throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORP., APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE, INC., and
`STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-000991
`Patent No. 6,871,325
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00006 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 26), Petitioner argues that several of
`
`Ameranth, Inc.’s (“Ameranth” or “Patent Owner”) exhibits should be excluded as
`
`inadmissible hearsay, unauthenticated, inadmissible under the “Best Evidence
`
`Rule” and irrelevant, and that a portion of Ameranth’s expert’s declaration should
`
`be excluded for lacking the requisite expertise in the hospitality industry.
`
`However, contrary to Petitioner’s Motion, the exhibits are highly relevant to
`
`Ameranth’s Response to the Petition and do not constitute inadmissible hearsay,
`
`lack authentication or fail under the Best Evidence Rule, and Ameranth’s expert is
`
`more than qualified to offer the opinions stated in the challenged portion of his
`
`declaration. The challenged exhibits are primarily cited by Ameranth in support of
`
`its “secondary considerations” arguments, much from long ago, and considering
`
`the tight timelines and limited discovery available under the AIA, the Board has
`
`recognized the vital importance of considering such contemporaneous objective
`
`evidence as part of the Graham factors analysis, especially when all the evidence
`
`appears to be what it is claimed to be.
`
`As discussed herein, the exhibits are used for non-hearsay purposes, such as
`
`showing the existence of industry praise and recognition, and also are either non-
`
`hearsay or meet an exception to the rule against hearsay such as the residual
`
`exception of FRE 807(a). Further, Petitioner has waived any objections to
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`Ameranth’s press release exhibits since Petitioner itself has submitted Ameranth’s
`
`press releases as exhibits, and has also used several exhibits itself that are similar
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`to those Ameranth exhibits it objects to now.
`
`With respect to the exhibits challenged by Petitioner on authentication
`
`grounds, many of them have been authenticated by testimonial evidence.
`
`Ameranth also demonstrates below that there is at least a “reasonable probability”
`
`that the exhibits are what Ameranth claims them to be, and thereby enables the
`
`Board to conclude that the documents have been authenticated.
`
`Therefore, the Board should deny the Motion to Exclude in its entirety.
`
`II. AMERANTH’S EXHIBITS ARE NOT HEARSAY.
`
`A. The Exhibits Are Used For Non-Hearsay Purposes.
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2047-48, 2050, 2053, 2059, 2062 and 2077-
`
`78 should be excluded on hearsay grounds. However, contrary to Petitioner’s
`
`cursory analysis, many of the exhibits are not cited for the “truth of the matter
`
`asserted,” but, rather, were cited for other non-hearsay purposes.
`
`If the exhibits are cited for non-hearsay purposes, then they do not fall
`
`within the rule against hearsay. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00073, Petitioner had brought a motion to exclude certain website printout exhibits
`
`and financial industry documents as hearsay. Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00073, Paper 48, pg. 33. Patent Owner argued that the exhibits were
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`presented for the non-hearsay purposes of showing praise and recognition by the
`
`industry and the states of mind of the documents’ authors. Id. The Board agreed
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`and denied the motion to exclude as to those exhibits. Id. at pgs. 33-34.
`
`The exhibits at issue here, similar to the Medtronic case discussed above, are
`
`primarily used by Ameranth as evidence of “secondary considerations”, such as the
`
`existence of industry praise and recognition, commercial success, copying and the
`
`state of mind of the declarants or authors. For example, Exhibit 2062, which is a 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.132 declaration of Keith McNally and accompanying exhibits including
`
`press releases, is cited to show the existence of industry praise. (Paper 17, at pg. 71
`
`citing to Exh. 2062 and noting “Microsoft founder Bill Gates personally nominated
`
`Ameranth with the praise that ‘Ameranth is one of the leading pioneers of the
`
`information age for the betterment of mankind.’”) It is also cited to show the
`
`existence of a nexus with the praise/awards/licensing and other “secondary factors”
`
`(Paper 17, pgs. 58-59), commercial success (Paper 17, pg. 68) industry praise
`
`(Paper 17, pgs. 71, 72) copying (Paper 17, pg. 77) and that companies such as
`
`Micros sought to license Ameranth’s technology (Paper 17, pg. 53).
