`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`_ vs. _
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR20 1 8-00043
`
`US. Patent 9,454,748
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (“Unified”) submits this Response to Patent
`
`Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination of Mr. Kevin Jakel (Paper 30). A
`
`Motion for Observation is intended to “draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`
`examination testimony” but “is not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue
`
`issues, or pursue objections.” See Paper 7, p. 5; Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Each of Patent Owner’s observations include
`
`attorney argument or mischaracterizations of Mr. Jakel’s testimony, and omissions
`
`of other relevant portions of Mr- Jakel’s testimony that provide the full context of
`
`each issue. Unified therefore objects to Patent Owner’s improper use of its
`
`observations and provides below proper context for each observation and the
`
`mischaracterizations of Mr. Jakel’s testimony.
`
`Response to Observation #1
`
`Patent Owner omits that Mr. Jakel testified the proportion of Petitioner’s
`
`revenue that is spent on IPRs as compared to other deterrence activities is because
`
`“IPR activities are just, they are expensive. So, they make up the most expensive
`
`aspect of what we do.” Ex. 2009, 158:21—159zll. Also, Mr. Jakel testified that “In
`
`terms of employees, I think there are as many employees that spend their time on
`
`other things besides IPRs, than, as we do people who are dedicated exclusively to
`
`IPRs.” Ex. 2009, 159:16—160:2.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`Response to Observation #2
`
`The cited testimony is not relevant to Patent Owner’s proposition, because, as
`
`outlined in Petitioner’s RPI Reply (Paper 22) at 7—8, the Trial Practice Guide
`
`provides that membership in an association, alone, does not make an entity an RPI.
`
`Response to Observation #3
`
`Patent Owner omits that Mr. Jakel testified that contracts with members I
`
`— Rather, Unified is
`
`“hired to do deterrence for a zone.” Ex. 2009, 67:17—20. Mr. Jakel’s testimony is
`
`unequivocal in stating, for example, that “We don’t do anything on behalf of our
`
`members. We work on behalf of the zones that we work for.” Ex. 2009, 94:8—15.
`
`Response to Observation #4
`
`The cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s proposition that
`
`“members hire Petitioner to perform deterrence services, including filing IPRs.”
`
`Observations, p. 3 (emphasis added). The cited testimony discusses “deterrence for
`
`a zone” and deterring NPE activity, but does not mention filing IPRs. Further, as
`
`Mr. Jakel testified,—
`
`— “Unifiedperfoms manyNPE
`
`deterrent activities including data analytics, prior art searching, prior art contests,
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`validity and patentability analyses and post grant review requests” and confirmed
`
`that “we do all of those things and we think that all of those things have an impact.
`
`Exactly which impact has the greatest impact or the greatest deterrent impact at any
`
`given moment, I’m not sure.” Ex. 2009, 59:23—60:8, 158: l—159: 1 1.
`
`Response to Observation #5
`
`The cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s proposition. Unified is
`
`— M, Jakers yummy
`
`is unequivocal in stating, for example, that “We don’t do anything on behalf of our
`
`members. We work on behalf of the zones that we work for.” Ex. 2009, 94:8—15.
`
`As Mr. Jake] also testified, Unified’s activities benefit all companies within a
`
`technology zone, whether the company is a member of the zone or a non-member:
`
`“we are working on behalf of the zones. I mean, everyone ultimately gets a benefit
`
`by the way. We claim that even, even nonmembers get a benefit when we settle a
`
`license to settle an IPR on the patent. . ..So we think everyone benefits.” Ex. 2009,
`
`12420—125: 10.
`
`Response to Observation #6
`
`The cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s proposition. Rather, Mr.
`
`Jakel’s testimony is unequivocal in stating, for example, that “We don’t do anything
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`on behalf of our members. We work on behalf of the zones that we work for.” Ex.
`
`2009, 94:8—15.
`
`Response to Observation #7
`
`The cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s proposition and does not
`
`consider Mr. Jakel’s full testimony. Mr. Jakel testified that
`
`Response to Observation #8
`
`Patent Owner’s observation omits facts. As detailed above in the Response
`
`to Observation #7, Mr. Jakel testified that
`
`Response to Observation #9
`
`Patent Owner’s observation omits
`
`facts.
