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, HILKTON 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 CBM CBM2015-000801
`Patent 6,384,850
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`WEST\268849262.1
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Response was accompanied by a number of exhibits mostly
`
`relied on to support Patent Owner’s argument that secondary considerations
`
`indicate non-obviousness of the challenged claims of the ’850 patent. Many of
`
`these exhibits should be excluded as hearsay, lacking authentication, and
`
`irrelevant. For example, rather than submitting copies of alleged licenses for the
`
`’850 patent, or a declaration from someone with knowledge of the alleged licenses,
`
`Patent Owner submitted copies of its own press releases as proof of these licenses.
`
`These press releases are hearsay that do not fit within any exception to the hearsay
`
`rule. Patent Owner also relied on exhibits containing later-added claim element
`
`annotations to brochures of its products as proof that the products include the
`
`annotated claim elements, but has not produced any witness who knows who
`
`created the annotations, who had ever seen the product depicted in the brochure, or
`
`who had performed any independent investigation to determine whether the
`
`annotations accurately reflect the product. These exhibits and the others
`
`mentioned in this motion should be excluded for the reasons discussed herein.
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner hereby moves to exclude
`
`Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2051 and 2053-2056 in their entirety, along
`
`with the annotated portions of Exhibit 2024. Petitioner’s motion is based on the
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), which are applicable to this proceeding. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`III. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS MOTION
`A “motion to exclude evidence” “may be filed without prior authorization
`
`from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Further, the Scheduling Order that
`
`governs this proceeding specifically authorizes a motion to exclude evidence under
`
`Due Date 4.2 Paper No. 14 at 3.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On January 6, 2016, Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner Response with
`
`Exhibits 2019-2056. Paper No. 17. Petitioner timely filed Objections to certain
`
`exhibits submitted with Patent Owner’s Response, including Exhibits 2021, 2023,
`
`2025, 2027, 2030-2049 and 2053-2056 on January 13, 2016. Paper No. 18. Patent
`
`Owner served a Response to Petitioner’s Objections on January 26, 2016, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1083. Patent Owner filed its Corrected Response (“PO Corrected
`
`Response”) on Feb. 1, 2016. Paper No. 21.
`
`Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 are documents purporting to describe Patent
`
`Owner’s 21st Century Restaurant (“21CR”) product. Each of these Exhibits
`
`includes numerous red annotations. The annotated portions of these Exhibits were
`
`
`2 The parties stipulated to amend the deadline for Due Date 4 to April 8, 2016.
`
`Paper No. 16 at 1.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`reproduced in full in the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver.
`
`Exhibit 2019 (Weaver Declaration) at ¶ 103 (reproducing annotated portions of
`
`Exhibit 2024), ¶ 106 (reproducing Exhibits 2050 and 2051).
`
`On February 26, 2016, Petitioner took Dr. Weaver’s deposition. Dr. Weaver
`
`admitted that he did not create the annotations in Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051
`
`reproduced in his declaration, and did not know who created them. Exhibit 1076 at
`
`207:5-208:18; 230:2-24; 234:5-235:13.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner timely objected to Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2049
`
`and 2053-2056 on the grounds that these Exhibits are inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801(c), irrelevant under FRE 401-403, and/or unauthenticated under FRE
`
`901(a). Paper No. 18 at 1-9. Petitioner explained with particularly the basis for
`
`each ground of objection. Id.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 on the ground that
`
`these documents include annotations that are inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`801(c). On a teleconference with the parties on March 31, 2016, the Board
`
`authorized Petitioner to include these objections in this Motion and to seek waiver
`
`of the deadline for evidentiary objections, because the Exhibits were reproduced in
`
`the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Alfred Weaver, and Petitioner only
`
`learned that the annotations were not created by Dr. Weaver at the time of his
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`deposition.
`
`The chart below summarizes Petitioner’s objections to Exhibits 2021, 2023-
`
`2025, 2027, 2030-2051 and 2053-2056, identifies when the objections were
`
`originally made, and identifies where the evidence sought to be excluded is relied
`
`upon by Patent Owner. The objections shown in bold are the grounds for
`
`exclusion addressed by this motion. Petitioner addresses each Exhibit in numerical
`
`order. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board preclude Patent Owner from
`
`using these Exhibits at any hearing or in any paper in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit
`
`2021
`
`2023
`
`Objections
`
`PO Corrected Response
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 1.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 1.
`
`51-52.
`
`57-58.
`
`2024
`
`FRE 801(c). March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`58-61.
`
`2025
`
`2027
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 1-2.
`
`63-65.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 2.
`
`69.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 3.
`
`FRE 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 3.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 3.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 3-4.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 4.
