`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01291
`U.S. Patent 10,687,745
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
` Masimo’s Requests for Discovery in Relation to Commercial Success and
`Copying are Unjustified and Should be Denied .............................................. 3
`A.
`Commercial Success – General Failures ............................................... 5
`B.
`Copying – General Failures ................................................................... 8
`C.
`Discovery of Unredacted ITC Briefs and Initial Determination (RFP
`#1) ........................................................................................................ 10
`D. Discovery of Unidentified Documents Behind Redaction (RFP #4) .. 12
` Masimo’s Requests for Discovery in Relation to Reasonable Expectation of
`Success Are Overly Broad and Should be Denied ........................................ 13
` Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,687,745 to Al-Ali (“the ’745 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’745 patent (Serial No. 16/835,772)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Brian Anthony
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,670,819 (“Iwamiya”)
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,392,946 (“Sarantos”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0275854 (“Venkataraman”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,483,976 (“Shie”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,801,799 (“Mendelson-799”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0018647 (“Mandel”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0275810 (“Ayers”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`PCT. Pub. No. 2011/051888 (“Ackermans”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,158,245 (“Savant”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`Design of Pulse Oximeters, J.G. Webster; Institution of Physics
`Publishing, 1997 (“Webster”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0054112 (“Cybart”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,893,364 (“Haar”)
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,952,084 (“Anderson”)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`
`
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,470,695 (the “’695 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`Apple v. Masimo, Case No. IPR2020-01722, Paper 29 (Final
`Written Decision) (PTAB May 5, 2022) (the “’695 FWD”)
`
`
`APPLE-1019 – APPLE-1030 RESERVED
`
`APPLE-1031
`
`Masimo Corporation, et al. v. Apple Inc., Redacted Complaint,
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276
`
`
`APPLE-1032
`
`APPLE-1033
`
`APPLE-1034
`
`
`
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June
`21, 2022 (“Interim Guidance”)
`Final Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337, Public
`Version, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1276, January 10, 2023
`Emails re Masimo’s Request for Authorization to Motion for
`Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`
`Introduction
`Through its Motion, Masimo seeks production on issues of secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness and reasonable expectation of success, and it
`
`targets documents collected through discovery and under an agreed upon
`
`protective order in co-pending ITC investigation 337-TA-1276.
`
`Masimo proclaims a desire to bring the Board a complete record on topics
`
`for which discovery is sought, but its actions speak loudly otherwise, as its
`
`requested discovery—if permitted— is woefully imbalanced and is calibrated only
`
`to tell Masimo’s story (and to avoid the substantial volume of contrary evidence).
`
`Indeed, the alleged bases for Masimo’s discovery requests include public versions
`
`of Masimo’s own ITC briefs, but none of Apple’s. Motion, 2. By selecting targets
`
`for requested discovery cited in its own briefs to the exclusion of Apple’s, Masimo
`
`seeks an incomplete and imbalanced representation of the ITC record. On this
`
`basis alone, Masimo’s intent is clear and the Motion should fail.
`
`The breadth and scope of Masimo’s discovery request is also unjustifiable. If
`
`granted, it would implicate some 2,200 pages of documents and lead to “trials-
`
`within-trial” on whether Apple’s products practice the ’745 patent and whether
`
`Apple copied Masimo’s technology (contentions both rejected by the ITC). More
`
`granularly, its requests would yield production of testimony and documents
`
`covering topics ranging from domestic industry to infringement and validity, both
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`on the ’745 patent and four others asserted by Masimo, including testimony from
`
`an ITC expert on economic domestic industry, and testimony from Apple
`
`engineers with respect to features in patents wholly unrelated to ’745. Masimo has
`
`simply failed to offer requests that are narrowly tailored to reasonable expectation
`
`of success or its secondary considerations theories.
