Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,552,376 B2
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00032
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,552,376 B2
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00032
`
`
`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. 1003 - “Declaration of Dr. Loren Terveen regarding U.S.
`Patent No. 10,423,658”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1003 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. 1003 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 1003 is objected to under FRE 702 for
`
`failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant
`
`subject-matter. Exhibit 1003 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 1003 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 paragraphs 74-104, 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
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusory. Paragraphs 74-104 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 74-104 are 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 paragraphs 119-304, 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 119-304 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 are 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 paragraphs 56-71, 73-74, 77, 98-99, 101-110, 119-
`
`128, 130-136, 139-152, 154-155, 158-161, 165-167, 169-173, 175-180, 182-184,
`
`186-191, 194-197, 199-203, 205, 207, 209-216, 218-234, 236-237, 241-256, 259-
`
`260, 262-265, 268-273, 276, 279-282, 294-295, under FRE 703, to the extent those
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1005, 1020, 1022, 1029, 1030-1040, 1043, 1047-1048,
`
`1051-1053, and 1055, which Patent Owner objected to as inadmissible evidence.
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1005 - “Aperture 3 User Manual”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1005 as lacking authentication, and as hearsay
`
`being offered for a hearsay purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-807, 901-902. Because the Declaration of Matthew Birdsell (Ex.
`
`1020) lacks authentication, sufficient corroboration and is hearsay being offered for
`
`a hearsay purpose to which no valid exception applies, Petitioner has not
`
`authenticated Ex. 1005.
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 1020 - “Declaration of Matthew Birdsell”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1020 as hearsay being offered for a hearsay
`
`purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent
`
`Owner objects to paragraphs 3 through 20 under Rules 602 and 701 at least to the
`
`extent that Mr. Birdsell does not have personal knowledge of the creation or
`
`manipulation of the records on which he bases his statements.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 4-5, under FRE 703, to the extent those
`
`paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1005, 1021, and 1048, which Patent Owner has objected
`
`to as inadmissible evidence. Paragraphs 3 through 20 also appear to rely on but do
`
`not explicitly cite these same exhibits. Patent Owner also objects to paragraphs 3-
`
`20, under FRE703, to the extent those paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1005, 1020, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1048 and/or other exhibits, which Patent Owner has objected to as inadmissible
`
`evidence.
`
`4.
`
`Ex. 1021 - “Apple Inc., www.apple.com (various) (Archive.org:
`Feb. 17 to Mar. 5, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1021 as lacking authentication, and as hearsay
`
`being offered for a hearsay purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-807, 901-902. Petitioner’s exhibit identifies Ex. 1021 as an
`
`“archived copy” of a website, but declines to offer an effective declaration or other
`
`foundational evidence or facts relating to Ex. 1021 or the website. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper 53, March
`
`12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with personal
`
`knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any other basis
`
`for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this reason, [the
`
`challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are inadmissible.”).
`
`5.
`
`Ex. 1022 - “Standard Affidavit, Internet Archive (Oct. 8, 2021),”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1022, which is purportedly an affidavit from an
`
`unnamed “Records Request Processor” at the Internet Archive. This affidavit is not
`
`made by a witness with personal knowledge of the archive’s contents or procedures.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 901-902. This purported affidavit is also hearsay offered for a
`
`hearsay purpose and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Ex. 1029 – “Top 11 Technologies of the Decade, IEEE Spectrum,
`pp. 27-63 (Jan. 2011)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1029 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. 1029 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1029 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1029 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.
`
`7.
`
`Ex. 1030 - “Wikipedia Entry for Photo sharing (Archive.org: May
`6, 2011)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1030 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. 1030 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1030 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1030 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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Ex. 1031 - “Wikipedia Entry for Image organizer (Archive.org:
`Apr. 27, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1032 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. 1032 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1032 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1032 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.
`
`9.
`
`Ex. 1032 – “Todd Bogdan, Announcing Picasa 3.5, now with name
`tags, better geotagging and more, The Official Google Blog (Sept.
