Paper 15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00131
`Patent 6,226,686
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,226,686
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00131
`Patent 6,226,686
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,226,686
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Paltalk Holdings, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) objects to the
`
`following evidence submitted by Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”) during
`
`the preliminary phase of this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1007
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1014
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections
`
`Declaration of Dr. Steve R.
`White
`
`Competency to Testify (Fed. R. Evid.
`601 and 602) (at least to the extent Dr.
`White lacks personal knowledge of the
`publication dates of RFC 1692 and
`other RFC documents); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least with respect to the
`statements made concerning the
`publication dates of RFC 1692 and
`other RFC documents, e.g., paras. 68,
`69, 70, 86).
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Internet Protocol, RFC 791 Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`1
`
`Transport Multiplexing
`Protocol (TMux), RFC 1692
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,413
`(Denzer)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`John D. Day et al., The USI
`Reference Model, 71-12
`Proceedings of the IEEE
`1334 (1983)
`Protocol Standard for a
`NetBIOS Service on a
`TCP/UDP Transport:
`Concepts and Methods, RFC
`1001
`
`1020
`
`1019 Martin W. Sachs et al., LAN
`and I/O Convergence: A
`Survey of the Issues, IEEE
`Computer (1994).
`Enrico Y. P. Hsu et al.,
`Management Gaming on a
`Computer Mediated
`Conferencing System: A
`Case of Collaborative
`Learning through Computer
`Conference, IEEE (1991)
`The Internet Standards
`Process – Revision 2, RFC
`1602
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Internet Official Protocol
`Standards, RFC 1720
`
`
`
`Paper No. 1).
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902).
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902).
`
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1); and
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902).
`
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1);
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`Internet Relay Chat
`Protocol, RFC 1459
`
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Declaration of Dave Crocker Competency to Testify (Fed. R. Evid.
`601 and 602) (at least to the extent Mr.
`Crocker lacks personal knowledge of
`the publication dates of RFC 1692 and
`other RFC documents, and because Mr.
`Crocker is not being presented as an
`expert); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least with respect to the
`statements made concerning the
`publication dates of RFC 1692 and
`other RFC documents, as the
`Declaration offers statements from the
`RFC documents to prove their
`publication dates, e.g., paras. 29, 31, 34,
`39, 43).
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1);
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`3
`
`The Internet Standards
`Process, RFC 1310
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`1029
`
`The Internet Standards
`Process – Revision 3, RFC
`2026
`
`1034
`
`Song et al., A Distributed
`Simulation System for Team
`Decisionmaking, IEEE
`(1994)
`
`1035 Weaver et al., Networked
`Simulations: New
`Paradigms for Team
`Performance Research,
`27(1), BEHAV. RES.
`METHODS,
`INSTRUMENTS, &
`COMPUTERS, 12-24
`(1995)
`
`
`
`
`
`prove the publication date).
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1);
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902); and
`
`Inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801
`and 802) (at least to the extent the date
`listed in the top right corner of the
`document is offered as evidence to
`prove the publication date).
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1); and
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902).
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) (at least
`to the extent not cited in the Petition,
`Paper No. 1); and
`
`Unauthenticated evidence (Fed. R. Evid.
`901 and 902).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`
`
`The foregoing objections are made within 10 business days of the date of
`
`institution in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`Dated: May 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/Gregory M. Howison, Reg. #30646/
`Gregory M. Howison
`Registration No. 30,646
`ghowison@munckwilson.com
`
`MUNCK, WILSON, MANDALA, LLP
`12770 Coit Road, Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75251
`Telephone: (972) 628-3600
`Facsimile: (972) 628-3616
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), a
`copy of the foregoing Objections to Evidence was served via electronic mail on
`May 29, 2018, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`P: 202-736-8492
`Riot_paltalk@sidley.com
`
`
`Samuel A. Dillon (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 65,197
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`P: 202-736-8298
`Riot_paltalk@sidley.com
`
`
`By:
`
`/Gregory M. Howison, Reg. #30646/
`Gregory M. Howison
`Registration No. 30,646
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
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