`
`73-74.
`
`74-75.
`
`74-75.
`
`77.
`
`77.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 4.
`
`FRE 401-03. Paper No. 18 at 4.
`
`FRE 401-03. Paper No. 18 at 4-5.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 5.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 5.
`
`79.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`77.
`
`79.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 5.
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 5-6. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 6.
`
`FRE 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 6.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 6.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 6-7. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 7.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 7.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 7-8. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 8.
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 401-403. March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`62.
`
`FRE 401-403. March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`62.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 18 at 8-9. N/A
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 9.
`
`77.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 9.
`
`FRE 801(c). Paper No. 18 at 9.
`
`73-74.
`
`74-75.
`
`A. Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2035, 2038-2039 and 2054-
`2056 Should Be Excluded As Inadmissible Hearsay under FRE 801(c)
`
`Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence to prove the truth
`
`of the matter asserted in the statement. FRE 801(c). Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025,
`
`2027, 2030-2035, 2038-2039 and 2054-2056 each include written statements by
`
`declarants not testifying in this proceeding, which are relied upon by Patent Owner
`
`for the truth of the matter asserted as detailed below. Patent Owner has not
`
`identified any hearsay exception that applies to any of these Exhibits. See
`
`generally Exhibit 1083. Thus, each of these exhibits should be excluded as
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c).
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2021 appears to be a press release describing the
`
`announcement of Patent Owner’s 21CR product at the National Restaurant
`
`Association trade show. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2021 to purportedly
`
`show that the 21CR product was presented at the trade show. PO Corrected
`
`Response at 51-52.
`
`Exhibit 2023 appears to be a press release describing a patent license
`
`agreement. Patent Owner quotes a passage from Exhibit 2023 to purportedly
`
`show the value of Patent Owner’s patents. PO Corrected Response at 58. The
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`quoted passage further includes statements by Skywire’s CEO, which are
`
`themselves hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`Exhibit 2025 appears to be a collection of press releases describing various
`
`licenses. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2025 to purportedly show that the
`
`Challenged Claims in this proceeding have been licensed. Id. at 63-65.
`
`Exhibit 2027 appears to be a description of the 2003 Microsoft RAD
`
`Awards. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2027 to purportedly show that its
`
`21CR product received the described award. Id. at 69.
`
`Exhibit 2030 appears to be an email string describing an alleged
`
`demonstration of Patent Owner’s 21CR product to Starbucks. Patent Owner relies
`
`upon Exhibit 2030 to purportedly show that such a demonstration was provided to
`
`Starbucks. Id. at 73-74. Patent Owner further relies upon statements in Exhibit
`
`2030 by Steve Larson from Microsoft regarding his alleged conversation with Rob
`
`Reed from Starbucks, which statements are themselves hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`Exhibit 2031 appears to be a transcript of a conversation with Starbucks
`
`employee Scott Maw. Exhibit 2032 appears to be a meeting agenda. Patent
`
`Owner relies upon Exhibits 2031 and 2032 as purported evidence of the operation
`
`of Starbucks’ Mobile Order & Pay feature. Id. at 74-75.
`
`Exhibits 2033 and 2035 appear to be transcripts of one or more technology
`
`panels. Exhibit 2034 appears to be a marketing brochure relating to the Micros
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Simphony product. Exhibit 2038 appears to be a press release describing the
`
`Micros Simphony product. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibits 2033-2035 and
`
`2038 as purported evidence of the operation of the Micros Simphony product and
`
`copying of the ’850 patent. Id. at 77, 79.
`
`Exhibit 2039 appears to be a presentation relating to online ordering. Patent
`
`Owner relies on Exhibit 2039 as purportedly evidencing public admissions by
`
`Papa John’s regarding its POS systems. Id. at 79.
`
`Exhibit 2054 appears to be a transcript of a technology panel. Patent Owner
`
`relies upon Exhibit 2054 as purported evidence of the operation of the Micros
`
`Simphony product and copying of the ’850 patent. Id. at 77.
`
`Exhibit 2055 appears to be a presentation prepared by Patent Owner relating
`
`to a purported product demonstration for Starbucks. Patent Owner relies upon
`
`Exhibit 2055 to purportedly show that such a demonstration was provided to
`
`Starbucks. PO Id. at 73-74.
`
`Exhibit 2056 appears to be a Starbucks press release. Patent Owner relies
`
`upon Exhibit 2056 as purported evidence of the operation of Starbucks’ Mobile
`
`Order & Pay feature. Id. at 74-75. Patent Owner further quotes statements from
`
`Starbucks’ CEO regarding the Mobile Order & Pay feature, which are themselves
`
`hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Because each of these Exhibits include written statements by declarants not
`
`testifying in this proceeding, and Patent Owner relies on these statements for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, the Exhibits should be excluded as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801(c).
