Filed May 26, 2021
`
`By:
`
`
`On behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Shannon H. Lam (Reg. No. 65,614)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: AppleIPR2020-1722-695@knobbe.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLE EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED BEFORE TRIAL INSTITUTION
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`On behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Shannon H. Lam (Reg. No. 65,614)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: AppleIPR2020-1722-695@knobbe.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695
`
`
`
`
`
`MASIMO OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLE EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED BEFORE TRIAL INSTITUTION
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner Masimo Corporation objects
`
`as follows to the admissibility of evidence served with the initial Petition. Patent
`
`Owner reserves its rights to: (1) timely file a motion to exclude these objectionable
`
`exhibits or portions thereof; (2) challenge the credibility and/or weight that should
`
`be afforded to these exhibits, whether or not Patent Owner files a motion to
`
`exclude the exhibits; (3) challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to meet
`
`Petitioner’s burden of proof on any issue, including, without limitation, whether
`
`Petitioner met its burden to prove the prior art status of the alleged prior art on
`
`which it relies, whether or not Patent Owner has objected to, or files a motion to
`
`exclude, the evidence; and (4) cross examine any Petitioner declarant within the
`
`scope of his or her direct testimony that relates to these exhibits, without regard to
`
`whether Patent Owner has objected to the testimony or related exhibits or whether
`
`the testimony or related exhibits are ultimately found to be inadmissible.
`
`Evidence
`Ex. 1003 –
`Declaration
`of Dr.
`Anthony
`
`Objections
`Masimo’s objections to Ex. 1003 are set forth below, including
`any material incorporated into the cited paragraphs below. To the
`extent Dr. Anthony’s declaration
`incorporates objectionable
`material in the cited paragraphs below in additional paragraphs or
`sections, Masimo’s objections apply with equal force to those
`additional paragraphs or sections.
`
`Incomplete, Irrelevant, Misleading (FRE 106, 401, 403):
`¶¶9-10 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited.
`
`¶11 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶16 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited.
`
`¶¶17-19 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1001 and the alleged prior art.
`
`¶¶21-29 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶¶30-37 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶38 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1001.
`
`¶¶39-52 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶53 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶54 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶55 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1016.
`
`¶56 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶57 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶58 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶59 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶60 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1005.
`
`¶61 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014, 1005, and 1018.
`
`¶¶62-63 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶64 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶¶65-66 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶67 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1014.
`
`¶¶68-76 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶¶77-78 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶79 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶¶80-82 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶83 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶¶84-86 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1014 and 1015.
`
`¶87 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1005.
`
`¶88 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1015.
`
`¶89 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1005.
`
`¶90 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005, 1014, and 1015.
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶¶91-94 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1005, 1014, and 1015.
`
`¶95 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1006.
`
`¶¶96-99 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1006, 1014, and 1015.
`
`¶¶100-101 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1006, 1014, and 1015.
`
`¶¶102-104 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶105-112 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶113-114 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1001.
`
`¶¶115-127 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶128-129 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶130-133 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶134 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶135-137 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶138 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1016 and 1019.
`
`¶139 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶140 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1016, 1005, 1018.
`
`¶141 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶142 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶143-144 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶145 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶¶146-150 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶151 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶152 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶153 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶¶154-155 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶156 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶157 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶158 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶159 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Exs. 1005 and 1016.
`
`¶¶160-163 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1006 and 1016.
`
`¶164 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks
`support for the contentions for which it is cited and it
`mischaracterizes the teachings of Ex. 1016.
`
`¶¶165-167 are misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because they
`lack support for the contentions for which they are cited and they
`mischaracterize the teachings of Exs. 1006 and 1016.
`
`Improper Testimony by Expert Witness (FRE 702):
`
`¶¶17-19 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶26-27 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶30 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶32 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶37 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶40-43 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶46-47 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶50-52 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶53 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶55 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶56 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶57 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶58 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶59 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶60 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶61 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶63 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶65-66 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶68-70 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶74-75 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶76 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶77-78 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶79 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶82 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶85 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶86 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶88 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶90 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶91-92 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶94 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶96-99 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶113-117 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`¶120 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶122-123 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶125-127 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶128 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶132 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶138 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶140 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶143-144 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶145 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶149-150 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶154-155 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶158 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1017 –
`Declaration
`of Jacob
`Munford
`
`
`Objections
`¶159 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶¶160-163 are not based on sufficient facts and data, and do not
`reliably apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`
`¶167 is not based on sufficient facts and data, and does not reliably
`apply facts and data using scientific principles.
`Hearsay, Authenticity (FRE 802, 901):
`The exhibit includes out-of-court statements that are offered for
`the truth of the matter asserted and are asserted by a declarant who
`lacks personal knowledge.
`
`Dated: May 26, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`By: /Shannon Lam/
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Shannon H. Lam (Reg. No. 65,614)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01722
`Apple v. Masimo – Patent 10,470,695
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and with the agreement
`
`of counsel for Petitioner, a true and correct copy of MASIMO OBJECTIONS TO
`
`ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE TRIAL
`
`INSTITUTION is being served electronically on May 26, 2021, to the e-mail
`
`addresses below:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Daniel D. Smith
`Kenneth Hoover
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR50095-00041P1@fr.com; PTABInbound@fr.com; dsmith@fr.com;
`axf-ptab@fr.com, hoover@fr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2021
`
`
`34981877
`
`
`
`By: /Shannon Lam/
`Joseph R. Re (Reg. No. 31,291)
`Stephen W. Larson (Reg. No. 69,133)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Shannon H. Lam (Reg. No. 65,614)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`
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
