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 OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`In its Motion to Exclude Patent Owner’s Evidence (Paper 31; “Motion to
`
`Exclude”), Petitioner argues that several of Ameranth, Inc.’s (“Ameranth” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) exhibits should be excluded as “hearsay, lacking authentication,
`
`and irrelevant.” (Paper 31, pg. 1.) The exhibits are primarily cited to by Ameranth
`
`in support of its “secondary considerations” arguments, and consist of documents
`
`such as press releases and announcements, awards, FSTEC meeting transcripts,
`
`emails, presentation documents and annotated brochures. Much of the secondary
`
`considerations evidence is from long ago, and considering the tight timelines and
`
`limited discovery available under the AIA, the Board has recognized the vital
`
`importance of considering such contemporaneous objective evidence as part of the
`
`Graham factors analysis, especially when all the evidence appears to be what it is
`
`claimed to be.
`
`Further, contrary to Petitioner’s Motion, the exhibits are highly relevant to
`
`Ameranth’s Response to the Petition and do not lack authentication or constitute
`
`inadmissible hearsay. As discussed herein, the exhibits are used for non-hearsay
`
`purposes, such as showing the existence of industry praise and recognition, and
`
`also are either non-hearsay or meet several exceptions to the rule against hearsay
`
`such as the statements against interest exception of Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) 804(b)(3) and the residual exception of FRE 807(a). Petitioner has long-
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`since waived any objections to the annotated brochures by failing to timely object
`
`to the exhibits. And, in any event, the annotations complained of by Petitioner
`
`constitute nothing more than attorney argument and are not subject to a hearsay
`
`objection.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner itself has used exhibits in this proceeding very
`
`similar to those Ameranth exhibits it objects to now, including documents such as
`
`Ameranth press releases, and apparently forgets that Petitioner itself had reviewed
`
`all of the existing 37 C.F.R. §1.131 and 1.132 declarations on record (containing
`
`much of the evidence that Petitioner now objects to) and discussed the same in the
`
`Petition, thus waiving all objections to it.
`
`With respect to the exhibits challenged by Petitioner on authentication
`
`grounds, Ameranth demonstrates below that there is at least a “reasonable
`
`probability” that the exhibits are what Ameranth claims them to be, and thereby
`
`enables the Board to conclude that the documents have been authenticated.
`
`Therefore, the Board should deny the Motion to Exclude in its entirety.
`
`II. THE CHALLENGED EXHIBITS ARE NOT HEARSAY.
`
`A. The Exhibits Are Used For Non-Hearsay Purposes.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “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
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`asserted.” [Emphasis original] Paper 31, Pg. 6. However, contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`cursory analysis, many of the exhibits are not cited for the “truth of the matter
`
`asserted,” but, rather, were cited for other non-hearsay purposes.
`
`If the exhibits are cited for non-hearsay purposes, then they do not fall
`
`within the rule against hearsay. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00073, Petitioner had brought a motion to exclude certain website printout exhibits
`
`and financial industry documents as hearsay. Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00073, Paper 48, pg. 33. Patent Owner argued that the exhibits were
`
`presented for the non-hearsay purposes of showing praise and recognition by the
`
`industry and the states of mind of the documents’ authors. Id. The Board agreed
`
`and denied the motion to exclude as to those exhibits. Id. at pgs. 33-34.
`
`The exhibits at issue here are cited in the “Objective Evidence Of Non-
`
`Obviousness” section of Ameranth’s Corrected Patent Owner’s Response and,
`
`similar to the Medtronic case discussed above, are generally used as evidence of
`
`“secondary considerations.” (Paper 21, pgs. 50-80.) Many of these exhibits are
`
`used for non-hearsay purposes, such as showing industry praise and the states of
`
`mind of the declarant, rather than the truth of the matter asserted. For example,
`
`Exhibit 2023 is a May 14, 2012 press release regarding Skywire with a statement
`
`by the CEO of Skywire recognizing the “extraordinary value of Ameranth’s
`
`breakthrough patents” and stating that he has “worked together with Keith
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`McNally… since the late 1990’s.” Exh. 2023. Ameranth cites to this press
`
`release as part of its “secondary considerations” evidence. (Paper 21, pg. 58, FN
`
`39.) But the document is cited to for purposes of showing the existence of industry
`
`praise and the state of mind of the CEO of Skywire, not for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted.