`
`The Motion also fails to establish usefulness as required by Garmin Factor 1
`
`for several topics. For instance, the Motion offers no evidence or reasoning to
`
`support its requests related to commercial success and copying beyond citations to
`
`Masimo’s earlier allegations in its own ITC briefs (again, ignoring Apple’s
`
`responses). The ALJ’s Initial Determination (EX1033, “ID”) soundly rejected
`
`those allegations. More, the volume of the request works against any purported
`
`usefulness because it seeks to import largely an entire proceeding into this IPR.
`
`And through RFP #4, Masimo trades exclusively on material covered by the
`
`ITC protective order (ITC PO). In particular, Masimo offers no public record basis
`
`for identifying implicated documents, and no public record basis for establishing
`
`that the implicated documents serve a “useful” purpose or that those documents are
`
`without confidential information on topics other than those targeted by Masimo for
`
`discovery. Indeed, there exists no public record basis, and the ITC PO forbids
`
`either party from using confidential information learned through ITC discovery for
`
`a purpose other the ITC Investigation.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`Although this Motion should be denied for reasons noted, Apple reconfirms
`
`its willingness to resume meetings with Masimo to explore whether the parties can
`
`resolve through good faith negotiations production of documents identified by
`
`Masimo on limited topics, namely reasonable expectation of success and related
`
`objective indicia (skepticism and failure of others)—along with Apple’s responsive
`
`documents, where concerns over scope may be resolvable through redaction.1
`
` Masimo’s Requests for Discovery in Relation to Commercial Success
`and Copying are Unjustified and Should be Denied
`Masimo contends that its “narrow discovery requests meet all of the Garmin
`
`factors and discovery is in the interests of justice.” Motion, 4. Not so. Masimo
`
`overreaches in seeking discovery of documents allegedly related to secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness, and particularly commercial success and
`
`copying, which plainly fail against applicable standards.
`
`
`
`1 Recall that the parties’ meet and confer was abruptly and unilaterally concluded
`
`by Masimo, who approached the Board seeking authorization for briefing without
`
`responding to Apple’s questions so basic as to the relationship between the
`
`requested documents and the topics to which Masimo believed they would be
`
`useful. APPLE-1034. Apple opposed Masimo’s actions at that time pending
`
`receipt of clarifying details regarding its request. Id.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`The Motion correctly notes the elevated “interests of justice” standard
`
`necessary for obtaining additional discovery in IPRs, but pays it little heed in
`
`substance. See Motion, 4; see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); Garmin Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013)
`
`(precedential). This standard “is significantly different from the scope of
`
`discovery generally available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and is
`
`intended to “restrict[] additional discovery to particular limited situations … .” Id.,
`
`5 (quoting in part 154 Cong. Rec. S9988 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008) (statement of
`
`Sen. Kyl)). Hence, the “PTO will be conservative in its grants of discovery.” Id.
`
`Accounting for the high statutory bar and legislative history, Garmin sets
`
`forth five factors that impose meaningful restrictions on a party’s ability to obtain
`
`additional discovery in an inter partes review. Garmin, 6-7. Among these, Factor
`
`1 requires that the moving party demonstrate more than a “mere possibility” or
`
`“mere allegation” of “finding something useful” in the information targeted for
`
`discovery. Id., 6. The moving party must “already be in possession of a threshold
`
`amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that
`
`something useful will be uncovered.” Id., 7.2 “‘Useful’ in that context does not
`
`
`
`2 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`mean merely ‘relevant’ and/or ‘admissible’”; rather, “‘useful means favorable in
`
`substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery.” Id., 7.
`
`Here, Masimo falls well short of showing that the discovery it seeks will
`
`yield anything useful with respect to allegations of secondary considerations of
`
`non-obviousness based on commercial success or copying.
`
`A. Commercial Success – General Failures
`To start, Masimo’s justification for discovery of alleged commercial success
`
`evidence is more aptly described as non-existent than merely deficient. The
`
`entirety of Masimo’s justification for seeking discovery relating to commercial
`
`success is captured in a single contention, as Masimo proclaims that “documents
`
`and testimony” from the ITC “provided evidence of … commercial success.”
