`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00222
`
`
`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. Philip Greenspun”
`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 57-101, 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`as being conclusory. Paragraphs 57-101 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 57-101 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 102-190, 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 102-190 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 64, 66, 69, 70, 91, 92, 97, and 183 to the
`
`extent those paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1020, 1022, 1023, and/or 1024, which
`
`Patent Owner has objected to as inadmissible evidence.
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 1020 - “Tim Grey, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Workflow:
`The Digital Photographer's Guide (2007)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1020 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1020 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1020 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1020 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.
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 1022 - “Stephen Shankland, “What’s the best Web site for
`geotagged photos?,” CNET (Mar. 18, 2009), available at
`https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/whats-the-best-web-sitefor-
`geotagged-photos/”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1022 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. 1022 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what Ex.
`
`1022 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1022
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Ex. 1023 - “Panoramio, ‘Embedding a Panoramio map into your
`web page’ (Archive.org: Mar. 28, 2010), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20100328215828/http://www.panora
`mio.com:80/help/embedding)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1023 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. 1023 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. 1023 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1023 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.
`
`Ex. 1024 – “Shu-Wai Chow, PHP Web 2.0 Mashup Projects,
`Packt Publishing (2007)”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1024 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. 1024 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1024 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1024 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: June 28, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on June 28, 2022, upon the following parties via
`
`electronic service:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR39843-0117IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`in@fr.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