`
`Petitioner does not spend
`
`subscription fees on behalf of its members. As Mr. Jakel testified, “we are not doing
`
`work on behalf of members.” Ex. 2009, 12324—1242 12; see also 9428—15. Rather,
`
`as Mr. Jakel testified, Unified’s revenue is spent on deterrence activities for a zone:
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`Response to Observation #10
`
`First,
`
`this observation is not relevant, because none of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments of record concern licensing. Second, Patent Owner’s observation omits
`
`facts. As Mr. Jakel testified: “Q. Okay. Let’s talk about licenses. Unified Patents
`
`obtains licenses on behalf of its members. Is that correct? A. That is incorrect. . . .We
`
`don’t do anything on behalf of our members. We work on behalf of the zones that
`
`we work for.” Ex. 2009, 94:8—15. Additionally, as Mr. Jakel testified in connection
`
`with obtaining licenses,
`
`and further, that “everyone ultimately gets a benefit. . .even nonmembers
`
`get a benefit when we settle a license to settle an IPR on the patent. Everyone
`
`ultimately.” Id. at 124:20—125:10.
`
`Response to Observation #11
`
`As with Observation #10, this observation is not relevant, because none of
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments of record concern licensing.
`
`Patent Owner also
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Jakel’s testimony by ignoring the full context of the testimony.
`
`As Mr. Jakel testified in connection with obtaining licenses, “everyone ultimately
`
`gets a benefit. . .even nonmembers get a benefit when we settle a license to settle an
`
`IPR on the patent. Everyone ultimately” (Ex. 2009, 124:20—125:10)_
`
`Response to Observation #12
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Mr. Jakel’s testimony by alleging that the
`
`“zones are comprised on [sic] Petitioner’s members.” Zones are defined by
`
`technology areas, and are not comprised of members. As Mr. Jakel’s declaration
`
`states, “Unified independently selects which patents to target based on the perceived
`
`deterrent value to a technology zone” and that “Unified establishes its Zones, and
`
`then members chose to join. Members do not direct or otherwise participate in the
`
`establishment of Zones.” Jakel Declaration (EX1026), W 3, 6. Further, as Mr. Jakel
`
`testified, “Unified is going to work on behalf of a zone, and by doing so we are going
`
`to take independent third party action to create the deterrence that we feel like is
`
`going to be beneficial for the technology area.” Ex. 2009, 159:9—20.
`
`Response to Observation #13
`
`First,
`
`this observation is not relevant, because none of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments of record concern licensing. Second, Patent Owner mischaracterizes Mr.
`
`nnnn tnnnnny ty nttntntnat—
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`to Mr. Jakel were vague and cannot clearly provide support for its contention. See
`
`Ex. 2009, 1063-11.
`
`Response to Observation #14
`
`Patent Owner’s conclusion omits the full context of Mr. Jakel’s testimony.
`
`Mr. Jakel stated he
`
`Response to Observation #15
`
`Patent Owner conclusion omits the full context of Mr. Jakel’s testimony, as
`
`detailed above in the Response to Observation #14.
`
`Response to Observation #16
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Mr. Jakel’s testimony. Mr. Jakel’s declaration
`
`states that “Unified’s members do not pay any fees designated for IPRs” and also
`
`“Unified alone determines how to spend its money.” Jakel Declaration (EX1026), fl
`
`3. Mr. Jakel’s deposition also includes the following exchange: “Q. Can a member
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`IPR2018-00043 (US. Patent 9,454,748)
`
`direct that Unified, that Unified file a specific IPR? A. They cannot.” Ex. 2009,
`
`185:24—186: l. The cited testimony does not conflict with that statement, and there
`
`is no denial of the position alleged by Patent Owner. As Mr. Jakel repeatedly
`
`explained: “What we believe and what we have been very clear on from the
`
`beginning, members choose to participate in a zone or not. And they fund the zone.
`
`What we choose to then spend that money on is to spend the money on IPRs or other
`
`activities.” Ex. 2009, 166:12—18. This testimony is consistent with the identified
`
`testimony in Patent Owner’s Observation #16.
`
`March 1, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/.‘I)¢wid w. (933W
`
`David W. O’Brien
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Registration No. 40,107
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION — PAPER 31
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Unified Patents, Inc.
`
`§ Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2018-00043
`
`§ §
`
`§ US. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`§
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Petitioner
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service
`
`was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date ofservice March 1, 2019
`
`Manner ofservice Electronic Service by E-Mail
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`Persons served Terry L. Watt (terry.watt@crowedunlevy.com)
`Matthew J. Antonelli (matt@ahtlawfum)
`Michael E. Ellis (michael@ahtlawfirm.com)
`Larry D. Thompson, Jr. (larry@ahtlawfirm.com)
`
`[Raghav Bajaj/
`Raghav Baj aj
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Registration No. 66,630
`
`