`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Twilio Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TeleSign Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01688
`Patent: 9,300,792
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
`First, Patent Owner seeks to exclude a portion of Patent Owner’s expert
`
`deposition testimony because “it is beyond the scope of Dr. Nielson’s declaration”
`
`(Paper 20 at ii). The testimony in question, however, is read directly from Dr.
`
`Nielson’s declaration by Patent Owner’s own expert.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner inserted other portions
`
`of Dr. Nielson’s testimony instead of the testimony Patent Owner now moves to
`
`exclude. Below is the actual testimony that Patent Owner moves to exclude on
`
`page 10 of Petitioner’s Reply. Notice that Dr. Nielson references section 9.2 of his
`
`declaration and then reads directly from it.
`
`A
`
`So let me give an example here. So in
`my declaration in Paragraph 9.2, it's about --
`it's the last sentence of the paragraph on that
`page that says: That action, such as a large
`withdrawal, would not be allowed to take place
`without an acknowledgment by the user.
`So that's an example of an action,
`withdrawal or a, for example, financial
`operation.
`
`Q
`
`
`
`Okay. So that is an example of an
`action. What is the definition of “action”
`then?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Well, I was looking at it with what I
`
`would probably describe as just conventional,
`
`you know, how one of skill in the art would
`
`understand “action,” which would be an operation
`
`transaction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1035 at 18:15-9:5 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
`
`During Dr. Nielson’s deposition, Dr. Nielson was asked about “actions” and
`
`in response to the question Dr. Nielson read verbatim from his expert report.
`
`Compare Nielson Decl. (EX2008) at 9.2 with Nielson Depo (EX1035) at 18:15-20.
`
`Patent Owner now seeks to exclude testimony that was read directly from Dr.
`
`Nielson’s expert declaration. The testimony relied on by Petitioner on page 10 of
`
`its Reply is not beyond the scope of Dr. Nielson’s declaration—it is Dr. Nielson’s
`
`declaration.
`
`
`
`Second, the term “action” and its meaning is not outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Nielson’s Declaration. The term “action” and “notification event” are closely
`
`related according to Dr. Nielson’s declaration. For example, Dr. Nielson’s
`
`Declaration includes a section 9 titled “Rebuttals to Certain Characterizations by
`
`Dr. Shamos.” See EX2008 at 22-24. Within this section Dr. Nielson makes the
`
`following statements (emphasis added) about “actions” and “notification events”:
`
` “Dr. Shamos continually describes an event being acknowledged by a user,
`
`instead of an action associated with an established notification event.”
`
`(EX2008 at 9.1)
`
` “The ‘792 claims, however, require that the acknowledgement by the user be
`
`required for an action. That action (such as a large withdrawal) . . .”
`
`(EX2008 at 9.2)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
` “But the claim does not require that the user acknowledge the notification,
`
`it requires that the user acknowledge an action associated with the
`
`established notification event.” (EX2008 at 9.3)
`
` “But the supposed events explained in the Petition are not said to be
`
`associated with an action that must be acknowledged.” (EX2008 at 9.4)
`
`Dr. Nielson’s addresses the term “action” in his declaration and therefore the
`
`testimony relied on by Petitioner on page 10 of its Reply is not beyond the scope of
`
`Dr. Nielson’s Declaration.
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s testimony regarding the term “actions” should not be
`
`excluded given the link Patent Owner (and it’s expert) has injected into this IPR
`
`between the terms “notification event” and “actions.” For example, when
`
`questioned during Dr. Nielson’s deposition about “notification events,” Dr.
`
`Nielson linked the term to “actions:”
`
`Q And give me an example of the
`notification event.
`
`A Well, it's kind of like if you've got
`a file with the contents of the file and the
`header of the file, you might call them the same
`thing; right? So you might have the action
`which is the actual transferring of the money.
`And there may be a notification event that is
`called transferring money.
`But the key point is that it's a
`notification event that is associated with that
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
`action. So that when -- so that it says, as it
`says in the next claim element: Upon receiving
`an indication of an occurrence of an established
`notification event -- in other words, we've now
`detected this transfer in progress --
`transmitting a message addressed to the verified
`telephone number indicating the occurrence of
`the notification event.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 18) at 11-12; EX1035 at 21:23-22:16 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner has manufactured an additional dispute between “notification
`
`events” and “actions” and therefore any deposition testimony regarding the term
`
`“action” is directly relevant to this IPR and Dr. Nielson’s declaration.
`
`
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s
`
`request to exclude the testimony of Dr. Nielson on page 10 of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 10, 2017
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`ATTN: Wayne Stacy
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-291-6206
`Fax: 415-291-6308
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent No. 9,300,792
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, the undersigned certifies that on October 10,
`
`2017, a complete and entire electronic copy of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude were provided via the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`End to End (PTAB E2E) System as well as delivering a copy electronically via
`
`email on the following:
`
`Elena McFarland
`(EMCFARLAND@shb.com)
`Tawni Wilhelm
`(TWILHELM@shb.com, TeleSignIPR@shb.com)
`Jesse Camacho
`(JCAMACHO@shb.com)
`Counsel for Patent Owner, TeleSign Inc.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`
`Amy Foust
`(AFOUST@shb.com)
`Counsel for Patent Owner, TeleSign Inc.
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated October 10, 2017
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`