`
`Filed: November6, 2023
`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No. 63,051)
`Carol Pitzel Cruz (Reg. No. 61,224)
`Daniel Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.:
`(949) 760-0404
`Fax:
`(949) 760-9502
`E-mail:
`AppleIPR745-1@knobbe.com
`
`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
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple’s Motion seeks to exclude evidence that the ITC found persuasive in
`
`upholding the validity of the °745 Patent claims. During the ITC Investigation,
`
`Apple elicited sworn testimony from its own engineers about the challenges
`
`developing a device that could determine oxygen saturation at the wrist. Apple’s
`
`own documents demonstrate that a POSITA would not have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of successfully measuring oxygen saturation at
`
`the wrist, reflect
`
`skepticism of measuring oxygen saturation at the wrist, failed attempts to measure
`
`oxygensaturation, and show the long-felt need for oxygen saturation determinations
`
`at the wrist.
`
`Apple did not address this evidence in its Petition. Apple instead embarked
`
`on a strategy at both the Patent Office and ITC to prevent Masimofrom introducing
`
`that evidence during these IPRs.
`
`The Board granted Masimo’s Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery (Paper 23), allowing Masimoto present the evidencethat the
`
`ITC considered andrelied on in finding the ’745 Patent claimsvalid.
`
`Apple now renewsits attempt to keep this highly probative evidence from
`
`consideration. Apple argues the Board should exclude sworn testimony from
`
`Apple’s own witnesses as “unreliable” hearsay. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(“Mot.”), 1-2. But that testimony, and the related documents, are opposing party
`
`statements being offered against Apple and therefore not hearsay under FRE
`
`
`
`
`
`801(d)(2). But even if such testimony werehearsay, it would still be admissible
`
`because Apple’s attorneys elicited that testimony from Apple’s witnesses under
`
`oath. Such evidenceis both highly probative and reliable. And regardless, numerous
`
`hearsay exceptionsapply.
`
`Apple also seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Duckworth’s opinions for relying
`
`on Apple’s engineers’ testimony and Apple’s internal documents, and for opinions
`
`that Apple alleges were “conclusory”or “presented without citation to evidence.”
`
`Mot., 3-4. At best, Apple’s objections go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the
`
`evidence and should be denied for that independent reason. But, on the substance,
`
`Apple’s Motion offers no explanation for how the objected-to paragraphs contain
`
`“conclusory” or unsupported statements because those paragraphsinclude citations
`
`to exhibits and Dr. Duckworth thoroughly explained his reasoning.
`
`In contrast,
`
`Apple’s expert had no idea that his declaration copied portions of Apple’s ITC
`
`briefing verbatim, and accordingly could not even say what documentsherelied on
`
`because the declaration did not even change the ITC citations. See POPR 52-53
`
`(comparing EX2052, 175 with EX1003, 4/76).
`
`Il.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
` EX2074, EX2076-2086, and EX2089-2090 Are Not Hearsay
`
`Apple characterizes EX2074, EX2076-2086, and EX2089-2090 as merely
`
`“testimony from witnesses in an ITC proceeding that is separate from the present
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding.” Mot. 2. That is incorrect. The ITC proceeding involves the same
`
`parties and the samepatentas this proceeding. Moreover, the exhibits Apple seeks
`
`to exclude are sworn testimony by Apple’s witnesses in the ITC proceeding
`
`(EX2076-EX2082), representations by Apple’s counsel during opening statements
`
`in the ITC hearing (EX2074), and Apple’s documents regarding its development of
`
`the oxygen saturation feature in the Apple Watch that were authored by Apple’s
`
`engineers (EX2083-2086, EX2089-2090). These are opposing party statements
`
`offered against that party, and therefore not hearsay. FRE 801(d)(2).
`
`FRE 801(d)(2) excludes from the definition of hearsay a statement that is
`
`“offered against an opposing party” and “(A) was madebytheparty in an individual
`
`or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed
`
`to be true; (C) was made by a person whomthe party authorized to make a statement
`
`on the subject; (D) was madeby the party’s agent or employee on a matter within
`
`the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made bythe party’s
`
`coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” FRE 801(d)(2)(A)-(E).
`
`(emphasis added). All of the objected-to exhibits fall under one or more of these
`
`exclusions from the definition of hearsay.
`
`EX2074 is an excerpt from Apple’s opening statements in the ITC evidentiary
`
`hearing, delivered by Apple’s ITC leadtrial counsel, Joseph Mueller, regarding the
`
`scope of the ’745 Patent’s claims. See EX2074; see also EX2008, 39-71 (Apple’s
`
`
`
`
`
`opening statement). They are unquestionably statements “made by a person whom
`
`[Apple] authorized to make a statement on the subject,” and thus are not hearsay.
