throbber
Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`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: June 13, 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 REPLY TO
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 Should Be Excluded ........................................ 1
`
`Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053,
`1054, 1069, and 1071 and Portions of Exhibit 1005 Should be
`Excluded .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 1, 2
`
`Conoco Inc. v. DOE,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Doe v. United States,
`976 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................... 1, 5
`
`Actifio, Inc., v. Delphix Corp.,
`IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 (Apr. 29, 2016) .................................................... 5
`
`People v. Bowers,
`801 P.2d 511 (Colo.1990) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Delacruz v. State,
`734 So.2d 1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ........................................................... 3
`
`In re Flannery,
`768 N.E.2d 34 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2002) ............................................................... 3
`
`State v. Renly,
`827 P.2d 1345 (Or. App. 1992) ............................................................................ 3
`
`A.P. v. Department of Public Welfare,
`696 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmmw. 1997) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 807 ........................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`
`
`

`
`On June 6, 2016, Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed an Opposition (Paper
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`No. 33) to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 30). Apple, however,
`
`provides insufficient reasons for admitting the exhibits at issue, i.e., Exhibits
`
`1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060,
`
`1063-1065, 1069 and 1071, and portions of Exhibit 1005. As such, Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 Should Be Excluded
`
`Apple argues that Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 should be admitted under
`
`the residual exception of Fed. R. Evid. 807. Paper No. 33 at 1. In support of this
`
`position, Apple states that courts have “wide discretion” in applying the residual
`
`exception to the hearsay rule. See Paper No. 33 at 1 (citing Doe v. United States,
`
`976 F.2d 1071, 1076-77 (7th Cir. 1992)). This is incorrect. Apple’s reliance on
`
`Doe, which involves out of court statements made by a child abuse victim against
`
`his abuser, is misplaced. As provided by Doe, “Congress intended that the
`
`residual exceptions be used sparingly; although trial judges are given considerable
`
`discretion in evaluating hearsay offered thereunder, that discretion is ‘tempered by
`
`the requirement that the exception be reserved for exceptional cases.’” 976 F.2d at
`
`1074 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently excluded a sworn
`
`declaration assumed to be trustworthy. Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 696 F.3d
`
`1151, 1161 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even if the declaration at issue was trustworthy,
`
`1
`
`

`
`“this is not an exceptional case and thus does not warrant the residual hearsay
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`exception”).
`
`Ignoring the mandate that the residual hearsay exception is to be “used
`
`sparingly” for truly “exceptional cases,” Apple attempts to establish that statements
`
`in these exhibits meet the five requirements of Rule 807. They do not. Apple first
`
`argues that Ms. Ginoza’s statements in Exhibits 1060 and 1063 are corroborated by
`
`and corroborate Exhibits 1064 and 1065. See Paper No. 33 at 2-4. That is
`
`incorrect. Ms. Ginoza’s statements and the statements in Exhibits 1064 and 1065
`
`have no circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. There is no evidence
`
`corroborating Ms. Ginoza’s statements. She was not involved with the RFC
`
`editor’s publication process until June of 1999. Ex. 1063 at 14 (page 50, lines 17-
`
`25). She failed to produce the RFC Editor records that formed the basis of her
`
`statements; she also could not explain what existed in those records that were the
`
`basis of her statements with respect to RFC 2401. See 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
`
`2
`
`

