Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00221
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,423,658
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00221
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits objections
`
`to evidence served by Petitioner on February 14, 2023, in support of its Reply (Paper
`
`22). 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. 1045 - “Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Glenn Reinman
`dated November 16, 2022”
`Patent Owner objects to the following portions of Ex. 1045 cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`30:19-32:3
`
`Objection(s)
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes evidence, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Petitioner asked Dr. Reinman “based
`
`on experience and knowledge of how graphical user interfaces
`
`work, wouldn’t it be logical that a ‘Sort By’ drop-down list box
`
`that contains various criteria for sorting displayed items would
`
`present the user with the ability to change the way that those
`
`items are arranged or displayed.” Ex. 1045 at 30:19-32:3. The
`
`question was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the
`
`terms/phrases “logical,” “a ‘Sort By’ drop-down list box,”
`
`“various criteria for sorting displayed items,” and “present the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`user with the ability to change the way that those items are
`
`arranged or displayed” referred to. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and
`
`403. Petitioner failed to lay foundation as to what these phrases
`
`referred to. In the preceding questioning, Petitioner asked Dr.
`
`Reinman about FIG. 32 of the ‘228 patent. To the extent that
`
`the questioning at 30:19-32:3 referred to FIG. 32 (which was
`
`unclear), the questioning mischaracterized the ‘228 patent. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. This questioning was also
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct testimony because it
`
`did not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made
`
`by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called for an answer
`
`regarding the portions of the ’228 patent that Dr. Reinman did
`
`not discuss or opine on, thus, exceeding the scope of any
`
`statement or opinion in Dr. Reinman’s declaration.
`
`26:23-27:17
`
`Outside the scope of direct testimony. Petitioner asked Dr.
`
`Reinman about “[w]hat happens in figure – the People view of
`
`figure 32 when the user selects the ‘Sort By’ criteria of ‘Newest
`
`to Oldest’ labeled as element 1402” and whether “the display of
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`photographs in figure 32 will or may change according to the
`
`‘Sort By’ criterion that is elected by the user.” Ex. 1045, 26:23-
`
`27:7. This questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s
`
`direct testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying
`
`basis in a statement made by Dr. Reinman in his declaration.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The
`
`question called for an answer regarding the portions of the ’228
`
`patent that Dr. Reinman did not discuss or opine, thus,
`
`exceeding the scope of any statement or opinion in Dr.
`
`Reinman’s declaration.
`
`52:3-23
`
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes the evidence,
`
`incomplete hypothetical, outside the scope of direct testimony.
`
`Dr. Reinman was asked “[i]n the situation where a user selects
`
`the People view of figure 32 as a first action and then, as a
`
`second action, selects the search criteria, there may be still
`
`another action that’s required to implement or invoke that
`
`search criteria causing some subset of photographs that meet the
`
`criteria to appear in the display.” Ex. 1045 at 52:3-23. This
`
`question was vague and ambiguous at least with respect to the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`phrases “a user selects the People view of figure 32 as a first
`
`action,” “as a second action, selects the search criteria,” and
`
`“there may be still another action that’s required to implement
`
`or invoke that search criteria causing some subset of
`
`photographs that meet the criteria to appear in the display.” See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning also
`
`mischaracterized the ‘228 patent. Id. This questioning was
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct testimony because it
`
`did not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made
`
`by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called for an answer
`
`regarding the portions of the ’228 patent that Dr. Reinman did
`
`not discuss or opine on, thus, exceeding the scope of any
`
`statement or opinion in Dr. Reinman’s declaration.
`
`55:6-56:1
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, incomplete hypothetical,
`
`mischaracterizes the evidence, outside the scope of direct
`
`testimony. Dr. Reinman was asked “[i]f the system of the ‘228
`
`patent were designed so that selection of a ‘Sort By’ criteria did
`
`not by itself cause a re-sorting or reorganization of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`photographs in response to selecting that criteria, then there
`
`would necessarily be some other input or action that is required
`
`to invoke it; otherwise, we just have a – kind of dead end, right?
`
`The user would never be able to implement their sort criteria?”
