`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed: May 23, 2016
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Precise Relief Requested ................................................................................. 1
`
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053,
`1054, 1060, 1063-1065, 1069 and 1071, and Portions of Exhibit 1005
`Should be Excluded from the Record .............................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 Constitute Inadmissible Hearsay .......... 2
`
`Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051,
`1053, 1054, 1069, and 1071 Lack Relevance ....................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`Portions of Exhibit 1005 Lack Relevance ............................................. 6
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,
`
`
`
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 3, 5
`
`Actifio, Inc., v. Delphix Corp.,
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 (Apr. 29, 2016) .................................................... 5
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 401 ................................................................................ 5-6
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ............................................................................ 1, 5-6
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ................................................................................ 5-6
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 801 ................................................................................ 1, 2
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 802 ................................................................................ 1, 2
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 807 ................................................................................ 3-5
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.62(a) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
` 77 Fed. Reg. 48758 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`I.
`
`Precise Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`
`moves to exclude certain exhibits submitted by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”). This
`
`motion is timely filed in accordance with the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper No.
`
`9). In particular, Patent Owner requests that Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-
`
`1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060, 1063-1065, 1069 and 1071 and
`
`portions of Exhibit 1005 be excluded from the record.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to inter partes review proceedings. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a), Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48758. Under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 402, “irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 402. Also, unless an exception applies, an out of court statement offered for
`
`the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`III. Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054,
`1060, 1063-1065, 1069 and 1071, and Portions of Exhibit 1005 Should be
`Excluded from the Record
`
`The Board should exclude Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-
`
`1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060, 1063-1065, 1069 and 1071 because one or
`
`more of these exhibits includes evidence that is inadmissible hearsay or the
`
`evidence in these exhibits is irrelevant to the instant proceeding. The Board should
`
`also exclude portions of Exhibit 1005 because they are irrelevant to the instant
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner timely objected to these exhibits stating the precise
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`grounds under which these exhibits are inadmissible. (Paper Nos. 12, 15, 28.)
`
`A. Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 Constitute Inadmissible Hearsay
`Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 801-802. Patent Owner previously objected to these exhibits on
`
`this ground. (Paper No. 12 at 1; Paper No. 15 at 1.) Petitioner has failed to rebut
`
`Patent Owner’s objections. As such, these exhibits should be excluded.
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner made the naked assertion that RFC 2401 “was
`
`published in November 1998.” (Paper No. 1 at 24.) After trial was instituted,
`
`Petitioner submitted additional evidence (Exs. 1060-1065) as supplemental
`
`information in support of its contention that RFC 2401 qualified as a printed
`
`publication as of November 1998. (Paper No. 14 at 4-8.) Exhibit 1060 is a
`
`declaration from Sandy Ginoza, a representative of the IETF, submitted in
`
`litigation before the International Trade Commission (337-TA-858) and Exhibit
`
`1063 is a “transcript of Ms. Ginoza’s February 8, 2013 deposition that was taken as
`
`part of the ITC action.” (Id. at 5-6.) Exhibit 1064 is allegedly “an article from
`
`InfoWorld magazine (dated August 16, 1999)” and Exhibit 1065 is allegedly “an
`
`article from NetworkWorld magazine (dated March 15, 1999).” (Id. at 6-7.) In its
`
`reply to the Patent Owner response, Petitioner further relied on the above exhibits
`
`to support its assertion regarding the publication date of RFC 2401. (Reply, Paper
`
`No. 26 at 19-22.) Each of Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 include out-of-court
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`statements, i.e., statements that were not made for purposes of the present
`
`proceeding, and because Petitioner relies on the alleged truth of these out-of-court
`
`statements they constitute hearsay and are inadmissible unless an exception
`
`applies.
`
`Petitioner has yet to assert that these out-of-court statements are admissible
`
`under any hearsay exception. In a related proceeding, Petitioner has argued that
`
`these exhibits are admissible under the residual exception set forth in Rule 807. To
`
`fall under this exception, the statement must: 1) have equivalent circumstantial
`
`guarantees of trustworthiness; 2) be offered as evidence of a material fact; 3) be
`
`more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the
`
`proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and 4) be in the interests of
`
`justice to admit. Fed. R. Evid. 807. The residual exception to the hearsay rule is to
`
`be reserved for “exceptional cases,” and is not “a broad license on trial judges to
`
`admit hearsay statements that do not fall within one of the other exceptions.”
`
`Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1996), as amended on
`
`reh’g in part (Jan. 2, 1997) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Petitioner cannot
`
`show that all of the conditions for admissibility under FRE 807 are met.
