Dukmen, Sarah
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Wednesday, July 06, 2016 11:37 AM
`Murphy, John; Trials
`Steve (steve@kelberlawgroup.com); Nathan Cristler (ncristler@cristlerip.com); Kiblawi,
`Fadi N. (fkiblawi@sughrue.com); Mandir, William H. (wmandir@sughrue.com); Park,
`Peter S.; Goettle, Daniel; Dukmen, Sarah; MSFT-GT
`RE: IPR2015-1023; IPR2015-1147; IPR2015-1148; IPR2015-1149; IPR2015-1150;
`IPR2015-1151; 2015-1928; 2016-0158
`
`Counsel,
`
`Petitioner’s requests to file the corrected declarations, as described in the email dated Monday, July 4, 2016, are
`authorized. No phone call is necessary.
`
`
`
`Thanks,
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`
`
`From: Murphy, John [mailto:JohnMurphy@bakerlaw.com]  
`Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 9:51 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: Steve (steve@kelberlawgroup.com) <steve@kelberlawgroup.com>; Nathan Cristler (ncristler@cristlerip.com) 
`<ncristler@cristlerip.com>; Kiblawi, Fadi N. (fkiblawi@sughrue.com) <fkiblawi@sughrue.com>; Mandir, William H. 
`(wmandir@sughrue.com) <wmandir@sughrue.com>; Park, Peter S. <pspark@sughrue.com>; Goettle, Daniel 
`<DGoettle@bakerlaw.com>; Dukmen, Sarah <SDukmen@bakerlaw.com>; MSFT‐GT <MSFT‐GT@bakerlaw.com> 
`Subject: IPR2015‐1023; IPR2015‐1147; IPR2015‐1148; IPR2015‐1149; IPR2015‐1150; IPR2015‐1151; 2015‐1928; 2016‐
`0158 
` 
`Re: IPR2015‐1023; IPR2015‐1147; IPR2015‐1148; IPR2015‐1149; IPR2015‐1150; IPR2015‐1151; 2015‐1928; 2016‐0158 
` 
`Dear Judges Busch, Pettigrew, and Shaw, 
` 
`Petitioner requests a teleconference to request permission to file 14 corrected expert declarations adding an 
`inadvertently omitted penalty of perjury warning pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.  The declarations at issue are all by 
`Petitioner’s expert Dr. Horenstein, who at all times, in the 14 declarations and in 3 depositions, understood he was 
`under oath subject to the penalties for perjury.  The circumstances of Petitioner’s request is best explained with 
`reference to two groups of declarations: 
` 
`Group 1: IPRs 2015‐1023 (2 declarations), 2015‐1928 (1 declaration), 2016‐0158 (1 declaration), and the opening 
`declarations for IPRs 2015‐1147,48,49,50, and 51 (5 declarations). 
` 
`Group 2: Reply declarations for IPRs 2015‐1147,48,49,50, and 51 (5 declarations). 
` 
`
`1
`
`MICROSOFT EXHIBIT 1023
`Microsoft v. Global Touch, IPR2015-01151
`
`

`
`With respect to Group 1, Patent Owner never objected to any of these declarations, and never questioned the expert in 
`depositions with regard to the inadvertently omitted warning.  In connection with the 9 Group 1 declarations, Petitioner 
`requests to file 9 corrected declarations that would be identical except that they would add the inadvertently omitted 
`perjury warning. 
` 
`With respect to Group 2, Patent Owner objected to 2 of the 5 declarations (1148 and 1149).  This is how Petitioner 
`became aware of the inadvertent omission.  In response, Petitioner served two corrected declarations as supplemental 
`evidence.  Following that service, Patent Owner deposed Petitioner’s expert and questioned the expert about the 
`original and corrected declarations.   During the deposition, Petitioner’s expert testified that there was an unrelated 
`typographical error in the Group 2 declarations—a transposition of a “520” for a “516.”  Petitioner seeks to file 
`corrected versions of the 5 Group 2 declarations, but does not want to prejudice Patent Owner’s ability to argue the 
`significance of the 520‐516 error, or prejudice Patent Owner’s ability to refer to the uncorrected declarations that 
`Petitioner’s expert was questioned about.  Petitioner thus requests that it be permitted to file corrected versions of the 
`Group 2 declarations that would add (i) the perjury warning and (ii) a new paragraph reiterating the deposition 
`testimony that the “520” is an error (without removing the error itself).  Petitioner believes that this correction would 
`allow the inadvertently omitted perjury warning to be added, and would preserve the original “520” error in the 
`declaration, so that Patent Owner is free to refer to it in its arguments. 
` 
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s requests with respect to both Group 1 and Group 2. Counsel for the parties have met 
`and conferred but have been unable to resolve the dispute.  Counsel for the parties are available at your convenience 
`any time on Thursday, July 7 and Friday, July 8. 
` 
`Best regards, 
`John Murphy 
`Counsel for Petitioner Microsoft 
` 
`John Murphy
`Partner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cira Centre
`2929 Arch Street | 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`T 215.564.1603
`
`johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com
`bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
` 
`
`This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is
`addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
`confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended
`recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying
`or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited.
`If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
`by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
`
`Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content
`of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein
`and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a
`complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities.
`
`Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of
`inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
`destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,
`
`

`
`we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are
`present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result
`of e-mail transmission.
`
`3