`
`Ex. 1045 at 55:6-56:1. This questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least with respect to the phrases “the system of the
`
`‘228 patent were designed,” “selection of a ‘Sort By’ criteria
`
`did not by itself cause a re-sorting or reorganization of the
`
`photographs in response to selecting that criteria,” “some other
`
`input or action that is required to invoke it,” “dead end,” and
`
`“able to implement their sort criteria.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a)
`
`and 403. The questioning was also compound: Dr. Reinman
`
`was explicitly asked two questions. Id. Insofar as this
`
`questioning related to FIG. 32 of the ‘228 patent, the
`
`questioning mischaracterize/misstates the ‘228 patent. Id. This
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. The
`
`question called for an answer regarding the portions of the ’228
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`patent that Dr. Reinman did not discuss or opine on, thus,
`
`exceeding the scope of any statement or opinion in Dr.
`
`Reinman’s declaration.
`
`57:24-58:14
`
`Vague and ambiguous, incomplete hypothetical. Dr. Reinman
`
`was asked in reference to FIG. 32 of the ‘228 patent to
`
`“consider the situation where Jon Smith’s name is displayed in
`
`the photograph at the farthest left, but the photo immediately
`
`adjacent to Jon Smith’s right has a name associated with it but
`
`momentarily hidden from view” and then asked whether
`
`“People View includes a first name and a second name.” Ex.
`
`1045 at 57:24-58:14. This questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least as to the phrase “momentarily hidden from
`
`view.” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`66:2-11
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Dr. Reinman was asked whether “the
`
`word ‘simultaneous’ is unambiguously absent from claim one;
`
`is that fair?” Ex. 1045 at 66:2-11. The questioning was vague
`
`and ambiguous at least as to the phrase “unambiguously
`
`absent.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`96:9-21
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, speculation, outside the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`scope of direct testimony. Dr. Reinman was asked whether he
`
`was “able to describe any change that the designers of the
`
`system described in Okamura could have made to realize any of
`
`the requirements of the claims of the ‘228 patent, or have you
`
`not done that analysis.” Ex. 1045 at 96:9-21. The questioning
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to the phrases “any
`
`change,” “designers of the system described in Okamura,” and
`
`“realize any of the requirements of the claims of the ‘228
`
`patent.” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay
`
`foundation as to who the referenced “designers of the system
`
`described in Okamura” were. The questioning was also vague
`
`and ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id. Asking about
`
`what the “designers of the system described in Okamura” could
`
`have done required Dr. Reinman to speculate. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403, 611, 602, 701-702. To the extent “realize any of the
`
`requirements of the claims of the ‘228 patent” corresponds to
`
`multiple limitations recited in the ‘228 patent claims, the
`
`question was also compound for impermissibly entailing
`
`multiple questions. Id. Further, this questioning was outside the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct testimony because it did not
`
`have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Dr.
`
`Reinman in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called for an answer regarding
`
`the possibility of “any change” to Okamura, and was based on a
`
`scenario Dr. Reinman did not opine on, thus, exceeding the
`
`scope of any statement or opinion in Dr. Reinman’s
`
`declaration.
`
`99:9-100:2
`
`Vague, ambiguous and compound. Dr. Reinman was asked
`
`whether “things such as the relative size of images and text that
`
`appear on a user interface, those are a matter of design choice
`
`for the system creator.” Ex. 1045 at 99:9-100:2. The question
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to the terms/phrases
`
`“things,” “relative size of images and text that appear on a user
`
`interface,” and “matter of design choice.” See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay foundation as to what
`
`these phrases referred to. The questioning was also vague and
`
`ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id. The question was
`
`also compound for impermissibly entailing multiple questions
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`as to "size of images and text.” Id.
`
`100:3-18
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Dr. Reinman was asked whether it is
`
`“also a matter of design choice when someone is building a
`
`system for a user interface that displays images and associated
`
`text as to what type of an actual display or screen size will be
`
`used as part of that system.” Ex. 1045 at 100:3-18. The question
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to the terms/phrases
`
`“building a system for a user interface” and “what type of an
`
`actual display or screen size will be used as part of the system.”
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay
`
`foundation as to what these phrases referred to. The questioning
`
`was also vague and ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id.
`
`107:10-22
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Dr. Reinman was asked whether “an
`
`objective of the system described in Belitz is to provide an
`
`overview of which graphical objects, in some cases
`
`photographs, are associated with particular locations on a map.”