`
`For example, Ms. Ginoza’s statements in Exhibits 1060 and 1063, and the
`
`statements in Exhibits 1064 and 1065 have no circumstantial guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness. There is no evidence corroborating Ms. Ginoza’s statements. She
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`has no personal knowledge to support the assertions that RFC 2401 became
`
`publicly available in November 1998 and RFC 2543 became publicly available in
`
`March 1999. She was not involved with the RFC editor’s publication process until
`
`June of 1999. See Ex. 1063 at 14 (page 50, lines 17-25). Worse she not only
`
`failed to produce the RFC Editor records that formed the basis of her statements,
`
`but she also could not even explain what existed in those records that were the
`
`basis for her statements with respect to RFC 2401. (Ex. 1060 at ¶ 107; Ex. 1063 at
`
`11 (p. 40, ll. 2-5).) Therefore, her blanket assertion that “RFC 2401 has been
`
`publicly available through the RFC editor’s web site or through other means since
`
`its publication in November 1998” (Ex. 1060 at ¶ 107) has no “circumstantial
`
`guarantee[] of
`
`trustworthiness.”
`
` Further,
`
`there
`
`is no evidence having
`
`“circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” for the statements in Exhibits 1064
`
`and 1065 (Ex. 1064 at 9; Ex. 1065 at 3) relating to the availability of RFCs from
`
`the IETF website that Petitioner relies on for their truth. Reply, Paper No. 29 at
`
`23-24.
`
`In addition to lacking indicia of trustworthiness required by Rule 807, Ms.
`
`Ginoza’s statements and Exhibits 1064 and 1065 are not more probative than other
`
`evidence reasonably available to Petitioner, as required by FRE 807. As just one
`
`example, Petitioner could have contacted the authors of RFCs 2401 and 2543 to
`
`obtain declarations regarding their personal knowledge of the publication of RFCs
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`2401 and 2453. Petitioner’s failure to submit such in court testimony not only
`
`shows that the evidence currently of record is not “more probative on the point for
`
`which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
`
`reasonable efforts” but also shows that admitting this evidence is not “in the
`
`interests of justice,” as required by FRE 807. Indeed, this is simply not one of
`
`those “exceptional” cases where admitting hearsay evidence under the residual
`
`exception is warranted. Conoco Inc., 99 F.3d at 392.
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should exclude Exhibits 1060 and
`
`1063-1065 because they constitute inadmissible hearsay and no exception applies.
`
`B. Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053,
`1054, 1069, and 1071 Lack Relevance
`
`Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054,
`
`1069, and 1071 should be excluded because they lack relevance. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401-403; see also Actifio, Inc., v. Delphix Corp., IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 at
`
`57 (Apr. 29, 2016) (excluding exhibits that were not relied upon). Patent Owner
`
`previously objected to these exhibits on this ground. (Paper No. 12 at 1, 2; Paper
`
`No. 15 at 1; Paper No. 28 at 1.)
`
`Each of these exhibits is inadmissible because Petitioner has not established
`
`that they are relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. For instance, Petitioner does not
`
`even cite to these exhibits in either the Petition or the Petitioner Reply. (Paper No.
`
`1; Paper No. 26.) Accordingly, each of these exhibits should be excluded from the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`record.
`
`C. Portions of Exhibit 1005 Lack Relevance
`Portions of Exhibit 1005 should be excluded because they lack relevance.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Patent Owner previously objected to these portions on this
`
`ground. (Paper No. 12 at 1.) Petitioner has failed to rebut Patent Owner’s
`
`objections. As such, these portions should be excluded.
`
`Specifically, when Petitioner filed Exhibit 1005, which is the declaration of
`
`its alleged expert, Dr. Roberto Tamassia, Petitioner made the strategic choice of
`
`filing a single declaration for not one but six proceedings (IPR2015-00866, 867,
`
`868, 869, 870, 871) that covered three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,458,341,
`
`8,516,131, and 8,560,705). (See generally Ex. 1005.) Accordingly, vast portions
`
`of Exhibit 1005 are simply irrelevant to the instant proceeding. For instance, the
`
`current proceeding is based on Beser as the primary reference, but Dr. Tamassia’s
`
`declaration includes several pages focusing on Aventail, which is irrelevant to the
`
`current proceeding. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 61-63, 180-311, 403-420, 447-451,
`
`459-460, 462-463.). Similarly, Dr. Tamassia’s declaration includes several pages
`
`focusing on Brand (see, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 442-455, 461, 463) and RFC 2543
`
`(see, e.g., Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 196, 197, 456-460, 462), which are irrelevant to the
`
`current proceeding. Such irrelevant sections of Dr. Tamassia’s declaration should
`
`be excluded under FRE 401-403.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above, the Board should exclude Exhibits 1002-
`
`1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060, 1063-1065,
`
`1069 and 1071 and portions of Exhibit 1005 from the record.
`
`Dated: May 23, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May 2016, a copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served electronically, pursuant to
`
`agreement, upon the following:
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`
`Dated: May 23, 2016
`
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.