`____________
`
`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-