`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Larissa S. Bifano, Reg. No. 59,051
`Joseph W. Wolfe, Reg. No. 73,173
`Zachary Conrad, Reg. No. 77,682
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1447
`Email: Larissa.Bifano@dlapiper.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2022-00129
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b), Petitioners submit the following objection to
`
`the admissibility of evidence served with the Patent Owner Response and the
`
`Declaration of Istvan Jonyer, which is Exhibit 2009 of the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Petitioner reserves their rights to: (1) timely file a motion to exclude Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence, including evidence in the form of testimony or exhibits, or potions thereof;
`
`and (2) challenge the credibility and/or weight that should be afforded Patent
`
`Owner’s evidence, whether or not Petitioner files a motion to exclude the evidence.
`
`Exhibit No. Objections
`2010
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. G in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2010 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. G in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. H in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`
`1
`
`2011
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2011 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. H in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. I in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. I in the amended complaint
`is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. M in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`
`2
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. M in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. N in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. N in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. O in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`3
`
`
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. O in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. P in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. P in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. Q in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`4
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. Q in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. R in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. R in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. S in the amended complaint is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`
`5
`
`
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that Ex. S in the amended
`complaint is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. Patent Owner’s Claim Chart is irrelevant to the current
`proceeding. The PTAB does not determine issues of
`infringement.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the current
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, it minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the license agreement is what
`the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the current
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`6
`
`
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the license agreement is what
`the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the current
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the license agreement is what
`the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The video regarding Apple’s Core Location feature is
`irrelevant to the current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2024 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the video is what the Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`2025
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The Transcript Excerpt corresponding to the video of
`Exhibit 2024 is irrelevant to the current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2025 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the Transcript Excerpt is what
`the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026 pursuant to FRE 401 as lacking
`relevance. The screenshot of the of Exhibit 2024 is irrelevant to
`the current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, its minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice it would cause,
`the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the undue
`delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that would
`ensue.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026 pursuant to FRE 802 as being
`hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2026 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that screenshot of the video is what
`the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2027 pursuant to FRE 401.
`Information regarding Apple’s iBeacon is irrelevant to the current
`proceeding.
`
`8
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2027 pursuant to FRE 901 as lacking
`authentication. Patent Owner has failed to provide evidence
`sufficient to support a finding that the overview is what the Patent
`Owner claims it is.
`
`Dated: August 24, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Larissa S. Bifano/
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Registration Number 59,051
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,566,839
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served electronically via email on August 24, 2022 to
`
`the following:
`
`brian.michalek@saul.com
`joseph.kuo@saul.com
`brian.landry@saul.com
`IPGroupMailbox@saul.com
`
`Dated: August 24, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/Larissa S. Bifano/
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Registration Number 59,051
`
`10
`
`