Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`By: 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)
`
`Filed: August 28, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01465
`U.S. Patent 10,687,745
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner Masimo Corporation objects
`
`to the admissibility of evidence submitted by Petitioner Apple Inc. in connection
`
`with its Reply brief. Further, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and the Board’s
`
`approval in an email to the parties dated April 18, 2023 (attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A), Patent Owner also objects to the admissibility of EX1037-EX1041
`
`which Petitioner filed as “supplemental information.”
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`EX1037
`
`Objections
`
`to 878:4-16 of EX1037 as
`Patent Owner objects
`inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not
`subject to any exception.
`
`EX1038
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1038 as irrelevant (FRE 401).
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on
`EX1038 for the first time in Reply is improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE403. Apple was aware of the
`EX1038 through the ITC investigation before filing the
`Petition and chose not to rely upon it.
`
`Patent Owner reserves all rights to move to strike
`arguments or testimony relying on EX1038 as exceeding
`the proper scope of reply.
`
`EX1039-EX1041
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1039-EX1041 as irrelevant.
`FRE 401.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to these exhibits as lacking
`foundation and not authenticated.
`
`FRE 403, 901. Patent Owner further objects to all
`statements within the exhibits as inadmissible hearsay that
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`EX1042
`
`is not subject to any exception. FRE 801-802.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on these
`exhibits for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE403. Apple was aware of these
`exhibits through the ITC investigation before filing the
`Petition and chose not to rely upon it. See Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to
`present new evidence (including new expert testimony)
`that could have been presented in a prior filing”). Patent
`Owner reserves all rights to move to strike arguments or
`testimony relying on EX1039-EX1041 as exceeding the
`proper scope of reply.
`
`Patent Owner reserves all rights to move to strike
`Dr. Anthony’s supplemental declaration for exceeding the
`permissible scope of reply. Dr. Anthony’s supplemental
`declaration
`introduces
`improper new
`theories of
`unpatentability,
`including new
`combinations
`and
`modifications of references, new motivations to combine,
`introduces improper opinions on enablement that exceed
`the scope of IPR, relies on improper new exhibits that
`could have been, but were not, presented earlier, and is
`used to circumvent the word limit on Petitioner’s replies.
`As such, the identified portions of the declaration are
`irrelevant, counter to statute and the Board’s rules, and
`prejudicial. FRE 401-403. Patent Owner identifies at least
`the following paragraphs of Dr. Anthony’s supplemental
`declaration that exceed the permissible scope of reply or
`are otherwise used for an improper purpose, such as to
`violate the word limit on Reply or to change the contents
`of the Petition: 5, 7, 8, 15-17, 21, 25-38, 40-50, 52-53, 55,
`57-64, 66-75. While Patent Owner has attempted in good
`faith to identify example paragraphs to which the foregoing
`objections apply, the paragraph listings are not limiting.
`Patent Owner
`is continuing
`to review Petitioner’s
`voluminous improper submissions and may identify
`additional testimony within EX1042 that exceeds the
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`permissible scope of reply.
`
`testimony
`to Dr. Anthony’s
`Patent Owner objects
`regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the
`knowledge of a skilled artisan, the scope and content of the
`art and his interpretation thereof, and the ultimate issue of
`obviousness on the bases that such testimony (1) will not
`“help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`determine a fact in issue,” at least because Dr. Anthony
`lacks experience in the relevant field and/or is not qualified
`to testify as to the knowledge of a person of skill in the art
`or how a person of skill in the art would understand the
`relevant technical issues, (2) is not “based on sufficient
`facts or data,” (3) is not “the product of reliable principles
`and methods,” and/or (4) is not based on a reliable
`application of “the principles and methods to the facts of
`the case.” FRE 702.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to paragraphs 27-34 and 40-
`50 to the extent they purport to reproduce the disclosure of
`other exhibits for lack of foundation, as hearsay that is not
`subject to any exception, for lack of completeness, and as
`not proper expert testimony and unhelpful to the trier of
`fact. FRE 106, 702, 801, 802, 901.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to paragraphs 28-34 as
`lacking foundation.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to paragraphs 15, 40-41 and
`50 as impermissibly providing legal opinions and therefore
`not based on reliable principles and unhelpful to the trier
`of fact. FRE 702.
`
`EX1043-1045
`
`Patent Owner objects
`authenticated. FRE 901.
