6. PO fails to point to any discrepancies between copies or reproductions of these
`
`materials, or to provide evidence that the dates printed on the pages or provided in
`
`the URL assigned by the Wayback Machine as the date of capture is not credible or
`
`trustworthy. Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01453, paper
`
`49, at 13-16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2017). PO’s motion to exclude based on lack of
`
`authenticity of Ex. 1033 should therefore be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Alleged Untimely For Failure To Cure Objection
`
`PO relies upon 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) to argue that this exhibit, submitted in
`
`support of Petitioner’s reply, should be excluded as not authenticated during the
`
`deposition of PO’s expert, Dr. Olivier. But that rule pertains to excluding deposition
`
`evidence or deposition testimony regarding an exhibit not authenticated during the
`
`deposition: Ҥ42.64 Objection; motion to exclude. (a) Deposition evidence. An
`
`objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the
`
`deposition. Evidence to cure the objection must be provided during the deposition,
`
`unless the parties to the deposition stipulate otherwise on the deposition record.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Petitioner does not cite any deposition testimony relating to, let
`
`alone discussing, Ex. 1033. PO’s citation to a rule specifically governing the
`
`exclusion of evidence adduced during deposition is irrelevant.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Untimely Supplemental Information
`
`If PO believed that Ex. 1033 presented a new argument or new obviousness
`
`combinations, its appropriate remedy was to seek leave from the Board to file a
`
`motion to strike. PO failed to do so. “While a motion to exclude may raise issues
`
`related to admissibility of evidence, it is not…a mechanism to argue that a reply
`
`contains new arguments or relies on evidence necessary to make out a prima facie
`
`case.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Case CBM2013–00004,
`
`slip op. at 62 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2014) (Paper 53) (emphasis added). Here, PO
`
`repeatedly contends that the exhibits submitted with Petitioner’s Reply to refute
`
`arguments presented in PO’s Response raise new obviousness combinations. A
`
`motion to exclude is not the appropriate vehicle to present those arguments, and the
`
`motion to exclude on the basis of “untimely supplemental information” should be
`
`denied for that reason alone. “[T]he Board has repeatedly stated that a motion to
`
`exclude is not the proper vehicle to challenge the scope of a reply.” F5 Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Radware, Ltd., IPR2017-00124, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. April 23,
`
`2018) (Paper 48). PO failed to request permission to file a motion to strike and
`
`requesting one now would be untimely because “authorization to file a motion to
`
`strike should be requested within one week of the allegedly improper submission…”
`
`Trial Practice Guide Update, p. 18.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Moreover, the fundamental premise of PO’s argument—that Petitioner is
`
`presenting new obviousness combinations—is wrong. Petitioner submitted
`
`evidence to show that PO’s reading of a reference submitted with the original
`
`Petition is not tenable. Specifically, PO argues that the primary reference on which
`
`Petitioner relies, Lahti, does not disclose the limitation stating that parameters are
`
`specified by a server. As discussed below, this argument fails, but in any case, the
`
`evidence submitted rebuts PO’s argument and does not introduce a new obviousness
`
`combination.
`
`Lahti explicitly describes an application called MobiCon as a robust, video
`
`production tool:
`
`Any MCP application, such as MobiCon, should be robust
`
`and rich in functionality …
`
`Video recording,
`
`the
`
`first
`
`function,
`
`is
`
`relatively
`
`straightforward to implement with vendor provided SDKs.
`
`However, the application should be robust during this
`
`phase and capable of handling critical events (including
`
`incoming phone calls and text messages).
`
`Ex. 1006 at 3.
`
`Lahti then explains that when capturing new video, “MobiCon’s main screen
`
`is displayed” and a “new video clip is captured in Capture Screen using Mobile
`
`Media API and it is recorded according to 3GPP specification using AMR coding
`
`for audio and H.263 at 176x144 pixels size at 15 frames per second for video.” Id.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`at 6. There is no text in Lahti stating or even implying that MobiCon relies only
`
`upon native recording parameters of mobile phones or that MobiCon is only capable
`
`of functioning with certain specified models of mobile phones. Instead, the text
`
`quoted above states that when MobiCon is used to capture video, it employs the
`
`specified parameters. No particular mobile phone models are discussed in Lahti’s
`
`description of MobiCon, and no specific native recording capabilities of any
`
`particular mobile phone model are discussed in the reference.
