By: Daniel W. McDonald
`
`Robert A. Kalinsky
`
`Thomas J. Leach
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`P.O. Box 2903
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-0903
`Telephone: (612) 332-5300
`Email: stephensonipr@merchantgould.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GAME SHOW NETWORK, LLC AND WORLDWINNER.COM
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`JOHN H. STEPHENSON
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`
`Patent 6,174,237
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY GAME SHOW NETWORK, LLC AND WORLDWINNER.COM
`WITH RESPECT TO U.S. PATENT NO. 6,174,237
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert A. Kalinsky
`
`Thomas J. Leach
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`P.O. Box 2903
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-0903
`Telephone: (612) 332-5300
`Email: stephensonipr@merchantgould.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GAME SHOW NETWORK, LLC AND WORLDWINNER.COM
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`JOHN H. STEPHENSON
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`
`Patent 6,174,237
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY GAME SHOW NETWORK, LLC AND WORLDWINNER.COM
`WITH RESPECT TO U.S. PATENT NO. 6,174,237
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00289
`Patent No. 6,174,237
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner John H. Stephenson
`
`(“Stephenson”) serves the following objections to evidence served with Petitioners
`
`Game Show Network, LLC and Worldwinner.com (“Petitioner’s”) Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (the “Reply”):
`
`Exhibit 1011 (Johnson, David – “Molej,” “A Review of Golden Fairway.”
`Molej.com website printout, Nov. 13, 2009)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1011 as irrelevant under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) 402, and hearsay under FRE 802 and lacking foundation under
`
`FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1011 purports to be “A Review of Golden Fairway” from
`
`November 13, 2009, but does not specify exactly which game or versions of the
`
`game was being reviewed. Moreover, the review provides no real detail as to what
`
`features the game included. Furthermore, Petitioner provides no foundation or
`
`context within its Reply, because it never cites to Exhibit 1011.
`
`Exhibit 1012 (Complaint for Patent Infringement in John Stephenson v. MVP
`Network Online Games, Inc., et al,. Case No. 09-cv-6980TCKFHM)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1012 as irrelevant under FRE 402 and as
`
`hearsay under FRE 802. Alternatively, if Exhibit 1012 is found to have any
`
`relevance, Stephenson objects to it under FRE 403 as its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by any prejudice and/or confusion. Exhibit 1012 is
`
`irrelevant to the issues in the IPR. Petitioners attempt to rely on Exhibit 1012 to
`
`support their claim construction positions. However, Exhibit 1012 is merely a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`complaint containing allegations that a party will try to prove in litigation and is
`
`not relevant to claim construction because as shown above there is no relevant
`
`detail about the accused products. Nothing contained therein is relevant to claim
`
`construction or any other matter in the IPR.
`
`Exhibit 1013 (Brief in Support of Motion for Default Judgment in John
`Stephenson v. MVP Network Online Games, Inc., et al,. Case No.
`09-cv-6980TCK-FHM)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1013 as irrelevant under FRE 402.
`
`Alternatively, if Exhibit 1013 is found to have any relevance, Stephenson objects
`
`to it under FRE 403 as its probative value is substantially outweighed by any
`
`prejudice and/or confusion. Exhibit 1013 is irrelevant to the issues in the IPR.
`
`Specifically, Petitioners rely on Exhibit 1013 to support their claim construction
`
`positions. However, Exhibit 1013 is merely a brief in support of default judgment.
`
`It contains statements concerning the defendant’s lack of response and quotations
`
`from the complaint, containing allegations that a party will try to prove in
`
`litigation. Nothing contained therein is relevant to claim construction or any other
`
`matter in the IPR.
`
`Exhibit 1014 (Order on Default Judgment in John Stephenson v. MVP Network
`Online Games, Inc., et al,. Case No. 09-cv-6980TCK-FHM)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1014 as irrelevant under FRE 402.
`
`Alternatively, if Exhibit 1014 is found to have any relevance, Stephenson objects
`
`to it under FRE 403 as its probative value is substantially outweighed by any
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`prejudice and/or confusion. Exhibit 1014 is irrelevant to the issues in the IPR.
`
`Petitioners attempt to rely on Exhibit 1014 to support their claim construction
`
`positions. However, Exhibit 1014 is merely a court order granting default judgment
`
`based on the defendant’s failure to answer a complaint. It is not probative of claim
`
`scope.
`
`Exhibit 1015 (Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion to Terminate, or to Alternatively
`Stay, the Ex Parte Reexamination of the ‘237 Patent)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1015 as irrelevant under FRE 402. Exhibit
`
`1015 is Stephenson’s argument against staying its ex parte reexamination
`
`proceeding. Stephenson’s statements made in relation to the reexamination are not
`
`an admission, as claimed by Petitioner, and are not relevant to the Board’s claim
`
`construction. Stephenson sought reexamination as an alternative to the Board’s
`
`preliminary claim construction in this proceeding. Therefore, any statements by
`
`Stephenson regarding this alternative argument are irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit 1016 (Definition of “against the clock” from Collins English Dictionary
`website printout)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1016 as irrelevant under FRE 402, hearsay
`
`under FRE 408, and lacking foundation under FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1016
`
`purports to be a definition of the phrase “against the clock.” There is no indication
`
`when this document was published and whether it is relevant to an application filed
`
`in 1999. Petitioner also provides no basis for accepting this out-of-court statement
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`as evidence. In addition, the term “against the clock” is irrelevant because it is not
`
`part of any claim or the ’237 patent’s specification. Furthermore, Petitioner
`
`provides no foundation or context within its Reply, because it never cites or uses
`
`Exhibit 1016.
