UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,708,727
`
`Case IPR2022-00291
`
`DECLARATION OF YIMENG DOU PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,708,727
`
`Case IPR2022-00291
`
`DECLARATION OF YIMENG DOU PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`L.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Exhibit 1016 (Kurose and Ross) ...................................................................... 2
`Exhibit 1017 (Kuehn) ...................................................................................... 3
`Exhibit 1018 (Telecomputing in Japan) .......................................................... 4
`Exhibit 1019 (Hernandez) ............................................................................... 6
`Exhibit 1020 (Cruz) ......................................................................................... 7
`Exhibit 1021 (Benimoff) ................................................................................. 8
`Exhibit 1022 (Falconer) ................................................................................... 9
`Exhibit 1023 (Hine) ....................................................................................... 10
`Exhibit 1024 (Bazaios) .................................................................................. 11
`Exhibit 1025 (Stein) ....................................................................................... 12
`Exhibit 1029 (Grinter) ................................................................................... 13
`Exhibit 1034 (Patil)........................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Kevin Almeroth
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/527,565
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/689,686
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0116461 (“Diacakis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,287,056 (“Loveland”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2002/0183114 (“Takahashi”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2004/0001480 (“Tanigawa”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,428,580 (“Hullfish”)
`
`IngenioShare’s Infringement Contentions in Texas Litigation
`
`Texas Litigation Proposed Scheduling Order
`
`Fourteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under
`the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic
`Judge Albright’s Standing Order re Inter-District Transfer
`
`Kurose, J. and Ross, K., Computer Networking: A Top-Down
`Approach Feature the Internet (2000)
`Kuehn, S., A Play Theory Analysis of Computer-Mediated
`Telecommunication (Apr. 20, 1990)
`Telecomputing in Japan
`
`Hernandez, R., ECPA and Online Computer Privacy (1988)
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`Description
`
`Miller, A., Applications of Computer Conferencing to Teacher
`Education and Human Resource Development (1991)
`Benimoff, N. and Burns, M., Multimedia User Interfaces for
`Telecommunications Products and Services (1993)
`Falconer, W. and Hooke, J., Telecommunications Services in the
`Next Decade (1986)
`Hine, N.A., et al., An Adaptable User Interface to a Multimedia
`Telecommunications Conversation Service for People with
`Disabilities (1995)
`Bazaios, A., et al., Multimedia Architecture Offering Open Distance
`Learning Services over Internet
`Stein, J., et al., Chat and Instant Messaging Systems (2002)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,241,612 (“Heredia”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2003/0216178 (“Danieli”)
`
`International Patent Application WO 01/45343 (“Davies”)
`
`Grinter, R. and Palen, L., Instant Messaging in Teen Life (2002)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,407
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,664
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727 Claim Listing
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,828,924 (“Gustavsson”)
`
`Patil, S. and Kobsa, A., The Challenges in Preserving Privacy in
`Awareness Systems (2003)
`Unused
`
`Unused
`
`Declaration of Yimeng Dou Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1039
`
`Description
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Yimeng Dou, hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I am a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, counsel for Petitioner in the
`
`above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,708,727 (“the ’727 Patent”). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
`
`in this Declaration, and I can testify competently to them if called upon to do so.
`
`
`
`The P.T.A.B. has acknowledged that “[t]he burden of proof for
`
`authentication is ‘slight,’” and “Rule 901(a) merely prescribes that a proponent
`
`produce sufficient evidence of authenticity to support a prima facie case that the item
`
`is genuine.” See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-01149, Paper
`
`68 (FWD) at 12. Nevertheless, Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s Exhibits 1005–
`
`1029 and 1033–1034 because, according to Patent Owner, “Petitioner failed to
`
`authenticate the exhibits in accordance with FRE 901(a).” See Paper 12, ¶ 3. On
`
`the basis that these exhibits are not authenticated, Patent Owner argues that they are
`
`irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. See id.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to portions of the Petition and the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Kevin Almeroth (Ex. 1003) that rely on these exhibits. See id.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s objections are conclusory and do not articulate any
`
`basis for challenging the authenticity of these exhibits. Nor does Patent Owner
`
`“identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow
`
`correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Thus,
`
`1
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden—the exhibits do not require correction,
`
`and they should be admitted.
`
`
`
`Despite Patent Owner’s failure to satisfy its burden, I nevertheless
`
`submit this declaration as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to
`
`show that the exhibits are self-authenticating or otherwise authenticated, thereby
`
`obviating any concerns Patent Owner intended to raise.
`
`A. Exhibit 1016 (Kurose and Ross)
`
`Exhibit 1016 is an excerpt from a textbook titled Computer
`
`Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet, authored by James F.
`
`Kurose and Keith W. Ross. See Ex. 1016 at 1.
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8) provides that a document may be
`
`authenticated as an ancient document if it “is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity”; “was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be”; and
`
`“is at least 20 years old when offered.” F.R.E. 901(b)(8); see, e.g., Microsoft Corp.
