UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00783
`Patent 9,191,756
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00783
`Patent 9,191,756
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`Patent Owner, III Holdings 4, LLC, objects to the admissibility of the
`
`following evidence submitted by Petitioner K/S HIMPP pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1). These objections are being timely filed within 10 business days after
`
`the Decision to Institute. Patent Owner asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to
`
`deny the admission and consideration of the following documents on the following
`
`bases:
`
`Exhibit 1012 – Barron’s Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (11th ed.
`
`2013)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1012 as irrelevant to this
`
`proceeding because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1012 was publicly
`
`available before the earliest possible priority date of the ’756 patent. Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1012 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this
`
`IPR proceeding or consideration by the identified Expert Dr. Robert Morrow,
`
`rendering the Exhibit 1012 reference irrelevant to this IPR proceeding pursuant to
`
`FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`Exhibit 1013 – I. Sager, Before Iphone and Android Came Simon, the First
`
`Smartphone (June 29, 2012), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-
`
`06-29/before-iphone-and-android-came-simon-the-first-smartphone
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1013 as irrelevant to this
`
`proceeding because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1013 was publicly
`
`available before the earliest possible priority date of the ’756 patent. Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1013 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this
`
`IPR proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1013 reference irrelevant
`
`to this IPR
`
`proceeding pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic or that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 1014 – T. Martin, The evolution of the smartphone (July 29, 2014),
`
`http://pocketnow.com/2014/07/28/the-evolution-of-the-smartphone
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1014 as irrelevant to this
`
`proceeding because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1014 was publicly
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`available before the earliest possible priority date of the ’756 patent. Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1014 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this
`
`IPR proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1014 reference irrelevant
`
`to this IPR
`
`proceeding pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic or that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 1015 – S. Mukherjee, Smartphone Evolution: From IBM Simon to
`
`Samsung Galaxy S3 (May 8, 2012), http://www.ibtimes.com/smartphone-
`
`evolution-ibm-simon-samsung-galaxy-s3-697340
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1015 as irrelevant to this
`
`proceeding because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1015 was publicly
`
`available before the earliest possible priority date of the ’756 patent. Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1015 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this
`
`IPR proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1015 reference irrelevant
`
`to this IPR
`
`proceeding pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic or that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibit 1016 – B. Kasoff, A Closer Look: The Evolution of the Smart Phone
`
`(September 19, 2014), http://blog.wipp.org/2014/09/a-closer-look-the-
`
`evolution-of
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1016 as irrelevant to this
`
`proceeding because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1016 was publicly
`
`available before the earliest possible priority date of the ’756 patent. Petitioner has
`
`not established that Exhibit 1016 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this
`
`IPR proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1016 reference irrelevant
`
`to this IPR
`
`proceeding pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioners have not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic or that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Date: August 17, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Henry A. Petri, Jr./
`Henry A. Petri, Jr., Reg. No. 33,063
`Polsinelli PC
`1000 Louisiana, Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00783
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served on August 17, 2017, via email directed to the
`
`following counsel of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`Haixia Lin
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`Christopher R. O’Brien
`Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`Vera A Shmidt
`Vera.Shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`
`/Sonia Ramirez/
`Sonia Ramirez
`POLSINELLI PC
`1000 Louisiana, Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tele: (713 374-1600
`Fax: (713) 374-1601
`
`7
`
`
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