`
`FRE 801(d)(2)(C). Moreover, because these are trial arguments advanced by
`
`Apple’s counsel, they are also statements that Apple “manifested that it adopted or
`
`believed to be true.” FRE 801(d)(2)(B). See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`
`CBM2015-00131, Paper 33 at 32-33 (Nov. 10, 2016) (prior testimony by party’s
`
`expert was not hearsay whenoffered against that party because the party authorized
`
`that expert to provide testimony on the subject and also adopted or believed the
`
`testimonyto betrue).
`
`EX2076-2079aretrial transcripts of sworn testimony from Apple’s engineers
`
`in the ITC Investigation. Apple chose those specific engineersto testify on its behalf
`
`in the ITC. See EX2008, 39:3-40:13 (Apple’s opening statement introducing
`
`Apple’s witnesses).
`
`See FRE 801(d)(2)(C). Moreover, EX2076-2082, which
`
`includes both thetrial and deposition transcripts, are Apple’s engineers’ testimony
`
`abouttheir efforts in developing the oxygen saturation feature for the Apple Watch
`
`Series 6. All of those engineers were employed by Apple and weretestifying on
`
`matters within the scope of their employment at Apple, namely their work on the
`
`Apple Watch. See EX2076, 952:15-18, 954:23-955:9 (Land employed by Apple to
`
`work on Apple Watch); EX2077, 993:17-20, 996:25-997:8 (Mannheimer employed
`
`by Apple to work on Apple Watch); EX2078, 918:22-919:8 (Waydo employed by
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple to work on Apple Watch); EX2079, 816:18-817:19 (Venugopal employed by
`
`Apple to work on Apple Watch); EX2082, 11:19-12:17 (Shui employed by Appleto
`
`work on Apple Watch); see also EX2080 (Mannheimer deposition); EX2081
`
`(Waydo deposition). Thus, they are also statements “made by the party’s ...
`
`employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.”
`
`FRE 801(d)(2)(D).
`
`Other evidence includes statements in Apple’s internal documents (EX2083-
`
`2086 and EX2089-2090) which were made by Apple’s engineers. For example,
`
`Masimo relied on Apple’s engineers’ statement in EX2085 that “Conventional
`
`sensing methods do not result in waveformsthat are consistent enough for SpO2
`
`measurements at the wrist.” EX2085, 13; 1291 POR 38. Apple does not dispute
`
`that these exhibits are its own confidential internal documents by its own engineers.
`
`Specifically, EX2083 and EX2090are internal emails between Apple employees and
`
`EX2084-EX2086 and EX2089 are other Apple internal presentations and an
`
`organizational chart. Nor can Apple reasonably dispute that the statements in those
`
`documents are now being used against Apple in these IPRs. Thus, EX2083-2086
`
`and EX2089-2090 constitute statements made by Apple’s employees on a matter
`
`within the scope of that employmentrelationship while it existed—the development
`
`of the Apple Watch. FRE 801(d)(2)(D); see also Metro-Goldwyn-MayerStudios,
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966, 973-74 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (company’s
`
`internal emails and documentsare not hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(D)).
`
`Accordingly, EX2074, EX2076-2086, and EX2089-2090 are not hearsay
`
`whenused against Apple and should not be excluded.
`
`The Residual Exception (FRE 807) Applies to All Objected
`1.
`Exhibits
`
`Even if the exhibits were somehow deemed hearsay,
`
`they fall under a
`
`multitude of exceptions. The residual exception (FRE 807) applies to all of the
`
`objected exhibits. FRE 807 provides that a statement is admissible even if it does
`
`not fall under an enumerated exception in FRE 803/804 if “(1) the statementis
`
`supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness—after consideringthetotality
`
`of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the
`
`statement; and (2) it is more probative on the point for whichit is offered than any
`
`other evidencethat the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts,” and if the
`
`“proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the
`
`statement ... so that the party has a fair opportunity to meetit.” FRE 807(a)-(b).
`
`The Board has admitted trial and deposition testimony from a prior proceeding,
`
`particularly where the objecting party had the ability to defend or cross-examine the
`
`witness in the prior proceeding. See Nevro Corp. v. Boston Sci. Neuromodulation
`
`Corp., IPR2017-01812, Paper 79 at 32-34 (Feb. 1, 2019); Captioncall, LLC v.
