Paper No. 26
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Universal Secure Registry LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) submits the following objections to evidence that Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) served with its Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner's Response (Paper
`
`24) and Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner’s Conditional Motion to Amend
`
`(Paper 25). These objections are timely filed and served within five business days
`
`of service of the evidence.
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1118
`
`Exhibit 1119
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it improperly
`introduces new theories, arguments, and evidence for the
`first time on Reply. Admissibility of such declaration would
`permit Petitioner to violate the requirement that it must
`include all its theories, arguments, and evidence with its
`Petition.
`
`FRE 602, 702, 703: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to
`the extent it is irrelevant, the testimony is based on a lack of
`personal knowledge or speculation, includes insufficient
`facts or data, is not based on a reliable foundation, and
`constitutes conclusory opinions without sufficient support.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it does not rebut the arguments in Patent
`Owner's Response, it is irrelevant, and its probative value is
`substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, wasting time, and needlessly presenting
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602, 702, 703: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to
`the extent it is irrelevant, the testimony is based on a lack of
`personal knowledge or speculation, includes insufficient
`facts or data, is not based on a reliable foundation, and
`constitutes conclusory opinions without sufficient support.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1120
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it does not rebut the arguments in Patent
`Owner's Conditional Motion to Amend, it is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it improperly
`introduces new theories, arguments, and evidence for the
`first time on Reply. This declarant did not provide any
`testimony in support of the Petition. Admissibility of such
`declaration for use with Petitioner's Reply would permit
`Petitioner to violate the requirement that it must include all
`its theories, arguments, and evidence with its Petition.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it includes
`information that is not discussed sufficiently in Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner's Response or Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Conditional Motion to Amend. Admissibility of
`such declaration would permit the use of declarations to
`circumvent page limits for a Reply and Opposition to Motion
`to Amend.
`
`FRE 602, 702, 703: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to
`the extent it is irrelevant, the testimony is based on a lack of
`personal knowledge or speculation, includes insufficient
`facts or data, is not based on a reliable foundation, and
`constitutes conclusory opinions without sufficient support.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it does not rebut the arguments in Patent
`Owner's Response or Conditional Motion to Amend, it is
`irrelevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed
`by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting
`time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1122
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it includes
`information that is not discussed sufficiently in Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Conditional Motion to Amend.
`Admissibility of such declaration would permit the use of
`declarations to circumvent page limits for an Opposition to a
`Motion to Amend.
`
`FRE 602, 702, 703: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to
`the extent it is irrelevant, the testimony is based on a lack of
`personal knowledge or speculation, includes insufficient
`facts or data, is not based on a reliable foundation, and
`constitutes conclusory opinions without sufficient support.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it does not rebut the arguments in Patent
`Owner's Conditional Motion to Amend, it is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibits 1121,
`1123, 1124,
`1130, 1131
`
`Patent Owner objects to exhibit 1131 because it improperly
`introduces new evidence for the first time on Reply.
`Admissibility of this exhibit would permit Petitioner to
`violate the requirement that it must include all its theories,
`arguments, and evidence with its Petition.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to exhibits 1121, 1123, 1124,
`and 1131 to the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on
`these exhibits as prior art or to show the alleged state of the
`art or understanding of a POSITA. Petitioner has not
`demonstrated that these exhibits are “printed publications”
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b).
`Moreover, exhibit 1131 is dated 2019, long after the relevant
`time of invention, while other exhibits are dated well before
`the relevant time of invention.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to exhibits
`1121, 1123, 1124, 1130, and 1131 because they are not
`relied on as references, they do not rebut the arguments in
`Patent Owner's Response or Conditional Motion to Amend,
`and/or Petitioner does not allege that the challenged or
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`substitute claims are anticipated or obvious based on these
`exhibits. Exhibits 1123 and 1124 are not cited in Petitioner's
`Reply to Patent Owner's Response or Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Conditional Motion to Amend. Moreover, exhibit
`1131 is dated 2019, long after the relevant time of invention,
`while other exhibits are dated well before the relevant time
`of invention. Exhibits 1121, 1123, 1124, 1130, and 1131 are
`irrelevant, and their probative value is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent owner also objects to exhibits 1121, 1123,
`1124, and 1131 as unauthenticated documents that are not
`self-authenticating under FRE 902. Thus, these exhibits lack
`authentication.
`
`Date: April 16, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ James Glass
`Registration No. 46,729
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
`Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel. (212) 849-7000
`Fax. (212) 849 7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Universal Secure
`Registry LLC
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00813
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,826
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certify that the
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64 was served on April 16, 2019 by e-mailing copies to:
`
`Monica Grewal (Reg. No. 40,056)
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`Ben Fernandez (Reg. No. 55,172)
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`Kelvin Chan (Reg. No. 71,433)
`kelvin.chan@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Mark Selwyn
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Date: April 16, 2019
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Universal Secure Registry LLC
`
`
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
