`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00144
`Patent 8,095,879
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00144
`Patent 8,095,879
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Patent Owner Neonode Smartphone LLC hereby objects to the following
`
`documents submitted by Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and 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.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Petitioner’s Reply to the extent it relies on
`
`any of the Exhibits objected to herein, and to the extent it relies on any untimely
`
`arguments or evidence which are relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-in-
`
`chief and could have been submitted with the Petition.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1051
`
`Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document includes
`
`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 401/402/403/702, this document
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`includes 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 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document does
`
`not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`this document includes testimony on patent law and practice. Under the Trial
`
`Practice Guide, this declaration contains untimely arguments and reference to
`
`untimely exhibits which are relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-in-chief and
`
`could have been submitted with the Petition.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1052
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), this document is incomplete and is not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely
`
`because it is relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-in-chief and could have
`
`been submitted with the Petition.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1054
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), this document is incomplete and is not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely
`
`because it is relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-in-chief and could have
`
`been submitted with the Petition. Under FRE 401/402/403, this document is
`
`inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, it does not form a basis of
`
`the instituted grounds, and its probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under the Trial
`
`Practice Guide, this exhibit is improper as it is never cited or discussed in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, and is only incorporated by reference.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibits 1055 - 1056
`
`Under FRE 401/402/403, these 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.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibits 1057 - 1058
`
`Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and contain inadmissible
`
`hearsay. Under FRE 401/402/403, these documents are inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds,
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`and their probative value is outweighed by other considerations including
`
`prejudice, confusion and waste of time.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibits 1059 - 1062, 1064
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), these documents are incomplete and are not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and
`
`contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, these
`
`documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`these 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, these documents are inadmissible because they have not
`
`been shown to be authenticated or identified. Under the Trial Practice Guide, these
`
`exhibits are untimely because they are relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-
`
`in-chief and could have been submitted with the Petition.
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 1063
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), this document is incomplete and is not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under FRE 801/802, this document constitutes and
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`document does not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`this document is inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, it does not
`
`form a basis of the instituted grounds, and its probative value is outweighed by
`
`other considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE
`
`901, this document is inadmissible because it has not been shown to be
`
`authenticated or identified. Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is untimely
`
`because it is relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-in-chief and could have
`
`been submitted with the Petition. Under the Trial Practice Guide, this exhibit is
`
`improper as it is never cited or discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and is only
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`8.
`
`Exhibits 1065 - 1072
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), these documents are incomplete and are not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and
`
`contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, these
`
`documents do not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/402/403,
`
`these 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, these documents are inadmissible because they have not
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`been shown to be authenticated or identified. Under the Trial Practice Guide, these
`
`exhibits are untimely because they are relied upon to establish the Petition’s case-
`
`in-chief and could have been submitted with the Petition. Under the Trial Practice
`
`Guide, these exhibits are improper as they are never cited or discussed in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, and are only incorporated by reference.
`
`
`
`Date: July 1, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`____/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /_________
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2021-00144
`Patent 8,095,879
`
`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:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`David Holt
`Tiffany C. Miller
`James M. Heintz
`
`
`
`IPR50095-0015IP1@fr.com
`holt@fr.com
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Vinson Lin /
`
`Date: July 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
