`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. 1035
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1035 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and
`
`to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1035 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what Ex.
`
`1035 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1035
`
`because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by the risks
`
`of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403..
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1036
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1036 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and
`
`to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1036 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what Ex.
`
`1036 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1036
`
`because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by the risks
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact finder.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403..
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 1038
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1038 as hearsay being offered for a hearsay
`
`purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to Ex. 1038 as lacking foundation, assuming facts not in evidence,
`
`containing testimony on matters as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge
`
`and as being conclusory. Exhibit 1038 is objected to under FRE 702 for failing to
`
`demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant subject-matter.
`
`Exhibit 1038 is further objected to under FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as failing to be
`
`based upon sufficient facts or data, as the product of unreliable principles and
`
`methods and for failing to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of
`
`the case. Exhibit 1038 is further objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402,
`
`and as being unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraph 31 under FRE 602 and 703, and as lacking
`
`foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on matters as to
`
`which the witness lacks personal knowledge, containing hearsay and as being
`
`conclusory. Paragraph 31 is also objected to under FRE 702 for failing to
`
`demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant subject-matter.
`
`Paragraph 31 is further objected to under FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as failing to be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`based upon sufficient facts or data, as the product of unreliable principles and
`
`methods and for failing to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts
`
`of the case.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 9-30, 32-48, 50-70, 72-75, under FRE 602
`
`and 703, and as lacking foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing
`
`testimony on matters as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge, containing
`
`hearsay and as being conclusory. Paragraphs 9-30, 32-48, 50-70, 72-75 are also
`
`objected to under FRE 702 for failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified
`
`as an expert in the relevant subject-matter. Paragraphs 9-30, 32-48, 50-70, 72-75are
`
`further objected to under FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as failing to be based upon
`
`sufficient facts or data, as the product of unreliable principles and methods and for
`
`failing to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraph 35 to the extent it relies on Exhibits 1035
`
`and 1036, which Patent Owner has objected to as inadmissible evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 6, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on September 6, 2022, upon the following parties
`
`via electronic service:
`
`ellyar@unifiedpatents.com
`
`michelle@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
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
