`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01249
`Patent 7,693,002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01249
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0054IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.64(b), Petitioner, Apple Inc., hereby submits its
`
`notice of objections to certain evidence that Patent Owner, Qualcomm, Inc.
`
`submitted in connection with IPR2018-01249.
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004 (Declaration of Donald Alpert, Ph.D in
`
`IPR2015-00148). Exhibit 2004 is a declaration Dr. Alpert submitted on behalf of a
`
`different party (not Apple), in a different Inter Partes Review, and in reference to a
`
`different patent. See Exhibit 2004 at ¶1. Furthermore, in IPR2015-00148 both
`
`experts agreed that the patent in question (the ’122 patent) was describing a
`
`periodic clock. The only point at issue in the construction of the term was whether
`
`“clock,” in regard to the ’122 patent, was limited to a “digital system.” See Exhibit
`
`2004 at ¶¶6-16.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004 as Dr. Alpert’s declaration in regard to
`
`IPR2015-00148 is irrelevant to the determination of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “clock signal” as it is used in the ’002 patent, an analysis
`
`that must be based first and foremost on the claims and specification of the ’002
`
`patent (FRE 401/402/403). Furthermore, in Dr. Alpert’s declaration in regard to
`
`the ’122 patent at issue in IPR2015-00148, he does not offer any expert opinion
`
`that could reliably be extended to the ’002 patent because his opinion was specific
`
`to the ’122 patent, and consequently, he did not, in Exhibit 2004, lay out any
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01249
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0054IP1
`analysis that could support an expert opinion on the meaning of a term in the ’002
`
`Patent (FRE 702). Finally, Patent Owner is relying on statements in Exhibit 2004
`
`that constitute inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801/802).
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to move to exclude the noted testimony and
`
`exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Timothy W. Riffe/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01249
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0054IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on April 22,
`
`2019, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence was
`
`provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`David B. Cochran
`Joshua R. Nightingale
`Matthew W. Johnson
`Joseph M. Sauer
`David M. Maiorana
`Richard A. Graham
`Jones Day
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`
`Email: dcochran@jonesday.com
`jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`mwjohsnon@jonesday.com
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`ragraham@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessica K. Detko/
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2576
`
`
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
