`
`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, HILKTON 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 CBM2015-000821
`Patent 6,871,325
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00097 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`WEST\268849262.1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Response was accompanied by a number of exhibits mostly
`
`relied on to support Patent Owner’s argument that secondary considerations
`
`indicate non-obviousness of the challenged claims of the ’325 patent. Many of
`
`these exhibits should be excluded as hearsay, lacking authentication, and
`
`irrelevant. For example, rather than submitting copies of alleged licenses for the
`
`’325 patent, or a declaration from someone with knowledge of the alleged licenses,
`
`Patent Owner submitted copies of its own press releases as proof of these licenses.
`
`These press releases are hearsay that do not fit within any exception to the hearsay
`
`rule. Patent Owner also relied on exhibits containing later-added claim element
`
`annotations to brochures of its products as proof that the products include the
`
`annotated claim elements, but has not produced any witness who knows who
`
`created the annotations, who had ever seen the product depicted in the brochure, or
`
`who had performed any independent investigation to determine whether the
`
`annotations accurately reflect the product. These exhibits and the others
`
`mentioned in this motion should be excluded for the reasons discussed herein.
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner hereby moves to exclude
`
`Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2051 and 2053-2056 in their entirety, along
`
`with the annotated portions of Exhibit 2024. Petitioner’s motion is based on the
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), which are applicable to this proceeding. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`III. AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS MOTION
`A “motion to exclude evidence” “may be filed without prior authorization
`
`from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Further, the Scheduling Order that
`
`governs this proceeding specifically authorizes a motion to exclude evidence under
`
`Due Date 4.2 Paper No. 14 at 3.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On January 6, 2016, Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner Response with
`
`Exhibits 2019-2056. Paper No. 19. Petitioner timely filed Objections to certain
`
`exhibits submitted with Patent Owner’s Response, including Exhibits 2021, 2023,
`
`2025, 2027, 2030-2049 and 2053-2056 on January 13, 2016. Paper No. 19. Patent
`
`Owner served a Response to Petitioner’s Objections on January 26, 2016, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1084. Patent Owner filed its Corrected Response (“PO Corrected
`
`Response”) on Feb. 1, 2016. Paper No. 22.
`
`Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 are documents purporting to describe Patent
`
`Owner’s 21st Century Restaurant (“21CR”) product. Each of these Exhibits
`
`includes numerous red annotations. The annotated portions of these Exhibits were
`
`
`2 The parties stipulated to amend the deadline for Due Date 4 to April 8, 2016.
`
`Paper No. 17 at 1.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`reproduced in full in the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver.
`
`Exhibit 2019 (Weaver Declaration) at ¶ 103 (reproducing annotated portions of
`
`Exhibit 2024), ¶ 106 (reproducing Exhibits 2050 and 2051).
`
`On February 26, 2016, Petitioner took Dr. Weaver’s deposition. Dr. Weaver
`
`admitted that he did not create the annotations in Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051
`
`reproduced in his declaration, and did not know who created them. Exhibit 1076 at
`
`207:5-208:18; 230:2-24; 234:5-235:13.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner timely objected to Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2049
`
`and 2053-2056 on the grounds that these Exhibits are inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801(c), irrelevant under FRE 401-403, and/or unauthenticated under FRE
`
`901(a). Paper No. 19 at 1-9. Petitioner explained with particularly the basis for
`
`each ground of objection. Id.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 on the ground that
`
`these documents include annotations that are inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`801(c). On a teleconference with the parties on March 31, 2016, the Board
`
`authorized Petitioner to include these objections in this Motion and to seek waiver
`
`of the deadline for evidentiary objections, because the Exhibits were reproduced in
`
`the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Alfred Weaver, and Petitioner only
`
`learned that the annotations were not created by Dr. Weaver at the time of his
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`deposition.
`
`The chart below summarizes Petitioner’s objections to Exhibits 2021, 2023-
`
`2025, 2027, 2030-2051 and 2053-2056, identifies when the objections were
`
`originally made, and identifies where the evidence sought to be excluded is relied
`
`upon by Patent Owner. The objections shown in bold are the grounds for
`
`exclusion addressed by this motion. Petitioner addresses each Exhibit in numerical
`
`order. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board preclude Patent Owner from
`
`using these Exhibits at any hearing or in any paper in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit
`
`2021
`
`2023
`
`Objections
`
`PO Corrected Response
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 1.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 1.
`
`53.
`
`59.
`
`2024
`
`FRE 801(c). March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`60-62.
`
`2025
`
`2027
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 1-2.
`
`64-66.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 2.
`
`70.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 3.
`
`FRE 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 3.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 3.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 3-4.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 4.
`
`73-74.
`
`74-75.
`
`75.
`
`77.
`
`77.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 4.
`
`FRE 401-03. Paper No. 19 at 4.
`
`FRE 401-03. Paper No. 19 at 4-5.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 5.
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 5.
`
`79.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`77.
`
`79.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 5.
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 5-6. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 6.
`
`FRE 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 6.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 6.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 6-7. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 7.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 7.
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 7-8. N/A
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 8.
`
`N/A
`
`FRE 401-403. March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`63.
`
`FRE 401-403. March 31, 2016 conference.
`
`63.
`
`FRE 801(c), 401-403. Paper No. 19 at 8-9. N/A
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 9.
`
`76-77.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`FRE 901(a), 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 9.
`
`73.
`
`FRE 801(c). Paper No. 19 at 9.
`
`74-75.
`
`A. Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2030-2035, 2038-2039 and 2054-
`2056 Should Be Excluded As Inadmissible Hearsay under FRE 801(c)
`
`Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence to prove the truth
`
`of the matter asserted in the statement. FRE 801(c). 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 asserted as detailed below. Patent Owner has not
`
`identified any hearsay exception that applies to any of these Exhibits. See
`
`generally Exhibit 1084. Thus, each of these exhibits should be excluded as
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c).
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2021 appears to be a press release describing the
`
`announcement of Patent Owner’s 21CR product at the National Restaurant
`
`Association trade show. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2021 to purportedly
`
`show that the 21CR product was presented at the trade show. PO Corrected
`
`Response at 53.
`
`Exhibit 2023 appears to be a press release describing a patent license
`
`agreement. Patent Owner quotes a passage from Exhibit 2023 to purportedly
`
`show the value of Patent Owner’s patents. PO Corrected Response at 59. The
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`quoted passage further includes statements by Skywire’s CEO, which are
`
`themselves hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`Exhibit 2025 appears to be a collection of press releases describing various
`
`licenses. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2025 to purportedly show that the
`
`Challenged Claims in this proceeding have been licensed. Id. at 64-66.
`
`Exhibit 2027 appears to be a description of the 2003 Microsoft RAD
`
`Awards. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibit 2027 to purportedly show that its
`
`21CR product received the described award. Id. at 70.
`
`Exhibit 2030 appears to be an email string describing an alleged
`
`demonstration of Patent Owner’s 21CR product to Starbucks. Patent Owner relies
`
`upon Exhibit 2030 to purportedly show that such a demonstration was provided to
`
`Starbucks. Id. at 73-74. Patent Owner further relies upon statements in Exhibit
`
`2030 by Steve Larson from Microsoft regarding his alleged conversation with Rob
`
`Reed from Starbucks, which statements are themselves hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`Exhibit 2031 appears to be a transcript of a conversation with Starbucks
`
`employee Scott Maw. Exhibit 2032 appears to be a meeting agenda. Patent
`
`Owner relies upon Exhibits 2031 and 2032 as purported evidence of the operation
`
`of Starbucks’ Mobile Order & Pay feature. Id. at 74-75.
`
`Exhibits 2033 and 2035 appear to be transcripts of one or more technology
`
`panels. Exhibit 2034 appears to be a marketing brochure relating to the Micros
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Simphony product. Exhibit 2038 appears to be a press release describing the
`
`Micros Simphony product. Patent Owner relies upon Exhibits 2033-2035 and
`
`2038 as purported evidence of the operation of the Micros Simphony product and
`
`copying of the ’325 patent. Id. at 77, 79.
`
`Exhibit 2039 appears to be a presentation relating to online ordering. Patent
`
`Owner relies on Exhibit 2039 as purportedly evidencing public admissions by
`
`Papa John’s regarding its POS systems. Id. at 79.
`
`Exhibit 2054 appears to be a transcript of a technology panel. Patent Owner
`
`relies upon Exhibit 2054 as purported evidence of the operation of the Micros
`
`Simphony product and copying of the ’325 patent. Id. at 76-77.
`
`Exhibit 2055 appears to be a presentation prepared by Patent Owner relating
`
`to a purported product demonstration for Starbucks. Patent Owner relies upon
`
`Exhibit 2055 to purportedly show that such a demonstration was provided to
`
`Starbucks. PO Id. at 73.
`
`Exhibit 2056 appears to be a Starbucks press release. Patent Owner relies
`
`upon Exhibit 2056 as purported evidence of the operation of Starbucks’ Mobile
`
`Order & Pay feature. Id. at 74-75. Patent Owner further quotes statements from
`
`Starbucks’ CEO regarding the Mobile Order & Pay feature, which are themselves
`
`hearsay within hearsay. Id.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Because each of these Exhibits include written statements by declarants not
`
`testifying in this proceeding, and Patent Owner relies on these statements for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, the Exhibits should be excluded as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801(c).
`
`B.
`Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 Should Be Excluded As
`Inadmissible Hearsay under FRE 801(c)
`Portions of Exhibit 2024 and the entirety of Exhibits 2050 and 2051 should
`
`be excluded as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c). Each 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.
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2024 appears to include two copies of a marketing
`
`brochure for Patent Owner’s 21CR product. The second copy of the marketing
`
`brochure (pp. 3-4) includes numerous red annotations. Patent Owner and its expert
`
`rely on the annotations as purportedly showing the correspondence between Patent
`
`Owner’s 21CR product and the Challenged Claims. PO Corrected Response at 60-
`
`62 (citing Exhibit 2047[sic: 2024]); Exhibit 2019 (Weaver Declaration), ¶¶ 103-05,
`
`96-97. Exhibits 2050 and 2051 likewise appear to be annotated documents
`
`relating to Patent Owner’s 21CR product, and Patent Owner and its expert rely on
`
`the annotations as purportedly showing the correspondence between Patent
`
`Owner’s product and the Challenged Claims. PO Corrected Response at 63 (citing
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`unannotated versions of these documents in Exhibit 1012 at pp. 620-625 and pp.
`
`697-700, and the conclusions of Dr. Weaver based upon his review and analysis of
`
`these documents at Exhibit 2019, ¶¶ 96-97); Exhibit 2019 at ¶¶ 106-07.
`
`The annotated portions of Exhibit 2024 and the entirety of Exhibits 2050
`
`and 2051 were reproduced in Dr. Weaver’s declaration. See Exhibit 2019, ¶¶ 103,
`
`106. Dr. Weaver relies upon the annotations in these Exhibits for his opinions that
`
`the 21CR product incorporated limitations of the Challenged Claims. For example,
`
`with respect to Exhibit 2024, Dr. Weaver states:
`
`As can be seen in the annotated brochure, aspects of the 21CR system
`correspond to elements of the challenged patent claims, including the central
`database (see, e.g., '850 claim 12 element “a,” '325 claim 11 element “a”),
`wireless handheld computing device (element “b”), Web server (element
`“c”), Web pages (element “d”), application program interface (element “e”),
`communications control module (element “f”), synchronization of
`applications and data (wherein clause), integration of outside applications
`and hospitality applications via API (wherein clause), and the
`communications control module acting as an interface (wherein clause).
`Each of these elements is present in each challenged claim. Exhibit 2019, ¶
`104; see also id. at ¶ 105.
`Similarly, regarding Exhibits 2050 and 2051, Dr. Weaver’s declaration
`
`states:
`
`The nexus of the 21CR Product and the close alignment of the claims and
`their claim elements and terms can be seen in the Fall 1999 and Spring 2000
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Microsoft Case Studies [Exhibit 2050] and the Computer World Award
`Summary [Exhibit 2051] of the merits of the 21CR Improv System. This is
`demonstrably shown via the alignment of codes for the claim terms, shown
`in the claim box below and then that are aligned in and with each of the
`three highlighted exhibits which follow. Exhibit 2019, ¶ 106; see also id. at
`¶ 107.
`Accordingly, Petitioner reasonably believed that the annotations in Exhibits
`
`2024, 2050 and 2051 were created by Dr. Weaver in forming his opinions
`
`regarding secondary considerations. Because Dr. Weaver is a declarant who has
`
`provided sworn testimony in this proceeding, and because FRE 801(c)(1) defines
`
`hearsay as a statement made a non-declarant in the proceeding, Petitioner did not
`
`object to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 on the ground of hearsay in its Objections.
`
`See Paper No. 19.
`
`However, Petitioner learned at Dr. Weaver’s deposition on February 26,
`
`2016, long after the 5 business day period for objections required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) had passed, that Dr. Weaver did not create the annotations in Exhibits
`
`2024, 2050 and 2051. Specifically, Dr. Weaver testified that he did not create the
`
`annotations in these exhibits himself, and he did not know who created them.