`
`Motion, 2. And tellingly, the only support for this assertion is a citation by
`
`Masimo to its own ITC briefing, i.e., an allegation by Masimo in its Initial Post-
`
`Hearing Brief (EX2011) Masimo’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief (EX2051). Motion
`
`2. But Masimo should not be able to use circular citation to its own allegations to
`
`flout the unambiguous requirement for evidence established by Garmin. See
`
`Garmin, (“The party requesting discovery should already be in possession of
`
`evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be
`
`uncovered.”). Indeed, merely pointing to an allegation previously raised in another
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`forum does not transform the allegation into anything more than allegation, let
`
`alone evidence of usefulness as required by Garmin.
`
`To be sure, the Motion suffers from more than a lack of affirmative evidence
`
`of usefulness with respect to commercial success. Masimo relies on the success of
`
`Apple’s purportedly infringing products, but offers nothing to confront the ALJ’s
`
`findings, which are apparent from the public version of the ID—i.e., findings that
`
`squarely reject Masimo’s secondary considerations arguments, including
`
`commercial success, both for lack of nexus and because Masimo had not
`
`established that Apple’s products even infringed (and therefore practiced) the ’745
`
`patent. See EX1033, 242 n. 87 (“The evidence of commercial success is not
`
`relevant because the Accused Products have not been shown to practice claims of
`
`the ’745 patent”); 242 (finding purported evidence of secondary considerations
`
`“does not weigh significantly against a finding of obviousness.”); see also 160
`
`(“The evidence does not persuasively indicate, however, that the sales of the
`
`Apple Watch Series 6 are largely attributable to the blood oxygen feature, as
`
`market analysts have recognized the Apple Watch’s ‘blend of sleek design, good
`
`usability on a small screen, and a growing portfolio of health and fitness apps.”).
`
`The Board does not defer to the ITC, but the ID nonetheless suggests that
`
`Masimo’s commercial success evidence will not be useful. Silicon Labs v. Cresta
`
`Tech., IPR2014-00728, Paper 31 at 4 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2014) (denying discovery
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`into evidence previously found unreliable by another “governmental body acting as
`
`an independent third party that represents the public interest”).
`
`Significantly, the Motion also fails to offer any indication of how Masimo
`
`intends to establish, contrary to the ID’s findings, that Apple’s products practice
`
`the ’745 patent and that there is a nexus between their success and the patent.
`
`Instead, it omits argument and evidence. This is fatal, and Masimo is not saved by
`
`its earlier proclaimed justification for nexus—alleged infringement of the ’745
`
`claims by the Apple Watch Series 6, which the ITC squarely rejected including in
`
`resolving no commercial success. POPR, 32; EX1033, 185-204, 246; Garmin, 8
`
`(“insufficient showing of nexus between the claimed invention and [the movant’s]
`
`discovery requests”); Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC, IPR2014-00312,
`
`Paper 23 at 5-6 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2014) (denying requested discovery for failure to
`
`provide “threshold amount of evidence tending to show that there is a nexus”).
`
`The Motion also fails to acknowledge burdens that would be imposed on
`
`Apple if Masimo’s discovery on commercial success were authorized. See
`
`Garmin, 7 (Factor 5: “requests must not be overly burdensome”). Discovery on
`
`commercial success would open the door for Masimo to re-litigate its infringement
`
`and nexus arguments that were already litigated at the ITC and rejected, thereby
`
`vastly expanding the scope of the present proceeding by creating a “trial within the
`
`trial” on infringement with no demonstrated likelihood of success. See Motion, 9
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`(arguing that “Masimo’s infringement analyses in the ITC filings would provide
`
`useful evidence regarding a nexus for commercial success”); 77 Fed. Reg. 48,622
`
`(“The interests-of-justice standard for additional discovery is consistent with
`
`considerations identified in 35 U.S.C. 316(b), as amended, including the efficient
`
`administration of the Board and the Board’s ability to complete trials timely.”).