`
`Similarly, Exhibit 2025 (various press releases and announcements of
`
`numerous other Ameranth patent licenses and alliances) is cited to in part because
`
`of “praise from the CEOs of the licensees” found in the documents. (Paper 21, pg.
`
`63.) This exhibit is cited to for showing industry praise and the state of mind of
`
`the CEOs of the licensees and the inclusion of their statements confirmed that these
`
`were ‘joint’ releases. Likewise, Exhibit 2027 (Microsoft RAD Award), is cited as
`
`additional evidence of praise and recognition by the industry. (Paper 21, pg. 69.)
`
`Other exhibits are used to show copying and/or the state of mind of the
`
`authors or declarants, but not the truth of the matters asserted. Exhibits such as
`
`Exhibit 2030 (email messages between Microsoft and Starbucks personnel) (cited
`
`at Paper 21, pgs. 73-73), Exhibit 2031 (Scott Maw remarks, Nov. 18, 2015
`
`Starbucks investor conference) (cited at Paper 21, pgs. 73-74), Exhibit 2032 (May
`
`2006 Ameranth presentation to Pizza Hut) (cited at Paper 21, pgs. 75, 79), Exhibit
`
`2033 (Transcript of Micros remarks, 2008 FSTEC meeting) (cited at Paper 21, pg.
`
`77), Exhibit 2034 (Micros announcement of Simphony product) (cited at Paper 21,
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`pg. 77), Exhibit 2038 (Micros mycentral/Simphony press release) (cited at Paper
`
`21, pg. 77), Exhibit 2054 (Transcript of remarks from 2009 FSTEC meeting,
`
`Technology Executives Panel) (cited at Paper 21, pg. 77), Exhibit 2055
`
`(PowerPoint slides and screen shots from Ameranth presentation to Starbucks,
`
`December 1, 2006) (cited at Paper 21, pg. 73) and Exhibit 2056 ("Starbucks
`
`Claims 90 Percent Mobile Payments Market Share", PYMTS, Oct. 31, 2014) (cited
`
`at Paper 21, pg. 75) are cited to in order to show copying and the state of mind of
`
`the authors or declarants, not necessarily the truth of the matters stated therein.
`
`Finally, Exhibit 2035 (Transcript of Paul Armstrong remarks, 2008 FSTEC
`
`meeting) (cited at Paper 21, pg. 79) and Exhibit 2039 (Mark Nance PowerPoint
`
`presentation, 2009 FS/TEC meeting) (cited at Paper 21, pgs. 76, 79) are cited to
`
`show that other companies in the industry tried and failed to develop the Ameranth
`
`technology, not for the truth of the matters asserted.
`
`B. The Exhibits Are Non-Hearsay Or Fall Within Hearsay Exceptions.
`
`
`
`In addition to the exhibits being used for non-hearsay purposes, Exhibit
`
`2039, which is used for statements by Papa John’s (one of the petitioners), is an
`
`opposing party’s statement, and therefore non-hearsay. FRE 801(d)(2). Many of
`
`the other exhibits fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule.2 Exhibits 2030, 2031,
`
`
`2 It is worth noting that Petitioner itself has submitted numerous exhibits in support
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`2033, 2034, 2035, 2038, 2054 and 2056 are statements against interest pursuant to
`
`FRE 804(b)(3). These exhibits contain statements against interest by Starbucks
`
`(Exhibits 2030, 2031, 2056) and Micros (Exhibits 2033, 2034, 2035, 2038, 2054)
`
`and, accordingly, should not be excluded for this additional reason.
`
`Moreover, Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2035, 2038-2039 and
`
`2054-2056 also fall within the “residual exception” of FRE 807(a). Under FRE
`
`807(a), a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if: (1) the
`
`statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is
`
`offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for
`
`which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
`
`reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules
`
`and the interests of justice. FRE 807(a).
