throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC,
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC.,
`KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA
`JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE
`NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
`WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
`HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC.,
`and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-000801
`Patent No. 6,384,850
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction………………………………………...............................................1
`
`Certain Paragraphs Of Exhibit 1070 Should Be Excluded Because They
`Are Not Cited To In Petitioner's Reply Brief And Are Therefore Irrelevant.
`The Paragraphs Are Also Improper Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)……………..2
`
`
`III. Exhibits 1071-1073 Should Be Excluded On The Grounds That They
`Are Unauthenticated And Inadmissible Hearsay………………………………..5
`
`A. Apple’s Webpage Exhibits Should Be Excluded Because They
`Have Not Been Authenticated…………………………………………………...5
`
`B. Apple’s Webpage Exhibits Should Be Excluded Because They
`Are Inadmissible Hearsay………………………………………………………..7
`
`
`
`IV. Exhibits 1078 And 1079 Should Be Excluded Because They Are Irrelevant
`And Are Improper Attempts At Joinder…………………………………………8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 Are Irrelevant Because Apple Does
`Not Cite To Them In The Reply Brief…………………………………………..8
`
`B. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 Should Be Excluded Because
`They Are Improper Attempts At Joinder………………………………………..9
`
`Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because They Are
`Irrelevant, Unauthenticated And Constitute Inadmissible Hearsay……………10
`
`A. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because
`They Are Not Even Cited To In The Reply Brief And Are Therefore
`Irrelevant……………………………………………………………………….10
`
`B. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded
`Because They Are Not Authenticated…………………………………………11
`
`C. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because
`They Are Inadmissible Hearsay……………………………………………….12
`
`
`
`VI. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..13
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12……………………………………………………………..5
`
`Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble Company,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9…………………………………………………………….4, 5
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`181 F.3d 865, (7th Cir. 1999)……………………………………………………….3, 4
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003)……………………………………….7, 12, 13
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions, Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00425, Paper 16……………………………………………………………..5
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41……………………………………………………..6, 11, 12
`
`United States v. Harrington,
`923 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1991)………………………………………………5, 11
`
`United States v. Hernandez-Herrera,
`952 F.2d 342, 343 (10th Cir. 1991)………………………………………………..5, 11
`
`U.S. v. Tank,
`200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………5, 11
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`FRE 401…………………………………………………………………….2, 8, 10, 13
`
`FRE 402…………………………………………………………………….2, 8, 10, 13
`
`FRE 403…………………………………………………………………….3, 8, 10, 13
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`FRE 802………………………………………………………………………7, 12, 13
`
`FRE 803……………………………………………………………………………..13
`
`FRE 804……………………………………………………………………………..13
`
`FRE 901………………………………………………………………………6, 11, 12
`
`FRE 901(a)………………………………………………………………………..5, 11
`
`FRE 902…………………………………………………………………………...7, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)…………………………………………………………………..3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)…………………………………………………………1, 2, 4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)…………………………………………………………………...2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a)…………………………………………………………………...1
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Exhibits Previously Filed by Petitioner and Patent Owner’s Grounds for
`Exclusion:
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Patent Owner’s Grounds for Exclusion:
`
`1070
`
`Paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-
`
`63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 are irrelevant and improper
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`Unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`Unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`Irrelevant and improper attempt at joinder.
`
`Irrelevant and improper attempt at joinder.
`
`Irrelevant, unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`Irrelevant, unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`Irrelevant, unauthenticated and hearsay.
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a), the Patent Owner, Ameranth, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “Ameranth”) hereby moves to exclude paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19,
`
`22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 of Exhibit 1070, and
`
`Exhibits 1071, 1072, 1073, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081 and 1082. The Exhibits
`
`which are the subject of this Motion were submitted by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”
`
`or “Apple”) in support of Petitioner’s Reply Brief (Paper 24). On March 30,
`
`2016, Patent Owner timely served and filed objections to the Exhibits (Paper 26),
`
`among others.
