`Patent 7,937,581
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner,
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00820
`Patent 7,937,581
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Patent Owner MPH Technologies Oy hereby objects to the following
`
`documents submitted by Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Nothing in this paper should be construed as an admission that any rights of
`
`Patent Owner would have been waived or forfeited had the paper or any objection
`
`herein not been filed, or that 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) applies to any of the objections
`
`herein if § 42.64(b) would not otherwise apply. The objections herein are
`
`premised upon § 42.64 potentially being determined to apply to the document in
`
`question, and are submitted solely to preserve the rights of Patent Owner should §
`
`42.64(b) be determined to apply.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document or documents include
`
`testimony not relevant to the instituted review, because, among other things, it has
`
`not been shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to testify
`
`competently regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that the
`
`declarant’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by reliable
`
`principles, procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case, or that
`
`the declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead than to
`
`enlighten. Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document or
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`documents include testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand
`
`knowledge including of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on
`
`speculation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents include testimony on
`
`patent law and practice.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document
`
`or documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other
`
`things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and their probative value
`
`is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time. Under FRE 901, this document or documents are inadmissible because they
`
`have not been shown to be authenticated or identified. The document or
`
`documents are relied upon as evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or
`
`understanding of persons in the art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible
`
`because they have not been shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate
`
`common knowledge or understanding as of the priority date.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document
`
`or documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other
`
`things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and their probative value
`
`is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time. Under FRE 901, this document or documents are inadmissible because they
`
`have not been shown to be authenticated or identified. The document or
`
`documents are relied upon as evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or
`
`understanding of persons in the art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible
`
`because they have not been shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate
`
`common knowledge or understanding as of the priority date.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document
`
`or documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other
`
`things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and their probative value
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time. Under FRE 901, this document or documents are inadmissible because they
`
`have not been shown to be authenticated or identified. The document or
`
`documents are relied upon as evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or
`
`understanding of persons in the art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible
`
`because they have not been shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate
`
`common knowledge or understanding as of the priority date.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document
`
`or documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other
`
`things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and their probative value
`
`is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time. Under FRE 901, this document or documents are inadmissible because they
`
`have not been shown to be authenticated or identified. The document or
`
`documents are relied upon as evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or
`
`understanding of persons in the art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible
`
`because they have not been shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate
`
`common knowledge or understanding as of the priority date.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Under FRE 801/802, this document or documents constitute and contain
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document
`
`or documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document or documents are inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other
`
`things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds, and their probative value
`
`is outweighed by other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of
`
`time. Under FRE 901, this document or documents are inadmissible because they
`
`have not been shown to be authenticated or identified. The document or
`
`documents are relied upon as evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or
`
`understanding of persons in the art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible
`
`because they have not been shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate
`
`common knowledge or understanding as of the priority date.
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document or documents include
`
`testimony not relevant to the instituted review, because, among other things, it has
`
`not been shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to testify
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`competently regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that the
`
`declarant’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by reliable
`
`principles, procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case, or that
`
`the declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead than to
`
`enlighten. Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document or
`
`documents include testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand
`
`knowledge including of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on
`
`speculation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this
`
`document or documents include testimony on patent law and practice.
`
`8.
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document or documents include
`
`testimony not relevant to the instituted review, because, among other things, it has
`
`not been shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to testify
`
`competently regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that the
`
`declarant’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by reliable
`
`principles, procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case, or that
`
`the declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead than to
`
`enlighten. Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document or
`
`documents include testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand
`
`knowledge including of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on
`
`speculation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document or documents do not disclose
`
`underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this
`
`document or documents include testimony on patent law and practice.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`____/ James T. Carmichael /_________
`James T. Carmichael, Reg. No. 45,306
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`Date: October 22, 2019
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2019-00820
`Patent 7,937,581
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following documents were served
`
`by electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date signed below:
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Daniel S. Block
`Timothy L. Tang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mspecht-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dblock-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`ttang-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Patrick Maloney /
`
`Date: October 22, 2019
`
`
`
`