`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01722
`Patent 10,470,695
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`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 August 9, 2021.
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`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 2001 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 the admissibility of Exhibit 2006 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited to the issues in the present proceeding, and at least
`insofar as the cited statements are potentially misleading
`when taken out of context.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 901, as Patent
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`Objections
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating.
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 801
`and 802 as inadmissible hearsay, to the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements from Exhibit 2006 for their
`truth. See, e.g., POR, 1.
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2007 under
`FRE 401, 402, and 403 at least insofar as the Patent Owner
`Response does not establish the relevance of the statements
`cited to the issues in the present proceeding, and at least
`insofar as the cited statements are potentially misleading
`when taken out of context.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007 under FRE 901, as Patent
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating.
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2007 under FRE 801
`and 802 as inadmissible hearsay, to the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements from Exhibit 2007 for their
`truth. See, e.g., POR, 1.
`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 to the issues in the present proceeding, and at least
`insofar as the cited statements are potentially misleading
`when taken out of context.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 901, as Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`Objections
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating.
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 801
`and 802 as inadmissible hearsay, to the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements from Exhibit 2008 for their
`truth. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, [70].
`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 to the issues in the present proceeding, and at least
`insofar as the cited statements are potentially misleading
`when taken out of context.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 901, as Patent
`Owner has not submitted evidence that the document is
`authentic, nor that the document is self-authenticating.
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 801
`and 802 as inadmissible hearsay, to the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements from Exhibit 2009 for their
`truth. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, [83].
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2001, 2003, 2006-
`
`2009. Petitioner reserves the right to move to exclude Exhibits 2001, 2003, 2006-
`
`2009.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /Dan Smith/
`Dan Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01722
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0004IP1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., the undersigned certifies that on
`
`August 16, 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: AppleIPR2020-1722-695@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco /
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`