`
`Exhibit 1076 at 207:5-208:18; 230:2-24; 234:5-235:13. Although Patent Owner
`
`contends that Dr. Weaver reviewed the annotations to confirm their accuracy
`
`(CBM2015-00080, Paper No. 30 at 3), Dr. Weaver admitted that he performed no
`
`independent investigation to determine whether the 21CR product practiced the
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims. Exhibit 1076 at 217:22-219:20. Indeed, Dr. Weaver had no
`
`basis for confirming that the accuracy of the annotations, as he admitted that he
`
`had never seen the 21CR product, and did not review source code, user manuals,
`
`technical specifications or any other technical documentation relating to the
`
`product. Exhibit 1076 at 206:7-207:1.
`
`Because the annotations in Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051 are written
`
`statements by an unidentified declarant not providing testimony in this proceeding
`
`and are relied upon by Patent Owner and its expert for the truth of the matters
`
`asserted, they are inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801(c). Furthermore, because
`
`Petitioner reasonably believed that the annotations were created by Patent Owner’s
`
`declarant, Dr. Weaver, and did not learn (and could not reasonably have learned)
`
`that the annotations were created by a non-declarant within the 5 business days
`
`prescribed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner respectfully requests that this
`
`requirement be waived for Petitioner’s objection to Exhibits 2024, 2050 and 2051
`
`as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`C. Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-2049 and 2053 Should Be Excluded As
`Irrelevant Under FRE 401-403
`
`Evidence that lacks “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than
`
`it would be without the evidence” is irrelevant and inadmissible. FRE 401, 402.
`
`FRE 403 further provides that the Board may exclude otherwise relevant evidence
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more”
`
`factors including unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`
`Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 should be excluded as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and 402. Patent Owner has made no showing that any of these
`
`exhibits has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
`
`without the evidence.” Patent Owner’s only response to Petitioner’s relevance
`
`objections for Exhibits 2040-49 and 2053 was that “relevance is identified in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Brief.” Exhibit 1084 at 10-15. However, Patent
`
`Owner’s Corrected Response does not cite or mention these Exhibits. Patent
`
`Owner has provided no response to Petitioner’s relevance objections for Exhibits
`
`2036 and 2037. Id. at 9-10. Thus, Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 are
`
`inadmissible as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Exhibits 2036, 2037, 2040-49 and 2053 are also inadmissible under FRE
`
`403. To the extent any of these Exhibits include relevant information, such
`
`information is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice to Petitioner and/or a
`
`waste of time. FRE 403. Admission of these Exhibits would unduly prejudice
`
`Petitioner and be a waste of time for the Petitioner and the Board, because Patent
`
`Owner has provided no description of how the Exhibits are relevant to any issue in
`
`this proceeding. Thus, these Exhibits are also inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`D. Exhibits 2032-2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055 Should Be
`Excluded As Lacking Authentication Under FRE 901
`
`FRE 901(a) states that “to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
`
`identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must provide evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Exhibits 2032,
`
`2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054-2055 lack authentication, and are therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901(a), because Patent Owner has failed to provide
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims them to be. For example, Patent Owner has not provided testimony of any
`
`witness with knowledge that any of these documents are authentic. See generally
`
`Exhibit 1084. Nor has Patent Owner provided evidence that any of these Exhibits
`
`are self-authenticating under FRE 902. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibit 2032 is a meeting agenda for a meeting
`
`with Pizza Hut. PO Corrected Response at 75. However, Patent Owner provides
`
`no evidence that Exhibit 2032 is an authentic copy of the meeting agenda.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibit 2039 is a presentation provided by an
`
`executive of Papa John’s. Id. at 76. Similarly, Patent Owner contends that
`
`Exhibit 2055 is a presentation Patent Owner provided to Starbucks. Id. at 73.
`
`However, Patent Owner provides no evidence that either of these Exhibits are
`
`authentic copies of either of these presentations, or any other evidence that these
`
`presentations were actually presented.
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that Exhibits 2033, 2035 and 2054 are transcripts of
`
`various panel discussions at the FTSEC. Id. at 77, 79, However, again, Patent
`
`Owner provides no evidence that the Exhibits are authentic.
`
`Because Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence to authenticate
`
`Exhibits 2032, 2033, 2035, 2039 and 2054, these Exhibits should be excluded
`
`under FRE 901(a).
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that the Board preclude Patent
`
`Owner from using the above-listed Exhibits at any hearing or in any paper in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 8, 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
`
`WEST\268081547.1
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
`
`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.zembeck@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Gilbert A. Green
`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’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was served on April 8, 2016, via electronic mail, per
`
`agreement of the parties, to counsel for the following addresses:
`
`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:
`
`
`
`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