Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`____________
`
`
`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
`
`(“FRE”), Patent Owner Smart Mobile Technologies LLC hereby objects to the
`
`following documents submitted by Petitioners Samsung Electrics Co., LTD., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, 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.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), this document is incomplete and is not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Under FRE 602/701/801/802 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, this document includes
`
`testimony that is not shown to be based on first-hand knowledge including of how
`
`relied-upon data was generated, is based on speculation, and constitutes and
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/402/403/702, this document
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`includes testimony not relevant to the instituted review, because, among other
`
`things, it has not been shown that the purportedly expert declarant is qualified to
`
`testify competently regarding the matters the opinions are said to address, or that
`
`the declarant’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data or arrived at by
`
`reliable principles, procedures, or methods reliably applied to the facts of this case,
`
`or that the declarant’s opinion will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence
`
`or to determine any fact in issue and does not have a greater potential to mislead
`
`than to enlighten. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, this document does
`
`not disclose underlying facts and data. Under FRE 401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`this document includes testimony on patent law and practice.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1011 - 1014, 1021 - 1024, 1028, 1030 – 1033, 1039, 1048
`
`Under FRE 106/1001, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) & (5), and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(1), these documents are incomplete and are not a copy which accurately
`
`reproduces the original. Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and
`
`contain inadmissible hearsay. Under FRE 401/402/403, these documents are
`
`inadmissible as irrelevant because, among other things, they do not form a basis of
`
`the instituted grounds, and their probative value is outweighed by other
`
`considerations including prejudice, confusion and waste of time. Under FRE
`
`401/705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, these documents do not disclose underlying facts
`
`and data. Under FRE 901, these documents are inadmissible because they have not
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`been shown to be authenticated or identified. The documents are relied upon as
`
`evidence of prior art or of common knowledge or understanding of persons in the
`
`art at the priority date at issue, but are inadmissible because they have not been
`
`shown to qualify as prior art under, inter alia, 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), and there is a
`
`lack of supporting documentation to demonstrate common knowledge or
`
`understanding as of the priority date.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibits 1015 - 1020, 1025 – 1027, 1035 – 1038, 1040, 1045
`
`Under FRE 801/802, these documents constitute and contain inadmissible
`
`hearsay to the extent they are relied upon for the truth of the statements contained
`
`therein. Under FRE 401/402/403, these documents are inadmissible as irrelevant
`
`because, among other things, they do not form a basis of the instituted grounds,
`
`and their probative value is outweighed by other considerations including
`
`prejudice, confusion and waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`____/ Kenneth J. Weatherwax /_________
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`
`Date: February 7, 2023
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following documents were served
`by electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date signed below:
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`
`Sangki Park
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Clint S. Wilkins
`
`
`
`
`IPR39843-0125IP1@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`in@fr.com
`spark@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / William Katz /
`
`Date: February 7, 2023
`
`
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