`
`Nevertheless, PO submitted exhibits with its Response suggesting that three
`
`2006-era mobile phones were capable of recording video at particular parameters.
`
`To rebut the suggestion that all mobile devices available during that time were
`
`necessarily limited to only these specific parameters, Petitioner submitted exhibits,
`
`including Ex. 1033, which are the same type of exhibits that PO submitted with its
`
`Response, showing the falsity of PO’s underlying premise—that mobile devices in
`
`2006 all recorded video at only the single set of parameters discussed in Lahti.
`
`Because that premise is demonstrably false, PO’s argument fails.
`
`Now, PO argues that Petitioner (1) should have anticipated that PO would
`
`argue that Lahti’s reference to MobiCon’s recording at specified parameters really
`
`meant that it was relying on native phone capabilities (despite the lack of even one
`
`passage in Lahti suggesting that), and (2) should have anticipated that PO would
`
`submit exhibits suggesting that three cherry-picked mobile phone models recorded
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`at a single set of parameters. But the evidence submitted rebuts the purported
`
`evidence that PO submitted in Response to the Petition. None of these exhibits
`
`represent a “new obviousness combination” as PO repeatedly contends. Because
`
`PO’s argument is based on that false premise, its motion to exclude should be denied.
`
`Additionally, there is no suggestion that PO has been prejudiced by the
`
`submission of any exhibit. No prejudice exists because PO requested and was
`
`granted a full opportunity to respond to the exhibit in its sur-reply filed September
`
`14, 2018. See Belden, 805 F.3d at 1081.
`
`Finally, this tribunal has noted in past proceedings that “the Board, sitting as
`
`a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to assign appropriate weight to the evidence
`
`without the need for formal exclusion.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of
`
`Texas, LLC, IPR2014-00407, 2015 WL 4500658, at *12 (P.T.A.B. July 20, 2015).
`
`PO’s motion to exclude Ex. 1033 as “untimely supplemental information” should be
`
`denied.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Hearsay
`
`Ex. 1033 is an internet product review of a Nokia phone model demonstrating
`
`that the product had the capability to capture video at various parameters, including
`
`frame rates greater than 15 frames per second, thus disproving PO’s assertion that
`
`mobile phones in 2006 all shared a single set of video recording parameters. This is
`
`the type of evidence on which experts routinely rely. Indeed, PO’s own expert, Dr.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Olivier, testifies under oath to exactly that fact: “Internet reviews of products are
`
`commonly referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an
`
`easily-accessible reference for how the characteristics of consumer electronics such
`
`as cell phones are perceived by users.” Ex. 2002, at ¶19. Evidence on which experts
`
`routinely rely is not susceptible to a hearsay objection because it “qualifies under an
`
`exception to the hearsay rule and experts are allowed to rely upon evidence that
`
`might otherwise be hearsay.” eBay Inc. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd.,
`
`IPR2016-01829, 2018 WL 1870503, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) (denying patent
`
`owner’s motion to exclude on hearsay grounds); see Fed. R. Evid. 803(17). The
`
`Board should also conclude that the residual exception to the hearsay rule set forth
`
`in Federal Rule of Evidence 807(17) applies to the exhibit. See Ericsson Inc. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Case IPR2014-00527, Paper 41, at 10-11 (P.T.A.B. May
`
`18, 2015). To the extent the Board concludes otherwise, it should also exclude all
`
`internet product reviews and specifications on which PO relies as evidence that
`
`mobile devices in 2006 utilized only a single set of parameters or as evidence that
`
`particular products utilized parameters specified in the webpages in question.
`
`B.
`
`Ex. 1036: Article Entitled “Samsung Starts
`Selling World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone”
`
`Ex. 1036 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from phys.org titled
`
`“Samsung Starts Selling World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” dated October
`
`10, 2006. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1036 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`lacks authentication, was objected to—which objection was allegedly not timely
`
`cured—during deposition, constitutes “untimely supplemental information,” and
`
`constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no timely cure
`
`should be denied. Dr. Houh stated that Ex. 1036 is a true and correct copy of a web
`
`page from phys.org. Ex. 1052 at p. 3. This suffices to authenticate Ex. 1037. See
`
`section II.A.1, above. Moreover, Ex. 1036 is a product review and PO’s own expert,
`
`Dr. Olivier, acknowledged that such internet “reviews of products are commonly
`
`referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an easily-
`
`accessible reference for how the characteristics of consumer electronics such as cell
`
`phones are perceived by users.” Ex. 2002, ¶19.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should
`
`be denied. See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See
`
`section II.A.4, above.
