UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`COMPANY, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM LP, HOTELS.COM
`GP, LLC, HOTWIRE, INC., ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.,
`PRICELINE.COM, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, and YAHOO! INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`METASEARCH SYSTEMS, LLC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00001
`Patent Number 8,326,924 B1
`
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF PETITIONERS’ REPLY WITNESS MR. GARY LIAO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85222017.1
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`COMPANY, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM LP, HOTELS.COM
`GP, LLC, HOTWIRE, INC., ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.,
`PRICELINE.COM, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, and YAHOO! INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`METASEARCH SYSTEMS, LLC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00001
`Patent Number 8,326,924 B1
`
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF PETITIONERS’ REPLY WITNESS MR. GARY LIAO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85222017.1
`
`
`
`1.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 8:23-25; 9:21-11:6; 13:4-14:6, Mr. Liao testified
`
`regarding his experiences in designing and implementing search and metasearch
`
`engines. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s qualifications as an expert
`
`presented by Petitioners in Exhibit 1042 at paragraph 1-3. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it establishes that Mr. Liao lacks the necessary qualifications to be
`
`considered an expert in the field encompassed in the ’924 patent.
`
`2.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 14:10-15:8; 16:13-17:1-10, Mr. Liao testified that he did
`
`not nor was never asked to combine a either a search engine with an e-commerce
`
`site or a metasearch engine with an e-commerce site. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ argument that the challenged claims are obvious on page 21, paragraph
`
`21 through page 26, paragraph 42, and page 29, paragraph 49 of Exhibit 1042.
`
`This testimony is relevant to demonstrate that people in the web development field
`
`did not consider combining a metasearch engine with an e-commerce site as
`
`claimed in the challenged claims of the ’924 patent.
`
`3.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 20:7-21:19, Mr. Liao testified that his definition of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have experience in “Web technology, knowledge of
`
`search engines” and “technologies in metasearch engines.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Mr. Liao’s ultimate opinion that one of skill in the art would combine
`
`Knowledge Broker and Mamma.com to render the challenged claims obvious on
`
`page 21, paragraph 21 through page 26, paragraph 42, and page 29, paragraph 49
`
`85222017.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`of Exhibit 1042. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Mr. Liao
`
`Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`CBM2014-00001
`
`
`did not have the qualifications and experiences that he believes one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have.
`
`4.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 31:12-21, Mr. Liao testified that his understanding of
`
`obviousness legal standard was that “obvious was something that could be fairly
`
`anticipated in the future.” This testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s ultimate opinion
`
`that one of skill in the art would combine Knowledge Broker and Mamma.com to
`
`render the challenged claims obvious on page 21, paragraph 21 through page 26,
`
`paragraph 42, and page 29, paragraph 49 of Exhibit 1042. This testimony is
`
`relevant because Mr. Liao applied the incorrect standard for obviousness in
`
`rendering his opinion.
`
`5.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 32:3-11; 32:20-23, Mr. Liao testified that he “never used
`
`Knowledge Broker before 2000” and that his understanding of Knowledge Broker
`
`was based on “those three article” identified as exhibits 1006, 1007, and 1045.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s opinions regarding the operation of
`
`Knowledge Broker on page 3, paragraph 6 through page 21, paragraph 20; page
`
`23, paragraph 37 through page 26, paragraph 41; and page 28, paragraph 47
`
`through page 30, paragraph 50 of Exhibit 1042. This testimony is relevant because
`
`it establishes that Mr. Liao did not have any first-hand knowledge of how
`
`85222017.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Knowledge Broker operated and that his understanding is limited to that disclosed
`
`Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`CBM2014-00001
`
`
`in the exhibits.
`
`6.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 35:2-23; 36:11-19; 66:2-14, Mr. Liao testified that he
`
`“never used Mamma.com,” he “never saw the source code for Mamma.com,” and
`
`he “never asked to see the source code for Mamma.com.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Mr. Liao’s opinions regarding the operation of Mamma.com on page
`
`21, paragraph 32 through page 23, paragraph 36 and page 26, paragraph 43
`
`through page 27, paragraph 46 of Exhibit 1042. This testimony is relevant because
`
`it establishes that Mr. Liao did not have any first-hand knowledge of how
`
`Mamma.com operated and did not speak with Petitioners’ other expert, Dr. Etzioni,
`
`who was involved in Mamma.com.
`
`7.
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 48:7-14; 51:22-52:7, Mr. Liao testified the Knowledge
`
`Broker decomposes the original user query into sub-problems that are then sent to
`
`particular external archives. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s opinion that
`
`Knowledge Broker sends the user’s query to the external data sources on page 10,
`
`paragraph 15 through page 11, paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1042. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that Knowledge Broker does not send the user
`
`query to the external host, but rather some decomposed subpart of the query is sent
`
`to a specific external database.
`
`85222017.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`CBM2014-00001
`
`
`In exhibit 2043, at 55:2-17, Mr. Liao testified that the exhibit 1007 did not
`
`8.
`
`have any text as to how Knowledge Broker would search web crawlers, or search
`
`engines. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s that Knowledge Broker is a
`
`metasearch engine at page 3, paragraph 6 through page 12, paragraph 18 of Exhibit
`
`1042. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Knowledge Broker
`
`was not a metasearch engine within the meaning of the ’924 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Registration No. 44,954
`Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85222017.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination
`CBM2014-00001
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 16th of October, 2014, a copy of this MOTION
`
`FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`WITNESS MR. GARY LIAO has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the
`Petitioners:
`
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`kristen.reichenbach@klarquist.com
`
`chris.carraway@klarquist.com
`
`hallie.zmroczek@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 16, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85222017.1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Registration No. 44,954
`Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
