`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. BANCORP
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`RETIREMENT CAPITAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER U.S. BANCORP’S MOTON TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00014
`Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`Petitioner U.S. Bancorp (“Petitioner” or “U.S. Bancorp”) respectfully moves
`
`
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) and the Scheduling Order (Paper 13) to exclude
`
`Patent Owner Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC’s
`
`(“RCAMC”) Exhibit 2016. Exhibit 2016 is a New York Times article containing
`
`hearsay discussions of proposals to regulate the service accused of infringement in
`
`the underlying district court litigation. The article was submitted with RCAMC’s
`
`Response (Paper 19) to U.S. Bancorp’s Petition. As set forth below, Exhibit 2016
`
`is inadmissible for three separate reasons: (1) the exhibit is irrelevant to the issues
`
`before the Board, (2) admitting the exhibit would confuse the issues and unduly
`
`prejudice U.S. Bancorp, and (3) the exhibit contains impressible hearsay.1
`
`First, proposed banking regulations are irrelevant to whether the challenged
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582 (“the ‘582 Patent,” Ex. 1003) are patent-
`
`eligible. Exhibit 2016 is thus inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
`
`Second, even if the exhibit is deemed to have some probative value, admitting
`
`this exhibit will conflate issues, confuse the record, and distract the parties and the
`
`Board from the Section 101 patentability issues set forth in the Petition, as the
`
`exhibit makes no mention of the ‘582 Patent. To underscore its irrelevance,
`
`U.S. Bancorp’s objections to this exhibit and several other exhibits were
`1
`
`previously set forth in U.S. Bancorp’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64, filed on November 27, 2013 (Paper 20).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`Exhibit 2016 appears to have only been submitted by RCAMC to incite biases
`
`against U.S. Bancorp by highlighting the recent regulatory scrutiny given to banks
`
`and lenders. Thus, this exhibit should also be excluded under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 403.
`
`Third, Exhibit 2016 should be excluded on hearsay grounds. The article
`
`discusses proposed regulations, which based on conversations the author had with
`
`“several people briefed on the matter,” could impose “more stringent
`
`requirements” on loans such as the accused infringing service. See Exh. 2016.
`
`Thus, the article is also inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 802.
`
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS I.
`Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 govern the admissibility of evidence
`
`in this proceeding based on relevancy grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. Under Rule
`
`402, irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Rule 401 defines “relevant” evidence as
`
`evidence that “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable that it would
`
`be without the evidence,” where “the fact is of consequence in determining the
`
`action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if a piece of evidence is relevant, it may be
`
`excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`Hearsay is also inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Rule 801
`
`defines hearsay as a statement not made “while testifying at the current trial or
`
`hearing” and that “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801. More specifically, “newspaper
`
`articles are ‘classic, inadmissible hearsay.’” Hicks v. Charles Pfizer & Co. Inc.,
`
`466 F. Supp. 2d 799, 804 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (citing Roberts v. City of Shreveport,
`
`397 F.3d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 2005)).
`
`
` EXHIBIT 2016 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT, PREJUDICIAL, AND II.
`HEARSAY
`
`Exhibit 2016 should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403,
`
`and 802. Any one of these rules is sufficient basis to exclude the exhibit from
`
`these proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2016 is an article by Jessica Silver-Greenberg of The New York Times,
`
`dated April 23, 2013, based on hearsay discussions with “several people briefed on
`
`the matter,” discussing some potential new regulations imposing “more stringent
`
`requirements” on loans, such as U.S. Bancorp’s Checking Account Advance
`
`(“CAA”) service that is accused of infringement in the parallel district court
`
`litigation. See C.A. No. 12-803-LPS (D. Del.). The article refers to these services
`
`as “predatory” and generally portrays them in a negative light.
`
`RCAMC uses Exhibit 2016 to assert that U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement
`
`contention is not based on a “mere theoretical non-infringing alternative,” but “an
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`actual service offered by U.S. Bancorp – one that is so important to U.S. Bancorp
`
`that it is willing to risk subjecting itself to a ‘crack down’ on ‘big bank’ payday
`
`loans by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit
`
`Insurance Corporation.” Resp. at 28. RCAMC cites to the article to substantiate
`
`its claim that these federal agencies are “crack[ing] down” on U.S. Bancorp. Id.
`
`The commercial availability of an accused infringing service has no bearing
`
`on whether the challenged claims recite patent-eligible subject matter. Indeed, the
`
`Federal Circuit has found that a defendant’s “alternative assertion of non-
`
`infringement does not detract from its affirmative defense of invalidity under §
`
`101.” See Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. SunLife Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720
`
`F.3d 1361, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[P]atent infringement and invalidity are
`
`separate and distinct issues.”). Because the exhibit is wholly irrelevant to the
`
`patent-eligibility determination before the Board, it should be excluded as
`
`irrelevant under Rule 402.
`
`RCAMC’s reliance on Exhibit 2016 is a thinly-veiled attempt to incite bias
`
`against U.S. Bancorp, based on an article that is irrelevant to the Board’s Section
`
`101 analysis. Even if the commercial availability of the accused CAA service was
`
`somehow relevant, issues such as the service’s alleged importance to U.S. Bancorp
`
`and potential new regulations on the service are plainly irrelevant to the Section
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`101 analysis. Thus, even if the Board finds Exhibit 2016 admissible under Rule
`
`402, its minimal probative value is far outweighed by the unfair prejudice against
`
`U.S. Bancorp due to the highly negative nature of the article, rendering the article
`
`inadmissible under Rule 403.
`
`Exhibit 2016 should also be excluded because it is inadmissible hearsay.2 The
`
`article is a statement made outside of the current proceeding and is offered by
`
`RCAMC to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the article, that is, that the
`
`Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance
`
`Corporation decided to “crack down” on “big bank” payday loans. See Resp. at
`
`28. Even if such matters were relevant, a newspaper article authored by a third-
`
`party based on other hearsay statements allegedly made by “people briefed on the
`
`matter” is not the proper vehicle to introduce such evidence. See Stollings v. Ryobi
`
`Technologies, Inc., 725 F.3d 753, 761 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding newspaper article
`
`2 In its Objections filed on November 27, 2013, U.S. Bancorp objected to Exhibit
`
`2016 on hearsay grounds and because Exhibit 2016 was not properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901. See Paper No. 20, at 5. In response, RCAMC submitted a
`
`declaration by its counsel attesting that Exhibit 2016 is a true and correct copy of
`
`the article as it was published. See Paper No. 22. While, the declaration submitted
`
`by RCAMC’s counsel may address the authentication objection, it does nothing to
`
`cure the hearsay objection.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`was inadmissible hearsay when offered as proof of the article’s contents). In
`
`addition, none of the hearsay exceptions articulated in FRE 803 applies to Exhibit
`
`2016. Exhibit 2016 therefore should be excluded as hearsay.
`
` CONCLUSION III.
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, U.S. Bancorp respectfully requests that the
`
`Board exclude Exhibits 2015 and 2016.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Anthony H. Son/
`Anthony H. Son (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 46,133
`Brian H. Pandya (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 60,991
`Ryan M. Corbett (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 63,724
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner U.S. Bancorp
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER U.S. BANCORP’S
`
`MOTON TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was
`
`served on February 24, 2014 by email to counsel for patent owner at the following
`
`email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`Casey Griffith (casey.griffith@kk-llp.com)
`Shital Desai (sita.desai@kk-llp.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ryan M. Corbett/
`Anthony H. Son (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 46,133
`Brian H. Pandya (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 60,991
`Ryan M. Corbett (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 63,724
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner U.S. Bancorp
`
`
`
`7