`
`C. Ex. 1037: Letsgodigital.com
`Article Referencing Samsung SCH-V7770
`
`Ex. 1037 is a true and correct copy of a webpage from www.letsgodigital.org
`
`titled “Samsung SCH-V770 7 Megapixel digital camera phone” dated March 10,
`
`2008. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1037 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly
`
`lacks authentication, was objected to—which objection was allegedly not timely
`
`cured—during deposition, constitutes “untimely supplemental information,” and
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no timely cure
`
`should be denied. Dr. Houh stated that Ex. 1037 is a true and correct copy of a web
`
`page from letsgodigital.com. Ex. 1052 at p. 3. This suffices to authenticate Ex.
`
`1037. See section II.A.1, above. Moreover, Ex. 1037 is a product review and PO’s
`
`own expert, Dr. Olivier, acknowledged that such internet “reviews of products are
`
`commonly referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an
`
`easily-accessible reference for how the characteristics of consumer electronics such
`
`as cell phones are perceived by users.” Ex. 2002, ¶19.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should
`
`be denied. See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See
`
`section II.A.4, above.
`
`D. Ex. 1043: Class CCamera From
`Symbian Developer Network, S60 SDK
`
`Ex. 1043 is a true and correct copy of a web page from www.symbian.com
`
`identifying SDKs. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1043 on the grounds that the exhibit
`
`purportedly lacks authentication, was objected to—which objection was allegedly
`
`not
`
`timely cured—during deposition, constitutes “untimely supplemental
`
`information,” and constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons
`
`set forth below.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no timely cure
`
`should be denied. Ex. 1043 was properly authenticated by an affidavit from the
`
`Internet Archive. Ex. 1053 at pp. 1-2, 4-5. See section II.A.1, above.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should
`
`be denied. See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See
`
`section II.A.4, above.
`
`E.
`
`Ex. 1044: Symbian Phones
`
`Ex. 1044 is a true and correct copy of a web page from www.symbian.com
`
`identifying Symbian phones. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1044 on the grounds that the
`
`exhibit purportedly lacks authentication, was objected to—which objection was
`
`allegedly not timely cured—during deposition, constitutes “untimely supplemental
`
`information,” and constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons
`
`set forth below. PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no
`
`timely cure should be denied. Ex. 1044 was properly authenticated by an affidavit
`
`from the Internet Archive. Ex. 1054 at pp. 1-2, 4-7. See section II.A.1, above. PO’s
`
`objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should be denied.
`
`See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See section
`
`II.A.4, above.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`F.
`
`Ex. 1045: Wire.com – “By Open Sourcing
`Symbian, Nokia Kicks Off The Mobile Age”
`
`Ex. 1045 is a true and correct copy of a web page from www.wired.com titled
`
`“By Open Sourcing Symbian, Nokia Kicks Off The Mobile Age” dated June 24,
`
`2008. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1045 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly
`
`lacks authentication, constitutes “untimely supplemental
`
`information,” and
`
`constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no timely cure
`
`should be denied. Dr. Houh stated that Ex. 1045 is a true and correct copy of a web
`
`page from Wired, and that Wired is a reputable source for information on technology
`
`and electronic devices, which is commonly referred to and relied upon by persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1052 at p. 3. This suffices to authenticate Ex. 1045.