`
`B.
`Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 Should Be Excluded As
`Inadmissible Hearsay under FRE 801(c)
`Portions of Exhibit 2024 and the entirety of Exhibits 2050 and 2051 should
`
`be excluded as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c). Each of these Exhibits
`
`include written statements, in the form of red annotations, by declarants not
`
`testifying in this proceeding, and Patent Owner relies on these statements for the
`
`truth of the matters asserted.
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2024 appears to include two copies of a marketing
`
`brochure for Patent Owner’s 21CR product. The second copy of the marketing
`
`brochure (pp. 3-4) includes numerous red annotations. Patent Owner and its expert
`
`rely on the annotations as purportedly showing the correspondence between Patent
`
`Owner’s 21CR product and the Challenged Claims. PO Corrected Response at 58-
`
`61; Exhibit 2019 (Weaver Declaration), ¶¶ 103-05, 96-97. Exhibits 2050 and
`
`2051 likewise appear to be annotated documents relating to Patent Owner’s 21CR
`
`product, and Patent Owner and its expert rely on the annotations as purportedly
`
`showing the correspondence between Patent Owner’s product and the Challenged
`
`Claims. PO Corrected Response at 62 (citing unannotated versions of these
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`documents in Exhibit 1012 at pp. 620-625 and pp. 697-700, and the conclusions of
`
`Dr. Weaver based upon his review and analysis of these documents at Exhibit
`
`2019, ¶¶ 96-97); Exhibit 2019 at ¶¶ 106-07.
`
`The annotated portions of Exhibit 2024 and the entirety of Exhibits 2050
`
`and 2051 were reproduced in Dr. Weaver’s declaration. See Exhibit 2019, ¶¶ 103,
`
`106. Dr. Weaver relies upon the annotations in these Exhibits for his opinions that
`
`the 21CR product incorporated limitations of the Challenged Claims. For example,
`
`with respect to Exhibit 2024, Dr. Weaver states:
`
`As can be seen in the annotated brochure, aspects of the 21CR system
`correspond to elements of the challenged patent claims, including the central
`database (see, e.g., '850 claim 12 element “a,” '325 claim 11 element “a”),
`wireless handheld computing device (element “b”), Web server (element
`“c”), Web pages (element “d”), application program interface (element “e”),
`communications control module (element “f”), synchronization of
`applications and data (wherein clause), integration of outside applications
`and hospitality applications via API (wherein clause), and the
`communications control module acting as an interface (wherein clause).
`Each of these elements is present in each challenged claim. Exhibit 2019, ¶
`104; see also id. at ¶ 105.
`Similarly, regarding Exhibits 2050 and 2051, Dr. Weaver’s declaration
`
`states:
`
`The nexus of the 21CR Product and the close alignment of the claims and
`their claim elements and terms can be seen in the Fall 1999 and Spring 2000
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Microsoft Case Studies [Exhibit 2050] and the Computer World Award
`Summary [Exhibit 2051] of the merits of the 21CR Improv System. This is
`demonstrably shown via the alignment of codes for the claim terms, shown
`in the claim box below and then that are aligned in and with each of the
`three highlighted exhibits which follow. Exhibit 2019, ¶ 106; see also id. at
`¶ 107.
`Accordingly, Petitioner reasonably believed that the annotations in Exhibits
`
`2024, 2050 and 2051 were created by Dr. Weaver in forming his opinions
`
`regarding secondary considerations. Because Dr. Weaver is a declarant who has
`
`provided sworn testimony in this proceeding, and because FRE 801(c)(1) defines
`
`hearsay as a statement made a non-declarant in the proceeding, Petitioner did not
`
`object to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 on the ground of hearsay in its Objections.
`
`See Paper No. 18.
`
`However, Petitioner learned at Dr. Weaver’s deposition on February 26,
`
`2016, long after the 5 business day period for objections required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) had passed, that Dr. Weaver did not create the annotations in Exhibits
`
`2024, 2050 and 2051. Specifically, Dr. Weaver testified that he did not create the
`
`annotations in these exhibits himself, and he did not know who created them.
`
`Exhibit 1076 at 207:5-208:18; 230:2-24; 234:5-235:13. Although Patent Owner
`
`contends that Dr. Weaver reviewed the annotations to confirm their accuracy
`
`(Paper No. 30 at 3), Dr. Weaver admitted that he performed no independent
`
`investigation to determine whether the 21CR product practiced the Challenged
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Claims. Exhibit 1076 at 217:22-219:20. Indeed, Dr. Weaver had no basis for
`
`confirming that the accuracy of the annotations, as he admitted that he had never
`
`seen the 21CR product, and did not review source code, user manuals, technical
`
`specifications or any other technical documentation relating to the product.
