DOCKET NO.: 337722-000230
`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
`
`IPR2022-00131
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2022-00131
`
`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. 8,639,267
`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 2010 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
`2014
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. Exhibit 2014 includes several pages of definitions
`taken from various internet sources, such as Wikipedia,
`Techopedia, Cambridge Dictionary, Google, YourDictionary,
`and ComputerHope. The definitions provided in Exhibit 2014
`are only considered in a vacuum and fail to take into account the
`context of the claim and specification. If admitted, their minimal
`probative value would be substantially outweighed by the unfair
`prejudice they 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 602 as
`lacking foundation.
`
`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 the select definitions
`and webpages including the select definitions are what the Patent
`Owner claims they are.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 401 as
`lacking relevance. Patent Owner’s infringement contentions are
`
`2015
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`irrelevant to the current proceeding. The PTAB does not
`determine issues of infringement.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, their minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice they 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 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 the select exhibits in
`the amended complaint are what the Patent Owner claims they
`are.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 401 as
`lacking relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, their minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice they would
`cause, the confusing and misleading nature of the materials, the
`undue delay upon these proceedings, and the waste of time that
`would ensue.
`
`2016
`
`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 the license
`agreement is what the Patent Owner claims it is.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 401 as
`lacking relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`2017
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, their minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice they 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 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 2018 pursuant to FRE 401 as
`lacking relevance. The license agreement is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`2018
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 pursuant to FRE 403 as being
`prejudicial. If admitted, their minimal probative value would be
`substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice they would
`cause, the con-fusing 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 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 2019 pursuant to FRE 401.
`Information regarding Apple’s privacy settings and Location
`Services is irrelevant to the current proceeding.
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020 pursuant to FRE 401.
`Information regarding Apple’s iBeacon is irrelevant to the
`current proceeding.
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: August 24, 2022
`
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Larissa S. Bifano/
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Registration Number 59,051
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`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
`
`1
`
`
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
