Paper 13
`October 18, 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 IPR2017-01218
`U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 B2
`
`PAPER NO. 13
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`
`October 18, 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 IPR2017-01218
`U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 B2
`
`PAPER NO. 13
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner, Image Processing
`
`Technologies LLC (“Image Processing”) objects to the admissibility of the
`
`following exhibits filed by Petitioners.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`and the “’134 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134. “C.F.R.” means Code of
`
`Federal Regulations.
`
`Image Processing’s objections are as follows:
`
`Exhibit 1002 (Hart Declaration)
`
`Patent Owner objects to ¶¶ 125–135, 170–181 & Tables at Pages 94–104,
`
`170-181 of Exhibit 1002 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 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 that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1005
`
`is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and
`
`that the reference is prior art to the ’134 Patent. In particular, Petitioner fails to
`
`show in the Petition, or even otherwise, that the reference was “publicly
`
`accessible,” prior to the critical date, i.e., that the reference has been “disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`The Grenier declaration, Exhibit 1010, lacks foundation for its assertions
`
`and does not establish that Exhibit 1005 is a printed publication within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and that the reference is prior art to the ’134
`
`Patent, and therefore is irrelevant and prejudicial. See F.R.E. 602, 701, 402–03.
`
`For example, the declaration does not establish the accuracy, reliability, or source
`
`of the “metadata” discussed in Paragraph 7 or the “date of publication” at Ex. 1011
`
`page 14. As another example, pages 22–24 of the exhibit appear to be interspersed
`
`with an excerpt of an article. As another example, the first page of the PDF
`
`document “Exhibit 1010” is stamped “Exhibit 1010,” while subsequent pages are
`
`stamped “Exhibit 1011”.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1005 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 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.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`required under F.R.E. 1002. The document is an incomplete copy of a larger
`
`document lacking, for example, a cover page.
`
`Exhibit 1008 (Trier)
`
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1008
`
`is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and
`
`that the reference is prior art to the ’134 Patent. In particular, Petitioner fails to
`
`show in the Petition, or even otherwise, that the reference was “publicly
`
`accessible,” prior to the critical date, i.e., that the reference has been “disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC, 815 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002. The document is an incomplete copy of a larger
`
`document lacking, for example, a cover page.
`
`Patent Owner objects
`
`to Exhibit 1008 under F.R.E. 901 because
`
`authenticating information has not been provided.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1010B
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1008 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of time) at least because the
`
`document is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because Petitioner has
`
`not met its burden to show the exhibit to be prior art and the document is not
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR.
`
`Exhibit 1009 (Glauberman)
`
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1009
`
`is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and
`
`that the reference is prior art to the ’134 Patent. In particular, Petitioner fails to
`
`show in the Petition, or even otherwise, that the reference was “publicly
`
`accessible,” prior to the critical date, i.e., that the reference has been “disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC, 815 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Patent Owner objects
`
`to Exhibit 1009 under F.R.E. 901 because
`
`authenticating information has not been provided.
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002. The document is an incomplete copy of a larger
`
`document lacking, for example, a cover page.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1009
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
` Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1009 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of time) at least because the
`
`document is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because Petitioner has
`
`not met its burden to show the exhibit to be prior art.
`
`Exhibit 1010 (Grenier Declaration)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), and also
`
`as hearsay-within-hearsay for which no exception has been shown to apply.
`
`The Grenier declaration, Exhibit 1010, lacks foundation for its assertions
`
`and does not establish that Exhibit 1005 is a printed publication within the meaning
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and that the reference is prior art to the ’134
`
`Patent, and therefore is irrelevant and prejudicial. See F.R.E. 602, 701, 402-03.
`
`For example, the declaration does not establish the accuracy, reliability, or source
`
`of the “metadata” discussed in Paragraph 7 or the “date of publication” (for
`
`example, listed at Ex. 1011 page 14). The declaration does not establish the
`
`accuracy or reliability of the computer system referenced or the data input to the
`
`system, and does not explain the source or format of data associated with the
`
`attached printouts. As another example, pages 22-24 of the exhibit appear to be
`
`interspersed with an excerpt of an article. Also, the first page of the PDF
`
`document “Exhibit 1010” is stamped “Exhibit 1010,” while subsequent pages are
`
`stamped “Exhibit 1011”.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1010A
`
`Patent Owner objects that Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit
`
`1010A is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b),
`
`and that the reference is prior art to the ’134 Patent. In particular, Petitioner fails
`
`to show in the Petition, or even otherwise, that the reference was “publicly
`
`accessible,” prior to the critical date, i.e., that the reference has been “disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC, 815 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`The Grenier declaration, Exhibit 1010, lacks foundation for its assertions
`
`and does not establish that Exhibit 1010A is a printed publication within the
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and that the reference is prior art to the
`
`’134 Patent, and therefore the exhibit is irrelevant and prejudicial. See F.R.E. 602,
`
`701, 402-03. For example, the declaration does not establish the accuracy,
`
`reliability, or source of the “metadata” discussed in Paragraph 7 or the “date of
`
`publication at Ex. 1011 page 14. As another examples, pages 22-24 of the exhibit
`
`appear to be interspersed with an excerpt of an article. As another example, the
`
`first page of the PDF document “Exhibit 1010” is stamped “Exhibit 1010,” while
`
`subsequent pages are stamped “Exhibit 1011”.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1010A under F.R.E. 402 (relevance)
`
`and F.R.E. 403 (unfairly prejudicial, confusing, waste of time) at least because the
`
`document is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because Petitioner has
`
`not met its burden to show the exhibit to be prior art.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`required under F.R.E. 1002. The document is an incomplete copy of a larger
`
`document lacking, for example, a cover page.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the computer printout that is stamped as pages
`
`14-16, “SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1011,” within Exhibit 1010A under F.R.E. 802 as
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`hearsay, and also as hearsay within hearsay, for which Petitioner has not shown
`
`that an exception applies.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1010B
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010B under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(a)(1)(i) and as not relevant and prejudicial under F.R.E. 402 and 403
`
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner’s attempt to rely upon Exhibit 1010B
`
`without referencing this exhibit in the Petition is an improper attempt to
`
`circumvent the 60-page limit for Petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`The Grenier declaration, Exhibit 1010, lacks foundation for its assertions
`
`and does not establish that Exhibit 1010B is a printed publication within the
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b), and that the reference is prior art to the
`
`’134 Patent, and therefore the exhibit is irrelevant and prejudicial. See F.R.E. 602,
`
`701, 402-03. For example, the declaration does not establish the accuracy,
`
`reliability, or source of the “metadata” discussed in Paragraph 7 or the “date of
`
`conference” at Ex. 1011 page 22.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 402 and 403, and
`
`objects that a complete copy was required under F.R.E. 106 and an original was
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`required under F.R.E. 1002. The document is an incomplete copy of a larger
`
`document lacking, for example, a cover page.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the computer printout that is stamped as pages
`
`22-24, “SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1011,” within Exhibit 1010B under F.R.E. 802 as
`
`hearsay, and also as hearsay within hearsay, for which Petitioner has not shown
`
`that an exception applies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 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
`
`Dated: October 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on October 18,
`
`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
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (Reg. No. 37,416)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`Times Square Tower
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`mpensabene@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
`
`Clarence Rowland (Reg. No. 73,775)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`crowland@omm.com
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`
`
`IPTSAMSUNGOMM@OMM.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`October 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC01:1162646.2
`
`
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