`
`
`
`The Exhibits discussed herein should be excluded on the grounds that they
`
`are irrelevant, improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), an improper attempt at
`
`joinder, unauthenticated and/or inadmissible hearsay. The exhibits submitted by
`
`Petitioner with its Reply Brief includes numerous exhibits that are not even cited
`
`to in the Reply Brief (and are therefore irrelevant), various unauthenticated
`
`webpages and other documents and several exhibits that constitute inadmissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`In particular, paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65,
`
`67-70, 78-93 and 95 of Exhibit 1070, which is the 95-paragraph-long supplemental
`
`reply declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D., should be excluded on the grounds that
`
`they are irrelevant and improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Exhibits 1071,
`
`1072 and 1073 should be excluded on the grounds that they are unauthenticated
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`and inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 should be excluded on the
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`grounds that they are irrelevant and improper attempts at joinder. Exhibits 1080,
`
`1081 and 1082 should be excluded on the grounds that they are irrelevant,
`
`unauthenticated and inadmissible hearsay.
`
`II.
`
`CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF EXHIBIT 1070 SHOULD BE
`
`EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CITED TO IN PETITIONER’S
`
`REPLY BRIEF AND ARE THEREFORE IRRELEVANT. THE
`
`PARAGRAPHS ARE ALSO IMPROPER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Apple submitted 15 new exhibits with its Reply Brief, but does not discuss or
`
`even cite to several of these new exhibits in its Reply Brief. Similarly, paragraphs 1-4,
`
`18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 of Exhibit 1070,
`
`which is the 95-paragraph-long supplemental reply declaration of Dr. Turnbull,
`
`are not discussed or even cited to in the Reply Brief.
`
`However, Petitioner has the burden of establishing the relevance of evidence it
`
`submitted and, under the Federal Rules of Evidence,2 proffered evidence that does not
`
`tend to establish a fact or issue of consequence to the determination of an action is not
`
`relevant and should not be admitted. See Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 401-402.
`
`Here, because Apple failed to discuss or even cite to the paragraphs of the
`
`
`2 The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to these proceedings according to the provisions
`
`of 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`supplemental reply declaration (Exhibit 1070) identified above in its Reply Brief,
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Apple has made no showing as to the relevance of those portions of Dr. Turnbull’s
`
`supplemental declaration.3 Further, because Petitioner has not cited to paragraphs 1-4,
`
`18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 of the declaration
`
`at all in the Reply Brief, Petitioner has not established any probative value of the
`
`evidence, and those paragraphs should be excluded under FRE 403. FRE 403
`
`Apparently, Petitioner’s plan was to submit numerous new exhibits with its
`
`Reply Brief including the 95-paragraph-long supplemental expert reply declaration
`
`without providing any argument or explanation as to the relevance of dozens of the
`
`exhibits or dozens of paragraphs of the Dr. Turnbull declaration in its Reply Brief, but
`
`hope that the Board would sort through the exhibits and lengthy declaration and
`
`determine their relevance for Apple. But, if Petitioner believes the evidence to be
`
`relevant, Petitioner should have included any discussion or argument pertaining to the
`
`evidence it wanted to make in its Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (providing in
`
`part that “[a]ll arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the
`
`motion.”). As the Court noted in DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, (7th Cir.
`
`
`3 Apple itself asserted a similar objection to some of Ameranth’s evidence in
`
`Apple’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response. ( See
`
`Paper 18 objecting to several Ameranth exhibits on relevance grounds
`
`“particularly because [they are] not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.”)
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`1999), “[a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`them to play archeologist with the record.” DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865,
`
`866-67 (7th Cir. 1999).
`
` Undoubtedly, Petitioner will attempt to argue that the evidence is relevant in its
`
`opposition to this Motion or in response to Ameranth’s Objections to Evidence.
`
`However, such a belated argument will be insufficient to cure the defect of failing to
`
`meet Petitioner’s burden and include any discussion concerning, or even cite to, the
`
`evidence in its Reply Brief.
`
`Moreover, paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-
`
`70, 78-93 and 95 of Dr. Turnbull’s supplemental reply declaration (Exhibit 1070) are
`
`not only irrelevant because they are not even cited, but they are also improper for the
`
`additional reason that they violate 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(a)(3), “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document
`
`into another document.” Apple completely fails to discuss or even cite to any of the
`
`identified paragraphs of Dr. Turnbull’s declaration. Presumably, Apple is attempting
`
`to improperly incorporate the uncited paragraphs into its Reply Brief, although it failed
`
`to even “reference” them.
`
`Therefore, paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-
`
`70, 78-93 and 95 of Exhibit 1070 should be excluded or, in the alternative, should not
`
`be considered by the Board. See Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter & Gamble
`
`Company, IPR2013-00510, Paper 9, pgs 8 – 9 (declining to consider information
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`presented in a supporting declaration, but not discussed in a petition); Juniper
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions, Ltd., IPR2014-00425, Paper 16, at Footnote 1
`
`(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) and not considering any of petitioner’s arguments made
`
`solely on the basis of incorporation by reference from a lengthy declaration); Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, pgs 7 – 10
`
`(not considering arguments that were not made in the petition, but were instead
`
`incorporated by reference to cited paragraphs and claim charts of a declaration).
`
`III.
`
`EXHIBITS 1071-1073 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ON THE
`
`GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE UNAUTHENTICATED AND INADMISSIBLE
`
`HEARSAY.
`
`A. Apple’s Webpage Exhibits Should Be Excluded Because They Have Not
`
`Been Authenticated.
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence require all evidence be authenticated before it
`
`can be admitted into evidence. See FRE 901(a); U.S. v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th
`
`Cir. 2000) (“The foundational ‘requirement of authentication or identification as a
`
`condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a
`
`finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’ Fed. R.Evid.
`
`901(a).”); see also United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1991);
`
`United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 952 F.2d 342, 343 (10th Cir. 1991) (exhibits are
`
`irrelevant unless their proponent fulfills the authentication requirement).
`
`Authentication acts as a condition precedent to admissibility, and the purpose of the
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`requirement is to filter untrustworthy evidence. As a proponent of the evidence,
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the proffered evidence meets the
`
`requirements of FRE 901. However, as discussed below, Exhibits 1071, 1072 and
`
`1073 have not been authenticated and are inadmissible.
`
`Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 appear to be webpages downloaded from the
`
`websites Economywatch.com, Besthospitalitydegrees.com and blogs.msdn.com,
`
`respectively. Apple cites to the exhibits to support its argument that exchanged
`
`data related to travel is “hospitality” data under a BRI construction. (Paper 24,
`
`pgs 8, 14.) But Apple provides no other evidence and no authentication that the
`
`information on the webpages are accurate. See Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) at 10-11 (“When offering a printout
`
`of a webpage into evidence to prove the website’s contents, the proponent of the
`
`evidence must authenticate the information from the website itself, not merely the
`
`printout.”) (citations omitted). It is not that Ameranth questions whether the pages
`
`were downloaded from Economywatch.com, Besthospitalitydegrees.com and
`
`blogs.msdn.com, but Petitioner has not provided evidence or testimony from any
`
`witness regarding the websites or how reliable or accurate the contents of the
`
`webpages are, or any witness having personal knowledge of the webpages.
`
`Moreover, in addition to failing to provide an authenticating witness for the
`
`exhibits, Petitioner has failed to point to any characteristics of the exhibits to support
`
`and establish their authenticity pursuant to FRE 901. And the documents in the above-
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`discussed exhibits are not “self-authenticating,” so each requires authentication. FRE
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`902. Therefore, the Exhibits should be excluded or, in the alternative, should not be
`
`considered by the Board.
`
`B. Apple’s Webpage Exhibits Should Be Excluded Because They Are
`
`Inadmissible Hearsay.
`
`In addition to the grounds discussed above, Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073
`
`should also be excluded on the grounds that they constitute inadmissible hearsay. See
`
`FRE 802. Petitioner offers the information in the exhibits to prove the truth of the
`
`matters being asserted.
`
`As discussed above, Apple cites to Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 (which
`
`appear to be webpages downloaded from websites Economywatch.com,
`
`Besthospitalitydegrees.com and blogs.msdn.com, respectively) to support its
`
`argument that exchanged data related to travel is “hospitality” data under a BRI
`
`construction. (Paper 24, pgs 8, 14.) . Thus, the exhibits are plainly being used to
`
`prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the webpages accurately describe what
`
`“hospitality” data is. See Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D.
`
`Mich. 2003) at 974 (“Plaintiff correctly notes that the dates imprinted on these
`
`documents are hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted….”).
`
`Further, Petitioner has identified no hearsay exceptions in proffering this
`
`evidence. Indeed, no known hearsay exceptions are applicable. FRE 802-804. As
`
`such, Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 constitute inadmissible hearsay and, in addition
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`to the deficiencies discussed above, should be excluded for this reason as well.
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`IV.
`
`EXHIBITS 1078 AND 1079 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE
`
`THEY ARE IRRELEVANT AND ARE IMPROPER ATTEMPTS AT
`
`JOINDER.
`
`A. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 Are Irrelevant Because Apple Does Not Cite To
`
`Them In The Reply Brief.
