`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01526
`Patent No. 6,771,994
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner hereby submits the following
`
`
`
`objections to evidence filed with Patent Owner’s Response of July 20, 2021.
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`Objections
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2001 under
`FRE 702 and 703, because it contains opinions that are
`conclusory, do not disclose supporting facts or data, are
`based on unreliable facts, data, or methods, and/or include
`testimony outside the scope of Dr. Madisetti’s specialized
`knowledge (to the extent he has any such knowledge) that
`will not assist the trier of fact. Petitioner also objects to
`Exhibit 2004 as containing opinions that are irrelevant,
`confusing, and presenting the danger of unfair prejudice
`under FRE 401, 402, and 403.
`Petitioner incorporates the real-time objections made by
`Petitioner’s counsel reflected in Exhibit 2003, to the extent
`that such objections relate to portions of Exhibit 2003 that
`are cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004 under FRE 401 as
`irrelevant and under FRE 403. Specifically, any probative
`value it may have is substantially outweighed by a danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and/or being
`misleading. The guidance document, written in 2021 (over
`two decades after the alleged priority date of the patent),
`does not provide any information relevant to the priority
`date of the patent. Additionally, Petitioner objects to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`Exhibit 2004 under FRE 901, as Patent Owner has not
`submitted evidence that the document is authentic, nor that
`the document is self-authenticating. Of note, there is
`insufficient support in the Exhibit 2004 to show that the
`document was publically available before the priority date
`of the patent. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software,
`LLC, IPR2016-01300 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017); ServiceNow,
`Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper No. 13
`at 2-3, 10-18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). Petitioner further
`objects to Exhibit 2004 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`inadmissible hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 401 as
`irrelevant and under FRE 403. Specifically, any probative
`value it may have is substantially outweighed by a danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and/or being
`misleading. The guidance document, written in 2013 (over
`a decade after the alleged priority date of the patent), does
`not provide any information relevant to the priority date of
`the patent. Additionally, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005
`under FRE 901, as Patent Owner has not submitted
`evidence that the document is authentic, nor that the
`document is self-authenticating. Of note, there is
`insufficient support in the Exhibit 2005 to show that the
`document was publically available before the priority date
`of the patent. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software,
`LLC, IPR2016-01300 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017); ServiceNow,
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper No. 13
`at 2-3, 10-18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). Petitioner further
`objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`inadmissible hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 401, 403 as
`providing an irrelevant and misleading characterization of
`the knowledge in the art as of the priority date of the patent,
`as the document was purportedly published over 14 years
`after the priority date of the patent, and therefore confuses
`the issues in the case. Petitioner additionally objects to
`Exhibit 2006 under FRE 901, as Patent Owner has not
`submitted evidence that the document is authentic, nor that
`the document is self-authenticating. Of note, there is
`insufficient support in the Exhibit 2006 to show that the
`document was publically available before the priority date
`of the patent. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software,
`LLC, IPR2016-01300 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017); ServiceNow,
`Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper No. 13
`at 2-3, 10-18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). Petitioner further
`objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`inadmissible hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 901, as Patent
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating. Of
`note, there is insufficient support in the Exhibit 2008 to
`show that the document was publically available before the
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`priority date of the patent. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v.
`Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4,
`2017); ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-
`00716, Paper No. 13 at 2-3, 10-18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26,
`2015). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 under
`FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 401 as
`irrelevant and under FRE 403. Specifically, any probative
`value it may have is substantially outweighed by a danger
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and/or being
`misleading. The article, written in 2020 (over two decades
`after the alleged priority date of the patent), promotes one
`of Patent Owner’s products but does not provide any
`information relevant to the priority date of the patent.
`Additionally, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE
`901, as Patent Owner has not submitted evidence that the
`document is authentic, nor that the document is self-
`authenticating. Of note, there is insufficient support in the
`Exhibit 2012 to show that the document was publically
`available before the priority date of the patent. See, e.g.,
`Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017); ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper No. 13 at 2-3, 10-18
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). Petitioner further objects to
`Exhibit 2012 under FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible
`hearsay.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 under FRE 401, 403 as
`providing an irrelevant and misleading characterization of
`the knowledge in the art as of the priority date of the patent,
`as the article was purportedly published over 15 years after
`the priority date of the patent, and therefore confuses the
`issues in the case. Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 under
`FRE 901, as Patent Owner has not submitted evidence that
`the document is authentic, nor that the document is self-
`authenticating. Of note, there is insufficient support in the
`Exhibit 2014 to show that the document was publically
`available before the priority date of the patent. See, e.g.,
`Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017); ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper No. 13 at 2-3, 10-18
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015). Petitioner further objects to
`Exhibit 2014 under FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible
`hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 under FRE 901, as Patent
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating. Of
`note, there is insufficient support in the Exhibit 2015 to
`show that the document was publically available before the
`priority date of the patent. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v.
`Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4,
`2017); ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-
`00716, Paper No. 13 at 2-3, 10-18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`2015). Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2015 under
`FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2001, 2003–2006,
`
`2008, 2012, 2014, and 2015. Petitioner reserves the right to move to exclude
`
`Exhibits 2001, 2003–2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Dan Smith/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Daniel D. Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01526
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0005IP1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., the undersigned certifies that on
`
`July 27, 2021, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence was provided by electronic mail to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence e-mail address of record as follows:
`
`Joseph R. Re
`Stephen W. Larson
`Jarom D. Kesler
`Shannon H. Lam
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main St., 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Email: AppleIPR2020-1526-994@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
