`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01539
`Patent 10,588,554
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01539
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0013IP2
`
`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 June 11, 2021.
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Objections
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2004 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. As an example, Dr.
`Madisetti possesses no experience or training relevant to
`his opinion that “a POSITA would have believed that light
`passing through a convex surface would have been directed
`to a more central location as compared to light passing
`through a flat surface. . . .” Exhibit 2004 at ¶ 89; see also
`id. at ¶¶ 90-97. Accordingly, at least part of Dr.
`Madisetti’s declaration is unreliable insomuch as it relies
`on his understanding of how a convex lens works. Patent
`Owner 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 2006, to the extent
`that such objections relate to portions of Exhibit 2006 that
`are cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01539
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0013IP2
`
`Petitioner incorporates the real-time objections made by
`Petitioner’s counsel reflected in Exhibit 2007, to the extent
`that such objections relate to portions of Exhibit 2007 that
`are cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2008 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited, and at least insofar as the cited statements are
`potentially misleading when taken out of context.
`Additionally, Petitioner incorporates the real-time
`objections made by Petitioner’s counsel reflected in Exhibit
`2008, to the extent that such objections relate to the cited
`portions of Exhibit 2008.
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2009 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited, and at least insofar as the cited statements are
`potentially misleading when taken out of context.
`Additionally, Petitioner incorporates the real-time
`objections made by Petitioner’s counsel reflected in Exhibit
`2009, to the extent that such objections relate to the cited
`portions of Exhibit 2009.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 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 2010 to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01539
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0013IP2
`
`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 2010 under
`FRE 801 and 802 as inadmissible hearsay.
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2019 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited, and at least insofar as the cited statements are
`potentially misleading when taken out of context.
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2020 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited, and at least insofar as the cited statements are
`potentially misleading when taken out of context.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2004, 2006-2010,
`
`2019, and 2020. Petitioner reserves the right to move to exclude Exhibits 2004,
`
`2006-2010, 2019, and 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 17, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01539
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0013IP2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Andrew B. Patrick/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01539
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0013IP2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., the undersigned certifies that on
`
`June 17, 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
`Jacob L. Peterson
`William R. Zimmerman
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph. D.
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main St., 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Email: AppleIPR2020-1539-554@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`