`
`to EX1043-1045 as not
`
`EX1046, EX1048,
`EX1049
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1046, EX1048, and EX1049 as
`irrelevant. FRE 401.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further objects to EX1046, EX1048, and
`EX1049 as lacking foundation and not authenticated. FRE
`901.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to all statements within the
`EX1046, EX1048, and EX1049 as inadmissible hearsay
`that is not subject to any exception. FRE 801, 802.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on these
`exhibits for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on EX1046-EX1049 as exceeding the proper scope of
`reply.
`
`
`
`EX1047
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1047 as irrelevant. FRE 401.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on
`EX1047 for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on EX1046-EX1049 as exceeding the proper scope of
`reply.
`
`
`
`EX1050-EX1056
`
`Patent Owner objected to the admissibility of EX1050-
`EX1056 during the cross-examination of Dr. Duckworth
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`EX1058
`
`and maintains those objections. See EX1059, 70:8-75:5.
`
`Patent Owner objects to these exhibits as irrelevant,
`unfairly prejudicial, not authenticated, lacking foundation,
`and further objects to all statements within as inadmissible
`hearsay that is not subject to any exception. FRE 401, 403,
`801, 802, 901.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on
`EX1050-EX1056 for the first time in Reply as improper
`and unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to
`present new evidence (including new expert testimony)
`that could have been presented in a prior filing”). Patent
`Owner reserves all rights to move to strike arguments or
`testimony relying on EX1050-EX1056 as exceeding the
`proper scope of reply.
`
`Patent Owner objected to the admissibility of EX1058
`during the cross-examination of Dr. Duckworth and
`maintains those objections. See EX1059, 76:21-5.
`
`Patent Owner objects to EX1058 as irrelevant, unfairly
`prejudicial, not authenticated, lacking foundation, and
`further objects to all statements within as inadmissible
`hearsay that is not subject to any exception. FRE 401, 403,
`801, 802, 901.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s reliance on
`EX1058 for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on EX1058 as exceeding the proper scope of reply.
`
`EX1060
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance on EX1060
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`EX1061
`
`for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on EX1060 as exceeding the proper scope of reply.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance on EX1061
`for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on EX1061 as exceeding the proper scope of reply.
`
`
`
`EX1062-EX1068,
`EX1070-EX1075,
`EX1079-EX1080
`
`Patent Owner objects to these exhibits as irrelevant further
`objects to all statements within as inadmissible hearsay that
`is not subject to any exception. FRE 401, 801, 802.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance on these
`exhibits for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on these exhibits as exceeding the proper scope of reply.
`
`
`
`EX1069, EX1076-
`1078
`
`Patent Owner objects to these exhibits as irrelevant,
`lacking foundation, not authenticated, and further objects
`to all statements within as inadmissible hearsay that is not
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`subject to any exception. FRE 401, 801, 802, 901.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance on these
`exhibits for the first time in Reply as improper and unfairly
`prejudicial under FRE 403. See Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 74-75 (“improper for a reply to present new
`evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have
`been presented in a prior filing”). Patent Owner reserves
`all rights to move to strike arguments or testimony relying
`on these exhibits as exceeding the proper scope of reply.
`
`
`
`EX2076
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2076 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`956:9-957:1
`
`958:19-24
`
`964:7-11
`
`965:15-22
`
`970:12-972:5
`
`
`
`EX2077
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2077 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`1000:6-1001:1
`
`1006:6-21
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`1015:9-1016:1
`
`EX2078
`
`EX2079
`
`EX2080
`
`EX2081
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2078 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`925:6-12
`
`949:10-16
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2079 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`832:23-833:10
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2080 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`136:19-137:1
`
`160:21-161:2
`
`174:19-175:5
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2081 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`167:18-169:10
`
`173:13-174:8
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`Evidence
`Objections
`
`EX2082
`
`EX2083
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2082 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`108:22-109:20
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s reliance upon the
`following portions of EX2083 as inadmissible hearsay
`pursuant to FRE 801-802 that is not subject to any
`exception:
`
`Page 23 of 27
`
`Patent Owner reserves its rights to: (1) timely file a motion to exclude these
`
`objectionable exhibits or portions thereof; (2) challenge the credibility and/or weight
`
`that should be afforded to these exhibits, whether or not Patent Owner files a motion
`
`to exclude the exhibits; (3) challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to meet
`