`
`
`of its Petition which are similar in nature to many of the Ameranth exhibits
`
`Petitioner challenges in its Motion to Exclude. For example, Petitioner submitted
`
`books or excerpts from books (Exhibits 1021, 1022, 1026), technical manuals or
`
`excerpts from technical manuals (Exhibits 1023, 1027, 1028, 1047, 1053) and
`
`articles (Exhibits 1029, 1037, 1065, 1067). Moreover, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1012
`
`contains documents such as Ameranth press releases.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`Here, the Petitioner does not challenge the “trustworthiness” of the exhibits
`
`and there has been no showing that any of them are not trustworthy. The exhibits
`
`include Ameranth press releases, documents originating from third parties such as
`
`Microsoft, Micros and Starbucks and FSTEC meeting transcripts. The press
`
`release exhibits, Exhibits 2021, 2023 and 2025 (May 1999 announcement from
`
`National Restaurant Association (NRA) show in Chicago, IL., May 14, 2012 press
`
`release re Skywire, and press releases and announcements of various Ameranth
`
`patent licenses and alliances, respectively), would also be business records under
`
`FRE 803(6). Documents originating from third parties such as Microsoft, Micros
`
`and Starbucks (Exhibits 2027, 2031,3 2034, 2038, 2056), the FSTEC transcripts
`
`and related documents (Exhibits 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054),4 and the remaining
`
`
`3 Exhibit 2031, an article from seekingalpha.com, would also meet the commercial
`
`publication exception of FRE 803(17).
`
`4 Additionally, Ameranth included a FSTEC transcript with its original response
`
`(Exhibit 2018), but Petitioner never objected to that exhibit. Thus, any objection to
`
`that FSTEC exhibit was waived (37 CFR 42.64(b)), and this underscores
`
`Petitioner’s lack of basis to object to the same category of documents. Further, as
`
`Ameranth pointed out in its Response to Petitioner's Evidentiary Objections and
`
`Supplemental Evidence, copies of the FTEC recordings have been previously
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`documents originating from Ameranth, are not subject to any reasonable challenge
`
`for untrustworthiness. Indeed, with respect to exhibits retrieved from the Internet,
`
`Ameranth provided the URLs for the exhibits in its Response to Petitioner’s
`
`Evidentiary Objections and Supplemental Evidence. (See e.g. Exh. 1083,
`
`providing URLs for exhibits 2023, 2025, 2034 and 2038.)
`
`Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2035, 2038-2039 and 2054-2056, as
`
`discussed above, are offered as evidence of material facts concerning “secondary
`
`considerations”, such as the existence of industry praise and recognition, copying,
`
`that other companies in the industry tried and failed to develop the Ameranth
`
`technology. These exhibits are probative on the points for which they are offered,
`
`and Petitioner has made no showing that there is other evidence that would be
`
`more probative that Ameranth can obtain through reasonable efforts.
`
`
`
`Finally, admitting the exhibits will best serve the purposes of Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence and the interests of justice in that the evidence is highly relevant to
`
`Ameranth’s response to the Petition and, as such, it should be considered by the
`
`Board. Therefore, the exhibits meet the “residual exception” of FRE 807(a).
`
`III. EXHIBITS 2024, 2050 AND 2051 ARE NOT INADMISSIBLE
`
`HEARSAY AND PETITIONER HAS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION
`
`
`produced in the district court litigation. (See e.g. Exhibit 1083, pg. 8.)
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`TO THE EXHIBITS.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[p]ortions of Exhibit 2024 and the entirety of Exhibits
`
`2050 and 2051 should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay” because “[e]ach 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.” (Paper 31, pg. 9.) But these “red
`
`annotations” complained of by Petitioner are nothing more than attorney argument.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner has done the exact same thing with one of its exhibits in its
`
`Petition. (See Paper 1, pg. 34, with redline annotations added to a figure 5.36 of
`
`Exhibit 1002.) Amaranth, like Petitioner with its annotations, has made
`
`abundantly clear that the red annotations are not part of the original documents in
`
`Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051. With respect to Exhibit 2024, Ameranth described
`
`the exhibit in its Exhibit List as “Ameranth 21st Century System Product Brochure
`
`(two-sided), distributed May 1999 (original and annotated).” [Emphasis added].
`
`Ameranth notes in the Patent Owner’s Response itself that “both the original and
`
`annotated versions are included” (Paper 21, pg. 58), and then continues to refer to
`
`the exhibit as the “annotated brochure.” (Paper 21, pg. 59.) Similarly, Ameranth
`
`refers to Exhibit 2050 as “Case Study, Ameranth/Improv Comedy Clubs, Spring
`
`2000 (annotated)” and Exhibit 2051 as “Computerworld Award summary, 2001
`
`(annotated).” [Emphasis added.] The red annotations are clearly attorney
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`argument and are no more subject to exclusion on hearsay grounds than
`
`Ameranth’s brief itself.
