`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner hereby submits objections
`
`to evidence served by Petitioner on December 13, 2022 in support of its Reply (Paper
`
`24). 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. 1040 - “Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Glenn Reinman
`dated November 16, 2022”
`Patent Owner objects to the following portions of Ex. 1040 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 Prof. 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. 1040 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
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`the 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 Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman’s direct testimony
`
`because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis in a
`
`statement made by Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman did not discuss or opine on in his
`
`declaration.
`
`26:23-27:17
`
`Outside the scope of direct testimony. Petitioner asked Prof.
`
`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. 1040, 26:23-
`
`27:7. This questioning was outside the scope of Prof.
`
`Reinman’s direct testimony because it did not have a sufficient
`
`underlying basis in a statement made by Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman did not discuss
`
`or opine on in his declaration.
`
`52:3-23
`
`Vague and ambiguous, mischaracterizes the evidence,
`
`incomplete hypothetical, outside the scope of direct testimony.
`
`Prof. 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. 1040 at 52:3-23. This
`
`question was vague and ambiguous at least with respect to the
`
`phrases “a user selects the People view of figure 32 as a first
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`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 Prof. Reinman’s direct testimony because
`
`it did not have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made
`
`by Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman did
`
`not discuss or opine on in his declaration.
`
`55:6-56:1
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, incomplete hypothetical,
`
`mischaracterizes the evidence, outside the scope of direct
`
`testimony. Prof. 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 photographs in response to selecting that criteria, then there
`
`would necessarily be some other input or action that is required
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`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. 1040 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: Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman’s direct
`
`testimony because it did not have a sufficient underlying basis
`
`in a statement made by Prof. 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 Prof. Reinman did not discuss or opine on in his
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`
`declaration.
`
`57:24-58:14
`
`Vague and ambiguous, incomplete hypothetical. Prof. 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.
`
`1040 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.
`
`96:9-21
`
`Vague and ambiguous, compound, speculation, outside the
`
`scope of direct testimony. Prof. 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. 1040 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`“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 Prof. 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
`
`scope of Prof. Reinman’s direct testimony because it did not
`
`have a sufficient underlying basis in a statement made by Prof.
`
`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,
`
`exceeding the scope of any statement or opinion in Prof.
`
`Reinman’s declaration.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`99:9-100:2
`
`Objection(s)
`Vague, ambiguous and compound. Prof. 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. 1040 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
`
`as to "size of images and text.” Id.
`
`100:3-18
`
`Vague and ambiguous. Prof. 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. 1040 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s) / Line(s)
`
`Objection(s)
`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. Prof. 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. 1040 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 cases photographs, are associated with
`
`particular locations on a map.” See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) and
`
`403.
`
`
`2.
`Ex. 1041 - “Second Declaration of Dr. Philip Greenspun”
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1041 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. 1041 at ¶ 1; Paper 14 at 1-2. For example, Patent
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner previously objected to paragraphs 57-190 of Ex. 1003 under FRE 602, 702,
`
`and 703 and paragraphs 64, 66, 69, 70, 91, 92, 97, and 183 of Ex. 1003 to the extent
`
`those paragraphs rely on Exhibits 1020, 1022, 1023, and/or 1024, which Patent
`
`Owner objected to as inadmissible evidence. Paper 14 at 1-2. Patent Owner hereby
`
`incorporates its prior objections to Ex. 1003 and objects to Ex. 1041 on the same
`
`grounds to the extent Ex. 1041 incorporates by reference Ex. 1003.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 2-35 of Ex. 1041, 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 2-35 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 2-35 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 10 and 23 of Ex. 1041 under FRE
`
`703 as these paragraphs rely on portions of Ex. 1040 that Patent Owner objects to as
`
`inadmissible evidence.
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 1042 – Adam C. Engst, Visual Quickstart Guide iPhoto ’09
`(2009) (“Engst”)
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1042 as hearsay offered for a hearsay purpose
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`and to which no valid exception applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-807. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Ex. 1042 as not authenticated and not self-authenticating. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901-902. Petitioner provides no authenticating declaration explaining what
`
`Ex. 1042 is, how it was acquired, or how it was made. Patent Owner objects to Ex.
`
`1042 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. 1043 - “U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0196510 (“Gokturk”)
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence was served on December 20, 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
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`