`
`See section II.A.1, above. Moreover, the Wired article is a product review and PO’s
`
`own expert, Dr. Olivier, acknowledged that such “reviews of products are commonly
`
`referred to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an easily-
`
`accessible reference for how the characteristics of consumer electronics such as cell
`
`phones are perceived by users.” Ex. 2002, ¶19.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should
`
`be denied. See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See
`
`section II.A.3, above; Ex. 1052 at p. 3.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`G. Ex. 1047: Symbian OS SDK v8.1
`From Symbian Developer Library
`
`Ex. 1047 is a webpage from www.symbian.com titled “Class CCamera”. PO
`
`moves to exclude Ex. 1047 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly lacks
`
`authentication, constitutes “untimely supplemental information,” and constitutes
`
`hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication and no timely cure
`
`should be denied. Ex. 1047 was properly authenticated by an affidavit from the
`
`Internet Archive. Ex. 1054 at pp. 1-2, 8-34. See section II.A.1, above. PO’s
`
`objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should be denied.
`
`See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See section
`
`II.A.4, above.
`
`H. Ex. 1048: “CCamera In Multimedia ECam”
`
`Ex. 1048 is a webpage from www.symbian.com titled “Class CCamera”. PO
`
`moves to exclude Ex. 1048 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly lacks
`
`authentication, constitutes “untimely supplemental information,” and constitutes
`
`hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication should be denied. Ex.
`
`1048 was properly authenticated by an affidavit from the Internet Archive. Ex. 1053
`
`at pp. 1-2, 150-176. See section II.A.1, above. PO’s objection regarding alleged
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`untimely supplemental information should be denied. See section II.A.3, above.
`
`PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See section II.A.4, above.
`
`I.
`
`Ex. 1049: Samsung Mobile News – “SAMSUNG
`Launches The World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone”
`
`Ex. 1049 is an article from www.samsung.com titled “SAMSUNG Launches
`
`the World’s First 10 Megapixel Camera Phone” and dated October 10, 2006. PO
`
`moves to exclude Ex. 1049 on the grounds that the exhibit purportedly lacks
`
`authentication, constitutes “untimely supplemental information,” and constitutes
`
`hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication should be denied. Dr.
`
`Houh stated that Ex. 1049 is a true and correct copy of a web page from
`
`samsung.com. Ex. 1052 at p. 4. This suffices to authenticate Ex. 1037. See section
`
`II.A.1, above. As Dr. Houh notes, the webpage was published by Samsung, a well-
`
`known mobile phone manufacturer and is recognized in the art as a reputable source
`
`of publicly information regarding the products that it manufactures and sells. Ex.
`
`1052 at p. 4. Dr. Houh notes that the website “is a source that is commonly referred
`
`to and relied upon by persons of ordinary skill in the art as an easily-accessible
`
`reference for characteristics of Samsung products, including mobile phones.”
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged untimely supplemental information should
`
`be denied. See section II.A.3, above. PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See
`
`section II.A.3, above; Ex. 1052 at p. 4.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`J.
`
`Ex. 1050: “Samsung SCH-B600 10 Megapixel Camera Phone”
`
`Ex. 1050
`
`is a
`
`true and correct copy of a webpage
`
`from
`
`www.photographyblog.com titled “Samsung SCH-B600 10 Megapixel Camera
`
`Phone” and dated October 10, 2006. PO moves to exclude Ex. 1050 on the grounds
`
`that the exhibit purportedly lacks authentication, constitutes “untimely supplemental
`
`information,” and constitutes hearsay. PO’s motion should be denied for the reasons
`
`set forth below.
`
`PO’s objection regarding alleged lack of authentication should be denied. Ex.
`
`1050 was properly authenticated by an affidavit from the Internet Archive. Ex. 1054
`
`at pp. 1-2, 35-37. See section II.A.1, above. PO’s objection regarding alleged
`
`untimely supplemental information should be denied. See section II.A.3, above.
`
`PO’s hearsay objection should be denied. See section II.A.4, above.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`PO has not met its burden with regard to any of the evidence it seeks to
`
`exclude, so the Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2018 By: /Todd M. Siegel/
`Todd M. Siegel (Registration No. 73,232)
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`IN COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that on September 28, 2018, a complete copy of
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence was
`
`served on counsel for VidStream LLC via electronic mail as follows:
`
`Eagle Robinson – Lead Counsel
`eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Eric Green – Back-Up Counsel
`eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Eric Hall – Back-Up Counsel
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`1301 McKinney St., Ste. 5100
`Houston, TX 77010
`eric.hall@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Todd M. Siegel/
`Todd M. Siegel (Registration No. 73,232)
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Page 1
`
`