`
`Finally, Petitioner has waived any and all objections to Exhibits 2024, 2050
`
`and 2051 because it failed to timely object. Petitioner admits it failed to include
`
`objections to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 with its Objections by the deadline
`
`stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). (Paper 31, pg. 11.) Petitioner claims its “excuse”
`
`for failing to timely object is that it did not learn Dr. Weaver did not create the
`
`annotations until Dr. Weaver’s deposition on February 26, 2016. (Id.) However,
`
`Ameranth never stated that Dr. Weaver had created the annotations and, if
`
`Petitioner had any doubt about whether it should object to the exhibits, it should
`
`have objected prior to the deadline stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Further,
`
`Petitioner claims it learned of its objection to the exhibits at Dr. Weaver’s
`
`deposition, but yet it still failed to object at the deposition. Thus, even accepting
`
`Petitioner’s “excuse” (which Ameranth does not), Petitioner was still late with its
`
`objection since, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a), “[a]n objection to the
`
`admissibility of deposition evidence must be made during the deposition.”
`
`[Emphasis added] 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a). Further still, Petitioner failed to object
`
`within five business days of the completion of Dr. Weaver’s deposition. Thus,
`
`under any reasonable interpretation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) or (b), Petitioner’s
`
`objections to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 are untimely and have been waived.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`IV. EXHIBITS 2032-2033, 2035, 2039 AND 2054-2055 SHOULD NOT
`
`BE EXCLUDED AS “LACKING AUTHENTICATION.”
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2032, 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055 lack
`
`authentication because, “[f]or example, Patent Owner has not provided testimony
`
`of any witness with knowledge that any of these documents are authentic” and
`
`because Ameranth has not “provided evidence that any of these Exhibits are self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.” (Paper 31, pg. 14.)
`
`However, authenticating testimony and FRE 902 are not the only means of
`
`establishing the authenticity of documents. Even where there is no authenticating
`
`witness, documents may be authenticated by review of their contents if they appear
`
`to be sufficiently genuine. Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th
`
`Cir. 2010) (citing Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 at 778 n. 24). The
`
`standard for authentication, and hence admissibility, requires a showing that there
`
`is a “reasonable probability” that the evidence is what the proponent claims. The
`
`proponent need not rule out “all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity . . .”
`
`Rather, the proponent must show that the “evidence is sufficient to allow a
`
`reasonable person to believe the evidence is what it purports to be.” Associación
`
`De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller, 680 F.3d 70, 79-80 (1st Cir. 2012)
`
`(internal quotes omitted); Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1407 (2nd
`
`Cir. 1996); America v. Mills, 654 F.Supp.2d 28, 34 (D.D.C. 2009) (court “need not
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`find that the evidence is necessarily what the proponent claims, but only that there
`
`is sufficient evidence so that the jury ultimately might do so”). Documents may be
`
`authenticated by review of their contents if they appear to be sufficiently genuine.
`
`FRE 901(b)(4); Las Vegas Sands, LLC, supra, 632 F.3d at 533 (citing Orr, supra,
`
`285 F.3d at 778 n. 24); see also Thomas v. Quintana, No. CV 10-2671-JGB CWX,
`
`2014 WL 5419418, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (“The characteristics of the
`
`records themselves in terms of appearance, contents, and substance allow the Court
`
`to conclude that the documents have been authenticated by their distinctive
`
`characteristics and that they are what they appear to be.”) (citing FRE 901(b)(4);
`
`Las Vegas Sands, LLC, supra, 632 F.3d at 533; Abdullah v. CDC, No. 06–2378,
`
`2010 WL4813572, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2010); Sanchez v. Penner, No. 07–
`
`0542, 2009 WL 3088331, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept.22, 2009); Johnson v. Roche, No.
