UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01281
`Patent 8,768,865
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01281
`Patent 8,768,865
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner, Apple Inc., respectfully asserts
`
`the following objections to the evidence proffered with Patent Owner Response to
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition submitted on May 28, 2019 (“POR”). These
`
`objections are being provided within ten business days from the institution of the
`
`trial, and are thus timely pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). The Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (FRE) apply to these proceedings according to the provisions of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a), and these rules form the basis of the objections contained herein.
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner’s Description
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 27
`
`
`Objections
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that ‘fixing’ parameters, in the
`context of the ‘865 Patent, refers to setting the scope
`of analysis to enable pattern recognition of additional
`patterns when
`there is a pattern in the fixed
`parameters.” See Ex. 2004 at ¶ 27. Patent Owner has
`not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that
`this portion of the exhibit falls within any exception
`to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner’s Description
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 32
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Objections
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that the ‘865 Patent describes
`‘associating’ as a
`substep of
`‘fixing,’
`that
`‘associating’ does not, on its own, accomplish
`‘fixing.’ …. association must be used to set the scope
`of analysis to enable pattern recognition of additional
`patterns when ‘motion state’ =’driving.’” See Ex.
`2004 at ¶ 32. Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that this portion of the
`exhibit falls within any exception to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`2
`
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 37
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand the BRI of ‘pattern,’ as used in
`the ‘865 Patent, to be: ‘a collection of one or more
`pairs of varying parameters and corresponding
`parameter values, as well as the relationship between
`each pair (where the relationship may be implicit).’
`…This construction is incomplete because it does not
`explicitly state that the pattern includes not only
`parameter values, but the linked parameter.” See Ex.
`2004 at ¶ 37. Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that this portion of the
`exhibit falls within any exception to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`3
`
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 40
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 43
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that identifying a pattern means
`identifying all of the elements I discussed above that
`make up the pattern.” See Ex. 2004 at ¶ 40. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient
`to
`demonstrate that this portion of the exhibit falls
`within any exception to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “Petitioner’s proposed construction
`is contrary to the description of “fixing” in the
`patent.” See Ex. 2004 at ¶ 43. Patent Owner has not
`offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that this
`portion of the exhibit falls within any exception to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`4
`
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 44
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would not interpret the ‘fixing’ step in a way that
`made it duplicative of the ‘identifying’ step.” See Ex.
`2004 at ¶ 44. Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that this portion of the
`exhibit falls within any exception to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶¶ 48-49
`
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is not cited in the POR.
`
`5
`
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 53
`
`
`2004: Declaration of John
`Villasenor; ¶ 54
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
`hearsay: e.g., that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would understand that the use of a current state
`plus a state transition criteria to define a next state is
`an alternative to defining a state based on a collection
`of state features and values.” See Ex. 2004 at ¶ 53.
`Patent Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that this portion of the exhibit falls
`within any exception to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. To the extent
`that Petitioner relies on this portion of the exhibit to
`prove the truth of matters described therein, it is
` e.g.,
`hearsay:
`that “the EEMSS system
`is
`incompatible with defining a state based on a
`collection of state features and values…. it is not
`possible for EEMSS to use that information.” See Ex.
`2004 at ¶ 54. Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that this portion of the
`exhibit falls within any exception to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This portion of the
`exhibit is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403, because it is inadmissible under FRE
`801, 802, and 901 as explained above.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Thomas A. Rozylowicz/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 4, 2019
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2018-01281
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0042IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on June 4,
`
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eagle Robinson
`R. Ross Viguet
`Daniel Leventhal
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Email: eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`ross.viguet@nortonrosefulbright.com
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
