`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`06943-00002/10536138.1
`
`
`
`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 Petitioner’s Response in Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 34). These objections are timely filed
`
`and served within five business days of Petitioner Response.
`
`Objections
`
`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 page 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 1022 includes repeated assertions that
`its proposed modifications to the prior art would have
`required “only minor modifications,” would have involved
`“well-known” techniques, benefits or modification, and
`would have “enhanced” security, without any basis, evidence
`or support for these claims. For example, USR objects to the
`following paragraphs: ¶¶ 4, 6, 8, 12, 16-17, 22-23, 27-28, 33-
`34, 38-41, 45.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit to the extent it relies
`upon exhibits that Patent Owner objected to in its Corrected
`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence (Paper No. 18) and
`for which Petitioner did not timely submit any supplemental
`evidence, including Exhibits 1008-1009 and 1011-1018.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this
`exhibit because it is not relied on as a reference and is
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`Exhibit 1026
`
`06943-00002/10536138.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`U.S. Patent No. 8,577,813
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`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, or that the claim
`at issue in Exhibit 1026 are the same as those in the ’813
`patent. Instead, Petitioner uses it to make misleading and
`inaccurate characterizations about a pending application
`involving different claims.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to these
`exhibits 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 1027 and
`1031 as unauthenticated documents that are not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902. Thus, Exhibits 1027 and
`1031 lack authentication.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1027 and 1031 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 1027 and 1031 are “printed
`publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`311(b).
`
`
`Exhibit 1027-
`1031
`
`
`06943-00002/10536138.1
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`Date: November 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`06943-00002/10536138.1
`
`
`
`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 on
`
`November 16, 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: November 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`06943-00002/10536138.1
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Roshan Mansinghani (Re. 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
`
`