`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01465
`Patent 10,687,745
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner hereby submits the following
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`objections to evidence filed with Patent Owner’s Response of May 26, 2023.
`
`Objections
`Evidence
`Exhibit 2070 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2070 under
`FRE 702 and 703, because it contains opinions that 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 specialized knowledge (to
`the extent he has any such knowledge) that will not assist the
`trier of fact. For example, ¶¶ 29, 34, 39-43, 51-52, 59-65, 68,
`79-87, 98-99, 102, 104, 112-114 of Dr. Duckworth’s
`declaration consist of a series of conclusory statements and
`arguments that are presented without citation to evidence. Dr.
`Duckworth’s failure to disclose the underlying facts or data
`upon which his opinions are based (to the extent any such facts
`or data exist) renders his opinions unreliable.
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2070 under
`FRE 702-703 and 802 because it includes statements that
`constitute inadmissible hearsay. For example, ¶¶ 22-28, 30-33,
`53, 73 of Dr. Duckworth’s declaration include statements based
`on statements made outside of this proceeding. The statements
`are offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and the
`statements are not the product of reliable principles or methods.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`Exhibit 2072 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2072 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit
`is prior art. This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`Exhibit 2073 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2073 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit
`is prior art. This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`Exhibit 2074 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2076 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2077 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2078 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2079 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2080 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2081 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2082 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2083 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`Exhibit 2084 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2085 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2086 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 402 because it is irrelevant. Exhibit 2087 is not cited or
`relied on for any purpose in the Petition or in Dr. Duckworth’s
`declaration.
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2087 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Exhibit 2087 is not cited or relied on
`for any purpose in the Petition or in Dr. Duckworth’s
`declaration. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit is prior art.
`This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`Exhibit 2088 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit
`is prior art. This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`Exhibit 2089 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 402 because it is irrelevant. Exhibit 2087 is not cited or
`relied on for any purpose in the Petition or in Dr. Duckworth’s
`declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2090 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 402 because it is irrelevant. Exhibit 2087 is not cited or
`relied on for any purpose in the Petition or in Dr. Duckworth’s
`declaration.
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2087 under
`FRE 802 because it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`Exhibit 2091 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2091 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit
`is prior art. This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`Exhibit 2092 Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2092 under
`FRE 402 and 901 because this exhibit is not relevant to any
`issue in this proceeding. Masimo has not shown that the exhibit
`is prior art. This exhibit has not been authenticated.
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2070, 2072-2074,
`
`2076-2092 and reserves the right to move to exclude these exhibits as inadmissible.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas W. Stephens/
`Nicholas Stephens, Reg. No. 74,320
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`Docket No. 50095-0045IP3
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.8(b), the undersigned certifies that on June 5, 2023,
`
`a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence were
`
`provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence email
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No. 63,051)
`Carol Pitzel Cruz (Reg. No. 61,224)
`Daniel C. Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Jeremiah S. Helm (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: AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`pacheco@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`