`
`Equally troubling, Masimo’s discovery requests on commercial success target
`
`Apple’s highly-sensitive technical, sales, and commercial data concerning its
`
`accused products. Apple should not be compelled to produce it, particularly
`
`where, as here, Masimo has so plainly failed to demonstrate the usefulness of the
`
`solicited discovery in moving against the elevated interests of justice standard.
`
`For each of the reasons, Masimo’s requests for discovery as related to
`
`commercial success should be denied.
`
`B. Copying – General Failures
`Masimo’s justification for discovery of alleged evidence of copying as an
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness fares no better than its commercial success
`
`arguments. Apart from the table on page 8, the Motion’s only mention of copying
`
`is likewise provided in the context of a self-serving reference to Masimo’s own
`
`ITC briefs, in which Masimo alleges “evidence of … copying[] ….” Motion, 2.
`
`The Motion’s limited treatment of copying is a far cry from the high standards
`
`demanded by Garmin and the interests of justice. Garmin, 6; L’Oreal USA, Inc. v.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`Liqwd, Inc., PGR2017-00012, Paper 37, 5-8, 13 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2017) (denying
`
`discovery where “Patent Owner has not even alleged, much less supported with
`
`evidence, that Petitioner copied a product”); Axonics Modulation Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Medtronic, Inc., Paper 24 at 6-7 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2020) (denying discovery into
`
`copying where the evidence “does not show, beyond speculation, that the
`
`additional discovery would yield something useful”); Kamada, Ltd. v. Grifols
`
`Therapeutics Inc., IPR2014-00899, Paper 22 at 4-5 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2015).
`
`More, as with commercial success, the Motion fails to explain, and thus fails
`
`to inform the Board or Apple, on what basis the requested evidence of copying
`
`would be useful to lead the Board to a determination on this issue different than the
`
`ALJ’s determination in the ID. The ID flatly rejected the same argument: “the
`
`undersigned finds no significant credible evidence that Apple copied Masimo’s
`
`patented technology.” EX1033, 158; see also id., 246 (“[T]his evidence does not
`
`weight significantly against a finding of obviousness.”). And the ID elsewhere
`
`criticizes Masimo’s deficient copying contentions that “fail[] to identify the
`
`patented features that were allegedly copied” and that provide “no evidence that
`
`any of these products practices asserted claims … .” EX1033, 153 (citing Iron
`
`Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“Not every competing product that arguably falls within the scope of a patent is
`
`evidence of copying.”)); see also Silicon Labs, 4. Masimo’s failure to explain how
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`the identified evidence requested for discovery would be useful to prove a legally
`
`sufficient copying claim is itself fatal, as the Board has repeatedly found. L’Oreal,
`
`5-8, 13; Axonics Modulation Techs., 6-7, Kamada, 4-5. What’s more, the Motion
`
`again ignores substantial burdens that would be imposed on Apple if the door were
`
`opened to yet another “trial within the trial” on the issue of copying for reasons
`
`similar to those addressed above. Supra, Section II.A. For each of the reasons,
`
`Masimo’s requests for discovery in relation to copying should be denied.
`
`C. Discovery of Unredacted ITC Briefs and Initial Determination
`(RFP #1)
`Notwithstanding any discovery that may be authorized with respect to
`
`particular substantive contentions including commercial success and copying,
`
`Masimo’s RFP #1 should be denied in whole. RFP #1 does not target discovery of
`
`any factual evidence; it instead seeks production of unredacted copies of the
`
`parties’ briefs and ID from the ITC proceeding. Motion, 2. Thus, by their very
`
`nature, the requested documents in RFP #1 would not be useful to substantiating
`
`claims of either objective indicia of non-obviousness or reasonable expectation of
`
`success. The briefs and ID cite evidence including documents otherwise sought
`
`through RFPs #2 and #3. But the briefs are not themselves evidence; they serve no
`
`evidentiary value and are not “‘useful’ … in substantive value” as required by
`
`Garmin Factor 1. Rather, discovery of briefs would serve the rather distinct
`
`purpose of extending the limited number of pages that Masimo is afforded for
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`presenting its arguments. Nor does RFP #1 succeed under Garmin Factor 3
`
`(ability to generate equivalent information by other means), especially since public
`
`versions of the corresponding briefs and ID are readily available and there is no
`
`demonstrated need for redacted material. Garmin, 6.
