`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`________________
`
`CORRECTED PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Universal Secure Registry LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) submits the following objections to evidence that Petitioner Unified Patents
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) served in its Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 2). These
`
`objections are timely filed and served within ten business days of the PTAB’s May
`
`2, 2018 Institution Decision (Paper 14).
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it is not relied on as a reference and is
`irrelevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed
`by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting
`time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`Petitioner does not allege that the challenged claims are
`anticipated or obvious based on this exhibit, and instead uses
`it to make misleading and inaccurate claims about the state
`of the art and the ’813 patent.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it includes
`information that is not discussed sufficiently in the Petition.
`Admissibility of such declaration would permit the use of
`declarations to circumvent word limits that apply to
`petitions.
`
`FRE 602, 702, 703: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to
`the extent it is irrelevant, the testimony is based on a lack of
`personal knowledge or speculation, includes insufficient
`facts or data, is not based on a reliable foundation, and
`constitutes conclusory opinions without sufficient support.
`For example, Exhibit 1009 includes repeated assertions that
`its proposed modifications to the prior art would have
`required “only minor modifications” or that a “PHOSITA”
`would “recognize,” “understand or have certain knowledge,
`without any basis, evidence or support for these claims, for
`instance: “A PHOSITA would have been motivated
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`incorporate Burger’s teachings related to deactivating an
`electronic device by ending a session or wiping a device’s
`memory into the system of Maes, as modified by Pare and
`Labrou, to prevent attackers from gaining access to the
`device through trial-and-error. Such would have required
`only minor modifications in software and would have
`yielded predictable results; namely, that a device would be
`deactivated without generating any encryption information if
`the user is not successfully authenticated.” For example,
`USR objects to the following paragraphs: ¶¶ 27-28, 31-41,
`50-54, 57-59, 61, 63-64, 69, 72.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to these
`exhibit because they are not cited and discussed in the
`Petition, are not relied on as a reference and are irrelevant,
`and their probative value is substantially outweighed by a
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting
`time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent owner also objects to Exhibits 1012 and
`1015-1016 as unauthenticated documents that are not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902. Thus, Exhibits 1012 and
`1015-1016 lack authentication.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1012 and 1015-
`1016 to the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on these
`exhibits as prior art or to show the alleged state of the art or
`understanding of a “PHOSITA.” Petitioner has not
`demonstrated Exhibits 1012 and 1015-1016 are “printed
`publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`311(b).
`
`
`Exhibit 1011-
`Exhibit 1018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`Date: May 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ James Glass
`Registration No. 46,729
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
`Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel. (212) 849-7000
`Fax. (212) 849 7100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Universal Secure
`Registry LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence were served on counsel of record for the Petitioner, Monica
`
`Grewal, and Ben Fernandez, on May 15, 2018, at the following addresses:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jason R. Mudd (Reg. No. 57,700)
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`
`
`Date: May 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Roshan Mansinghani (Reg. No. 62,429)
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Unified Patents Inc.
`13355 Noel Road, Suite 1100
`Dallas, TX, 75240
`Telephone: (214) 945-0200
`Eric A. Buresh (Reg. No. 50,394)
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`ptab@eriseip.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Telephone: (913) 777-5600
`Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518)
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`Telephone: (202) 805-8931
`
`
`Signed: /James M. Glass/
`
` James M. Glass
`
` Registration No. 46,729
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Universal Secure Registry LLC
`
`