`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; OXYSALES,
`UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR 2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO NEW EVIDENCE
`INCLUDED IN PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners object to new purported
`
`evidence included in Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 41) filed on May 1, 2023.
`
`These objections are timely filed and served within five business days of service of
`
`the evidence to which the objections are directed.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner included the following table in its Sur-Reply:
`
`
`
`Sur-Reply at 29. As shown above, Patent Owner’s purported support for the table is
`
`its footnote 13. Footnote 13 cites to “IPR2022-00687, Paper 18 at 75 (PTAB Jan.
`
`20, 2023).” Id. at 29 n.13.
`
`Petitioners object to the alleged evidence in the above table and to the alleged
`
`supporting evidence from a different proceeding (IPR2022-00867) because it is
`
`improper for Patent Owner to include new evidence in its Sur-Reply. 37 CFR § 42.23
`
`(“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and
`
`may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the
`
`1
`
`
`
`cross-examination of any reply witness.”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) at 73 (same).
`
`Patent Owner’s new evidence also lacks any foundation, lacks any
`
`authentication in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), and would constitute
`
`hearsay. Patent Owner’s new evidence further is irrelevant and inadmissible under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/403 because it lacks nexus with the patent claims, for the reasons
`
`explained in Petitioners’ Reply with respect to Patent Owner’s other arguments
`
`related to “residential” IP addresses. Reply at 24-26.
`
`Dated: May 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON
`& GARZA, PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Craig Tolliver
`Craig Tolliver (Reg. No. 45,975)
`(Lead Attorney for Petitioners)
`George “Jorde” Scott (Reg. No. 62,859)
`John C. Heuton (Reg. No. 62,467)
`
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`(214) 521-6400
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that the
`
`above Petitioners’ Objections to New Evidence Included in Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply was served on counsel for Patent Owner via e-mail, as authorized by Patent
`
`Owner, at the following e-mail addresses:
`
`Thomas Dunham tomd@cherianllp.com
`Elizabeth O’Brien elizabetho@cherianllp.com
`Robert Harkins
`bobh@cherianllp.com
`
`
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON &
`GARZA, PLLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Craig Tolliver
`Craig Tolliver (Reg. No. 45,975)
`(Lead Attorney for Petitioners)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