`
`Ex. 1045 at 107:10-22. The question was vague and ambiguous
`
`at least as to the phrase “objective of the system described in
`
`Belitz,” “an overview,” and “which graphical objects, in some
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`cases photographs, are associated with particular locations on a
`
`map.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`114:8-15
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Dr. Reinman was asked “is it your
`
`opinion, then, that it would be impossible to substitute
`
`thumbnails for cluster maps in Okamura without losing all
`
`geographic context.” Ex. 1045 at 114:8-15. The question was
`
`vague and ambiguous at least as to the phrase “impossible to
`
`substitute,” and “without losing all geographic context.” See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and 403.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the above indicated portions of Ex. 1045 cited
`
`in Petitioner’s Reply as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose and to which no
`
`valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner also objects to
`
`the above indicated portions of Ex. 1045 cited in Petitioner’s Reply as 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
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1046 – “Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Glenn Reinman
`dated January 24, 2023”
`Patent Owner objects to the following portions of Ex. 1046 cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`41:13-42:12
`
`Objection(s)
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes evidence. Petitioner
`
`asked Dr. Reinman “is it your understanding that certain views
`
`depicted in the figures of the ‘658 patent may be referred to as
`
`either an application view or a location view?” Ex. 1046 at
`
`41:13-42:12. The question was vague and ambiguous at least as
`
`to what the phrases “certain views” and “may be referred to as
`
`either an application view or a location view.” See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay foundation as to what
`
`these phrases were referring to. In the preceding questioning,
`
`Petitioner asked Dr. Reinman about FIGS. 34 and 35 of the
`
`‘658 patent. To the extent that the questioning at 41:13-42:12
`
`referred to both FIGS 34 and 35 (which was unclear), the
`
`questioning mischaracterized the ‘658 patent. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`611(a) and 403.
`
`43:7-15
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound. Petitioner asked Dr.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`Reinman “[i]s it the case that a particular view within the
`
`system must either be an application view or a location view,
`
`but cannot qualify as both?” Ex. 1046 at 43:7-15. The question
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to what the phrases “is it
`
`the case,” “particular view within the system,” “must either be,”
`
`and “cannot qualify as both.” Petitioner failed to lay a
`
`foundation as to what these phrases were referring to. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning was also compound:
`
`Dr. Reinman was asked two questions.
`
`53:18-54:22
`
`Vague and ambiguous, speculation, compound, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Dr. Reinman was asked “within a
`
`system that meets the claims of the ‘658 patent, would it be
`
`possible for a system designer to add a selectable element that is
`
`based on a particular event.” Ex. 1046 at 53:18-54:22. The
`
`questioning was vague and ambiguous at least as to the phrases
`
`“within a system that meets the claims,” “system designer,” and
`
`“selectable element that is based on a particular event.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay foundations as to
`
`what the referenced “system” is and as to who a “system
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`designer” is. Further, asking Dr. Reinman about whether
`
`something would “be possible” required Dr. Reinman to
`
`speculate. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 611, 602, 701-702. To the
`
`extent “within a system that meets the claims of the ‘658
`
`patent” corresponds to the multiple limitations recited in the
`
`‘658 patent claims, the question was compound for
`
`impermissibly entailing multiple questions. Id. Further, this
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called
`
`for an answer regarding the possibility of a “system designer ...
`
`add[ing]” to the ‘658 patent, and was based on a scenario Dr.
`
`Reinman did not opine on, thus, exceeding the scope of any
`
`statement or opinion in Dr. Reinman’s declaration.
`
`78:3-79:3
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, speculation, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Petitioner asked Dr. Reinman
`
`“sticking with Figure 32, and I guess picking up on your
`
`example about managing screen space, what if the photos
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`shown in Figure 32 were so large that only one could be
`
`displayed in a window at a time and the user had to scroll down
`
`to see the second picture? Would the display of those two
`
`photographs be in response to the clicking of the ‘people view’
`
`button 1401 alone?” Ex. 1046 at 78:3-79:3. The questioning
`
`was vague and ambiguous at least as to the phrases “what if the
`
`photos shown,” “scroll down to see the second picture,” and
`
`“would the display of those two photographs be in response to
`
`the clicking of the ‘people view’ button 1401 alone.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. Questioning Dr. Reinman about “what if”
`
`required Dr. Reinman to speculate. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 611,
`
`602, 701-702. Petitioner’s questioning is also clearly compound
`
`as Petitioner asked two questions sequentially. Id. Further, this
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called
`
`for an answer regarding hypothetical changes to Figure 32 of
`
`the ‘658 patent and was based on a scenario Dr. Reinman did
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`not opine on, thus, exceeding the scope of any statement or
`
`opinion in Dr. Reinman’s declaration.
