`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORP., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`OZMO LICENSING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED PRIOR TO INSTITUTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3898161.v1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner Ozmo Licensing LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “Ozmo”) respectfully asserts the following objections to the evidence
`
`proffered with the Petition for inter partes review (the “Petition”) filed by Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Dell Technologies Inc., and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”)
`
`regarding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814 (the “’814 Patent”). The Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) apply to these proceedings according to the provisions of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a), and these rules, along with relevant case law and PTAB Rules,
`
`form the basis of objections contained herein. Patent Owner’s objections apply
`
`equally to Petitioners’ reliance on or citation to any objected evidence in its papers,
`
`including expert declarations. These objections are being served and filed within 10
`
`business days from the institution of trial on January 16, 2024.
`
`
`
`3898161.v1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1002, Ding
`Declaration
`
`¶¶ 13-21
`¶¶ 24-26
`
`Ex. 1006, Bluetooth
`Specification
`
`Ex. 1011, Trial
`Times
`
`Ex. 1015, Markman
`Order
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration of Dr. Zhi Ding.
`
`Patent Owner objects to ¶¶13-21 under 37 CFR § 42.65(a) as
`testimony on United States patent law, patent examination
`practice, or legal standards is not admissible.
`
`Patent Owner objects to ¶¶24-26 under FRE 403 as
`cumulative, prejudicial, and/or a waste of time.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1006 is Specification of the Bluetooth
`System, Version 1.1, February 22, 2001.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1011 is WDTX District Court Trial
`Times.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported dates printed on the
`pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. In addition, Patent Owner
`objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and
`prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1015 is Markman Order (Dkt. 36), Ozmo
`Licensing LLC v. Acer Inc., 6:21-cv-1225-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`Sept. 20, 2022).
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`
`3898161.v1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1017, 802.11-
`1999
`
`Ex. 1018, 802.11b-
`1999
`
`Ex. 1019, 802.11g-
`2003
`
`Ex. 1020, DMI 2.0s
`Specification
`
`Ex. 1021, 802.15.1-
`2002
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1017 is 802.11-1999.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit under FRE 802 as
`containing hearsay, including as to all dates (e.g., copyright
`dates) and material that appears to be added (e.g., stamps).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1018 is 802.11b-1999.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit under FRE 802 as
`containing hearsay, including as to all dates (e.g., copyright
`dates) and material that appears to be added (e.g., stamps).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1019 is 802.11g-2003.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit under FRE 802 as
`containing hearsay, including as to all dates (e.g., copyright
`dates) and material that appears to be added (e.g., stamps).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1020 is DMI 2.0s Specification.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. In addition, Patent Owner
`objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and
`prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1021 is 802.15.1-2002.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. In addition, Patent Owner
`objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and
`prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste of time
`under FRE 403.
`
`3898161.v1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1023, U.S.
`7,340,015
`
`Ex. 1024, Markman
`Transcript
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1023 is U.S. Patent No. 7,340,015.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1024 is 2023.06.28 Markman Hearing
`Transcript, Ozmo Licensing v. Dell Technologies Inc., 6:22-
`cv-642-ADA.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`
`3898161.v1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1026, 4/1/2002
`WaybackMachine
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1026 is April 1, 2002 WaybackMachine
`Archive of www.Bluetooth.com.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901.1 2 In addition, Patent Owner
`objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE 402, and
`prejudicial, misleading, confusing, a waste of time, and/or
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence under FRE 403.
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit under 37 CFR §§
`42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i) because it is not referenced or
`explained in the Petition. See 37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and
`42.104(b)(5).
`
`
`
`1 E.g., when offering a printout of a webpage into evidence to prove the website’s
`contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information from the
`website itself, not merely the printout. See VictaulicCo. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236
`(3d Cir. 2007).
`2 “[T]o authenticate printouts from a website, the party proffering the evidence must
`produce some statement or affidavit from someone with knowledge of the website ...
`for example a web master or someone else with personal knowledge would be
`sufficient.” EMC Corp. v. Personalweb Techs., LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00084, slip
`op. at 45 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (Paper 64) (quoting St. Luke's Cataract & Laser
`Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 2006 WL 1320242, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2006)).
`6
`
`3898161.v1
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1027, 4/7/2002
`WaybackMachine
`
`Ex. 1028, Xplore
`802.11-1999
`
`Ex. 1029, Xplore
`802.11b-1999
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1027 is April 7, 2002 WaybackMachine
`Archive of http://Bluetooth.com/dev/specifications.asp.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. (see supra, FNs 1 & 2) In
`addition, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant
`under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing,
`and/or a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner also
`objects to this exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`42.24(a)(1)(i) because it is not referenced or explained in the
`Petition. See 37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1028 is IEEE Xplore, 802.11-1999
`Specification.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. (see supra, FNs 1 & 2) In
`addition, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant
`under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing,
`and/or a waste of time under FRE 403.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1029 is IEEE Xplore, 802.11b-1999
`Specification.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. (see supra, FNs 1 & 2) In
`addition, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant
`under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing,
`and/or a waste of time under FRE 403.
`
`3898161.v1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1030, Xplore
`802.11g-2003
`
`Ex. 1031, 2/12/2004
`WaybackMachine
`
`Ex. 1033, U.S.
`7,990,904
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1030 is IEEE Xplore, 802.11g-2003
`Specification.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. (see supra, FNs 1 & 2) In
`addition, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant
`under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing,
`and/or a waste of time under FRE 403.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1031 is Feb. 12, 2004 WaybackMachine
`Archive of http://standards.ieee.org/getiee802/802.11.html.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as inadmissible hearsay
`under FRE 802, e.g., the purported publication dates printed
`on the pages, because it is offered for the truth of the matter
`asserted. Further, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as not
`authenticated under FRE 901. (see supra, FNs 1 & 2) In
`addition, Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant
`under FRE 402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing,
`and/or a waste of time under FRE 403.
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1033 is U.S. Patent No. 7,990,904.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`
`3898161.v1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1034, Sur-
`Reply Claim
`Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 1036, Claim
`Construction Order
`
`
`
`Objection(s)
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1034 is Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Claim
`Construction Brief (Dkt. 38), Ozmo Licensing v. Dell
`Technologies Inc., 6:22-cv-642-ADA.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1036 is Claim Construction Order (Dkt.
`60), Ozmo Licensing v. Dell Technologies Inc., 6:22-cv-642-
`ADA.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit as irrelevant under FRE
`402, and prejudicial, misleading, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403. Further, Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit under 37 CFR §§ 42.6(a)(3) and 42.24(a)(1)(i)
`because it is not referenced or explained in the Petition. See
`37 CFR §§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(5).
`
`
`3898161.v1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 2024.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`
`
`/Lawrence P. Cogswell III, Ph.D. 71,441/
`Lawrence P. Cogswell III, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 71,441
`Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Phone: (617) 607-5900
`Fax: (978) 341-0136
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Ozmo Licensing LLC
`
`
`
`3898161.v1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,814
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on January 30, 2024, the
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted Prior to Institution is
`being served electronically by agreement of the parties at the following email
`addresses:
`
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`chris.katsantonis@us.dlapiper.com
`Ozmo-IPR@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lawrence P. Cogswell III, Ph.D. 71,441/
`Lawrence P. Cogswell III, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 71,441
`Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Phone: (617) 607-5900
`Fax: (978) 341-0136
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Ozmo Licensing LLC
`
`3898161.v1
`
`11
`
`