`
`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
`
`