`22, 2009) (Archive.org: Nov. 11, 2009)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1032 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. 1032 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1032 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1032 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.
`
`10. Ex. 1033 – “What's the best Web site for geotagged photos?
`CNET (Mar. 18, 2009)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1033 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. 1033 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1033 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1033 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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`11.
`
` Ex. 1034 – “Panoramio, Embedding a Panoramio map into your
`web page (Archive.org: Mar. 28, 2010)
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1034 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. 1034 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1034 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1034 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.
`
`12. Ex. 1035 – “Shu-Wai Chow, PHP Web 2.0 Mashup Projects,
`Packt Publishing (2007)”
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`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.
`
`13. Ex. 1036 – “Exchangeable image file format for digital still
`cameras: Exif Version 2.2, JEITA CP-3451 (Apr. 2002)”
`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 of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact
`
`finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`14. Ex. 1037 – “Information Interchange Model Version 4, IPTC-
`NAA (July 1999)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1037 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. 1037 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1037 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1037 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.
`
`15. Ex. 1038 – “Guidelines for Handling Image Metadata v. 1.0,
`Metadata Working Group (Sept. 2008)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1038 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. 1038 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1038 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1038 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.
`
`16. Ex. 1039 – “iPhoto 09 Review (Archive org: May 26, 2009)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1039 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. 1039 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1039 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1039 because it is not sufficiently relevant, and any relevance is outweighed by the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`risks of confusion, substantial danger of unfair prejudice, and/or misleading the fact
`
`finder. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`17. Ex. 1040 – “Google Code, Google Maps API Reference
`(Archive.org: Feb. 23, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1040 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. 1040 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1040 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1040 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.
`
`18. Ex. 1043 – “Flickr, Tour: Maps (Archive.org: Feb. 9, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1043 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. 1043 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1043 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1043 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.
`
`19. Ex. 1044 – “Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`(Archive.org: Mar. 22, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1044 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. 1044 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1044 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1044 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.
`
`20. Ex. 1045 – “Tony Wu, Using Aperture 3: Part 1 (Archive.org:
`Apr. 2, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1045 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. 1045 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1045 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1045 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.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`21. Ex. 1047 – “Apple Inc., Mac OS X v10.6.3 Update (Mar. 29, 2010)
`(Archive.org Apr. 11, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1047 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. 1047 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1047 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1047 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.
`
`22. Ex. 1048 – “Apple Inc., Apple Releases Aperture 3 (Feb. 9, 2010)
`(Archive.org May 20, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1048 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. 1048 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1048 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1048 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.
`
`23. Ex. 1051 – “Apple Inc., Exploring Aperture 3 (2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1051 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. 1051 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1051 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1051 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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`24. Ex. 1052 - “Sept. 17, 2001 eBay Order Confirmation for ‘Apple
`Aperture 3 Academic Software DVD with Serial Code’”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1052 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. 1052 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1052 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1052 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.
`
`25. Ex. 1053 – “Martin C. Brown, Hacking Google Maps and Google
`Earth, Wiley Publishing, Inc. (2006)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1053 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. 1053 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1053 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1053 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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`26. Ex. 1055 – “Apple Inc.,
`http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/ HTML
`Source File (Archive.org Feb. 17, 2010)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1055 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. 1055 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902; IPR2013-00578 Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC (Paper
`
`53, March 12, 2015) (“Neste has not provided the testimony of any witness with
`
`personal knowledge of the websites depicted in the printouts; nor do we have any
`
`other basis for concluding that the contents of the website are authentic. For this
`
`reason, [the challenged Wayback Machine exhibits] lack authentication and are
`
`inadmissible.”). Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1055 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1055 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: July 14, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on July 14, 2022, upon the following parties via
`
`electronic service:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Samuel A. Dillon
`Kyle S. Smith
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`kyle.smith@sidley.com
`SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Apple, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`19
`
`
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
