UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE IN
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE IN
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Starbucks Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) hereby timely objects to the evidence submitted by Patent Owner
`
`with the Patent Owner’s Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.220 (Paper 14) filed
`
`January 6, 2016 in response to Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 9) of September
`
`14, 2015 that instituted the trial for Covered Business Method Review of United
`
`States Patent No. 6,384,850 (“’850 patent”). The objections are made based on
`
`rules under 37 C.F.R. Part 42 on CBM proceedings and relevant portions of
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) that are applicable to CBM proceedings under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`Exhibit
`2037
`
`Objections
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay, and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply
`
`(FRE 801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it relates to patents not
`
`subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed
`
`by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is
`
`also improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2038
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it relates to patents not subject to these petitions) and any
`
`relevance would also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner
`
`(FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also improper because it is not
`
`cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2041
`
`By providing a declaration, Patent Owner must make Mr. Weaver
`
`available for deposition pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit if a deposition is requested and Patent
`
`Owner does not make Mr. Weaver available for deposition.
`
`2044
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it relates to patents not subject to these petitions) and any
`
`relevance would also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner
`
`(FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2045
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). Patent Owner is obligated
`
`to make Mr. Harker available for deposition if requested, and
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit if they Petitioner requests such a
`
`deposition and Patent Owner does not make Mr. Harker available.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the use of a rough deposition transcript.
`
`Petitioner also objects to this exhibit as containing improper lay
`
`opinion testimony (FRE 701) and improper expert testimony (FRE
`
`702).
`
`2046
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it relates to patents not subject to these petitions) and any
`
`relevance would also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner
`
`(FRE 401 and 403).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`2047
`
`Objections
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication, and contains mark-ups which calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the document (FRE 901). The document lacks
`
`relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents and other
`
`issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`Given the mark-ups on this document, there is a genuine dispute about
`
`the copy provided precluding admission into evidence (FRE 1002 and
`
`1003). Petitioner also objects to this exhibit as containing improper
`
`expert testimony (FRE 702).
`
`2048
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it relates to patents not subject these petitions) and any
`
`relevance would also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner
`
`(FRE 401 and 403). Petitioner also objects to this exhibit because it
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`contains multiple, unrelated exhibits, all of which are objectionable on
`
`hearsay, hearsay within hearsay, authenticity, and relevance grounds.
`
`2049
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2050
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2051
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403). The exhibit is also an incomplete copy of the original exhibit,
`
`violating FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`2052
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403).
`
`2053
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). The exhibit appears to be a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`doctored copy of the original, as header and/or footer information was
`
`removed (FRE 1002 and 1003). Petitioner also objects to this exhibit
`
`because it contains multiple, unrelated exhibits, all of which are
`
`objectionable on hearsay, hearsay within hearsay, authenticity, and
`
`relevance grounds.
`
`2054
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2055
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`2056
`
`Objections
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2057
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2058
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication and contains highlighting that calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the documents (FRE 901). The document lacks
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents and other
`
`issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`Given the highlighting on this document, there is a genuine dispute
`
`about the copy provided precluding admission into evidence (FRE
`
`1002 and 1003).
`
`2059
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The undated exhibit
`
`lacks authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at
`
`least because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to
`
`these petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2060
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`2062
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The document lacks
`
`relevance (at least because it relates to patents and other issues not
`
`subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed
`
`by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). By providing this
`
`declaration, Patent Owner must make Mr. McNally available for
`
`deposition pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.51(b)(1)(ii). Petitioner objects to
`
`this exhibit if a deposition is requested and Patent Owner does not
`
`make Mr. McNally available for deposition. Petitioner also objects to
`
`this exhibit because it contains multiple, unrelated exhibits, all of
`
`which are objectionable on hearsay, hearsay within hearsay,
`
`authenticity, and relevance grounds, and many of which contain
`
`handwriting further calling into question their authenticity and
`
`highlighting their dubious nature. Petitioner also objects to this exhibit
`
`as containing improper lay opinion (FRE 701) and improper expert
`
`testimony (FRE 702).
`
`2063
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403). This exhibit is also improper because it is not cited in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response.
`
`2064
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2065
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403).
`
`2066
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403).
`
`2067
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2068
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2069
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2070
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403). This exhibit is also improper because it is not cited in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response.
`
`2071
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2072
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2073
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2074
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2075
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2076
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2077
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication, and contains mark-ups which calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the document (FRE 901). The document lacks
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents and other
`
`issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`Given the mark-ups on this document, there is a genuine dispute about
`
`the copy provided precluding admission into evidence (FRE 1002 and
`
`1003). Petitioner also objects to this exhibit as containing improper
`
`expert testimony (FRE 702). This exhibit is also improper because it is
`
`not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2078
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication, and contains mark-ups which calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the document (FRE 901). The document lacks
`
`relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents and other
`
`issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`Given the mark-ups on this document, there is a genuine dispute about
`
`the copy provided precluding admission into evidence (FRE 1002 and
`
`1003). Petitioner also objects to this exhibit as containing improper
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`expert testimony (FRE 702). This exhibit is also improper because it is
`
`not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2079
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and no exceptions to the hearsay rules apply (FRE
`
`801 and 802). The exhibit lacks authentication (FRE 901). The
`
`document lacks relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents
`
`and other issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would
`
`also be outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and
`
`403).
`
`2080
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication (FRE 901). The document lacks relevance (at least
`
`because it is unrelated to the patents and other issues subject to these
`
`petitions) and any relevance would also be outweighed by unfair
`
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also
`
`improper because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`2081
`
`Petitioner objects to this exhibit at least for the following reasons: The
`
`document is hearsay and hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`the hearsay rules apply (FRE 801, 802, and 805). The exhibit lacks
`
`authentication, and contains highlighting which calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the document (FRE 901). The document lacks
`
`relevance (at least because it is unrelated to the patents and other
`
`issues subject to these petitions) and any relevance would also be
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403).
`
`Given the highlighting on this document, there is a genuine dispute
`
`about the copy provided precluding admission into evidence (FRE
`
`1002 and 1003).
`
`
`
`Dated: January 13, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Bing Ai/
`Lead Counsel
`Bing Ai, Reg. No. 43,312
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein (Pro Hac Vice)
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Yun L. Lu, Reg. No. 72,766
`Attorneys for
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00091
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE IN
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c) was served in its
`
`entirety this 13th day of January 2016 by electronic mail as agreed upon by the
`
`parties on the Patent Owner via its attorneys of record:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`John W. Osborne
`USPTO Reg. No. 36,231
`OSBORNE LAW LLC
`33 Habitat Lane
`Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
`Email: josborne@osborneipl.com
`
`Michael D. Fabiano
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,675
`Fabiano Law Firm, P.C.
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Email: mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 13, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Bing Ai/
`Lead Counsel
`Bing Ai, Reg. No. 43,312
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein (Pro Hac Vice)
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Yun L. Lu, Reg. No. 72,766
`Attorneys for
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION
`
`1
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
