`Paper 18
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`
`Bank of America, N.A.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01080
`U.S. Patent No. 8,463,030
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Nant Holdings IP,
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”), submits the following objections to Petitioner Bank
`
`of America, N.A.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1003, 1007, 1008, 1015, 1019, and
`
`1022. As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections below
`
`apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`
`A. Objections to Exhibit 1003 – Declaration of Jeffrey
`Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of certain portions of Exhibit
`
`1002 under FRE 401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1003 to
`
`the extent that is not cited by the petition, including but not limited to
`
`paragraphs 30-41, 44-52, 55-58, 60-69, 71-77, 86-102, and 193-197. Because
`
`the petition does not rely on those portions of Exhibit 1003, they are not
`
`relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent the uncited
`
`portions of Exhibit 1003 are deemed relevant, their admission would be
`
`unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that
`
`they are not cited in the petition.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
`
`B. Objections to Exhibit 1007 – L. O’Gorman and R. Kasturi,
`Document Image Analysis, IEEE Computer Society
`Executive Briefing (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997)
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1007 under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1007 because it is not
`
`cited in the petition. Because the petition does not rely on Exhibit 1007, it is
`
`not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent Exhibit
`
`1007 is deemed relevant, its admission would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition. Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1007 because Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1007 is prior art. To the extent that Exhibit 1007
`
`is not prior art, it is not relevant to the instituted grounds of review.
`
`C. Objections to Exhibit 1008 – Provisional Application No.
`60/246,295
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1008 under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008 because it is not
`
`cited in the petition. Because the petition does not rely on Exhibit 1008, it is
`
`not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent Exhibit
`
`1008 is deemed relevant, its admission would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
`petition.
`
`D. Objections to Exhibit 1015 – Defendants Bank of America
`Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.’s Answer to First
`Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and
`Counterclaims, NantWorks, LLC and Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.,
`2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020), ECF No.
`99
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403, 801, 802
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1015 under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1015 because it is not
`
`cited in the petition. Because the petition does not rely on Exhibit 1015, it is
`
`not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent Exhibit
`
`1015 is deemed relevant, its admission would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1015 under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 to the extent it is impermissible hearsay.
`
`E. Objections to Exhibit 1019 – Declaration of Silvia Hall-Ellis,
`Ph.D. and accompanying Attachments 1a–1f and 2.
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403, 801, 802
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1019 under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1019 because it is not
`
`cited in the petition. Because the petition does not rely on Exhibit 1019, it is
`
`not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent Exhibit
`
`1019 is deemed relevant, its admission would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Attachments 1a-1f of Exhibit 1019
`
`under FRE 801 and 802 because they are impermissible hearsay.
`
`F. Objections to Exhibit 1022 – U.S. Patent No. 6,947,571,
`entitled “Cell Phones With Optical Capabilities, and
`Related Applications” to Geoffrey B. Rhoads, et al.
`
`Grounds for Objection: FRE 401-403
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1022 under FRE
`
`401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1022 because it is not
`
`cited in the petition. Because the petition does not rely on Exhibit 1022, it is
`
`not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. Further, to the extent Exhibit
`
`1022 is deemed relevant, its admission would be unduly prejudicial,
`
`misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that it is not cited in the
`
`petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Date: December 15, 2021
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
` By: /s/ James Glass
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Phone: 212-849-7142
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01080
`Paper 18
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(E), 42.105(A))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was
`
`served in its entirety on December 15, 2021 upon the following parties via
`
`Electronic Mail:
`
`DEdwards@winston.com
`MFrench@winston.com
`DKumar@winston.com
`WS-BAC-NW@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 15, 2021
`
` By: /s/ James Glass
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Phone: 212-849-7142
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Nant Holdings IP, LLC
`
`
`6
`
`