UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-006221
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting in
`
`a representative capacity for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (“Petitioners”), hereby submit the
`
`following objections to Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) Exhibits as indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon,
`
`without limitation. Petitioners’ objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-006221
`Patent No. 7,149,511 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JOHN A.
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting in
`
`a representative capacity for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (“Petitioners”), hereby submit the
`
`following objections to Patent Owner Rosetta-Wireless Corporation’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) Exhibits as indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon,
`
`without limitation. Petitioners’ objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00616 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`(“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the new material served by
`
`Patent Owner on November 28, 2016.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Patent Owner, in the context of Patent Owner’s November 28
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 28), and not in the context of any other substantive
`
`argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this proceeding. Petitioners
`
`expressly object to any other purported use of these Exhibits, including as substantive
`
`evidence in this proceeding, which would be untimely and improper under the
`
`applicable rules, and Petitioners expressly assert, reserve, and do not waive any other
`
`objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibits 2018-2021 and 2028-2029 And Any Reference
`to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay
`
`within Hearsay); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibits 2018-2021 and 2028-2029 as
`
`impermissible hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, to the extent to which the
`
`out of court statements therein, or the out of court statements referenced therein, are
`
`offered for the truth of the matters asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for
`
`which Patent Owner has not demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the rule
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802, 805).
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on these documents in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly
`
`prejudicial to Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit 2026 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (Authenticating or Identifying Evidence);
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 1002 (Requirement of the Original); F.R.E. 1003 (Admissibility of
`
`Duplicates); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion,
`
`Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”).
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibit 2026 under F.R.E. 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2026 is illegible/cut-off and, thus, the document is not admissible to the same
`
`extent as the original (e.g., F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003).
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in Patent Owner’s Response
`
`or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`III. Objections to Exhibit 2017 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for
`
`Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); F.R.E. 602 (“Need for
`
`Personal Knowledge”); F.R.E. 701 (“Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses”); F.R.E.
`
`801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 805 (Hearsay within Hearsay).
`
`Petitioners object to the use of Exhibit 2017 under F.R.E. 602 to the extent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`evidence has not been introduced sufficient to support a finding that the declarant has
`
`personal knowledge of the matters set forth in Exhibit 2017.
`
`
`
`Petitioners further object to the use of Exhibit 2017 under F.R.E. 701 to the
`
`extent the declarant is not being offered as an expert witness, and to the extent the
`
`matters in Exhibit 2017 are: (a) not rationally based on the declarant’s perception;
`
`(b) not helpful to clearly understanding the declarant’s testimony or to determining a
`
`fact in issue; or (c) based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
`
`within the scope of Rule 702.
`
`Petitioners further object to the use of Exhibit 2017 as containing
`
`impermissible hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802, and 805, to the extent to which the
`
`out of court statements referenced therein are offered for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for which Patent Owner has not
`
`demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the rule against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802,
`
`805).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in Patent Owner’s Response
`
`or other submissions of Patent Owner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners (F.R.E. 403).
`
`Dated: December 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/Megan Raymond
`Megan F. Raymond (lead counsel)
`Reg. No. 72,997
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006- 6807
`P: 202-508-4741/F: 202-383-8347
`megan.raymond@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorney for Samsung Petitioners
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 36,801
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`P: 202-682-7094 /F: 202-857-0940
`Brian.Ferguson@weil.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2016-00622
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’ OB-
`
`JECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`was served on December 5, 2016 in its entirety by causing the aforementioned docu-
`
`ment to be electronically mailed, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, to the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Patent Owner listed below:
`
`Miranda Y. Jones
`Michael F. Heim
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 221-2000
`Fax: (713) 221-2021
`mjones@hpcllp.com
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`rosettaIPR@hpcllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Rosetta-Wireless Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`/s/Bridget McAuliffe/
`Bridget McAuliffe
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
