`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner,
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,213,970
`Filing Date: November 26, 2008
`Issue Date: July 3, 2012
`
`Inventor: Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.
`Title: METHOD OF UTILIZING FORCED ALERTS FOR
`INTERACTIVE REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01079
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC objects to the admissibility of the following evidence submitted
`
`by Petitioner Google LLC with its Petition. These objections are timely as made
`
`within ten business days of institution. Patent Owner reserves the right to rely on
`
`any evidence submitted by Petitioner for any purpose, including as a party
`
`admission. Patent Owner objects to the evidence as follows:
`
`EXHIBITS 1003-1004 DECLARATION AND CV OF DAVID
`
`WILLIAMS
`
`Patent Owner objects to these exhibits to the extent the exhibits include or
`
`rely on inadmissible hearsay that does not fall under any exception. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803, 804, 805, 807. Patent Owner objects to these exhibits to the extent the
`
`exhibits rely on exhibits having outstanding objections. FRE 801, 802, 702.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2007 because it contains
`
`unsupported, conclusory statements and opinions presented as improper ipse dixit.
`
`Such expert testimony is improper under FRE 702 and irrelevant under FRE 402.
`
`Such conclusory testimony is not helpful in understanding the evidence nor can
`
`one determine whether such testimony is based on sufficient facts or the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods. FRE 702. Patent Owner also objects to the
`
`admissibility of the exhibits because the expert makes legal conclusions and offers
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`opinions that are outside the scope of the expert’s expertise and not appropriate for
`
`
`
`expert testimony. FRE 702. Patent Owner further objects to the declaration to the
`
`extent the expert relies on Wikipedia articles and third party websites expressing
`
`opinions. Such expert testimony is improper under FRE 702, irrelevant under FRE
`
`402, and based on impermissible hearsay FRE. 801, 802. Such testimony is not
`
`based on sufficient facts nor is such testimony the product of reliable principles
`
`and methods. FRE 702.
`
`EXHIBIT 1010 SIMON SAYS USER MANUAL
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004.
`
`EXHIBIT 1014 McKinsey & Company, The McKinsey Report: FDNY
`
`9/11 Response
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004.
`
`EXHIBIT 1015 History of Mobile Phones, Wikipedia.com,
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004. Wikipedia is not a reliable
`
`source of information. FRE 702.
`
`EXHIBIT 1016 Apple Newton, Wikipedia.com,
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004. Wikipedia is not a reliable
`
`source of information. FRE 702.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`EXHIBIT 1017 Email, Wikipedia.com,
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004. Wikipedia is not a reliable
`
`source of information. FRE 702.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1018 From touch displays to the Surface: A brief history of
`
`touchscreen technology, Arstechnica.com
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004.
`
`EXHIBIT 1019 Palm VII,Wikipedia.com
`
`Patent Owner objects to the exhibit as inadmissible hearsay to the extent
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`Petitioner relies on the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted and the exhibit
`
`
`
`does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay. FRE 801, 802,
`
`803,804, 805, 807. To the extent that the authors(s) of the underlying document
`
`comment on the perception of others, the exhibit is objected to as inadmissible
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 802. The document purports to be a copy of a publication and
`
`the purported authors of the publication are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant, misleading, and confusing
`
`the issues. FRE 401, 402, 403. This exhibit is not prior art. Patent Owner objects
`
`to this exhibit as not properly authenticated and not self-authenticating. FRE 901,
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not properly authenticated because the
`
`document is not accompanied by any evidence that the document is authentic.
`
`FRE 901. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not self-authenticating . FRE
`
`902. Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not being an original document, an
`
`authentic duplicate, or a document excepted from the original document
`
`requirement. FRE 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. To the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`contents of this exhibit to prove the content of the original document, Patent
`
`Owner objects to the exhibit as not being the original or an admissible duplicate.
`
`The document is not an original document, nor does any statute obviate
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`requirement of the original document. FRE 1002. Even if the Board deems a
`
`
`
`duplicate of the document to be admissible, which it is not, this document is not a
`
`certified copy and genuine issues exist concerning the origin and/or authenticity of
`
`this document. FRE 1003. Given the circumstances, this exhibit is not excused
`
`from the original document requirement. FRE 1004. Wikipedia is not a reliable
`
`source of information. FRE 702.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III/
`
`
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Peter Lambrianakos (Reg. No. 58,279)
`Enrique W. Iturralde (Reg. No. 72,883)
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01079
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A copy of PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`
`EVIDENCE has been served on Petitioner’s counsel of record at the
`
`correspondence of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Jonathan Tuminaro (Reg. No. 61,327)
`Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013)
`Karen Wong-Chan (Reg. No. 69,235)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue
`N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
`jtuminar-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`rsokohl-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`kwchan-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III /
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
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