`
`Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00540, Paper 78 at 31-35 (Mar. 3, 2015).
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`The testimony of Apple’s engineers andits internal documents are supported
`
`by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. Apple’s engineers’ testimony was made
`
`under oath during the ITC evidentiary hearing and/or during depositions before the
`
`ITC. Those deposition transcripts and internal documents were received as evidence
`
`in the ITC hearing. Apple’s attorneys had every opportunity to defend andto elicit
`
`direct testimony from those witnesses and had the same motivations to do so—the
`
`ITC Investigation involved substantially the same invalidity theories for the ’745
`
`Patent that are presented in these IPRs.
`
`But Apple had more than just a mere opportunity to defend its witnesses’
`
`testimony. By and large, Apple’s attorneys elicited the testimony from Apple’s
`
`engineers that Masimo now relies on. For example, Apple’s counsel elicited
`
`Mannheimer’s testimony explaining that, when Apple tasked him with looking into
`
`doing pulse oximetry at the wrist, he rolled his eyes and thought, “good luck with
`
`that.” EX2080, 173:14-174:1. Counselalso elicited Mannheimer’s explanation of
`
`Similarly, Apple’s counsel elicited the testimony from Waydo regarding how
`
`developing the oxygen saturation feature was “extremely challenging” and his
`
`explanation ofee
`I 2X2081, 165:12-16, 166:4-166:18. Apple’s
`counselalso elicited the testimony from Shui regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`a. EX2082, 108:13-21. Apple’s counselalso elicited the testimony
`
`from Land that oxygen saturation at the wrist was “unprecedented.” EX2076,
`
`963:19-964:11. Thus, in the ITC, Apple explained how challenging it was to
`
`measure oxygen saturation at the wrist at the time and how even Mannheimer, a
`
`twenty-year veteran in developing pulse oximeters, was skeptical it could even be
`
`done. Masimo’s briefing presented the testimony Apple elicited and how it
`
`confirmed that pulse oximetry at the wrist was incredibly challenging. The hearsay
`
`rules were not intended to excludethis type of trustworthy and reliable testimony.
`
`Apple’s engineers’ testimony and its internal documents are also more
`
`probative as to Apple’s attempts and failures to determine oxygen saturation at the
`
`wrist than any other evidence that Masimo can obtain through reasonable efforts.
`
`FRE 807. This evidence contradicts Apple’s position that a POSITA would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in determining oxygensaturation at the
`
`wrist.
`
`Apple has been on notice of this evidence before this IPR. Masimopresented
`
`this evidencein its ITC post-hearing briefing, which Apple reviewed and responded
`
`to in the ITC beforefiling these IPRs. Masimoalso repeatedly informed Apple that
`
`it sought to use this evidence in the IPRs through Masimo’s motion in the ITC to
`
`modify the ITC protective order to permit cross-use in these IPRs, Masimo’s pre-
`
`
`
`
`
`institution request for authorization to file a motion for additional discovery, and
`
`Masimo’s post-institution Motion for Additional Discovery. Apple has hada fair
`
`opportunity to address the evidenceinits Petition, its Reply, its expert’s declarations,
`
`and its Response to Expert Testimony. FRE 807(b). Apple could have hadits
`
`engineers testify underoath in these IPRsif that evidence was somehowinaccurate.
`
`Thus, even if deemed hearsay,all of the exhibits are admissible underthe residual
`
`exception.
`
`Theinterests ofjustice also weigh in favor of admitting and fully considering
`
`these exhibits. This is the evidence and testimonyreceivedlive by the ITC ALJ and
`
`that the ITC ALJ relied upon in finding that there was no reasonable expectation of
`
`success in determining oxygensaturation at the wrist and upholding the validity of
`
`the ’745 Patent claims. The Commission recently affirmed the ALJ’s findings on
`
`October 26, 2023.
`
`Such objective evidence “must always when present be
`
`considered.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983).
`
`The Exhibits Are Also Admissible Under FRE 803(3) and
`2.
`803(6) and 803(1)
`
`Other hearsay exceptions also apply.
`
`Apple’s engineers’
`
`testimony
`
`concerning their skepticism for pulse oximetry at the wrist, such as Mannheimer’s
`
`testimony, “good luck with that” andee|X2080,
`
`173:9-173:13, 174:2-6) are statements of the declarants’ then-existing state of mind.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`FRE 803(3). This IPR concerns a POSITA’s expectations of success and Apple’s
`
`engineers’ testimony about whatthey thought about pulse oximetry at the wrist. That
`
`state ofmindis admissible. Apple’s internal documents regarding their development
`
`of the oxygen saturation sensor for the Apple Watch also demonstrate Apple’ state
`
`of mind regarding oxygensaturation at the wrist. See, e.g., EX2085, 13 (Apple’s
`
`belief that “Invention is required.”); see also Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 454 F. Supp.