`
`
`
`Similarly, Exhibit 2053 (email messages with Microsoft personnel) and
`
`Exhibit 2059 (Ameranth presentation to Starbucks) are cited by Ameranth to show
`
`copying. (Paper 17, pg. 74.) Exhibits 2077-2078 (annotated brochures) and
`
`Exhibit 2047 (21 CR brochure with annotations) are used to show a nexus between
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`the patent claims and the awards, industry praise, and commercial success of
`
`Ameranth’s 21CR family of products. (Paper 17, pgs. 59-61.) Exhibit 2050
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`(Microsoft RAD Awards document) is cited to show the existence of industry
`
`acclaim and numerous awards (Paper 17, pg. 70) and Exhibit 2048 (press releases)
`
`is also used to show things such as industry praise and recognition (see e.g. Paper
`
`17 at pg. 65).
`
`
`
`B. Starbucks Has Waived Its Objections To The Press Release Exhibits.
`
`Although Petitioner moves to exclude Ameranth’s press release exhibits
`
`(Exhibits 2062 and 2048), Petitioner itself submitted Ameranth’s press releases
`
`with its petition as exhibits (Petitioner Exhibits 1040 and 1041). Petitioner also
`
`used an Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant Overview brochure (Exhibit 1087) and
`
`HostAlert brochure as exhibits. Thus, any objections Petitioner has to the same
`
`categories of documents used by Ameranth, such as press releases, should be
`
`deemed waived since Petitioner has used essentially the same documents itself. 2
`
`
`2 It is also worth noting that Petitioner has submitted numerous exhibits in support
`
`of its Petition which are similar in nature to many of the Ameranth exhibits
`
`Petitioner challenges in its Motion to Exclude. For example, Petitioner submitted
`
`books or excerpts from books (Exhibits 1019-1023, 1032-1036, 1038), technical
`
`manuals or excerpts from technical manuals (Exhibits 1024-1031) and articles
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`C. The Exhibits Are Non-Hearsay Or Fall Within A Hearsay Exception.
`
`In addition to the exhibits being used for non-hearsay purposes, as discussed
`
`above, several exhibits are non-hearsay. Exhibit 2053, which includes statements
`
`originating from a Starbucks representative (albeit via a Microsoft representative),
`
`is a non-hearsay opposing party’s statement. FRE 801(d)(2). The annotations on
`
`Exhibits 2047 and 2077-78 complained of by Petitioner are nothing more than
`
`attorney argument. Indeed, Petitioner has done the exact same thing with one of
`
`its exhibits in its Petition. (See Paper 2, pgs. 54 and 76, with annotations added to
`
`figures of Petitioner’s exhibits.) Amaranth has made abundantly clear that the red
`
`annotations are not part of the original documents. Ameranth’s Exhibit List refers
`
`to the documents as “both original and annotated” (Exhibit 2047) and “annotated”
`
`(Exhibits 2077-78), and Ameranth’s brief repeatedly describes them as “annotated”
`
`(e.g. Paper 17, pgs. 59, 60). The annotations are clearly attorney argument and are
`
`no more subject to exclusion on hearsay grounds than Ameranth’s brief itself.
`
`Exhibits 2047-48, 2050, 2053, 2059, 2062 and 2077-78 also fall within the
`
`“residual exception” of FRE 807(a). Under FRE 807(a), a hearsay statement is not
`
`excluded by the rule against hearsay if: (1) the statement has equivalent
`
`
`(Exhibits 1008, 1037, 1051).
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any
`
`other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4)
`
`admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
`
`Here, the Petitioner has made no showing that any of the exhibits are not
`
`trustworthy. The exhibits include Ameranth press releases (some of which were
`
`included with Mr. McNally’s 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declaration),3 emails with
`
`Microsoft personnel, an Ameranth presentation to Starbucks, the Ameranth 21 CR
`
`brochures and the Microsoft RAD Awards document. These documents are not
`
`subject to any reasonable challenge for untrustworthiness.
`
`As discussed above, the exhibits are primarily offered as evidence of
`
`material facts concerning “secondary considerations”, such as the existence of
`
`industry praise and recognition and copying and/or the state of mind of the authors
`
`or declarants concerning the same. These exhibits are probative on the points for
`
`which they are offered, and Petitioner has made no showing that there is other
`
`evidence that would be more probative that Ameranth can obtain through
`
`reasonable efforts.
