`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: September 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., and
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2018-013501
`Patent No. 8,856,539
`
`—————————————————
`
`PETITIONERS’ THIRD NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2019-00727, has been joined as a
`party to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01350
`Patent 8,856,539
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners submit the following
`
`objections to Patent Owner Universal Secure Registry LLC’s (“PO”) Exhibits 2011
`
`and 2012. As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Petitioners’ objections below apply
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`A. Objections to Ex. 2011 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 2011.
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant
`
`Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons).
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 and 55-56 of Exhibit 2011 have not been relied upon by PO
`
`in rebutting or addressing any instituted ground of challenge or PO’s motion to
`
`amend. Accordingly, at least those portions of this exhibit are not relevant to the
`
`proceeding. Further, to the extent this exhibit is deemed relevant, admission of at
`
`least those portions of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time in view of the fact that they have not been relied upon by PO.
`
`In addition, Petitioners object to paragraphs 30-32 and 35 of Exhibit 2011 to
`
`the extent they cite to evidence not previously cited in PO’s Motion to Amend or
`
`the accompanying declaration, Exhibit 2010, including but not limited to the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01350
`Patent 8,856,539
`
`
`
`following citations to Exhibit 2008 and the written description arguments in
`
`reliance thereof: lines 5:16-17, 12:28-28, 15:10-16:27 and Figure 6 with respect to
`
`limitations 39[c], 48[a], 51[d], and 52[pre] (see Ex. 2010 at ¶¶30-32) and lines
`
`17:7-8 with respect to limitation 46[d] (see Ex. 2010 at ¶35). As those portions of
`
`Exhibit 2008 were not cited in PO’s Motion to Amend or Exhibit 2010, the
`
`paragraphs of Exhibit 2011 now relying on them are not relevant to the proceeding.
`
`Further, to the extent those paragraphs are deemed relevant, admission of at least
`
`those portions of the exhibit would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a waste
`
`of time in view of the fact that they rely on evidence not cited in PO’s motion to
`
`amend.
`
`B. Objections to Ex. 2012 and any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`Evidence objected to: Ex. 2012.
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 402
`
`(General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant
`
`Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons).
`
`Pages 1-16 and 19-27 of Exhibit 2012 have not been relied upon by PO in
`
`rebutting or addressing any instituted ground of challenge or PO’s motion to
`
`amend. Accordingly, at least those portions of this exhibit are not relevant to the
`
`proceeding. They are also not relevant because they are directed to patents or
`
`arguments that are not at issue in this proceeding. Further, to the extent this exhibit
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01350
`Patent 8,856,539
`
`
`
`is deemed relevant, admission of at least those portions of the exhibit would be
`
`unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a waste of time in view of the fact that they
`
`have not been relied upon by PO.
`
`Moreover, the portions of Exhibit 2012 relied upon by PO are a non-binding
`
`Magistrate Judge’s recommendation from a different proceeding involving a
`
`different record and are not directed to any of PO’s substitute claims. Accordingly,
`
`those portions are also not relevant to the proceeding, and to the extent they are
`
`deemed relevant, their admission would be unduly prejudicial, misleading, and a
`
`waste of time.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Exhibits 2011 and 2012 were served on September 11, 2019, in support of
`
`the Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Amend. These objections are
`
`made within five business days of service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Matthew A. Argenti /
`Matthew A. Argenti, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 61,836
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01350
`Patent 8,856,539
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Petitioners’ Third Notice of Objection to
`
`Evidence was served on this 18th day of September, 2019, on the Patent Owner at
`
`the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`James M. Glass
`Tigran Guledjian
`Christopher A. Matthews
`Nima Hefazi
`Richard Lowry
`Razmig Messerian
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`tigranguledjian@quinnemanuel.com
`chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
`nimahefazi@quinnemanuel.com
`richardlowry@quinnemanuel.com
`razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com
`qe-usr-ipr@quinnemanueal.com
`
`And on the remaining petitioners as follows:
`
`Monica Grewal
`Benjamin Fernandez
`Mark Selwyn
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DOOR LLP
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`wh-apple-usr-ipr@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Date: September 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Matthew A. Argenti /
`Matthew A. Argenti, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 61,836
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
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
