`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`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 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00014
`Patent No. 6,625,582
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner U.S. Bancorp hereby submits
`
`
`
`the following objections to Exhibits 2015 and 2016 attached to Patent Owner
`
`Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC’s (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“RCAMC”) Response. See CBM2013-00014, Paper 19 (and exhibits thereto).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, U.S. Bancorp’s objections below apply the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
` Objections to Exhibit 2015 and Any Reference to or Reliance Thereon I.
`
`
`U.S. Bancorp hereby objects to Exhibit 2015, an excerpt from U.S.
`
`Bancorp’s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Benefit Funding Systems
`
`LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories provided in the parallel district court litigation
`
`between U.S. Bancorp and RCAMC (C.A. No. 12-803-LPS (D. Del.)). The
`
`excerpt submitted as Exhibit 2015 contains U.S. Bancorp’s interrogatory
`
`responses providing U.S. Bancorp’s contentions regarding why the accused
`
`Checking Account Advance (“CAA”) service does not infringe the asserted
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582 (“the ‘582 patent”).
`
`As explained in more detail below, the grounds for objection are as follows:
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance, i.e., “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible”), and F.R.E.
`
`403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or
`
`Other Reasons, i.e., “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues. . . .”).
`
`U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement contentions included in Exhibit 2015 are
`
`not relevant to the Board’s Section 101 analysis of the ‘582 patent because
`
`“patent infringement and invalidity are separate and distinct issues.” Commil
`
`USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013). RCAMC
`
`argues that because U.S. Bancorp has identified particular claim limitations that
`
`the accused product does not practice, U.S. Bancorp is somehow precluded from
`
`simultaneously asserting that the claims are invalid under Section 101. See Paper
`
`19 (“Resp.”), at 26-29. However, that argument fails for two reasons.
`
`First, the differing claim construction standards used by the PTO and district
`
`courts further confirm that U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement contentions are
`
`irrelevant to the invalidity analysis. See MPEP § 2111.01 (“The USPTO uses a
`
`different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during
`
`examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`in light of the specification.”). U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement contentions
`
`were provided in part under the district court’s narrower claim construction
`
`standard, and are therefore not relevant to the Board’s analysis, which employs
`
`the broader claim construction standard.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`Second, the non-infringement contentions are submitted under the legal
`
`fallacy that if a patent is not infringed it cannot be invalid at the same time. The
`
`fact that the accused CAA service is not practicing each element of the abstract
`
`idea claimed by the ‘582 patent does not mean that the ‘582 patent is not directed
`
`to an abstract idea. For this reason, preliminary contentions submitted by U.S.
`
`Bancorp regarding non-infringement have no relevance to invalidity under
`
`Section 101.
`
`RCAMC’s conflation of infringement and invalidity is an apparent attempt
`
`to confuse the sole issue before the Board -- patent eligibility under Section 101 –
`
`and to lob inflammatory accusations at U.S. Bancorp rather than address issues.
`
`See, e.g., Response at 28. For these additional reasons, Exhibit 2015 should also
`
`be excluded on the basis that reference to, or reliance on, this exhibit is confusing
`
`and unduly prejudicial to U.S. Bancorp.
`
` Objections to Exhibit 2016 and Any Reference to or Reliance Thereon II.
`
`
`U.S. Bancorp hereby objects to Exhibit 2016, which purports to be an April
`
`23, 2013 article by Jessica Silver-Greenberg entitled, “Regulators to Restrict Big
`
`Banks’ Payday Lending” (“Greenberg Article”).
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons),
`
`F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), and F.R.E. 901 (Authentication).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Exhibit 2016 is Irrelevant
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`The Greenberg Article is completely irrelevant to the Section 101 issue
`
`before the Board, and is a blatant attempt to create prejudice against U.S.
`
`Bancorp. In addition to arguing that U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement
`
`contentions preclude its Section 101 invalidity challenge, RCAMC further argues
`
`that the non-infringing service is not merely hypothetical, but an actual service
`
`offered by U.S. Bancorp “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.” Response at 28. RCAMC cites the Greenberg Article to
`
`substantiate its claim that these federal agencies are “cracking down” on U.S.
`
`Bancorp.
`
`As discussed above, U.S. Bancorp’s non-infringement arguments are
`
`irrelevant to whether the challenged claims are patent-eligible under Section 101.
`
`Moreover, even if the commercial availability of the non-infringing service was
`
`relevant, the service’s relative importance to U.S. Bancorp and any investigation
`
`of the service by federal regulators is plainly irrelevant to the Section 101
`
`analysis.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 2016 is Prejudicial
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`Even if the Board were to find that the Greenberg Article is somehow
`
`relevant to the Section 101 issue, any minimal probative value is far outweighed
`
`by the unfair prejudice against U.S. Bancorp. RCAMC’s citation to the
`
`Greenberg Article is a transparent attempt to smear U.S. Bancorp by alleging that
`
`its accused service is predatory and unethical. See Response at 28. The
`
`Greenberg Article serves no purpose other than to portray U.S. Bancorp in a
`
`negative light and is therefore both prejudicial and irrelevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; F.R.E. 403).
`
`C. Exhibit 2016 is Inadmissible Hearsay and has Not Been
`Authenticated
`
`In addition, the assertions regarding the accused CAA service in the
`
`Greenberg Article are out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein, and therefore constitute impermissible hearsay not subject to any
`
`hearsay exceptions (F.R.E. 801, 802). Moreover, RCAMC fails to provide any
`
`basis for concluding that the Greenberg Article is a true and correct copy as it
`
`existed at the time of publication (F.R.E. 901).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2013-00014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`
` Conclusion III.
`For at least these reasons, U.S. Bancorp objects to Exhibits 2015 and 2016
`
`
`attached to RCAMC’s Response and the citations in the Response to Exhibits 2015
`
`and 2016.
`
`Dated: November 27, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Attorney Docket No.: 84635-0009
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER U.S. BANCORP’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was served on
`
`November 27, 2013 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