`____________
`
`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 CBM2015-000821
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS,
`
`AND SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00097 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc. ("Patent Owner") serves the following
`
`Response to Petitioner's evidentiary objections (filed on January 13, 2016) and
`
`supplemental evidence, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
`
`Each general response is incorporated into each specific response.
`
`1.
`
`The Board has instructed that, in making objections, “parties should
`
`
`
`
`
`keep in mind that they are subject to the duty of candor and to sanctions for
`
`advancing a frivolous argument, misrepresenting a fact, engaging in dilatory
`
`tactics, and abuse of discovery.” For the other general and specific reasons set
`
`forth herein, the vast majority of Petitioner's objections are untimely, waived,
`
`and/or not in compliance with the requirements for setting forth objections that
`
`include stating objections with sufficient particularity.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) requires that any evidence submitted in the
`
`record prior to the Board's institution of trial may only be objected to within ten
`
`business days of the date of institution of trial. All objections made by Petitioner
`
`in January 2016 to evidence that was in the record prior to institution of trial (and
`
`the vast majority of the evidence is in this category) are untimely and therefore
`
`waived.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Each objection "must identify the grounds for the objection with
`
`sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence."
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Accordingly, every objection that does not include
`
`sufficient particularity is untimely and defective and waived. Petitioner has not
`
`met its burden with respect to objections, both because of the failure to provide
`
`sufficient particularity with respect to each piece of evidence to which Petitioner
`
`objects, and because of the failure to identify which objections apply to which
`
`specific documents within exhibits containing more than one document. A party
`
`moving for the exclusion of evidence bears the burden of proving its entitlement to
`
`the relief requested; merely citing a rule without explaining the basis for the
`
`objection with particularity does not suffice. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner's various objections to authentication are not well-taken
`
`because they lack sufficient particularity and because they fail to consider the
`
`applicable criteria for authentication and self-authentication in Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 901 and 902.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories. The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient
`
`particularity, because there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within
`
`the FRE 801 definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This 2010 deposition of Mr. Harker was conducted by counsel for the
`
`majority of the Petitioner parties in these CBM proceedings. Further, the portions
`
`of Mr. Harker's deposition testimony cited by Patent Owner are substantively the
`
`same as the statement and summary of his comments that appear in the '077 patent
`
`file history which are on record.
`
`
`
`Regarding the "draft transcript": A copy of the complete original transcript
`
`and exhibits from this deposition is submitted herewith as Supplemental Evidence,
`
`Attachment A.
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This press release was and is published on the Internet at the URL:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Ameranth%20New%20Patent%20%20License%20-
`%20Skywire%20Media_May%2014%202012%20(Approved%20for%20release).p
`df
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`Press releases in this exhibit that were and are published on the Internet:
`
`
`
`Jersey Mikes Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Ameranth%20-
`%20Jersey%20Mike's%20Press%20Release%20-
`%20%20Approved%20For%20Release%20-%20November%204,%202015.pdf
`
`PAR Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Ameranth%20-%20Par-
`%20New%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20Announced%20(Approved%2
`0for%20release)%201-28-13.pdf
`
`EMN8 Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/EMN8%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Press%20Release,%20July%2022,%202013%20.pdf
`
`BJ’s Pizza Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Ameranth%20BJ's%20-%20Release%20Version%20-
`%20August%2029%202014.pdf
`
`MonkeyMedia Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Monkeymedia%20%20-%20Ameranth%20%20-
`%20%20(June%205,%202013)%20-%20(%20Release%20Version%20-%20).pdf
`
`Taco Bell Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20%20-
`%20Taco%20Bell%20Licenses%20Ameranth%20Patents%20-
`%20(April%201,2014)%20.pdf
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`Chownow Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20ChowNow%20LLC%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Approved%2
`0for%20Release).pdf
`
`Comcash Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Comcash%20Inc%20%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Final%20Dr
`aft).pdf
`
`Ameranth Menusoft Resolve Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-%20Menusoft%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Settlement%20-%20Final%20-
`%20October%2019,%202011.pdf
`
`RRT Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-%20RRT%20-
`%20Ameranth%20Patent%20License%20Agreement%20(Final%20Version).pdf
`
`Snapfinger Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Press%20Release%20-
`%20Snapfinger%20Patent%20License%20-
`%20Approved%20for%20Release%201-24-2012.pdf
`
`Xpient Press Release:
`
`http://www.ameranth.com/pdf/Xpient%20-%20Ameranth%20-
`%20Press%20Release%20%20-%20Patent%20License%20-
`%20(Release%20Version)%20-%20May%208,%202014).pdf
`
`The Squirrel press release was previously provided in the 1.132 declaration in the
`
`patent file histories.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`These Hospitality Technology documents were and are published on the
`
`Internet at these URLs:
`
`2004 Report
`
`http://profitechmt.com/brochures/POS-scoreboard.pdf
`
`2006 Report
`
`http://www.clsinfo.ca/Positouch%20rating%202006.pdf
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.131 and 1.132 declarations
`
`in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. The complete
`
`book is readily available.
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document was previously provided in the 1.132 declaration in the patent
`
`file histories. The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity,
`
`because there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. The exhibit is
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`printouts of emails from an electronically-stored file.
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/getmedia/7a15e331-d211-48bb-9976-
`3625c0aaad50/micros_murtec13.pdf
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/getmedia/7a15e331-d211-48bb-9976-
`3625c0aaad50/micros_murtec13.pdf
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2037
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2038
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article46714.html
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2039
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This PowerPoint presentation is downloadable from the 2009 FSTEC
`
`convention video that was produced in the district-court litigation.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2040
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`-10-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2042
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2043
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This document was and is published on the Internet at this URL:
`
`http://www.agilysys.com/-
`/media/agilysys/Files/Products/Infogenesis%20Mobile/PDF/1406%20Agilysys%2
`0InfoGenesis%20Mobile%20low%20res.pdf
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2044
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2045
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`-13-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2049
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document (without annotations) was previously provided in the 1.132
`
`declaration in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The document (without annotations) was previously provided in the 1.132
`
`-14-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`declaration in the patent file histories.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`This exhibit was authenticated in a previous declaration, contained in
`
`the '077 prosecution file, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 1012. This evidence
`
`was in the record prior to the institution of trial; thus this objection and any
`
`others made more than 10 days after institution of trial are untimely and
`
`waived.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2053
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`The relevance objection is not well-taken; relevance is identified in Patent
`
`Owner's Response Brief.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2054
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto. Copies of the
`
`recording have been previously produced in the district court litigation.
`
`Exhibit 2055
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`Exhibit 2056
`
`
`
`
`
`See general responses. In addition to the general responses:
`
`The accuracy of the Howard Schultz quote in this exhibit is proven by the
`
`transcript of the Starbucks earnings call from which the quote was taken; a copy of
`
`that transcript is submitted herewith as Supplemental Evidence, Attachment B.
`
`
`
`The hearsay objection is incorrect, and lacks sufficient particularity, because
`
`there is no showing by Petitioner that the document is within the FRE 801
`
`definition of hearsay and not within any of the exceptions thereto.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 26, 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
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`
`
`
`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 January 26, 2016 by causing said documents to be
`
`delivered via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for
`
`Robert C. Williams
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 B Street Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 669-2820
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite
`1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512.474.5201
`Fax: 512.536.4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.co
`m
`
`
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`
`James M. Heintz
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190-5602
`Tel: 703-773-4148
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Tel: 713-651-5151
`Fax: 713-651-5246
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.co
`m
`
`
`
`
`
` January 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Fabiano/
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00082
`CBM2015—OOO82
`
`
`-19-
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., Exhibit 1084