`
`and 1065 (Ex. 1064 at 9; Ex. 1065 at 3) relating to the availability of RFCs from
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`the IETF website that Apple relies on for their truth. 1 Paper No. 26 at 19, 20.
`
`Apple relies on Exhibits 1064 and 1065 in an attempt to corroborate Ms.
`
`Ginoza’s statements. But this circular analysis must be rejected. As courts have
`
`repeatedly explained, “[s]uch reciprocal use of hearsay as corroborative evidence
`
`would be but another form of evidentiary bootstrapping” and “the corroborative-
`
`evidence requirement cannot be satisfied by using one or several . . . hearsay
`
`statements to corroborate . . . another hearsay statement.” See, e.g., People v.
`
`Bowers, 801 P.2d 511, 527 (Colo.1990); see also Delacruz v. State, 734 So.2d
`
`1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999);  In re Flannery, 768 N.E.2d 34 (Ill. App. 2d Dist.
`
`2002);  State v. Renly, 827 P.2d 1345 (Or. App. 1992); A.P. v. Department of
`
`Public Welfare, 696 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmmw. 1997). Apple’s reliance on IBM Corp.
`
`v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-00089, Paper No. 44 (Apr. 25, 2016), is
`
`incorrect. In IBM, an Office Manager of the Internet Archive provided an affidavit
`
`accompanied with objective evidence establishing the publication date of the non-
`
`patent literature in dispute. The Board relied on this affidavit as evidence
`
`
`1 Apple asserts that Exhibits 1064 and 1065 are being submitted for another
`
`purpose as well and should be admitted. Paper No. 33 at 2 n.2. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees as these exhibits are being submitted for their truth. Paper No. 26 at 20.
`
`3
`
`

`
`corroborating non-declarant hearsay statements regarding the publication date. In
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`stark contrast, Dr. Tamassia, which Apple analogizes to the Office Manager in
`
`IBM, has not provided any objective evidence establishing the publication dates of
`
`the RFCs in dispute.
`
`Ms. Ginoza’s statements and Exhibits 1064 and 1065 are also 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
`
`RFC 2401 to obtain declarations regarding their personal knowledge of the
`
`publication of RFC 2401. 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. Apple does not deny that that it
`
`could have contacted the authors of RFC 2401 to obtain more probative evidence
`
`as to the publication date of RFC 2401. Paper No. 33 at 7. Rather, Apple suggests
`
`that testimony from the RFC authors may not have been trustworthy given the long
`
`period of time since the alleged publication. Paper No. 33 at 7. But the very same
`
`criticism could be lodged against Dr. Tamassia’s testimony, which Apple suggests
`
`provides corroboration. Apple cannot have it both ways.
`
`Apple does not argue that the present facts present an exceptional case that
`
`4
`
`

`
`warrants admitting hearsay evidence under the residual exception. Rather, Apple
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`argues that Conoco Inc., v. Dep’t of Energy, 99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Circ. 1996) is not
`
`applicable to them. However, Conoco was relied on in Patent Owner’s motion to
`
`show that the residual exception is for truly exceptional cases. Indeed, Apple
`
`should be well aware of this, given that it cites to Doe, which explains that the
`
`residual exception should be used sparingly and that the exception is reserved for
`
`exceptional cases. 976 F.2d at 1074.
`
`Thus, Exhibits 1060 and 1063-1065 constitute hearsay with no exception.
`
`II. Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, 1054,
`1069, and 1071 and Portions of Exhibit 1005 Should be Excluded
`
`Apple asserts that Dr. Tamassia considered Exhibits 1002-1004, 1006, 1010-
`
`1041, 1043-1048, 1050, 1051, 1053, and 1054, and therefore they are admissible.
`
`See Paper No. 33 at 7-9. However, these Exhibits were not cited by Dr. Tamassia
`
`(in Ex. 1005) as forming the basis for his positions that are relevant to this
`
`proceeding. See Actifio, Inc., v. Delphix Corp., IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 at
`
`57 (Apr. 29, 2016) (excluding exhibits that were not relied upon). Thus, these
`
`exhibits should be excluded and the unrelated portions of Dr. Tamassia’s
`
`declaration to this proceeding should likewise be excluded.
`
`As for Exhibits 1069 and 1071, Apple does not deny that it does not rely on
`
`these exhibits in any of its papers. They should be excluded as irrelevant.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Dated: June 13, 2016
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX, Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00866
`Patent No. 8,458,341
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June 2016, a copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude was served
`
`electronically, pursuant to agreement, upon the following:
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Dated: June 13, 2016

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket