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
`____________
`
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS,
`
`AND SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`____________
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS,
`
`AND SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc. ("Patent Owner") serves the following
`
`Response to Petitioner's evidentiary objections (filed on January 13, 2016) and
`
`supplemental evidence, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
`
`Each general response is incorporated into each specific response.
`
`1.
`
`The Board has instructed that, in making objections, “parties should
`
`
`
`
`
`keep in mind that they are subject to the duty of candor and to sanctions for
`
`advancing a frivolous argument, misrepresenting a fact, engaging in dilatory
`
`tactics, and abuse of discovery.” For the other general and specific reasons set
`
`forth herein, the vast majority of Petitioner's objections are untimely, waived,
`
`and/or not in compliance with the requirements for setting forth objections that
`
`include stating objections with sufficient particularity.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) requires that any evidence submitted in the
`
`record prior to the Board's institution of trial may only be objected to within ten
`
`business days of the date of institution of trial. All objections made by Petitioner
`
`in January 2016 to evidence that was in the record prior to institution of trial (and
`
`the vast majority of the evidence is in this category) are untimely and therefore
`
`waived.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Each objection "must identify the grounds for the objection with
`
`sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence."
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Accordingly, every objection that does not include
`
`sufficient particularity is untimely and defective and waived. Petitioner has not
`
`met its burden with respect to objections, both because of the failure to provide
`
`sufficient particularity with respect to each piece of evidence to which Petitioner
`
`objects, and because of the failure to identify which objections apply to which
`
`specific documents within exhibits containing more than one document. A party
`
`moving for the exclusion of evidence bears the burden of proving its entitlement to
`
`the relief requested; merely citing a rule without explaining the basis for the
`
`objection with particularity does not suffice. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner's various objections to authentication are not well-taken
`
`because they lack sufficient particularity and because they fail to consider the
`
`applicable criteria for authentication and self-authentication in Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 901 and 902.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories. The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient
`
`particularity, because there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within
`
`the FRE 801 definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This 2010 deposition of Mr. Harker was conducted by counsel for the
`
`majority of the Petitioner parties in these CBM proceedings. Further, the portions
`
`of Mr. Harker's deposition testimony cited by Patent Owner are substantively the
`
`same as the statement and summary of his comments that appear in the '077 patent
`
`file history which are on record.
`
`
`
`Regarding the "draft transcript": A copy of the complete original transcript
`
`and exhibits from this deposition is submitted herewith as Supplemental Evidence,
`
`Attachment A.
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This press release was and is published on the Internet at the URL:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Ameranth%20New%20Patent%20%20License%20-
`%20Skywire%20Media_May%2014%202012%20(Approved%20for%20release).p
`df
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Press releases in this exhibit that were and are published on the Internet:
`
`
`
`Jersey Mikes Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Ameranth%20-
`%20Jersey%20Mike's%20Press%20Release%20-
`%20%20Approved%20For%20Release%20-%20November%204,%202015.pdf
`
`PAR Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Ameranth%20-%20Par-
`%20New%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20Announced%20(Approved%2
`0for%20release)%201-28-13.pdf
`
`EMN8 Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/EMN8%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Press%20Release,%20July%2022,%202013%20.pdf
`
`BJ’s Pizza Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Ameranth%20BJ's%20-%20Release%20Version%20-
`%20August%2029%202014.pdf
`
`MonkeyMedia Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Monkeymedia%20%20-%20Ameranth%20%20-
`%20%20(June%205,%202013)%20-%20(%20Release%20Version%20-%20).pdf
`
`Taco Bell Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Taco%20Bell%20Licenses%20Ameranth%20Patents%20-
`%20(April%201,2014)%20.pdf
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`Chownow Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20ChowNow%20LLC%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Approved%2
`0for%20Release).pdf
`
`Comcash Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Comcash%20Inc%20%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Final%20Dr
`aft).pdf
`
`Ameranth Menusoft Resolve Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-%20Menusoft%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Settlement%20-%20Final%20-
`%20October%2019,%202011.pdf
`
`RRT Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-%20RRT%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Final%20Version).pdf
`
`Snapfinger Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Snapfinger%20Patent%20License%20-
`%20Approved%20for%20Release%201-24-2012.pdf
`
`Xpient Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Xpient%20-%20Ameranth%20-
`%20Press%20Release%20%20-%20Patent%20License%20-
`%20(Release%20Version)%20-%20May%208,%202014).pdf
`
`The Squirrel press release was previously provided in the 1.132 declaration in the
`
`patent file histories.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`These Hospitality Technology documents were and are published on the
`
`Internet at these URLs:
`
`2004 Report
`
`http://profitechmt.com/brochures/POS-scoreboard.pdf
`
`2006 Report
`
`http://www.clsinfo.ca/Positouch%20rating%202006.pdf
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. The complete
`
`book is readily available.
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.132 declaration in the patent
`
`file histories. The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity,
`
`because there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. The exhibit is
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`printouts of emails from an electronically-stored file.
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/getmedia/7a15e331-d211-48bb-9976-
`3625c0aaad50/micros_murtec13.pdf
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/getmedia/7a15e331-d211-48bb-9976-
`3625c0aaad50/micros_murtec13.pdf
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2037
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2038
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article46714.html
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2039
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This PowerPoint presentation is downloadable from the 2009 FSTEC
`
`convention video that was produced in the district-court litigation.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2040
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-10-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2042
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2043
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://www.agilysys.com/-
`/media/agilysys/Files/Products/Infogenesis%20Mobile/PDF/1406%20Agilysys%2
`0InfoGenesis%20Mobile%20low%20res.pdf
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2044
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2045
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`-13-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2049
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document (without annotations) was previously provided in the 1.132
`
`declaration in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document (without annotations) was previously provided in the 1.132
`
`-14-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`declaration in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This exhibit was authenticated in a previous declaration, contained in
`
`the '077 prosecution file, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 1012. This evidence
`
`was in the record prior to the institution of trial; thus this objection and any
`
`others made more than 10 days after institution of trial are untimely and
`
`waived.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2053
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2054
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2055
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2056
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The accuracy of the Howard Schultz quote in this exhibit is proven by the
`
`transcript of the Starbucks earnings call from which the quote was taken; a copy of
`
`that transcript is submitted herewith as Supplemental Evidence, Attachment B.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 26, 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
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
`
`
`
`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 January 26, 2016 by causing said documents to be
`
`delivered via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for
`
`Robert C. Williams
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 669-2820
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite
`1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512.474.5201
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.co
`m
`
`
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`James M. Heintz
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190-5602
`Tel: 703-773-4148
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Tel: 713-651-5151
`Fax: 713-651-5246
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.co
`m
`
`
`
`
`
` January 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Fabiano/
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1083
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