`
`Exhibit 1076 at 206:7-207:1.
`
`Because the annotations in Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 are written
`
`statements by an unidentified declarant not providing testimony in this proceeding
`
`and are relied upon by Patent Owner and its expert for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted, they are inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c). Furthermore, because
`
`Petitioner reasonably believed that the annotations were created by Patent Owner’s
`
`declarant, Dr. Weaver, and did not learn (and could not reasonably have learned)
`
`that the annotations were created by a non-declarant within the 5 business days
`
`prescribed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner respectfully requests that this
`
`requirement be waived for Petitioner’s objection to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051
`
`as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`C. Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-2049 and 2053 Should Be Excluded As
`Irrelevant Under FRE 401-403
`
`Evidence that lacks “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
`
`it would be without the evidence” is irrelevant and inadmissible. FRE 401, 402.
`
`FRE 403 further provides that the Board may exclude otherwise relevant evidence
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more”
`
`factors including unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`
`Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 should be excluded as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and 402. Patent Owner has made no showing that any of these
`
`exhibits has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
`
`without the evidence.” Patent Owner’s only response to Petitioner’s relevance
`
`objections for Exhibits 2040-49 and 2053 was that “relevance is identified in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Brief.” Exhibit 1083 at 10-15. However, Patent
`
`Owner’s Corrected Response does not cite or mention these Exhibits. Patent
`
`Owner has provided no response to Petitioner’s relevance objections for Exhibits
`
`2036 and 2037. Id. at 9-10. Thus, Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 are
`
`inadmissible as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 are also inadmissible under FRE
`
`403. To the extent any of these Exhibits include relevant information, such
`
`information is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice to Petitioner and/or a
`
`waste of time. FRE 403. Admission of these Exhibits would unduly prejudice
`
`Petitioner and be a waste of time for the Petitioner and the Board, because Patent
`
`Owner has provided no description of how the Exhibits are relevant to any issue in
`
`this proceeding. Thus, these Exhibits are also inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`D. Exhibits 2032-2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055 Should Be
`Excluded As Lacking Authentication Under FRE 901
`
`FRE 901(a) states that “to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
`
`identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must provide evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Exhibits 2032,
`
`2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055 lack authentication, and are therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901(a), because Patent Owner has failed to provide
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims them to be. For example, Patent Owner has not provided testimony of any
`
`witness with knowledge that any of these documents are authentic. See generally
`
`Exhibit 1083. Nor has Patent Owner provided evidence that any of these Exhibits
`
`are self-authenticating under FRE 902. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibit 2032 is a meeting agenda for a meeting
`
`with Pizza Hut. PO Corrected Response at 75. However, Patent Owner provides
`
`no evidence that Exhibit 2032 is an authentic copy of the meeting agenda.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibit 2039 is a presentation provided by an
`
`executive of Papa John’s. Id. at 76. Similarly, Patent Owner contends that
`
`Exhibit 2055 is a presentation Patent Owner provided to Starbucks. Id. at 73.
`
`However, Patent Owner provides no evidence that either of these Exhibits are
`
`authentic copies of either of these presentations, or any other evidence that these
`
`presentations were actually presented.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibits 2033, 2035 and 2054 are transcripts of
`
`various panel discussions at the FTSEC. Id. at 77, 79, However, again, Patent
`
`Owner provides no evidence that the Exhibits are authentic.
`
`Because Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence to authenticate
`
`Exhibits 2032, 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054, these Exhibits should be excluded
`
`under FRE 901(a).
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that the Board preclude Patent
`
`Owner from using the above-listed Exhibits at any hearing or in any paper in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 8, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`Registration Number 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 773-4148
`
`Robert C. Williams
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 699-2820
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Apple Inc., Eventbrite Inc., and Starwood
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`Reg. No. 43,306
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Tel: 713-651-5151
`Fax: 713-651-5246
`richard.zembeck@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Gilbert A. Green
`Reg. No. 48,366
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: 512-474-5201
`Fax: 512-536-4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner:
`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.
`
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was served on April 8, 2016, via electronic mail, per
`
`agreement of the parties, to counsel for the following addresses:
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel.: 619-742-9631
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`
`Reg. No. 41,828
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`John W. Osborne
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`Tel.: 914-714-5936
`Fax: 914-734-7333
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\268849262.1 1

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