`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01413
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner hereby submits objections to evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1). The discussion below identifies the evidence Patent Owner objects to
`
`and summarizes the objections, including the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) or
`
`other rules that form the basis for the objections.
`
`1.
`
`Ex. 1010 and Ex. 1002, ¶42
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1010, titled iPhoto 09 Basics, which is a PDF
`
`document purportedly “retrieved” from the website: http://etc.usf.edu/te. This
`
`exhibit lacks authentication, is hearsay and is being offered for a hearsay purpose.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 801-802, 901.
`
`Petitioner’s exhibit identifies Ex. 1010 as a document “retrieved” from a
`
`website, but declines to offer a declaration or other foundational evidence or facts
`
`relating to Ex. 1010 or the website. Further, Petitioner’s expert Benjamin B.
`
`Bederson, Ph.D. cites Ex. 1010 as evidence of what was allegedly well-known prior
`
`to 2011 but does not identify any evidence of a publication date. To the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on text appearing on the face of the exhibit showing an alleged
`
`publication date, such text is hearsay being offered for hearsay purposes. Further,
`
`Petitioner has not offered any foundation for admission per the hearsay rules.
`
`Because Ex. 1010 is inadmissible, ¶42 of Dr. Bederson’s declaration, which
`
`offers opinions in reliance on Ex. 1010, is also inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 702-
`
`703.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1019 and Ex. 1002, ¶93
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1019, titled NASA, Space Station Assembly,
`
`Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is a printout of a page purportedly “retrieved” from
`
`web.archive.org. This exhibit lacks authentication, is hearsay and is being offered
`
`for a hearsay purpose. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-802, 901.
`
`Petitioner’s exhibit identifies Ex. 1019 as a document “retrieved” from
`
`web.archive.org, but declines to offer a declaration or other foundational evidence or
`
`facts relating to Ex. 1019 or the website. Further, Petitioner’s expert Benjamin B.
`
`Bederson, Ph.D. cites Ex. 1019 as evidence of what was allegedly known prior to
`
`2011 but does not identify any evidence of a publication date. To the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on text appearing on the face of the exhibit showing an alleged publication date,
`
`such text is hearsay being offered for hearsay purposes. Further, Petitioner has not
`
`offered any foundation for admission per the hearsay rules.
`
`Because Ex. 1019 is inadmissible, ¶93 of Dr. Bederson’s declaration, which
`
`offers opinions in reliance on Ex. 1019, is also inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 702-
`
`703.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: March 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Jennifer Hayes/
`Jennifer Hayes
`Reg. No. 50,845
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue,
`Suite 4100,
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`Tel. 213-629-6179
`Fax 866-781-9391
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on March 28, 2022, upon the following parties
`
`via electronic service:
`
`ellyar@unifiedpatents.com
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4
`
`