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 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

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