`Petitioner’s burden of proof on any issue, including, without limitation, whether
`
`Petitioner met its burden to prove the prior art status of the alleged prior art on which
`
`it relies, whether or not Patent Owner has objected to, or files a motion to exclude,
`
`the evidence; and (4) cross examine any Petitioner declarant within the scope of his
`
`or her direct testimony that is or relates to these exhibits, without regard to whether
`
`Patent Owner has objected to the testimony, including on the basis that it exceeds
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01465
`Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation
`the permissible scope of a reply, or related exhibits or whether the testimony or
`
`related exhibits are ultimately found to be inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner expressly reserves all rights to move to strike EX1038-EX1041,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, and any exhibits and/or testimony submitted with the Reply for
`
`exceeding the permissible scope of reply.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`/Daniel C. Kiang/
`Daniel C. Kiang (Reg. No. 79,631)
`Customer No. 64,735
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Trials
`Nicholas Stephens; Trials; Daniel Kiang
`IPR50095-0045IP3; IPR50095-0045IP1; AppleIPR745-1; AppleIPR745-3
`RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
`Tuesday, April 18, 2023 9:21:48 AM
`
`Counsel:
` 
`The Panel appreciates the cooperation of the Parties in reaching an agreement in regard to the documents at issue.  Petitioner is authorized to
`enter as exhibits in IPR2022-01291 and IPR2022-01465:
` 
`
`1.  ITC hearing transcripts of Dr. Ueyn Block and Dr. Saahil Mehra
`2.  ITC exhibits RX-0335, RX-0504, RX-0508, and RX-0632
`
` 
`The Panel understands that the Parties further agreed that Patent Owner does not waive (1) objections to these exhibits, which the Parties have
`agreed will be due ten (10) business days after Petitioner’s Reply is filed or (2) objections as to arguments made by Petitioner relying on these
`exhibits.  In light of the agreement of the Parties, no additional briefing is required and no teleconference will be scheduled at this time.
` 
`Regards,
` 
`Esther Goldschlager
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
` 
`From: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com> 
`Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 4:48 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>; Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
` 
` 
`
`Dear Board,
` 
`We write to inform the Board of an agreement reached between the parties regarding Petitioner’s outstanding request for authorization to enter
`supplemental information in the subject proceedings. 
` 
`Specifically, Petitioner requests authorization to enter the following documents as supplemental information in each of IPR2022-01291 and
`IPR2022-01465:
` 
`
`1.  ITC hearing transcripts of Dr. Ueyn Block and Dr. Saahil Mehra
`2.  ITC exhibits RX-0335, RX-0504, RX-0508, and RX-0632
`
` 
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Patent Owner does not oppose entry of the above-identified supplemental information.  Patent Owner also
`does not waive (1) objections to the supplemental information, which the parties have agreed will be due ten (10) business days after Petitioner’s
`Reply is filed or (2) objections as to arguments made by Petitioner relying on the supplemental information.
` 
`Under the present circumstances, the parties do not believe motion briefing is necessary and respectfully request that Petitioner be authorized to
`enter each of the above-identified documents as exhibits in the respective records of IPR2022-01291 and IPR2022-01465 without further briefing.
` 
`The parties have also agreed to file a stipulation to revise the portions of Due Dates 1-3 relating to Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply,
`and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply as follows:
` 
`
`Due Date
`1
`2
`3
`
`Filing
`Patent Owner Response
`Petitioner Reply
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Current Schedule
`4/28
`7/21
`9/1
`
`Revised Schedule
`5/29
`8/21
`10/2
`
` 
`Should the Board desire a conference call, the parties can be available on Tuesday 4/18 between 12pm-5pm ET.  The parties can also provide
`alternative availability at the Board’s request.
` 
`Best regards,
`
`

`

`Nick Stephens
` 
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
` 
`Nick Stephens :: Principal :: Fish & Richardson P.C.
`612 766 2018 direct :: nstephens@fr.com :: fr.com
` 
`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2023 11:45 AM
`To: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com>; Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`Counsel:
` 
`The Panel directs the Parties to cease submitting to the Board unauthorized emails purporting to keep the Board informed of further
`developments.  The Panel will not consider arguments raised in unauthorized email correspondence or requests for advisory opinions on topics
`not properly presented for resolution.  See, e.g., IPR2022-10291, Paper 16, 2 (Scheduling Order discussing the proper content of email
`correspondence to the Board to request a teleconference).  If, after the Parties have exhausted efforts to reach a consensus, a request for specific
`relief is made by the Party seeking such relief, then the Panel may consider, at that time, the relevance, if any, of Petitioner’s correspondence
`dated March 1, 2023.  No teleconference will be scheduled at this time.
` 
`Regards,
` 
`Esther Goldschlager
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
` 
`From: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:52 AM
`To: Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
` 
` 
`
`Dear Board,
` 
`Apple is also available for a conference call between 12pm-5pm ET between 4/10-4/14.
