`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner, StratosAudio, Inc.
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby objects to the admissibility of exhibits to the petition
`
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent 8,688,028 filed
`
`by Petitioner Hyundai Motor America (“Petitioner”). Patent Owner’s objections
`
`are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) and relevant case law, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1002 under FRE 401-
`
`402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing
`
`of issues, wasting time). In particular, paragraphs of Exhibit 1002 are neither cited
`
`nor relied on in the Petition. See, e.g., EX1002, ¶¶ 44-53, 62-67, 72-74, 131.
`
`Thus, portions of Exhibit 1002 are irrelevant, or at least, their probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues.
`
`See, e.g., In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (defining
`
`substantial evidence as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
`
`as adequate to support a conclusion”); SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. Celgard LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00680, Paper 57, at 27 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2015) (“Because Patent Owner
`
`does not explain where it cited Exhibits 2013, 2016, and 2900 in this proceeding,
`
`we grant Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude . . . .”); Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc.,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00273, Paper 40, at 27-28 (PTAB June 16, 2016) (excluding exhibits
`
`because the proffering party did not rely on those exhibits).
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1002 to the extent it relies on any
`
`exhibit that is later deemed inadmissible (including Exhibits 1022 and 1023,
`
`discussed below) under FRE 401-402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (probative value
`
`outweighed by prejudice, confusing of issues, wasting time). See, e.g., In re
`
`Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1380-81; SK Innovation Co., Ltd., Paper 57, at 27; Shimano,
`
`Inc., Paper 40, at 27-28.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1022 under FRE 401-
`
`402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing
`
`of issues, wasting time). In particular, Petitioner does not rely on, cite, or refer to
`
`Exhibit 1022 in the Petition. Thus, Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant, or at least, its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or
`
`confusing the issues. See, e.g., In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1380-81; SK Innovation
`
`Co., Ltd., Paper 57, at 27; Shimano, Inc., Paper 40, at 27-28.
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1023 under FRE 401-
`
`402 (relevance) and FRE 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`of issues, wasting time). In particular, Petitioner does not rely on, cite, or refer to
`
`Exhibit 1023 in the Petition. Thus, Exhibit 1023 is irrelevant, or at least, its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or
`
`confusing the issues. See, e.g., In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1380-81; SK Innovation
`
`Co., Ltd., Paper 57, at 27; Shimano, Inc., Paper 40, at 27-28.
`
`Dated: February 4, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John Scheibeler/ (Electronically signed)
`John Scheibeler
`Reg. No. 35,346
`
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`
`John Scheibeler, Reg. No. 35,346
`White & Case LLP
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020-1095
`Phone: 212-819-8200
`
`Jonathan Lamberson, Reg. No. 57,352
`Back-Up Counsel
`White & Case LLP
`2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
`3000 El Camino Real
`Palo Alto, California 94306-2109
`Phone: 650-213-0384
`
`Ashley T. Brzezinski, Reg. No. 68,651
`Back-Up Counsel
`White & Case LLP
`75 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 979-9344
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`Hallie Kiernan (pro hac vice pending)
`White & Case LLP
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020-1095
`Phone: 212-819-8200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01303
`U.S. Patent No. 8,688,028
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served
`
`on February 4, 2022, by filing this document through the PTAB E2E System, as
`
`well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record
`
`for Petitioner:
`
`
`Ryan Yagura (Reg. No. 47,191)
`Nicholas J. Whilt (Reg. No. 72,081)
`Caitlin P. Hogan (Reg. No. 61,515)
`Clarence A. Rowland (Reg. No. 73,775)
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
` (213) 430-6000
`ryagura@omm.com
`nwhilt@omm.com
`chogan@omm.com
`crowland@omm.com
`StratosAudioHyundaiOMM@omm.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/John Scheibeler/ (Electronically signed)
`John Scheibeler
`Reg. No. 35,346
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`