`
`Exhibit 1017 (Definition of “race against the clock” from Cambridge Idioms
`Dictionary, 2nd Ed., retrieved from www.thefreedictionary.com
`Website)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1017 as irrelevant under FRE 402, hearsay
`
`under FRE 408, and lacking foundation under FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1017
`
`purports to be a definition of the phrase “against the clock.” There is no indication
`
`when this document was published and whether it is relevant to an application filed
`
`in 1999. Petitioner also provides no basis for accepting this out-of-court statement
`
`as evidence. In addition, the term “against the clock” is irrelevant because it is not
`
`part of any claim or the ’237 patent’s specification. Furthermore, Petitioner
`
`provides no foundation or context within its Reply, because it never cites or uses
`
`Exhibit 1017.
`
`Exhibit 1018 (Schneider, Meg Elaine. “Poker Games Against the House. Let it
`Ride.” Net Places website printout)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1018 as irrelevant under FRE 402, hearsay
`
`under FRE 408, and lacking foundation under FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1018
`
`purports to explain the table-game “Let it Ride.” Petitioner provides no basis for
`
`accepting this out-of-court statement as evidence. In addition, information
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`regarding the game “Let it Ride” is irrelevant because “Let it Ride” is not part of
`
`any claim of the ‘237 patent, nor is it in the ’237 patent’s specification. Moreover,
`
`there is no indication when this document was published and whether it is relevant
`
`to an application filed in 1999.
`
`Exhibit 1019 (Vorhaus, John. Poker Night. Winning at Home, at the Casino, and
`Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1019 as irrelevant under FRE 402, hearsay
`
`under FRE 408, and lacking foundation under FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1019
`
`purports to be the book Poker Night by John Vorhaus. Exhibit 1019 is irrelevant as
`
`it was published five years after Patent Owner filed his patent application on his
`
`invention. Moreover, Petitioner provides no basis for accepting this out-of-court
`
`statement as evidence. In addition, Petitioner uses Exhibit 1019 solely for a quote
`
`regarding the games blackjack, craps, baccarat, slots, video poker, keno, big wheel,
`
`and flip-it and whether, in those games, the house acts as an opponent. Reply at 11-
`
`12. Exhibit 1019 is irrelevant because craps, baccarat, slots, video poker, keno, big
`
`wheel, and flip-it do not appear in any claim or the specification of the ‘237 patent.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner apparently concedes that, in blackjack, the house acts as an
`
`opponent. Reply at 12.
`
`Exhibit 1020 (Deposition Transcript of Stacy Friedman)
`
`Stephenson objects to the below citations from the deposition of Stacy
`
`Friedman, identified in Petitioner’s Reply, on the grounds that they citations are
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`incomplete under FRE 106 and/or mischaracterize the substance of Mr. Friedman’s
`
`testimony or opinions.
`
`Page(s) in Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Citation(s) to Friedman Deposition
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`
`
`75:9-76:3
`77:23-78:3
`78:5-9
`78:15-18
`78:23-79:1
`79:7-16
`79:22-80:2
`69:6-16
`69:17-20
`69:21-70:15
`72:10-73:4
`74:16-75:1
`75:2-7
`57:16-58:6
`58:8-60:16
`131:14-132:2
`124:2-6
`124:8-19
`124:21-125:5
`126:13-19
`127:4-7
`88:14-23
`91:2-13
`102:8-9
`109:23-110:11
`104:17-105:4
`25:16-17
`28:21-22
`35:6-7
`
`6
`
`
`
`39:12-18
`40:6-9
`40:11-17
`41:10-12
`41:13-22
`159:9-161:21
`162:24-163:7
`163:9-24
`164:8-167:25
`168:1-3
`171:14-21
`172:3-18
`
`13
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1021 (Declaration of David Johnson in Support of Reply to Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,174,237)
`
`Stephenson objects to Exhibit 1021 as irrelevant under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) 402, as hearsay under FRE 802 and lacking foundation under
`
`FRE 402 or 703. Exhibit 1021 is a declaration of David Johnson regarding the
`
`game “Golden Fairway.” “Golden Fairway” is irrelevant to the claim construction
`
`of the ‘237 patent. Furthermore, when discussing the game’s features, Mr. Johnson
`
`does not specify which versions of game he played. Nor did he claim to have
`
`personal knowledge of all the modes or versions of the game.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: April 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Daniel W. McDonald/
`Daniel W. McDonald, Reg. No. 32,044
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Stephenson
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY GAME SHOW
`NETWORK, LLC AND WORLDWINNER.COM WITH RESPECT TO U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,174,237 were served on April 28, 2014 by filing the document(s)
`through the Patent Review Processing System and delivering a copy via electronic
`mail at BoxGSN@knobbe.com. Petitioners have agreed to accept service
`electronically.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`P.O. Box 2903
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-0903
`(612) 332-5300
`
` / Daniel W. McDonald /
`Name: Daniel W. McDonald
`Reg. No.: 32,044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
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