` 
`Apple expressed to Masimo that it disagrees with Masimo’s interpretation of § 42.123(a). Section 42.123(a) requires a party to make a “request
`for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information ... within one month of the date the trial is instituted.” Apple timely
`furnished its request by email to the Board on March 1, within 30 days of the institution decision dated February 1.
` 
`Masimo identifies no authority for limiting requests under § 42.123(a) to unconditional requests.  Indeed, Masimo’s proposal to limit § 42.123(a)
`would limit this section unnecessarily. Notably, at the time of Apple’s timely request, because the scope of discovery to be produced against ITC
`production was not resolved under Masimo’s then-pending discovery motion, it was appropriate to condition the scope of the request on the
`outcome of the discovery motion.  Masimo had previously represented to Apple in connection with Apple’s supplemental information request that
`“Masimo is open to coming to an agreement that allows use of relevant evidence from the ITC in the IPRs so that the Board has the benefit of a
`complete record when deciding validity.”  Masimo similarly represented in its discovery motion that it “seeks to complete the record with relevant
`evidence” and that it is “in in the interests of justice” to “ensure[] that the Board decides validity based on a more complete record.”  IPR2022-
`01291, Paper 20, p. 4.
` 
`Apple certainly appreciates that Masimo should have adequate time to fairly consider the supplemental information ahead of its POR deadline,
`and for that reason, Apple expressly invited Masimo on 3/31 to propose extensions to the briefing schedule to allow for such consideration.
` Masimo has thus far not responded to this proposal or explained why extensions would not address Masimo’s concern.
` 
`Best regards,
`Nick Stephens
` 
`
`

`

`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
` 
`Nick Stephens :: Principal :: Fish & Richardson P.C.
`612 766 2018 direct :: nstephens@fr.com :: fr.com
` 
`From: Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2023 2:21 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>; Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`Dear Board,
`
` I
`
` write on behalf of Masimo pursuant to Apple’s desire to keep the Board informed of further developments.  The parties disagree whether Apple’s
`March 1 email was a valid, timely request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information under § 42.123(a).  Masimo’s
`position is § 42.123(a)’s one-month deadline ensures that the patent owner has sufficient time to respond to the supplemental information. 
`Apple’s March 1 email violated that purpose and thus was not a valid, timely request.  Apple did not identify any information that it proposed to
`submit and, instead, conditioned whether it proposed to submit any information at all on a future event occurring after the one-month deadline. 
`Apple has not provided any authority indicating that such a conditional proposal satisfies § 42.123(a)’s one-month deadline. 
` 
`Masimo believes that the issue whether Apple timely requested authorization under § 42.123(a) is ripe for consideration in a Board conference
`call and then for resolution by the Board.  Masimo believes a conference call is necessary to allow the parties to fully explain their positions. 
`Masimo can be available for a conference call between 12pm-5pm Eastern on 4/7 and 4/10-4/14.  Masimo understands that the sole issue for
`such a conference call is Apple’s request to file motions to submit supplemental information under § 42.123(a).
` 
`Best regards,
`Daniel
` 
`Daniel Kiang
`Partner
`949-721-5205 Direct
`Knobbe Martens
` 
` 
`From: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 9:51 AM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com>;
`AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
` 
`
`Dear Board,
` 
`Petitioner earlier requested authorization to file a motion for entry of supplemental information. That request was timely submitted within 30
`days of institution, pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.123(a).  Within it, because of the related nature of the scope of information to be furnished as
`supplemental information and the unresolved scope of then-opposed discovery of material produced at the ITC, Petitioner proposed to hold its
`request in abeyance pending resolution of Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery.
` 
`On March 17th, the Board issued a decision granting in part Patent Owner’s discovery motion.  Petitioner then produced documents to Patent
`Owner in accordance with an order accompanying the decision on March 24th.  With those events complete, Petitioner last week reached out to
`Patent Owner’s counsel to re-raise the pending request for authorization to file a motion for entry of supplemental information.  While we await
`Patent Owner’s engagement with this outreach, we wanted to redirect the Board’s attention to this pending request and to highlight our
`expectation and hope that the parties will be able to resolve for the Board’s consideration mutually agreeable terms for entry of supplemental
`information without Board intervention.  We will keep the Board informed of further developments in this regard.
` 
`Best regards,
`Nick Stephens
` 
`Counsel for Petitioner
` 
`Nick Stephens :: Principal :: Fish & Richardson P.C.
`612 766 2018 direct :: nstephens@fr.com :: fr.com
` 
`
`

`

`From: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com> 
`Sent: Monday, March 06, 2023 8:09 AM
`To: Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`Honorable Board,
` 
`The parties are continuing to confer with respect to Petitioner’s request for authorization to file motions for supplemental information. 