`
`2d at 974 (company’s business plans and presentations admissible to show
`
`company’s state of mind).
`
`Apple’s internal documents (EX2083-2086 and EX2089-2090) are also
`
`admissible as records of a regularly conducted activity. FRE 803(6). Those exhibits
`
`comprise Apple’s internal emails amongits employees, dated presentations created
`
`by Apple’s engineers, and an organizational chart. These documents were already
`
`authenticated and received as evidence in the ITC Investigation and Apple, who
`
`produced them here in response to the Board’s Order (Paper 23), does not dispute
`
`their authenticity. See also EX2080, 64:1-66:3, 68:14-69:2 (Mannheimertestifying
`
`about EX2083/CX-0007C): EX2076, 981:24-983:12 (Land testifying about
`
`EX2085/CX-177C); EX2076, 976:4-980:1 (Land testifying about EX2089/CX-
`
`1793C); EX2076, 980:2-981:10 (Landtestifying about EX2090/CX-1800C). Thus,
`
`they are records madeat or near the time of the activity by Apple’s employees and
`
`regularly kept in the course of Apple’s business. See ConocoInc. v. Dept. ofEnergy,
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`99 F.3d 387, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Because of the general trustworthiness of
`
`regularly kept records and the need for such evidence in manycases, the business
`
`records exception has been construed generously in favor of admissibility.”).
`
`Apple’s internal presentations about
`
`their development of the oxygen
`
`saturation feature are also admissible as present sense impressions. FRE 803(1).
`
`For example, EX2085 is a Po internal Apple presentation by Apple’s
`
`Thus, EX2085 is admissible as a “statement describing or explaining an event...
`
`made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” FRE 803(1); see also
`
`FMC Techs., Inc. v. OneSubsea IP UKLtd., 1PR2019-00935, Paper 45 at 14-15 (Oct.
`
`14, 2020) (meeting minutes were admissible present sense impressions).
`
`3.
`
`The Exhibits Must Be Considered Out of Fairness Under
`
`FRE 106
`
`The testimony of Apple’s engineers must also be considered in fairness
`
`because (1) Apple did not object to the public portions of that testimony and (2)
`
`Apple introduced andrelied on the ITC testimony ofits other engineers, Mehra and
`
`-|l-
`
`
`
`
`
`Block. Apple seeks to exclude the ITC testimony in EX2074 and EX2076-EX2082,
`
`but never objected to EX2008, whichis the public version ofthe entire five-day ITC
`
`hearing transcript. Some of the Apple engineer testimony that Masimorelies upon
`
`are present in both EX2008andthelater-filed confidential transcripts. See generally
`
`POPR (citing EX2008 for numerous statements).
`
`If the Board were to exclude
`
`EX2074 and EX2076-EX2082, then some portions of the engineers’ testimony
`
`would be admissible and other portions excluded, with the only distinction being
`
`that the excluded testimony was confidential. Because the public portions of
`
`Apple’s engineers’ testimonytranscripts were admitted without objection, the Board
`
`must be able to considerthe rest of that testimony out offairness.
`
`Moreover, Apple also introduced the testimonyofits other engineers, Mehra
`
`and Block, to attempt to rebut Masimo’s arguments. EX1036, EX1037. It would be
`
`wholly unfair to selectively permit only Mehra’s and Block’s testimony but exclude
`
`the testimony of Apple’s other engineers. FRE 106.
`
`If anything, the lengths to
`
`which Apple has sought
`
`to suppress its engineers’ sworn testimony and its
`
`documents from the very beginning ofthis IPR and nowatits conclusion showsjust
`
`how critical that evidenceis to the validity of the claims.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny Apple’s motion to exclude EX2074,
`
`EX2076-EX2086, and EX2089-EX2090.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`No Portion of Duckworth’s Declarations Should Be Excluded
`
`Apple moves to exclude certain paragraphs of Duckworth’s declarations
`
`(EX2070 and EX2100) on two meritless theories. First, Apple argues that EX2070,
`
`{| 22-28, 30-33, 53, and 73 and EX2100, 49 32, 44, 51, 57, 64, and 81-95, should be
`
`excluded because they rely on and/or quote from Apple’s engineers’ testimony and
`
`its internal documents, which Apple argues are hearsay. Mot., 3-5. Apple’s
`
`objection is meritless because, as explained above, none of Apple’s testimonyorits
`
`documents are hearsay when used against Apple. Even if Apple’s engineers’
`
`testimonyand its documents were hearsay, an expert such as Dr. Duckworth would
`
`reasonably rely on such sworn testimony and admitted trial exhibits in forming
`
`opinions regarding reasonable expectation of success and objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness. See RTT Surgical, Inc. v. Lifenet Health, IPR2019-00571, Paper 75
`
`at 7-9 (Aug. 4, 2020) (admitting expert testimony relying on sworn trial testimony
`
`and admitted trial exhibits under FRE 703 because experts would reasonably rely on
`
`such information).