`
`98:1-99:1
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Dr. Reinman was asked “is it your
`
`opinion that displaying two names in association with
`
`thumbnail images shown in Figure 21 of the Okamura reference
`
`would necessarily cause screen clutter?” Ex. 98:1-99:1. This
`
`questioning was vague and ambiguous at least with respect to
`
`the phrases “in association with thumbnail images” and “would
`
`necessarily cause screen clutter.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and
`
`403. Petitioner failed to lay foundation as to what these phrases
`
`referred to.
`
`101:4-20
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, outside the scope of direct
`
`testimony. Dr. Reinman was asked whether he agreed that “it
`
`was known in this field at the time of the inventions of the ‘658
`
`patent to adjust elements on the screen, including things like
`
`font or text, to match or to have a scale that matches the
`
`available screen space? I mean, that’s pretty basic, right?” Ex.
`
`1046 at 101:4-20. The question was vague and ambiguous at
`
`least with respect to the phrases “known in this field at the time
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`of the inventions,” “adjust elements on the screen,” “to match or
`
`to have a scale that matches,” and “pretty basic.” See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. The questioning was also vague and
`
`ambiguous in terms of temporal scope. Id. Petitioner failed to
`
`lay a proper foundation as to what these phrases referred to.
`
`The questioning was also compound: Dr. Reinman was
`
`explicitly asked at least two questions. Id. This questioning was
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct testimony because it
`
`did not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made
`
`by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question called for an answer
`
`regarding systems that Dr. Reinman did not discuss or opine on,
`
`thus, exceeding the scope of any statement or opinion in Dr.
`
`Reinman’s declaration.
`
`110:20-111:19 Vague and ambiguous, outside the scope of direct testimony.
`
`Dr. Reinman was asked whether “at the time the alleged
`
`inventions of the ‘658 patent were made, was it commonplace
`
`for users of portable phones or mobile phones to deploy a
`
`mouse to interact with the user interfaces of those devices.” Ex.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`1046 at 110:20-111:19. The questioning was vague and
`
`ambiguous at least with respect to the phrases “alleged
`
`inventions,” “commonplace,” “to deploy a mouse,” and
`
`“interact with the user interfaces of those devices.” See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(a) and 403. Petitioner failed to lay a proper
`
`foundation as to what these phrases referred to. Further, this
`
`questioning was outside the scope of Dr. Reinman’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Dr. Reinman in his declaration. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The question
`
`called for an answer regarding the “portable phones or mobile
`
`phones,” and was based on a scenario Dr. Reinman did not
`
`opine on, thus, exceeding the scope of any statement or opinion
`
`in Dr. Reinman’s declaration.
`
`
`
`3.
`Ex. 1047 - “Second Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1047 to the extent it purports to incorporate by
`
`reference the entirety of Ex. 1003, which Patent Owner previously objected to as
`
`inadmissible evidence. See Ex. 1047 at ¶ 1; Paper 14 at 1. For example, Patent Owner
`
`previously objected to paragraphs 64, 66, 72, 73, 89, 90, 95, 100, and 165 of Ex.
`
`17
`
`
`
`1003 under Fed. R. Evid. 703 to the extent those paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1020,
`
`1022, 1023, 1024, 1042, and/or 1043, which Patent Owner objected to as
`
`inadmissible evidence. Paper 14 at 1-4. Patent Owner hereby incorporates its prior
`
`objections to Ex. 1003 and objects to Ex. 1047 on the same grounds to the extent Ex.
`
`1047 incorporates by reference Ex. 1003.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 2-45 of Ex. 1047, 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 2-45 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 2-45 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 also objects to paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 12, 19, 29, 35, 39, 40, and 42
`
`of Ex. 1047 under FRE 703 as these paragraphs rely on portions of Ex. 1045 and Ex.
`
`1046 that Patent Owner objects to as inadmissible evidence.
`
`4.
`
`Ex. 1048 – Adam C. Engst, Visual Quickstart Guide iPhoto ’09
`(2009) (“Engst”)
`
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`objects to Ex. 1048 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. 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.
`
`Ex. 1049 - “U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0196510 (“Gokturk”)
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1049 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.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: February 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on February 21, 2023, upon the following parties
`
`via electronic service:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`Christopher O. Green
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR39843-0116IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`in@fr.com
`cgreen@fr.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
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
