Filed: February 14, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Patent
`
`Owner Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC hereby objects to the following documents
`
`submitted by Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Nothing in this paper should be construed as an admission that any rights of
`
`Patent Owner would have been waived or forfeited had the paper or any objection
`
`herein not been filed, or that 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) applies to any of the objections
`
`herein if § 42.64(b) would not otherwise apply. The objections herein are premised
`
`upon § 42.64 potentially being determined to apply to the document in question and
`
`are submitted solely to preserve the rights of Patent Owner should § 42.64(b) be
`
`determined to apply.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`1.
`Patent Owner objects to admissibility of at least paragraphs 68-275 of Dr.
`
`Jensen’s declaration on the grounds that they conclusory, are based on improper
`
`assumptions about the facts and legal standards applicable in this IPR, are based on
`
`insufficient facts or data, are not the product of reliable principles and methods,
`
`reflect that Dr. Jensen has not reliably applied the stated principles and methods to
`
`the pertinent facts or data, do not disclose underlying facts or data in support of those
`
`opinions. Fed. R. Evid. 702-703. Further, it has not been shown that Dr. Jensen is
`
`qualified to testify competently regarding the matters his opinions are said to
`
`address. This document further includes testimony that is not shown to be based on
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`first-hand knowledge including of how relied-upon data was generated, is based on
`
`speculation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 602,
`
`802.
`
`To the extent that Dr. Jensen relied on exhibits objected to below, the pertinent
`
`portions of his declaration and opinions predicated on those exhibits are further
`
`objectionable on the same bases as are the exhibits relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`2.
`This document constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and has not been established
`
`as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 801-02, 901. Petitioner has not established that this
`
`document constitutes a patent or printed publication; for at least this reason, it is
`
`irrelevant and any hypothetical probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the Board, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`403.
`
`Exhibit 1021
`3.
`This document constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and has not been established
`
`as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 801-02, 901. Petitioner has not established that this
`
`document constitutes a patent or printed publication; for at least this reason, it is
`
`irrelevant and any hypothetical probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the Board, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`403.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`4.
`This document constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and has not been established
`
`as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 801-02, 901. Petitioner has not established that this
`
`document constitutes a patent or printed publication; for at least this reason, it is
`
`irrelevant and any hypothetical probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the Board, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`403.
`
`Exhibit 1023
`5.
`This document constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and has not been established
`
`as authentic. Fed. R. Evid. 801-02, 901. Petitioner has not established that this
`
`document constitutes a patent or printed publication; for at least this reason, it is
`
`irrelevant and any hypothetical probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the Board, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`403.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Date: February 14, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Todd Martin/
`Todd Martin (Reg. No. 78,642)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6621
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Rex Hwang (Reg. No. 56,206)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 5800
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`P: 213-788-4500/F: 213-788-4545
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Philip J. Graves (Pro Hac Vice)
`Greer N. Shaw (Pro Hac Vice)
`GRAVES & SHAW LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 214-5101
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioners a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), by electronic means on February
`
`14, 2023, by delivering a copy via electronic mail to the attorneys of record for the
`
`Petitioner as follows:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Adam C. Fowles
`adam.fowles.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Samuel Drezdzon
`samuel.drezdzon.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`Date: February 14, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Todd Martin/
`Todd Martin (Reg. No. 78,642)
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