`
`Exhibit 1078 is described by Petitioner in its Table of Exhibits as
`
`“CBM2015-00091, Paper 9 (Sept. 14, 2015) – Institution Decision”, and Exhibit
`
`1079 is described as “CBM2015-00099, Paper 9 (Sept. 14, 2015) – Institution
`
`Decision.” However, as with the paragraphs of Dr. Turnbull’s supplemental reply
`
`declaration identified above, Apple does not discuss or even cite to Exhibits 1078
`
`and 1079 in the Reply Brief. Accordingly, for the same reasons and under the same
`
`authorities discussed above with respect to the uncited paragraphs of Dr. Turnbull’s
`
`supplemental reply declaration, Exhibits 1078 and 1079 should be excluded because
`
`Apple has failed to make any showing as to the exhibits’ relevance. FRE 401-402.
`
`Further, because Petitioner has not cited to the exhibits at all in the Reply Brief,
`
`Petitioner has not established any probative value of the evidence, and the identified
`
`paragraphs and exhibits should be excluded under FRE 403. FRE 403. Any argument
`
`by Petitioner in opposition to this Motion or in response to Ameranth’s Objections to
`
`Evidence will be insufficient to cure the defect of failing to meet Petitioner’s burden
`
`and include any discussion concerning, or even cite to, the evidence in its Reply Brief.
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 Should Be Excluded Because They Are Improper
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Attempts At Joinder.
`
`While Exhibits 1078 and 1079, which are Institution Decisions in separate CBM
`
`proceedings, are not even cited to by Petitioner in its Reply Brief, presumably
`
`Petitioner includes the exhibits in hopes the Board will apply decisions made in the
`
`separate CBM proceedings to the instant CBM proceeding. However, the inclusion of
`
`these institution decisions from the parallel, but not joined, Starbucks petition against
`
`the same patent is an unauthorized attempt to effectively achieve ‘joinder’ with these
`
`petitions, when such joinder has not been requested in accordance with the AIA rules.
`
`Petitioner has already sought ‘joinder’ with these Starbucks petitions in the
`
`proceedings of yet another petition of its own, and those proceedings are independent
`
`as well and, therefore, the inclusion of these institution decisions as an exhibit with the
`
`Reply Brief is improper for this additional reason.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1078 and 1079 should be excluded or, in the alternative,
`
`should not be considered by the Board.
`
`-9-
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`V.
`
`EXHIBITS 1080, 1081 AND 1082 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT, UNAUTHENTICATED AND
`
`CONSTITUTE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.
`
`A. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because They Are Not
`
`Even Cited To In The Reply Brief And Are Therefore Irrelevant.
`
`Exhibit 1080 is described by Petitioner in its Table of Exhibits as “Hal
`
`Berghel, ‘The New Push for Push Technology,’ Networker Volume 2.3 (June
`
`1998)”, Exhibit 1081 is described as “Michael M. Tso, et al., ‘Always On, Always
`
`Connected Mobile Computing,’ IEEE International Conference on Universal Personal
`
`Communications Record (1996)” and Exhibit 1082 is described as “‘The
`
`Computerworld Honors Program: Honoring Those Who Use Information Technology
`
`to Benefit Society.’” However, as with the paragraphs of Dr. Turnbull’s
`
`supplemental reply declaration identified above and Exhibits 1078 and 1079,
`
`Apple does not discuss or even cite to Exhibits 1080, 1081 or 1082 in the Reply
`
`Brief. Accordingly, for the same reasons and under the same authorities discussed
`
`above with respect to the uncited Dr. Turnbull declaration paragraphs and Exhibits
`
`1078 and 1079, Exhibits 1080, 1081 or 1082 should be excluded because Apple has
`
`failed to make any showing as to the exhibits’ relevance. FRE 401-402.
`
`Further, because Petitioner has not cited to the exhibits at all in the Reply Brief,
`
`Petitioner has not established any probative value of the evidence, and the identified
`
`paragraphs and exhibits should be excluded under FRE 403. FRE 403. Any argument
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`by Petitioner in opposition to this Motion or in response to Ameranth’s Objections to
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Evidence will be insufficient to cure the defect of failing to meet Petitioner’s burden
`
`and include any discussion concerning, or even cite to, the evidence in its Reply Brief.
`
`B. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because They Are Not
`
`Authenticated.
`
`Additionally, under the authorities discussed above with respect to Exhibits
`
`1071-1073, Exhibits 1080, 1081 or 1082 should be excluded because they are
`
`unauthenticated. See FRE 901(a); U.S. v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000);
`
`United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v.