`
`Admitting the exhibits will best serve the purposes of Federal Rules of
`
`
`3 The Ameranth press releases would also be business records under FRE 803(6).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`Evidence and the interests of justice in that the evidence is highly relevant to
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Ameranth’s response to the Petition and, as such, it should be considered by the
`
`Board. Therefore, the exhibits meet the “residual exception” of FRE 807(a) and
`
`they should not be excluded.
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s argument that “Dr. Weaver is not allowed to transmit
`
`hearsay to the Board” fails for several reasons. First, as discussed above, the
`
`exhibits are either used for a non-hearsay purpose, are non-hearsay or meet an
`
`exception to the hearsay rule. Second, Dr. Weaver did not merely “transmit” any of
`
`the exhibits to the Board, but rather referred to them when relevant to his opinions.
`
`Third, although the cases cited by Petitioner hold that experts may not simply
`
`transmit hearsay to the “jury”, there is no jury in this proceeding and the cases also
`
`confirm FRE 703 which states in relevant part that the facts and data relied upon
`
`by an expert “need not be admissible” if experts in the particular field would
`
`reasonably rely on them. FRE 703; see also U.S. v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d
`
`Cir. 2008); Triboro Quilt Mfg. Corp. v. Luve LLC, 2014 WL 1508606, at *7.
`
`III. THE “BEST EVIDENCE RULE” DOES NOT APPLY.
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2053 and 2059 “are further inadmissible
`
`because they fail to satisfy the Best Evidence Rule.” (Paper 26, pg. 5.)
`
`Petitioner’s apparent justification for the “Best Evidence Rule” based challenge is
`
`that it claims Exhibit 2053 “appears to be a doctored copy of the original” and
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`states Exhibit 2059 “appears to be incomplete.” (Paper 26, pg. 6.) Similarly,
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2047, 2077 and 2078 “fail to satisfy” the Best
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Evidence Rule because they have mark ups “which appear to have been later added
`
`onto the underlying documents.” (Paper 26, pg. 8.)
`
`However, Petitioner fails to explain why any of its superficial arguments to
`
`Ameranth’s exhibits satisfy Petitioner’s burden for challenging the documents
`
`under the Best Evidence Rule. The purpose of the best evidence rule is to prevent
`
`inaccuracy and fraud when attempting to prove the contents of a writing. FRE
`
`1001, Adv. Comm. Notes; United States v. Ross (11th Cir. 1994) 33 F3d 1507,
`
`1513. A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original document unless
`
`a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or under the
`
`circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. FRE
`
`1003; Segrets, Inc. v. Gillman Knitware Co., Inc. (D MA 1998) 42 F. Supp. 2d 58,
`
`79-80 (partially vacated on other grounds).
`
`The burden of challenging admissibility of a duplicate or copy rests with the
`
`party against whom it is offered. United States v. Georgalis (5th Cir. 1980) 631 F2d
`
`1199, 1205. The Petitioner must demonstrate that there is “a genuine issue as to
`
`the authenticity of the original” – i.e., there must be a genuine question about the
`
`authenticity of the original from which the duplicate was made. See FRE 901,
`
`1003; Keogh v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1983) 713 F2d 496,
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`500. Any challenge to the authenticity of the original must be based on substance,
`
`not mere speculation. See United States v. Chang An-Lo (2nd Cir. 1988) 851 F2d
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`547 at 557.
`
`Here, as to Exhibits 2053 and 2059, Petitioner’s questioning of the
`
`documents is nothing more than mere speculation. As discussed below, Ameranth
`
`has provided evidence sufficient to support a finding that the documents in
`
`question are what Ameranth claims, which is enough to meet Ameranth’s burden,
`
`especially in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary. See United
`
`States v. Workinger (9th Cir. 1996) 90 F3d 1409, 1415.
`
`And Petitioner fails to even explain why annotations on Exhibits 2047, 2077
`
`and 2078 “fail to satisfy” the Best Evidence Rule. As discussed above, the
`
`annotations are merely attorney argument and are no more subject to a “Best
`
`Evidence Rule” challenge than Ameranth’s brief itself. For this same reason (the
`
`annotations are attorney argument), the Petitioner’s cursory argument that Exhibits
`
`2047, 2077 and 2078 should be excluded under FRE 702 fails.
`
`IV. AMERANTH’S EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN AUTHENTICATED.