`
`None of the affirmative rationales Masimo proffers for RFP #1 is
`
`compelling. See Motion, 9. Masimo argues that “the Board should have the
`
`benefit of the same information available to the ITC to ensure a complete record.”
`
`Id. But this is belied by Masimo’s requests for discovery of documents that it
`
`simultaneously avers are favorable to its positions while omitting other evidence,
`
`relied upon by Apple in the ITC, refuting these positions. Supra, Section III.
`
` Masimo’s next assumption that the “ITC filings are necessary to ensure that
`
`all responsive documents have been produced,” if followed, risks creating
`
`precedent that would vastly expand the scope of PTAB discovery into co-pending
`
`litigations contrary to congressional intent. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,637 (“The
`
`legislative history for these provisions provides that additional discovery be
`
`restricted to particular limited situations justified by the special circumstances of
`
`the case.”); Motion, 9. Relatedly Masimo’s contention that its “infringement
`
`analyses in the ITC filings would provide useful evidence regarding a nexus”
`
`reflects logic that could be deployed by virtually any plaintiff/complainant to open
`
`PTAB discovery on secondary considerations based on routine infringement
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`allegations. Motion, 9. Masimo’s final claim that it “needs the documents … to
`
`present the arguments without Apple baselessly accusing Masimo of violating the
`
`ITC protective order” is itself a baseless claim that fails to address Garmin.
`
`For each of these reasons, the Board should deny discovery as to RFP #1.
`
`D. Discovery of Unidentified Documents Behind Redaction (RFP #4)
`RFP #4 contravenes Garmin Factor 1 by seeking production of “any exhibits
`
`or testimony cited in … [certain] page ranges of the ID, MasimoIPHB, and
`
`MasimoRPHB, where the citation to the exhibit/testimony has been redacted in
`
`the public versions.” Motion, 10-11, 14, App’x A. In other words, RFP #4 targets
`
`documents whose identity and existence are unknown from the public ITC record.
`
`Rather than bringing forth “a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to
`
`show beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered” as required by
`
`Garmin Factor 1, Masimo offers no evidence or explanation for why anything
`
`useful would be uncovered by RFP #4. See, e.g., Silicon Labs., 3-4 (denying
`
`discovery where the movant “provide[d] no evidence identifying the specific
`
`character of the documents it seeks”); Garmin, 7-8. Worse, RFP #4 amounts to an
`
`improper request for the Board to correct Masimo’s own apparent failure to limit
`
`redactions in the public versions of the ITC documents. Motion, 10-11
`
`(“inadvertently redacted”). The Motion contains no indication that Masimo did
`
`inadvertently redact citations to the requested documents, only an indication that
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`such redactions may have been inadvertent. Further, if such redactions exist, the
`
`Motion contains no indication that Masimo ever attempted to correct the issue at
`
`the ITC as would be proper under Garmin Factor 3. Masimo should not expect the
`
`Board to correct Masimo’s oversights at the ITC. RFP #4 should be denied.