`Accordingly, Petitioner believes a conference call is presently unnecessary while discussions between the parties are still ongoing.  Should the
`Board desire a call, Petitioner is available between 12pm-5pm ET Tuesday and Thursday this week.
` 
`Best regards,
`Nick
` 
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
` 
`Nick Stephens :: Principal :: Fish & Richardson P.C.
`612 766 2018 direct :: nstephens@fr.com :: fr.com
` 
` 
`From: Daniel Kiang <Daniel.Kiang@knobbe.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 4:23 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>; Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
`
`[This email originated outside of F&R.]
`
` 
`Dear Board,
` 
`Patent Owner believes that a conference call would be helpful to discuss Petitioner’s unusual contingent request before any authorization is
`granted.  Patent Owner is available next week between 12pm-5pm ET Tuesday-Friday.
` 
`Best regards,
`Daniel
` 
`Daniel Kiang
`Partner
`949-721-5205 Direct
`Knobbe Martens
` 
` 
` 
`From: Nicholas Stephens <nstephens@fr.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 8:50 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: IPR50095-0045IP3 <IPR50095-0045IP3@fr.com>; IPR50095-0045IP1 <IPR50095-0045IP1@fr.com>; AppleIPR745-1 <AppleIPR745-
`1@knobbe.com>; AppleIPR745-3 <AppleIPR745-3@knobbe.com>
`Subject: IPR2022-01291, -01465 - Request for Authorization to file Motions for Supplemental Information
` 
` 
`
`Honorable Board,
` 
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.123(a), Petitioner (Apple Inc.) respectfully requests authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information in
`the subject IPR proceedings.  Petitioner conditions this request on the outcome of Patent Owner’s (Masimo Corp.) pending motions for additional
`discovery.  As explained further below, Petitioner asks the Board to hold this request in abeyance pending rulings on the motions for additional
`discovery.
` 
`More specifically, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file motions for additional discovery in the subject proceedings on March 17, and
`authorized Petitioner to file oppositions to the motions.  Patent Owner filed its motions on February 24; Petitioner’s oppositions are due March 3. 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s discovery motions seek production of information from the record of a co-pending ITC investigation 337-TA-1276 allegedly relating
`to secondary considerations of non-obviousness (skepticism, failure of others, copying, and commercial success) and reasonable expectation of
`success in performing pulse oximetry at the wrist.
` 
`Patent Owner’s discovery motions selectively target production of information from the ITC that Masimo avers are favorable to its positions on
`each of the indicated theories (topics), but omit identification of other information necessary to provide a complete record of each of the
`identified theories.  Therefore, to the extent the Board grants Patent Owner’s pending motions for discovery as they relate to skepticism, failure of
`others, copying, commercial success, and/or reasonable expectation of success, Petitioner respectfully requests authorization to file a motion to
`submit as supplemental information additional evidence from the ITC investigation that was omitted from Masimo’s discovery request on
`corresponding topic(s).  Petitioner proposes to identify specific documents to be submitted as supplemental information in a motion, if
`authorized. 
` 
`To be clear, Petitioner brings its request to the Board at this time due to tolling of the deadline for requesting authorization to motion for
`supplemental information under 37 CFR 42.123(a).  Specifically, trial was instituted in IPR2022-01291 on February 1, and 37 CFR 42.123(a)(1) sets
`a one-month deadline from institution for requesting such authorization.  Petitioner believes the request can be held in abeyance pending ruling
`on Masimo’s discovery motions. 
` 
`Petitioner’s intent is to ensure the Board is offered a complete record from the ITC proceeding to the extent discovery is authorized on particular
`topic(s).  Because the request is conditioned on Masimo’s discovery motion, which was received just three business days ago, the request is
`timely.  In view of the tolling deadline under 37 CFR 42.123(a)(1), Petitioner approached Patent Owner with this request earlier today. 
` 
`Patent Owner indicates that it opposes the request for the following reasons:
` 
`
`Masimo is open to coming to an agreement that allows use of relevant evidence regarding objective indicia and expectation of success
`from the ITC in the PTO proceedings and welcomes such a discussion with Apple.  But Masimo opposes Apple’s request because Masimo
`(1) does not fully understand what Apple seeks, and (2) Apple’s request is not ripe.  Although Apple states the request was “inspired” by
`Masimo’s discovery motion, Masimo repeatedly requested discovery from Apple beginning six months ago without Apple raising this
`issue.  Instead, Apple first contacted Masimo Wednesday afternoon seeking discovery but providing no details.  Masimo did not have
`suff