Filed on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`U.S. Patent No. 9,083,850
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`U.S. Patent No. 9,083,850
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`Patent Owner Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) hereby files the
`
`following objections to evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(b)(1) to the admissibility of the following evidence submitted by
`
`Global Tel*Link Corporation (“Petitioner”) in support of its Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`These objections are made within 10 business days from the January 9, 2017
`
`filing of Institution Decision (Paper 11). Securus objects to and intends to seek the
`
`denial of the admission and consideration of the following documents:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1008
`“Remote Controlled DSP Based Image Capturing and Processing
`System Featuring Two-Axis Motion,” by Gotsopoulos et al.
`(“Gotsopoulos”)
`
`1009
`
`American Heritage Dictionary
`
`Patent Owner’s specific objections are provided below.
`
`Exhibit 1008 – Gotsopoulos
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulous under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) because it
`
`does not appear to be admissible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. For
`
`example, there is no admissible evidence demonstrating that Gotsopoulos was
`
`actually published or publicly accessible before the priority date of the challenged
`
`patent claims.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulos under Federal Rules of Evidence 401-
`
`403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. For example, Gotsopoulos is not prior art and it is
`
`highlighted in a confusing manner.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulos as not properly authenticated under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901. There is no evidence that Gotsopoulos is authentic
`
`nor that the document is self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulos as inadmissible hearsay under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception,
`
`including those of Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulous as not being an original document
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, an authentic duplicate under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-
`
`document requirement, including those of Federal Rule of Evidence 1004. For
`
`example, Gotsopoulos appears to be a compilation of at least three separate
`
`unrelated documents.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Gotsopoulos because it does not comply with the
`
`marking requirements under 37 CFR § 42.63(d)(2)(i).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`Exhibit 1009 – American Heritage Dictionary
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) because it is
`
`not admissible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. For example, there is no
`
`admissible evidence demonstrating that Exhibit 1009 was actually published or
`
`publicly accessible before the priority date of the challenged patent claims.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 under Federal Rules of Evidence 401-
`
`403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, unduly delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. For example, Exhibit 1009 is not prior art, and
`
`Petitioner does not assert Exhibit 1009 in a ground of invalidity against the
`
`challenged patent claims, Exhibit 1009 was not discussed or referenced in the
`
`Board’s institution decision, and Petitioner makes only a passing reference to
`
`Exhibit 1009 in the Petition.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 as not properly authenticated under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901. There is no evidence that Exhibit 1009 is authentic
`
`nor that the document is self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 as inadmissible hearsay under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 801 and 802 that does not fall under any hearsay exception,
`
`including those of Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 as not being an original document
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, an authentic duplicate under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-
`
`document requirement, including those of Federal Rule of Evidence 1004.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Date: January 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document was served via electronic mail
`
`on January 24, 2017, to Petitioner via counsel, Lori A. Gordon, Steven M. Pappas,
`
`Michael B. Ray, and Michael D. Specht at the email addresses: lgordon-
`
`ptab@skgf.com,
`
`spappas@skgf.com, mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com, mray-
`
`PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com, pursuant to Petitioner’s consent in its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Petition at page 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