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 2047-48, 2050, 2053, 2059, 2062 and 2077-
`
`78 are “inadmissible” as unauthenticated. Petitioner’s argument is that Ameranth
`
`has not provided testimonial evidence authenticating the exhibits and that they are
`
`not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`As an initial matter and as discussed above, Petitioner has waived its
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`objections to Ameranth’s press release exhibits, since Petitioner itself submitted
`
`Ameranth’s press releases with its Petition as exhibits (Petitioner Exhibits 1040
`
`and 1041).
`
`Further, some of the documents have been authenticated via testimonial
`
`evidence. Specifically, Exhibit 2062 not only includes the various press release
`
`documents challenged by Petitioner, but it also includes the Mr. McNally 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.132 declaration authenticating the documents, which are exhibits to the
`
`declaration. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2062 at pgs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15.)
`
`But authenticating testimony is not the only means of establishing the
`
`authenticity of documents. Documents may be authenticated by review of their
`
`contents if they appear to be sufficiently genuine. Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme,
`
`632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d
`
`764 at 778 n. 24). The standard for authentication, and hence admissibility,
`
`requires a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that the evidence is what
`
`the proponent claims. The proponent need not rule out “all possibilities
`
`inconsistent with authenticity . . .” Rather, the proponent must show that the
`
`“evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable person to believe the evidence is what
`
`it purports to be.” Associación De Periodistas De Puerto Rico v. Mueller, 680 F.3d
`
`70, 79-80 (1st Cir. 2012) (internal quotes omitted); Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`F.3d 1397, 1407 (2nd Cir. 1996); America v. Mills, 654 F.Supp.2d 28, 34 (D.D.C.
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`2009) (court “need not find that the evidence is necessarily what the proponent
`
`claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence so that the jury ultimately might
`
`do so”). Documents may be authenticated by review of their contents if they
`
`appear to be sufficiently genuine. FRE 901(b)(4); Las Vegas Sands, LLC, supra,
`
`632 F.3d at 533 (citing Orr, supra, 285 F.3d at 778 n. 24); see also Thomas v.
`
`Quintana, No. CV 10-2671-JGB CWX, 2014 WL 5419418, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
`
`22, 2014) (“The characteristics of the records themselves in terms of appearance,
`
`contents, and substance allow the Court to conclude that the documents have been
`
`authenticated by their distinctive characteristics and that they are what they appear
`
`to be.”) (citing FRE 901(b)(4); Las Vegas Sands, LLC, supra, 632 F.3d at 533;
`
`Abdullah v. CDC, No. 06–2378, 2010 WL4813572, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19,
`
`2010); Sanchez v. Penner, No. 07–0542, 2009 WL 3088331, at *5 (E.D. Cal.
`
`Sept.22, 2009); Johnson v. Roche, No. 06–1676, 2009 WL 720891, at *6 (E.D.
`
`Cal. Mar.13, 2009); Burch v. Regents of the University of California, 433
`
`F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
`
`Here, there is at least a “reasonable probability” that the exhibits are what
`
`Ameranth claims. Although Petitioner complains of the annotations, Exhibit 2047
`
`is an Ameranth 21CR product brochure. The document is titled “Ameranth 21st
`
`Century Restaurant, includes diagrams and a description of the Ameranth 21st
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`Century Restaurant system. Exhibits 2077 and 2078 are an Ameranth/Improv
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Comedy Clubs case study and a Computerworld Award summary, respectively.
`
`The documents are dated and appear on their face consistent with how Ameranth
`
`describes them. Petitioner has not pointed to anything about the exhibits that makes
`
`it question their authenticity, and there is nothing on the face of the documents that
`
`suggests they are not authentic. As already discussed, Ameranth has made
`
`abundantly clear that the annotations are not part of the original documents.
`
`In addition to Petitioner having waived its objections to the press releases in
`
`Exhibits 2048 and 2062 and in addition to many of the documents having been
`
`authenticated via testimonial evidence, the press release exhibits can also be
`
`authenticated by their characteristics in terms of appearance, contents, and
`
`substance. The documents clearly appear to be press releases, many are labeled
`
`“Ameranth News”, and the documents discuss various topics such as third parties
`
`entering into licenses or strategic partnerships with Ameranth.
`
`Similarly, Exhibit 2050 is a document titled “8th Annual Microsoft RAD
`
`Awards”, is dated, discusses the RAD Award and profiles the RAD Award winners
`
`and therefore appears to be “Microsoft RAD Award” as described by Ameranth.