`
`06–1676, 2009 WL 720891, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar.13, 2009); Burch v. Regents of
`
`the University of California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
`
`Here, there is at least a “reasonable probability” that the exhibits are what
`
`Ameranth claims. Exhibit 2032 is a May 2006 Ameranth presentation to Pizza Hut
`
`and Exhibit 2055 consists of PowerPoint slides and screen shots from Ameranth’s
`
`presentation to Starbucks, December 1, 2006. Petitioner has not pointed to
`
`anything about the exhibits that makes it question their authenticity, and there is
`
`nothing on the face of the documents that suggests they are not authentic. Exhibit
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`2032 is dated May 3, 2006 and titled “Pizza Hut & Yahoo Meeting Agenda”. The
`
`document lists a specific meeting time, conference call number, attendees, and then
`
`provides a detailed agenda in bullet point format. Thus, on its face, the document
`
`appears to be a “May 2006 Ameranth presentation to Pizza Hut” as described by
`
`Ameranth.
`
`Similarly, Exhibit 2055 is titled “Ameranth, Inc. 21st Century
`
`Communications Proposal/vision for Starbucks” and includes a copyright notice
`
`dated 2006. The document contains PowerPoint type slides with diagrams and
`
`illustrations pertaining to a system for Starbucks. Thus, on its face, Exhibit 2055
`
`appears to be “PowerPoint slides and screen shots from Ameranth presentation to
`
`Starbucks, December 1, 2006.” As such, “[t]he characteristics of the records
`
`themselves in terms of appearance, contents, and substance allow the Court to
`
`conclude that the documents have been authenticated by their distinctive
`
`characteristics and that they are what they appear to be.” Thomas, No. CV 10-
`
`2671-JGB CWX, 2014 WL 5419418, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (citing FRE
`
`901(b)(4).
`
`The remaining exhibits, Exhibits 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054, are FSTEC
`
`meeting transcripts and related documents. The documents are dated consistently
`
`with Ameranth’s descriptions, identify the speakers and appear to include the text
`
`from the dialogue and speeches at the FSTEC meetings. Exhibit 2039 appears to
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`be PowerPoint slides, including slides titled “Online Ordering & POS Integration:
`
`Is It Worth the Trouble?” and “Papa John’s Online” with information apparently
`
`from Papa John’s, lists “Mark Nance” and includes a logo for FSTEC 2009. Thus,
`
`the characteristics of the documents themselves in terms of appearance, contents,
`
`and substance allow the Board to conclude that the documents have been
`
`authenticated by their distinctive characteristics and that they are what they appear
`
`to be.5
`
`Accordingly, Ameranth’s exhibits meet the test that there is a “reasonable
`
`probability” that the exhibits are what Ameranth claims. Indeed, even if Petitioner
`
`were able to provide evidence that called into question the authenticity of the
`
`documents, which it has not, the fact conflicting inferences can be drawn regarding
`
`authenticity affects weight, not admissibility. Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. NLRB,
`
`586 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1409
`
`(3rd Cir. 1994); Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Institute of London Underwriters,
`
`267 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31,
`
`
`5 Further, as discussed above, Ameranth pointed out in its Response to Petitioner's
`
`Evidentiary Objections and Supplemental Evidence that copies of the FTEC
`
`recordings have been previously produced in the district court litigation. See e.g.
`
`Exhibit 1083, pg. 8.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`37-38 (2nd Cir. 2004). Therefore, Exhibits 2032, 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055
`
`should not be excluded.
`
`V. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION.
`
`Administrative agencies, such as the Board, are trusted with discretion with
`
`respect to evidentiary issues because the protections necessary in a jury trial in
`
`district court are not needed before the Board. See, e.g., Kewley v. HHS, 153 F.3d
`
`1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“In addition, we have held that procedural matters
`
`such as the admissibility of evidence, including hearsay, fall within the sound
`
`discretion of the Board and its AJs.”); SK Innovation Co. Ltd. V. Celgard, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00679, Paper 58, pg. 50 (“because the Board is not a lay jury,” … “the
`
`danger of prejudice in this proceeding is considerably lower than in a conventional
`
`district court trial”). If the Board should disagree with the applicability of the
`
`authorities discussed above with respect to any of the challenged exhibits, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion and deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`because the evidence is highly relevant and the protections needed in a jury trial
`
`are not present in this proceeding.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00080
`
`
`
`April 20, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`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 20, 2016 by causing said documents to be
`
`delivered via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for
`
`
`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
`
`Petitioner at the 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ethan M. Watts/
`
`
`
`
`
` April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`-17-

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