`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00099
`Patent 6,871,325 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE IN
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`129442168.1
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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. 6,871,325 (“’325 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
`2041
`
`Objections
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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).
`
`2047
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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
`
`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).
`
`129442168.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`2051
`
`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 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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).
`
`2056
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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 that calls into question the
`
`authenticity of the documents (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).
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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).
`
`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).
`
`129442168.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`2063
`
`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 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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).
`
`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.
`
`129442168.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`2068
`
`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). 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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). 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`prejudice to Petitioner (FRE 401 and 403). This exhibit is also 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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.
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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). 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence in Patent Owner Response
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`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.
`
`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
`
`129442168.1
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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, 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
`
`129442168.1
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2015-00099
`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
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`1
`
`
`
`129442168.1