`
`Hernandez-Herrera, 952 F.2d 342, 343 (10th Cir. 1991). As a proponent of the
`
`evidence, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the proffered evidence meets
`
`the requirements of FRE 901. However, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden.
`
`Exhibits 1080, 1081 or 1082 appear to be a pamphlet, an “IEEE
`
`International Conference on Universal Personal Communications Record”
`
`document and a webpage regarding “The Computerworld Honors Program” .
`
`While Apple does not cite to the exhibits in its Reply Brief, they are briefly cited
`
`in the Dr. Turnbull supplemental reply declaration (Exhibit 1070). Apple
`
`apparently uses the exhibits to, for example, support an argument that certain
`
`“push technology” was available at a certain timeframe. (See, e.g., Exh. 1070 ¶
`
`76.) But Apple provides no other evidence and no authentication that the information
`
`in the documents are accurate. See Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., IPR2014-
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`00148, Paper 41 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) at 10-11 (“When offering a printout of a
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`webpage into evidence to prove the website’s contents, the proponent of the evidence
`
`must authenticate the information from the website itself, not merely the printout.”)
`
`(citations omitted). As with other exhibits discussed above, Petitioner has not provided
`
`evidence or testimony from any witness regarding the documents or how reliable or
`
`accurate the contents of the documents are, or any witness having personal knowledge
`
`of the documents.
`
`Moreover, in addition to failing to provide an authenticating witness for the
`
`exhibits, Petitioner has failed to point to any characteristics of the exhibits to support
`
`and establish their authenticity pursuant to FRE 901. And the documents in the above-
`
`discussed exhibits are not “self-authenticating,” so each requires authentication. FRE
`
`902. Therefore, the Exhibits should be excluded or, in the alternative, should not be
`
`considered by the Board.
`
`C. Exhibits 1080, 1081 And 1082 Should Be Excluded Because They Are
`
`Inadmissible Hearsay.
`
`In addition to the grounds discussed above, Exhibits 1080, 1081 and 1082
`
`should also be excluded on the grounds that they constitute inadmissible hearsay. See
`
`FRE 802. As with Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 discussed above, Petitioner offers
`
`the information in the exhibits to prove the truth of the matters being asserted.
`
`Apple cites to Exhibits 1080, 1081 and 1082 (which appear to be a pamphlet,
`
`an “IEEE International Conference on Universal Personal Communications
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Record” document and a webpage regarding “The Computerworld Honors
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`Program”) to presumably support various arguments, although, as discussed
`
`above, the exhibits are not cited in the Reply Brief. For example, Apple
`
`apparently uses Exhibit 1081 to support an argument that certain “push
`
`technology” was available at a certain timeframe. (See, e.g., Exh. 1070 ¶ 76.)
`
`Thus, the exhibits are being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) at 974
`
`(“Plaintiff correctly notes that the dates imprinted on these documents are hearsay
`
`when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted….”).
`
`Further, Petitioner has identified no hearsay exceptions in proffering this
`
`evidence. Indeed, no known hearsay exceptions are applicable. FRE 802-804. As
`
`such, Exhibits 1080, 1081 and 1082 constitute inadmissible hearsay and, in addition
`
`to the deficiencies discussed above, should be excluded for this reason as well.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION.
`
`For the reasons discussed above, paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-
`
`51, 55, 60-63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 of Exhibit 1070 should be excluded on the
`
`grounds that they are irrelevant under FRE 401-403 and improper under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3). Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 should be excluded on the grounds that
`
`they are unauthenticated and inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits 1078 and 1079 should
`
`be excluded on the grounds that they are irrelevant under FRE 401-403 and
`
`improper attempts at joinder. And Exhibits 1080, 1081 and 1082 should be
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`excluded on the grounds that they are irrelevant, unauthenticated and inadmissibl e
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`hearsay.
`
`April 8, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/John W. Osborne/
`John W. Osborne
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`USPTO Reg. No. 36,231
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`Tel.: 914-714-5936
`Fax: 914-734-7333
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,675
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`Tel.: 619-742-9631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` certify that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.6, a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing was served on April 8, 2016 by causing said documents to be delivered
`
`via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for Petitioner at the
`
`
`Robert C. Williams
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`following addresses:
`
`
`
`
`James M. Heintz
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190-5602
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77010
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` April 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ethan M. Watts/
`
`
`
`
`-15-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket