`
`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 CBM CBM2015-000801
`Patent 6,384,850
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`WEST\268849262.1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner (PO)’s motion to exclude (Paper 33, “Mot.”) should be
`
`denied, because it fails to establish that any of the Exhibits submitted with
`
`Petitioner’s Reply brief are inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(F.R.E.). PO seeks to exclude portions of Petitioner’s expert declaration and cited
`
`evidence as irrelevant, simply because this evidence is not cited in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply brief. However, this is not the standard articulated by F.R.E. 401-403. This
`
`evidence is relevant and admissible, because it demonstrates facts of consequence
`
`to this proceeding, including the state of the art, how a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) would interpret the claims and how a POSITA would interpret
`
`the prior art. PO also seeks to exclude various Exhibits on the grounds of
`
`authentication or hearsay. However, PO ignores evidence demonstrating that the
`
`challenged Exhibits are authentic or self-authenticating. PO also ignores that many
`
`of the challenged Exhibits are not relied upon for the truth of any matters asserted,
`
`and are therefore not hearsay. PO’s Motion should therefore be denied.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 1070 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`A.
`PO’s Relevance Objections Should Be Rejected
`PO contends that certain paragraphs of Exhibit 1070, the supplemental
`
`declaration of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Don Turnbull, are irrelevant under F.R.E.
`
`401-402, simply because the paragraphs were not cited in Petitioner’s Reply Brief.
`
`Mot. at 2-3 (objecting to Exhibit 1070, ¶¶ 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55,
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`60-63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95). However, there is no requirement in this
`
`proceeding (and PO cites none) that Petitioner must cite to each and every
`
`paragraph in an expert declaration to satisfy the relevance requirements of the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`Rather, F.R.E. 401 provides:
`
`Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
`probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of
`consequence in determining the action.
`
`Exhibit 1070 sets forth in detail Dr. Turnbull’s analyses and opinions
`
`regarding PO’s Responses and the testimony of its expert, Dr. Alfred Weaver. See
`
`generally Exhibit 1070. Dr. Turnbull’s analyses and opinions are directly relevant
`
`to issues in this proceeding, because they have a tendency to make various facts of
`
`consequence in determining this action more probable. For example, Dr. Turnbull
`
`provides analysis and opinion relating to (1) how a POSITA would interpret the
`
`Challenged Claims in view of the plain meaning of claim limitations and
`
`disclosures in the patent specification (e.g. ¶¶ 6-12, 19-20, 27-31), (2) how a
`
`POSITA would interpret disclosures in the DeLorme reference (e.g. ¶¶ 21, 24-27,
`
`41-48, 60-66), (3) inherent disclosures in the DeLorme reference (e.g. ¶¶ 50-54),
`
`(4) whether various modifications to the DeLorme system would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA (e.g. ¶¶ 71-77), and (5) whether PO’s cited evidence
`
`demonstrate non-obviousness of the claimed inventions (e.g. ¶¶ 78-96).
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Moreover, the relevance of Dr. Turnbull’s opinions to particular issues of
`
`consequence in this proceeding is plainly evident from the declaration itself, and
`
`from Petitioner’s Reply brief. For example, Section I of Exhibit 1070, entitled
`
`“Analysis of PO’s Responses Regarding Patentability of the ’850 and ’325
`
`Patents,” includes ten sub-sections, each specifically identifying the specific issues
`
`to which the paragraphs within the sub-section relate. See generally Exhibit 1070.
`
`Furthermore, the sub-section headings mirror similar headings in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply brief. Compare, Exhibit 1070 §§ I.A-H, J with Reply §§ II.B-J.
`
`Because the entirety of Exhibit 1070 is directed to Dr. Turnbull’s analyses
`
`and opinions which have a tendency to make facts of consequence in determining
`
`this action more probable, Exhibit 1070 is relevant under F.R.E. 401. Indeed, PO
`
`does not dispute the relevance of much of Dr. Turnbull’s testimony. Exhibit 1070
`
`is therefore admissible under F.R.E. 402 (“Relevant evidence is admissible…”).
`
`PO also objects to paragraphs 1-4, 18, 19, 22-24, 33, 37, 38, 41-51, 55, 60-
`
`63, 65, 67-70, 78-93 and 95 in Exhibit 1070 on the ground that any probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time under F.R.E.
`
`403, because these paragraphs were not specifically discussed or cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply brief. Mot. at 3. However, because the entirety of Exhibit 1070
`
`is directly responsive to arguments raised in PO’s Response, this Exhibit is neither
`
`unfairly prejudicial nor a waste of time.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1070 Was Not Incorporated By Reference
`
`B.
`Contrary to PO’s contention, Petitioner did not incorporate by reference any
`
`portion of Exhibit 1070 in its Reply brief. Mot. at 4. As PO acknowledges, the
`
`paragraphs of Dr. Turnbull’s supplemental declaration which PO contends were
`
`incorporated by reference were not cited in the Reply. Id. Accordingly, these
`
`paragraphs could not include arguments incorporated by reference in contravention
`
`of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Moreover, the prior Board decisions cited by PO confirm that Petitioner’s
`
`narrowly tailored citations to Dr. Turnbull’s declaration are appropriate. Mot. at 4-
`
`5. In these cases, the Board stated that it was improper to incorporate by reference
`
`arguments from an expert declaration (e.g. by citing large portions of the
`
`declaration), because allowing such a practice would allow Petitioners to subvert
`
`the strict page limits set forth in the Board’s regulations. For example, in Cisco
`
`Systems, the Petition included numerous footnotes, that collectively cited to large
`
`portions of an expert declaration. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Tech., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper No. 12 at 7-8. The Board determined that citing “large
`
`portions of another document, without sufficient explanation… amounts to
`
`incorporation by reference.” Id. at 8. However, Petitioner’s Reply brief did not
`
`cite large swaths of Dr. Turnbull’s declaration. It did the opposite, narrowly
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`tailoring its citations to targeted portions of Dr. Turnbull’s testimony for the
`
`propositions cited, consistent with the Board’s guidance in Cisco Systems.
`
`III. EXHIBITS 1071-1073 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`A. Exhibits 1071-1073 Are Sufficiently Authenticated
`PO’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1071-1073 as lacking authentication should
`
`be rejected. “The standard for authenticating evidence is ‘slight’ and may be
`
`satisfied by ‘evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.’” United States v. Turner, 718 F.3d 226, 232 (3rd Cir.
`
`2013). Here, the evidence demonstrates that Exhibits 1071-1073 are what
`
`Petitioner claims them to be, i.e. webpage printouts.
`
`PO has not offered any reason to believe that Exhibits 1071-1073 are not
`
`authentic. As PO itself recognizes, these Exhibits are “printouts of webpages
`
`downloaded from the websites economywatch.com, besthospitalitydegrees.com,
`
`and blogs.msdn.com, respectively.” Mot. at 6. Indeed, the location of the
`
`webpages from which each of these Exhibits was downloaded is printed at the
`
`bottom of each page of Exhibits 1071-1073.2
`
`
`2 In response to authentication objections for several of its Exhibits, Patent Owner
`
`similarly identified URLs identifying the online location of the Exhibits. See, e.g.
`
`Exhibit 1083 at 3-6.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`The authenticity of Exhibits 1071-1073 is further confirmed by the
`
`Declaration of Mr. Bert Lee, produced as supplemental evidence in response to
`
`PO’s objections. See Exhibit 1085. Mr. Lee testified that he is an IP Specialist at
`
`DLA Piper, and that he filed Exhibits 1071-1073 with the Board’s electronic filing
`
`system. Id., ¶ 2. Mr. Lee further testified that Exhibits 1071-1073 were true and
`
`correct copies of online articles, and that he confirmed that the text of the articles
`
`in Exhibits 1071-1073 was identical to the text of the articles as they appeared
`
`online. Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.
`
`Thus, Exhibits 1071, 1072 and 1073 are properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901(b)(1), 901(b)(4), and/or 901(b)(3). See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures,
`
`Inc., 213 F. Supp.2d 1146, 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (declarations that printouts were
`
`“true and correct” copies of internet pages, “in combination with circumstantial
`
`indicia of authenticity (such as the dates and web addresses)” would support
`
`reasonable juror belief that documents are what proponent claims); see also
`
`Johnson–Wooldridge v. Wooldridge, 2001 WL 838986 at *4 (Ohio App. July 26,
`
`2001) (party who printed documents from a website “could have authenticated the
`
`documents himself via an affidavit or through his own testimony”).
`
`Exhibits 1071-1073 Are Not Hearsay
`
`B.
`PO’s hearsay objections likewise should be rejected. Hearsay is an out of
`
`court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. F.R.E. 801(c).
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1071-1073 are not hearsay, because Petitioner does not rely on these
`
`Exhibits for the truth of the statements asserted therein.
`
`Exhibits 1071-1073 are each printouts of hospitality industry webpages.
`
`Petitioner relies on these Exhibits as evidence of what they would describe to a
`
`POSITA, i.e. that various hospitality industry publications have used the term
`
`“hospitality” to refer to not just the hotel and restaurant industry, but also the travel
`
`and tourism industry. See Reply at 8; Exhibit 1070 ¶¶ 28-32. For example, Dr.
`
`Turnbull cites Exhibits 1071-1073 in connection with his observation that
`
`“numerous industry publications include ‘travel and tourism’ within the
`
`‘hospitality’ industry.” Exhibit 1070 ¶ 31. Thus, Petitioner and Dr. Turnbull
`
`simply rely upon Exhibits 1071-1073 for the fact that hospitality industry
`
`publications have used the term “hospitality” in a particular manner. Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Turnbull do not rely on these Exhibits for the truth of any statements in these
`
`articles. Accordingly, Exhibits 1071-1073 are not hearsay. F.R.E. 801(c); see also
`
`Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. Partnership,
`
`IPR2013-00537, Paper No. 79 at 25 (finding that exhibit “offered as evidence of
`
`what it describes to an ordinary artisan, not for proving the truth of the matters
`
`addressed in the document” was not hearsay).
`
`Even if Exhibits 1071-73 were considered to be hearsay (they should not
`
`be), these Exhibits are nonetheless admissible, as they fall within the residual
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`hearsay exception of F.R.E. 807. The challenged statements have similar
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness as hearsay exceptions listed in F.R.E.
`
`803, such as F.R.E. 803(17) (“market reports and similar commercial
`
`publications”) and F.R.E. 803(18) (“statements in learned treatises, periodicals and
`
`pamphlets”). Exhibits 1071-1073 are each offered as evidence of a material fact,
`
`i.e. how the term “hospitality” has been used in the industry. The Exhibits are
`
`more probative on this point than other evidence that Petitioner could obtain
`
`through reasonable efforts.3 Finally, admitting these exhibits will best serve the
`
`interests of justice, particularly given the importance of claim construction in
`
`evaluating whether a patent claim is practiced. See, e.g. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the “first step” in evaluating
`
`whether a patent claim is practiced involves “determining the meaning and scope
`
`of the patent claims…”); AFG Indus. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc., 239 F.3d 1239,
`
`1247 (“It is critical for trial courts to set forth an express construction of the
`
`material claim terms in dispute…”). Because Exhibits 1071-1073 meet each of the
`
`3 Even if Petitioner had submitted an expert declaration in connection with these
`
`Exhibits, PO likely would still have objected to these Exhibits as hearsay. PO has
`
`moved to exclude similar exhibits cited in the declaration of a hospitality industry
`
`expert in CBM2015-00091, relating to the same claims of the same patent as this
`
`proceeding. See CBM2015-00091, Paper No. 25 at 13-14.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`elements of F.R.E. 807, these Exhibits are admissible under the residual hearsay
`
`exception.
`
`IV. EXHIBITS 1078-1079 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`A. Exhibits 1078-1079 Are Relevant
`PO contends that Exhibits 1078-1079 are irrelevant under F.R.E. 401-403,
`
`simply because these Exhibits were not cited in Petitioner’s Reply Brief. Mot. at 8.
`
`However, as with its objections to Dr. Turnbull’s supplemental declaration, PO’s
`
`relevance objections are meritless.
`
`Exhibits 1078 and 1079 are institution decisions from CBM2015-00091 and
`
`CBM2015-00099, respectively. These proceedings involve the same claims of the
`
`same patents challenged in this proceeding. In Exhibits 1078 and 1079, the Board
`
`construed the term “hospitality application,” a claim term whose construction is in
`
`dispute here. Exhibit 1078 at 12; Exhibit 1079 at 12. These Exhibits were cited in
`
`Dr. Turnbull’s declaration in support of his opinion that DeLorme discloses a
`
`“hospitality application.” Exhibit 1070 ¶ 29. Because Exhibits 1078-1079 have a
`
`tendency to establish a fact of consequence in this proceeding more probable (i.e.
`
`that DeLorme discloses a “hospitality application”), the Exhibits are relevant under
`
`F.R.E. 401, and admissible under F.R.E 402. Furthermore, Dr. Turnbull’s reliance
`
`on Exhibits 1078 and 1079 was not unfairly prejudicial or a waste of time under
`
`F.R.E. 403, because Dr. Turnbull’s analysis and opinions relating to these Exhibits
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`is directly responsive to arguments raised in PO’s Response. See POR at 7, 28
`
`(construing “hospitality application” and distinguishing DeLorme based upon this
`
`construction).
`
`B. Citation To Exhibits 1078-1079 Is Not An Attempt At Joinder
`PO contends that citation to these institution decisions is an improper
`
`attempt to achieve “joinder.” However, PO’s objection is baseless. There is
`
`nothing improper about citing prior Board decisions, particularly where the
`
`decisions discuss construction of disputed claim terms in the proceeding. Nor is
`
`there anything improper with submitting cited Board decisions as Exhibits for the
`
`convenience of the Board. Because Petitioners have not sought, and do not seek,
`
`joinder with the related proceedings, PO’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1078-1079
`
`on this basis should be rejected.
`
`V. EXHIBITS 1080-1081 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`A. Exhibits 1080-1081 Are Relevant
`As with Exhibits 1078-1079, PO’s contention that Exhibits 1080-1081 are
`
`irrelevant simply because they were not cited in Petitioner’s Reply brief should be
`
`rejected.
`
`Exhibits 1080 and 1081 are prior art references relating to “push”
`
`technology. These Exhibits are cited in Dr. Turnbull’s declaration as evidence that
`
`“push” technology was known in the art, and that a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to add such functionality to DeLorme’s system. Exhibit 1070, ¶¶ 72-77.
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`As evident from Dr. Turnbull’s declaration, these Exhibits were cited in response
`
`to arguments raised by PO and its expert regarding the “automatically
`
`downloaded” limitation of claims 14 and 15. See Exhibit 1070, ¶¶ 70-71. Thus,
`
`because these Exhibits have a tendency to make facts of consequence in this
`
`proceeding (i.e. whether a POSITA would have known about “push” technology
`
`and been motivate to modify DeLorme to implement such technology), Exhibits
`
`1080 and 1081 are plainly relevant under F.R.E. 401, and admissible under F.R.E
`
`402. Furthermore, Dr. Turnbull’s reliance on Exhibits 1080 and 1081 is not
`
`unfairly prejudicial or a waste of time under F.R.E. 403, because the Exhibits were
`
`cited in response to arguments raised by PO and its expert.
`
`Exhibits 1080-1081 Are Sufficiently Authenticated
`
`B.
`PO’s authentication objections should also be rejected, as Exhibits 1080-
`
`1081 are sufficiently authenticated under F.R.E. 901(b)(4) and F.R.E. 902(6) and
`
`(7), and PO offers no evidence discrediting the authenticity of these Exhibits.
`
`Exhibit 1080 is an article published in NetWorker, a “bimonthly
`
`publication” from the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. (“ACM”).
`
`Exhibit 1080 at 2. The article appears on pages 28-36 of the publication. Id. at 3-
`
`11. Exhibit 1080 also incorporates the cover and copyright page of the publication
`
`(id. at 1-2), which bear the distinctive title, logo and copyright designation for the
`
`ACM. These distinctive characteristics are sufficient to authenticate Exhibit 1080
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`under F.R.E. 901(b)(4). See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00527, Paper No. 41 at 12-13. Exhibit 1080 is also self-authenticating under
`
`F.R.E. 902, because it is an article published in a periodical (F.R.E. 902(6)) and
`
`bears trade inscriptions, such as the ACM logo and copyright designation (F.R.E.
`
`902(7)).
`
`Exhibit 1081 is an article published in the 1996 IEEE International
`
`Conference on Universal Personal Communications Record. The article appears
`
`on pages 918-924 of the publication, and includes an ISBN code and copyright
`
`notice, as is typical for an IEEE article. Exhibit 1081 at 20-26. Exhibit 1081 also
`
`incorporates the cover page, conference information page and table of contents for
`
`the publication (id. at 1-19), which bear the distinctive title, logos, and trade
`
`inscriptions for the conference, IEEE, and IEEE Communications Society. Thus,
`
`Exhibit 1081 is also sufficiently authenticated under F.R.E. 901(b)(4) and 902(6)
`
`and (7) for the same reasons as Exhibit 1080.
`
`C. Exhibits 1080-1081 Are Not Hearsay
`PO’s hearsay objection should also be rejected. As discussed above,
`
`Exhibits 1080-1081 are prior art publications relating to “push” technology, relied
`
`upon by Dr. Turnbull as evidence that “push” technology was known, and that a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to add such functionality to DeLorme’s
`
`system. Exhibit 1070, ¶¶ 72-77. In other words, Exhibits 1080-1081 are “offered
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`as evidence of what [they] describe[] to an ordinary artisan, not for proving the
`
`truth of the matters addressed in the document[s],” and therefore are not hearsay.
`
`Biomarin, IPR2013-00537, Paper No. 79 at 25.
`
`Exhibits 1080-1081 also fall within several hearsay exceptions. Both
`
`Exhibits were published in periodicals and relied upon by Petitioner’s expert as
`
`reliable authorities that demonstrate the state of the art. Exhibit 1070 ¶¶ 72-77.
`
`Thus, these Exhibits fall within the hearsay exception of F.R.E. 803(18). The
`
`Exhibits also fall within the hearsay exception of F.R.E. 803(17), because they are
`
`publications from well-known compilers and publishers of technical publications.
`
`See, e.g. Ericsson, IPR 2014-00527, Paper No. 41 at 11.
`
`VI. EXHIBIT 1082 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`A. Exhibit 1082 is Relevant
`PO objects to Exhibit 1082 as irrelevant, simply because it was not cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. As established above, this is not the analysis mandated by the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1082 is a webpage printout from the Computerworld Honors
`
`Program website, identifying the criteria for nominations. This Exhibit is cited in
`
`Dr. Turnbull’s declaration as evidence that the nomination criteria are not
`
`stringent. Exhibit 1070 ¶ 91. This Exhibit was submitted in direct response to
`
`arguments raised in PO’s Response identifying a Computerworld Honors
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`nomination as evidence of “industry praise.” Thus, Exhibit 1082 is plainly
`
`relevant under F.R.E. 401 and admissible under F.R.E. 402. Moreover, because
`
`Exhibit 1082 is directly responsive to PO’s arguments, it is neither unfairly
`
`prejudicial nor a waste of time under F.R.E. 403.
`
`Exhibit 1082 Is Sufficiently Authenticated
`
`B.
`As with Exhibits 1071-1073, PO has failed to establish that Exhibit 1082 is
`
`not what Petitioner claims it to be, i.e. a webpage printout. The declaration from
`
`Mr. Lee establishes that Exhibit 1082 is a true and correct copy of the webpage
`
`available at: http://www.cwhonors.org/involved/. Exhibit 1085 ¶ 6. Mr. Lee
`
`further testified he confirmed that Exhibit 1082 was identical to the webpage as it
`
`appeared online. Id. Thus, Exhibit 1082 is properly authenticated. See Perfect 10,
`
`213 F. Supp.2d at 1154; Johnson–Wooldridge, 2001 WL 838986 at *4.
`
`C. Exhibit 1082 Is Not Inadmissible Hearsay
`Much like Exhibits 1071-1073, Exhibit 1082 falls within the residual
`
`hearsay exception, F.R.E. 807. The challenged statements have similar
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness as hearsay exceptions listed in F.R.E.
`
`803, such as F.R.E. 803(17) (“market reports and similar commercial
`
`publications”). Furthermore, because the Exhibit is immediately accessible to the
`
`public via the website listed above, there is no genuine issue of trustworthiness.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1082 is offered as evidence of a material fact, i.e. the nomination criteria
`
`for the Computerworld Honors Program are not stringent. The Exhibit is more
`
`probative on this point than other evidence that Petitioner could obtain through
`
`reasonable efforts. And, admitting the Exhibit will best serve the interests of
`
`justice, particularly given that PO relied upon similar website printouts to
`
`demonstrate that it received the Computerworld Honors Program nomination.
`
`POR at 62, 69; Exhibit 2051.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that the Board reject PO’s
`
`Motion to Exclude.
`
`Dated: April 20, 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
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`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.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`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’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served on April 20, 2016,
`
`via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for the following
`
`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:
`
`addresses:
`
`
`
`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