`
`Second, Apple arguesthat paragraphs9, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 32, 33, 48, 49,
`
`64, and 69-71 of Exhibit 2100 should be excluded for containing “opinionsthat are
`
`conclusory, do not disclose supporting facts or data, are based on unreliable facts,
`
`data, or methods, and/or include testimony outside the scope of Dr. Duckworth’s
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`purported areas of expertise.” Mot., 3-4. Apple’s contentions are baseless and
`
`should be denied.
`
`Apple identifies only two statements in paragraphs 9 and 17 whichit alleges
`
`were unsupported. Apple asserts that Duckworth did not support his 49 conclusion
`
`that “[a] binary indication of sufficient signal does not actually determine a user’s
`
`oxygen saturation value.” Mot., 4. But Apple ignores §[7-8 where Duckworth
`
`explained how a POSITA would understand “determine ... oxygen saturation” and
`
`his explanation in the immediately following sentencethat “[e]nsuring a ‘sufficient
`
`signal’ is merely one step in the process of determining oxygen saturation.”
`
`EX2100, 49. Notably, Apple ignores that Duckworth was responding to Apple’s
`
`expert, who argued without any basis that the claimed requirement for determining
`
`oxygen saturation could be satisfied with merely a “binary indication of whether a
`
`signal sufficient for measuring oxygen saturation has been obtained.” EX1042, 941.
`
`It was Anthony whooffered an unsupported opinion, not Duckworth.
`
`Apple also argues that Duckworth’s §17 conclusion that a dark-colored
`
`coating on the light shielding frame in Iwamiya would eliminate the ability for light
`
`to reflect back to the light receiving unit was unsupported. Mot., 4. Duckworth
`
`thoroughly explained his opinion with citations to Iwamiya and even a detailed and
`
`color-coded diagram of Iwamiya. EX2100, 417.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`For the remaining thirteen challenged paragraphs, Apple did not explain how
`
`any ofDuckworth’s opinions were conclusory, unsupported, or beyond his expertise.
`
`Apple could havearticulated its objectionsin the ten unused pages in its Motion, but
`
`did not do so. See Am. Axle & Manf., Inc. v. Neapco Drivelines LLC, IPR2018-
`
`01761, Paper 59 at 42 (Mar. 25, 2020) (declining to exclude expert testimony where
`
`movant did not identify for each objected-to paragraph why the opinions lacked
`
`support).
`
`Regardless, Duckworth meticulously cited numerous exhibits and
`
`thoroughly explained his reasoning in those paragraphs.
`
`Apple’s Motion regarding {J 9, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 32, 33, 48, 49, 64, and
`
`69-71 of Exhibit 2100 should also be denied because these arguments go to the
`
`weight of Duckworth’s testimony, not its admissibility. See CardiovascularSys.,
`
`Inc. v. Shockwave Med., Inc., IPR2019-00405, Paper 99 at 85-86 (Feb. 2, 2023)
`
`(objections to opinionsas conclusory or unsupported go to weight not admissibility).
`
`Il. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Apple’s Motionto Exclude.
`
`Dated: November6, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`/Daniel C. Kiang/
`Daniel Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Customer No. 64,735
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and with the agreement
`
`of counsel for Petitioner, a true and correct copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDEis being served
`
`electronically on November 6, 2023, to the e-mail addresses shown below:
`
`W.Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-335-5070
`Fax: 612-288-9696
`Email: IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Nicholas Stephens
`Andrew B. Patrick
`Kim Leung
`Patrick J. Bisenius
`Patrick J. King
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-335-5070
`Fax: 612-288-9696
`Email: IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: November6, 2023
`
`56865131
`
`/Daniel C. Kiang/
`Daniel Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Customer No. 64,735
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`-16-
`
`
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
