UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent No. 6,384,850
`____________
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00091
`Patent No. 6,384,850
`____________
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner Ameranth, Inc. ("Patent Owner")
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`hereby objects to the exhibits and other evidence submitted by Petitioner with its
`
`Reply Brief as indicated below. The grounds for objection are as follows:
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1063
`
`Exhibit 1064
`
`
`
`
`
`Grounds for Objection
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`declaration includes many new arguments and
`theories not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because they could have been presented in a prior
`filing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767;
`see also Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Saint-
`Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Limited,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83, pgs 12 – 14.
`
`Relevance. Because the declaration is not even
`discussed in Petitioner’s Reply Brief and is merely
`incorporated by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. §
`42.6(a)(3), it is not relevant to any issue in this
`proceeding and any probative value of the
`declaration is substantially outweighed by unfair
`prejudice and waste of time. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403;
`see also Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Procter
`& Gamble Company, IPR2013-00510, Paper 9, pgs 8
`- 9; Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions,
`Ltd., IPR2014-00425, Paper 16, at Footnote 1; Cisco
`Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, pgs 7 - 10.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`declaration is not permitted to be submitted with a
`reply, because it could have been presented in a prior
`filing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767;
`see also Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Saint-
`Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Limited,
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1065
`
`Exhibit 1067
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83, pgs 12 – 14.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Selected Portions” of the exhibit.
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Excerpts” of the exhibit.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1068
`
`Exhibit 1069
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1070
`
`Exhibit 1071
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1072
`
`Exhibit 1073
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Excerpts” of the exhibit.
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Excerpts” of the exhibit.
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1074
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Excerpts” of the exhibit.
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1075
`
`Exhibit 1081
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has apparently only provided select portions of the
`exhibit. Therefore, portions of the exhibit not
`provided by Petitioner may contradict or clarify the
`portions relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1082
`
`Exhibit 1083
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Failure to Provide Complete Reference. Petitioner
`has only provided “Excerpts” of the exhibit.
`Therefore, portions of the exhibit not provided by
`Petitioner may contradict or clarify the portions
`relied upon and provided by Petitioner.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1084
`
`Exhibit 1085
`
`Exhibit 1088
`
`Exhibit 1089
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1090
`
`Exhibit 1091
`
`Exhibit 1092
`
`Exhibit 1093
`
`Exhibit 1094
`
`Exhibit 1095
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1096
`
`Exhibit 1097
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1098
`
`Exhibit 1099
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1101
`
`Exhibit 1102
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1103
`
`Exhibit 1104
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Further, this screen shot is from an unknown time
`period and, to whatever extent it may fairly represent
`a particular version of the copied Starbucks products,
`it does not mean that all versions from 2008 forward
`operate that way, or that this represents the total
`functionality of Starbucks copied systems/products.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1105
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Further, this screen shot is from an unknown time
`period and, to whatever extent it may fairly represent
`a particular version of the copied Starbucks products,
`it does not mean that all versions from 2008 forward
`operate that way, or that this represents the total
`functionality of Starbucks copied systems/products.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Further, this screen shot is from an unknown time
`period and, to whatever extent it may fairly represent
`a particular version of the copied Starbucks products,
`it does not mean that all versions from 2008 forward
`operate that way, or that this represents the total
`functionality of Starbucks copied systems/products.
`
`Outside the Scope Permitted with a Reply. The
`exhibit is not permitted to be submitted with a reply,
`because it could have been presented in a prior filing.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-48773, at 48767.
`
`Hearsay. The statements in the exhibit used by
`Petitioner to prove the truth of matters described
`therein are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Authentication. Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`evidence to establish that the exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Petitioner claims it to be. Fed.
`R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Relevance. Because the exhibit is not discussed or
`even cited in the Petitioner’s Reply Brief, it is not
`relevant to any issue in this proceeding and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and waste of time.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`
`-16-
`
`Exhibit 1106
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
`
`
`March 30, 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-
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00091
`
` I
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` certify that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.6, a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing was served on March 30, 2016 by causing said documents to be
`
`delivered via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to counsel for
`
`Patrick N. McKeever
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`Yun L. Lu
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, California 92130
`Phone: 858-720-5732
`Fax: 858-720-5799
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`
`
`Bing Ai
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, California 92130
`Phone: 858-720-5707
`Fax: 858-720-5799
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, California 92130
`Phone: 858-720-5721
`Fax: 858-720-5799
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
` March 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Fabiano/
`
`-18-
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