`
` Masimo’s Requests for Discovery in Relation to Reasonable Expectation
`of Success Are Overly Broad and Should be Denied
`Among the documents identified in RFPs #2 and #3, Masimo identifies at
`
`least 21 as allegedly bearing on reasonable expectation of success in measuring
`
`oxygen saturation at the wrist and related secondary indicia (skepticism and
`
`failure). Motion, 8, App’x A. The requests as propounded are overly broad and
`
`include documents that have either no relation to reasonable expectation of success
`
`or contain substantial material on topics unrelated to reasonable expectation of
`
`success.3 Id. By offering no explanation in the Motion as to how the individual
`
`requested documents would each be useful for proving reasonable expectation of
`
`success, Masimo fails to meet its burden under Garmin Factor 1. See Garmin, 6-7.
`
`Masimo instead leaves Apple and the Board to search for indications of alleged
`
`
`
`3 Further, to the extent Masimo relates any of the documents identified in RFP #1
`
`or #4 to reasonable expectation of success, these requests should be denied for the
`
`reasons described above in Sections II.C-D.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`usefulness in the public ITC record. But such searching reveals multiple
`
`documents identified in Masimo’s requests that are without any demonstrable
`
`connection to reasonable expectation of success as to pulse oximetry at the wrist or
`
`related secondary considerations (skepticism and failure).
`
`For example, Masimo’s public post-hearing briefs cite CX-1789C and CX-
`
`1790C in relation to protrusion features not recited in the ’745 claims and in
`
`contexts with no discernible usefulness to the issue of reasonable expectation of
`
`success in deploying pulse oximetry at the wrist. Likewise, Masimo cites CX-
`
`0185C, CX-1539C, CX-1711C, and RX-0396C in its ITC briefs with respect to
`
`topics such as copying. The Motion sheds no light as to use of these documents in
`
`relation to reasonable expectation of success.
`
`In addition, requested production of the following additional documents in
`
`service of establishing a record on reasonable expectation of success would further
`
`serve to expose sensitive confidential information found on those documents
`
`pertaining to topics other than reasonable expectation of success, namely CX-
`
`0283C, CX-0289C, CX-0295C, CX-299C, and hearing transcripts of the
`
`testimonies of Vivek Venugopal, Brian Land, Paul Mannheimer, and Stephen
`
`Waydo. By contrast, Masimo selectively excludes requests for production of
`
`countervailing evidence including such evidence cited in Apple’s ITC briefs.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`For each of these reasons, Masimo’s requests as it relates to reasonable
`
`expectation of success should be denied.
`
` Conclusion
`Masimo’s discovery requests are deficient in multiple dimensions and fail
`
`against the interest of justice standard as described in Garmin.
`
`Moreover, Apple notes that the parties’ respective briefings in the Motion
`
`and Opposition was borne of a conferral process prematurely terminated by
`
`Masimo. See APPLE-1034, Footnote 1. Masimo was unwilling at that time even
`
`to offer to Apple basic information such as the relationship between the identified
`
`targets of discovery and the topics to which Masimo would contend usefulness. Id.
`
`Apple nonetheless remains willing to resume meetings with Masimo to
`
`explore whether the parties can resolve through good faith negotiations production
`
`of documents identified by Masimo on reasonable expectation of success and
`
`related objective indicia (skepticism and failure of others), along with Apple’s
`
`responsive documents. The deficiencies in Masimo’s requests on these topics
`
`primarily relate to scope, much of which should be resolvable through redactions.
`
`Remaining portions of Masimo’s requests should not be the subject of negotiation,
`
`however—including those related to commercial success, copying, and RFPs #1
`
`and #4 in light of the multiple significant deficiencies described above.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Nicholas Stephens, Reg. No. 74,320
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Daniel D. Smith, Reg. No. 71,278
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 202-783-5070
`Fax: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01291
`Attorney Docket No: 50095-0045IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on March
`
`3, 2023, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery and its supporting exhibit were provided
`
`by email, to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence addresses of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Brian C. Claassen
`Carol Pitzel Cruz
`Jarom D. Kesler
`Jacob L. Peterson
`Daniel C. Kiang
`Jeremiah S. Helm
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main St., 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Email: AppleIPR745-1@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
