`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00099
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`
`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")
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`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
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
` 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-