`
`Exhibit 2053 contains email messages between Keith McNally and Steven Larson
`
`at an email address of stevelar@microsoft.com, with other individuals copied on
`
`some of the emails, and dated in late 2006 and early 2007. And Exhibit 2059 is
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`titled “Ameranth, Inc. 21st Century Communications Proposal/vision for
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`Starbucks” and includes a copyright notice dated 2006. The document contains
`
`PowerPoint type slides with diagrams and illustrations pertaining to a system for
`
`Starbucks. Thus, the characteristics of the documents themselves in terms of
`
`appearance, contents, and substance allow the Board to conclude that the
`
`documents have been authenticated by their distinctive characteristics and that they
`
`are what they appear to be. See Thomas, No. CV 10-2671-JGB CWX, 2014 WL
`
`5419418, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2014) (citing FRE 901(b)(4).
`
`Accordingly, Ameranth’s exhibits meet the test that there is a “reasonable
`
`probability” that the exhibits are what Ameranth claims. Indeed, even if Petitioner
`
`were able to provide evidence that called into question the authenticity of the
`
`documents, which it has not, the fact conflicting inferences can be drawn regarding
`
`authenticity affects weight, not admissibility. Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. NLRB,
`
`586 F.2d 1300, 1302 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1409
`
`(3rd Cir. 1994); Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Institute of London Underwriters,
`
`267 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31,
`
`37-38 (2nd Cir. 2004).
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER’S RELEVANCY ARGUMENT IS MISTAKEN.
`
`Petitioner claims in its Motion to Exclude that Ameranth does not cite to
`
`several exhibits in its Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition and that, therefore,
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`Ameranth has not established the relevancy of the exhibits. (Paper 26, pg. 13.)
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`However, Petitioner is mistaken as to Exhibits 2012, 2025 and 2081, since
`
`Ameranth does cite to those exhibits in Patent Owner’s Response at pages 12, 65
`
`and 77, respectively. (Paper 17, pgs. 12, 65, 77.) Thus, Ameranth does discuss and
`
`establish the relevancy of these exhibits, and they should not be excluded.
`
`VI. DR. WEAVER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that “Dr. Weaver’s Curriculum Vitae shows that he lacks
`
`the necessary knowledge and experience in the hospitality and tourism field” and
`
`that therefore his testimony on “hospitality applications” is inadmissible. (Paper
`
`26, pg. 14.) First, Petitioner’s expert Dr. Abdelsalam Helal, who has no more
`
`experience or expertise in the hospitality industry than Dr. Weaver (see Exhibit
`
`1003, Appendix A, Curriculum Vitae), submitted a declaration supporting the
`
`Petition and opines on matters concerning the “hospitality industry”, including
`
`opining on the scope of the hospitality industry. (See e.g. Exhibit 1003, ¶¶ 75-77
`
`and 155.) Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of Dr. Weaver’s opinions
`
`concerning “hospitality.”
`
`Second, Dr. Weaver’s opinions at the section of his declaration challenged
`
`by Petitioner (Exhibit 2041, ¶¶ 33-38) discuss the intrinsic evidence and that the
`
`Board viewed the definition of “hospitality industry” too broadly due to the fact
`
`that it did not have access to the complete Dittmer reference at the time. Dr.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`Weaver is sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to express such opinions,
`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`and they should not be excluded.
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION.
`
`Administrative agencies, such as the Board, are trusted with discretion with
`
`respect to evidentiary issues because the protections necessary in a jury trial in
`
`district court are not needed before the Board. See, e.g., Kewley v. HHS, 153 F.3d
`
`1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“In addition, we have held that procedural matters
`
`such as the admissibility of evidence, including hearsay, fall within the sound
`
`discretion of the Board and its AJs.”); SK Innovation Co. Ltd. V. Celgard, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00679, Paper 58, pg. 50 (“because the Board is not a lay jury,” … “the
`
`danger of prejudice in this proceeding is considerably lower than in a conventional
`
`district court trial”). If the Board should disagree with the applicability of the
`
`authorities discussed above with respect to any of the challenged exhibits, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion and deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`because the evidence is highly relevant and the protections needed in a jury trial
`
`are not present in this proceeding.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION.
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00099
`
`
`
`
`April 20, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`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 April 20, 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
`
`
`Robert C. Williams
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
` robert.williams@dlapiper.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
`
`
`
`James M. Heintz
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
` jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
` April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ethan M. Watts/
`
`
`
`-17-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket