`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________
`
`ZYNGA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00171
`U.S. Patent No. 7,734,251
`___________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND OBJECTION TO
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.64, Patent Owner, Personalized Media
`
`Communications LLC (“Patent Owner”), hereby notices its objections to the
`
`January 24, 2014 submission by Petitioner of new evidence in its “Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response,” (the “Reply”). Patent Owner files the
`
`objections to bring the impropriety of the Reply to the attention of the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board, and to preserve Patent Owner’s right to later file a motion to
`
`exclude, strike, or other suitable motion.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Reply because it relies on and attaches the
`
`following documents: (1) James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs
`
`from NPE Disputes, 99 Cornell L. Rev. (forthcoming 2014) (Exhibit 1015); and (2)
`
`Alexander M. Bell, An Autopsy on Submarine Patents, Departments of Economics
`
`and Computer Science, Brown University (April 2013) (Exhibit 1016); and (3)
`
`Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, Executive Office of the President (June
`
`2013) (Exhibit 1017). Patent Owner objects to the Reply’s reference to these
`
`exhibits on at least the following grounds:
`
` The exhibits are irrelevant (FRE 401);
`
` The exhibits are unduly prejudicial and confuse the issues (FRE 403);
`
` The exhibits exceed the scope allowed for reply evidence under
`
`Section I of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, which requires that
`
`reply evidence be responsive to the corresponding opposition and not
`
`
`
`
`
`present new evidence that could have been presented earlier. See 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767; see also 37C.F.R. § 42.23 (requiring that a
`
`reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition); and
`
` The Reply exceeds the permissible scope of a reply paper under 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in
`
`the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.”).
`
`Patent Owner therefore requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`refuse to consider the Reply and the aforementioned exhibits in accordance with
`
`the guidance provided in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. Patent Owner
`
`further files this objection out of an abundance of caution to preserve its right to
`
`file, on or before DUE DATE 4 (March 17, 2014), a motion to exclude, and/or to
`
`seek authorization to file a motion to strike, or to take other appropriate action, as
`
`the facts may warrant.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /Thomas J. Scott, Jr./
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
` Registration No.: 27,836
`Stephen T. Schreiner
` Registration No.: 43,097
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 346-4000
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the:
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND OBJECTION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`filed herewith was served on:
`
`
`David B. Cochran at dcochran@jonesday.com
`and
`Joseph M. Sauer at jmsauer@jonesday.com
`
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(e)(1) and the consent found in Section VI.C of the
`
`Petition (Paper No. 2).
`
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2014
`
`
`
`By:
`
` /Thomas J. Scott, Jr./
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
