Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[ButtersOnARoll]

Here's another great tidbit!

Apple’s Petition relies on Dr. Houh’s declaration (Ex. 1009), which incorrectly assumes that the word “subscriber” in Chu ’684 (Ex. 1006) means “an individual phone user”. See Ex. 1009 at ¶¶ 37, 42 and 45. Dr. Houh later conceded in deposition testimony that, in Chu ’684, “subscriber” means “enterprise”, not “subscriber” as used in the Patent Owner’s patent. Ex. 2043 at 15:11-17:4; Ex. 2044 at 221:20-222:4, 220:17-24, 178:17-184:5, 223:8-224:8, 215:20-217:9, 214:1-215:19; 217:10-220:9. Dr. Houh’s fundamental misunderstanding of “subscriber” and “subscriber-specific dial plan” in Ex. 1009 has led to Apple’s Petition mischaracterizing “dial plans” in Chu ‘684 as being caller-specific (rather than enterprise-specific). Thus ¶¶ 37, 42, and 45 in Ex. 1009 should also be excluded under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and misleading.