`
`v. FG SRC LLC, IPR2018-01601, Paper 72 (FWD) at 15 (finding a book published
`
`in 1996 to be authenticated as an ancient document). Exhibit 1016 satisfies these
`
`requirements. First, it is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its
`
`authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit 1016 that
`
`creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1016. Second, it was in a place
`
`where it would likely be. The first page of Exhibit 1016 indicates a copy of the
`
`2
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`textbook is owned by Kirkland & Ellis LLP. See id. at 1. This copy is normally
`
`located at Kirkland’s library—a place where textbooks would likely be. Moreover,
`
`the book is available from online bookstores—another place where textbooks would
`
`likely be. Third, Exhibit 1016 indicates that it was published by Addison Wesley
`
`Longman, Inc. in 2001, more than twenty years ago. See Ex. 1016 at 2. Thus, it
`
`satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
`B.
`
`
`Exhibit 1017 (Kuehn)
`Exhibit 1017 is a paper titled “A Play Theory Analysis of Computer-
`
`Mediated Telecommunication” and authored by Scott A. Kuehn. See Ex. 1017 at 1.
`
`It indicates that it was “presented at the annual convention of the Eastern
`
`Communication Association, April 20, 1990, Philadelphia, PA.” See id.
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1) provides that a document may be
`
`authenticated with “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.” F.R.E.
`
`901(b)(1). Exhibit 1017 is authenticated under this rule by the Declaration of
`
`Jennifer A. Babbitt. In her Declaration, Ms. Babbitt explains that Exhibit 1017 is
`
`what it is claimed to be. See Ex. 1038, § III.A. Thus, it satisfies the rules for
`
`authentication.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1017 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). The P.T.A.B. routinely finds papers like
`
`Exhibit 1017 to be authenticated as ancient documents. See, e.g., QSC Audio
`
`3
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Products, LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc., IPR2014-00129, Paper 41 (FWD) at 6–12
`
`(finding a paper presented at an October 1971 conference to be authenticated and to
`
`fall under a hearsay exception as an ancient document); Ericsson, IPR2014-01149,
`
`Paper 68 (FWD) at 10–16 (agreeing with Petitioner that two technical documents
`
`created in 1995 and available online were authenticated as ancient documents).
`
` Here, Exhibit 1017 is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its
`
`authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit 1017 that
`
`creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1017. It is available online at the
`
`Education Resources Information Center (“ERIC”)—a website maintained by the
`
`U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Services—a place where
`
`scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit 1017 indicates it was published in 1990,
`
`more than twenty years ago. See id. at 1. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication
`
`for this additional reason.
`
`C. Exhibit 1018 (Telecomputing in Japan)
` Exhibit 1018 is an article titled “Telecomputing in Japan” and authored
`
`by the Database Promotion Center, Japan. See Ex. 1018 at 1. It indicates that it was
`
`published in May/June of 1987 as part of volume 17, issue number 6 of the journal
`
`LASIE (i.e., the Library Automated Systems Information Exchange). See id. It also
`
`indicates that it spanned pages 122–129 of that issue. See id. at 1–8.
`
`4
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 9
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1018 is self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material purporting to
`
`be a newspaper or periodical.” F.R.E. 902(6). The P.T.A.B. routinely finds such
`
`journal articles to be self-authenticating. Thus, it satisfies the rules for
`
`authentication. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC LLC, IPR2018-01601, Paper
`
`72 (FWD) at 14–15 (finding an article published in a journal to be self-authenticating
`
`under F.R.E. 902(6)); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979,
`
`Paper 62 (FWD) at 67–68 (finding “periodical and inscription information” to be
`
`sufficient evidence that journal articles are self-authenticating).
`
` Exhibit 1018 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1018 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1018. It is available online
`
`through Informit, an online research database operated by the Royal Melbourne
`
`Institute of Technology (RMIT), at
`
`
`
`https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/ielapa.863028422703688—a
`
`place
`
`where scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit 1018 indicates it was published in
`
`1987, more than twenty years ago. See id. at 1. As explained above in Section I.B,
`
`the P.T.A.B. routinely finds articles like Exhibit 1018 to be authenticated as ancient
`
`documents. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`5
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Exhibit 1019 (Hernandez)
` Exhibit 1019 is an article titled “ECPA and Online Computer Privacy”
`
`and authored by Ruel Torres Hernandez. See Ex. 1019 at 2. It indicates that it was
`
`published in 1988 in volume 41, issue number 1 of the Federal Communications
`
`Law Journal. See id at 1–3. It also indicates that it spanned pages 17–41 of that
`
`issue. See id. at 2–26.
`
` Exhibit 1019 is self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material purporting to
`
`be a newspaper or periodical.” F.R.E. 902(6). As explained above in Section I.C,
`
`the P.T.A.B. routinely finds such journal articles to be self-authenticating. Thus, it
`
`satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1019 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1019 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1019. It is available online
`
`from HeinOnline at
`
`
`
`https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedcom41&div=8&g_sent=
`
`1&casa_token=&collection=journals—a place where scholarly papers would likely
`
`be. Exhibit 1019 indicates it was published in 1988, more than twenty years ago.
`
`See id. at 1. As explained above in Section I.B, the P.T.A.B. routinely finds articles
`
`6
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`like Exhibit 1019 to be authenticated as ancient documents. Thus, it satisfies the
`
`rules for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1020 (Cruz)
` Exhibit 1020 is a paper titled “An Introduction to Computer
`
`Conferencing: A Look at Software Available in the Academic World” and authored
`
`by Alex Cruz. See Ex. 1020 at 18–21. It indicates that it was presented at an
`
`“International Symposium on Computer Conferencing at The Ohio State University”
`
`in Columbus, Ohio on June 13–15, 1991. It also indicates that it spanned pages 11–
`
`14 of the symposium’s published proceedings, which were titled “Applications of
`
`Computer Conferencing to Teacher Education and Human Resource Development”
`
`and edited by Aaron J. Miller. See id. at 1–3, 18–21.
`
` Exhibit 1020 is authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1)
`
`by the Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt. In her Declaration, Ms. Babbitt explains
`
`that Exhibit 1020 is what it is claimed to be. Ex. 1038, § III.B. Thus, it satisfies the
`
`rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1020 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1020 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1020. It is available online
`
`from ERIC at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED337705.pdf—a place where
`
`7
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit 1020 indicates it was published in 1991,
`
`more than twenty years ago. See id. at 1. As explained above in Section I.B, the
`
`P.T.A.B. routinely finds papers like Exhibit 1020 to be authenticated as ancient
`
`documents. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`F.
`
`Exhibit 1021 (Benimoff)
` Exhibit 1021 is an article titled “Multimedia User Interfaces for
`
`Telecommunications Products and Services” and authored by Nicholas I. Benimoff
`
`and Michael J. Burns. See Ex. 1021 at 1. It indicates that it was published in the
`
`May/June 1993 issue of the AT&T Technical Journal. See id. It also indicates that
`
`it spanned pages 42–49 of this issue. See id.
`
` Exhibit 1021 is self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material purporting to
`
`be a newspaper or periodical.” F.R.E. 902(6). As explained above in Section I.C,
`
`the P.T.A.B. routinely finds such journal articles to be self-authenticating. Thus, it
`
`satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1021 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1021 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1021. It is available online
`
`from IEEE Explore at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6768681—a place
`
`where scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit 1021 indicates it was published in
`
`8
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`1993, more than twenty years ago. See id. at 1. As explained above in Section I.B,
`
`the P.T.A.B. routinely finds articles like Exhibit 1021 to be authenticated as ancient
`
`documents. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`G. Exhibit 1022 (Falconer)
` Exhibit 1022 is an article titled “Telecommunications Services in the
`
`Next Decade” and authored by Warren E. Falconer and John A. Hooke. See Ex.
`
`1022 at 1. It indicates that it was published in September 1986 in volume 72, issue
`
`number 9 of the Proceedings of the IEEE. See id. It also indicates that it spanned
`
`pages 1246–1261 of this issue. See id. at 1–16.
`
` Exhibit 1022 is at least self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material
`
`purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.” F.R.E. 902(6). As explained above in
`
`Section I.C, the P.T.A.B. routinely finds such journal articles to be self-
`
`authenticating. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1022 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1022 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1022. It is available online
`
`from IEEE Explore at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1457882—a
`
`place where scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit 1022 indicates it was
`
`published in 1986, more than twenty years ago. See id. at 1. As explained above in
`
`9
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Section I.B, the P.T.A.B. routinely finds articles like Exhibit 1022 to be
`
`authenticated as ancient documents. Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication for
`
`this additional reason.
`
`H. Exhibit 1023 (Hine)
` Exhibit 1023 is a book chapter titled “An Adaptable User Interface to a
`
`Multimedia Telecommunications Conversation Service
`
`for People with
`
`Disabilities,” which was authored by N.A. Hine et al. See Ex. 1023 at 1. It indicates
`
`that it was published in 1995 by the International Federation for Information
`
`Processing as the 68th chapter of the book Human-Computer Interaction, edited by
`
`K. Nordby, et al. See id. It indicates it spanned pages 394–397 of the book. See id.
`
`at 1–4.
`
` Exhibit 1023 is authenticated as an ancient document under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its
`
`authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit 1023 that
`
`creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1023. It is available online from
`
`the publisher Springer at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-5041-
`
`2896-4_68—a place where book chapters would likely be. Moreover, the book
`
`Human-Computer Interaction is available from online bookstores—where book
`
`chapters would likely be. Exhibit 1023 indicates it was published in 1995, more than
`
`twenty years ago. See id. at 1. As explained above in Section I.A, the P.T.A.B.
`
`10
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`routinely finds books like Exhibit 1023 to be authenticated as ancient documents.
`
`Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 1024 (Bazaios)
` Exhibit 1024 is a paper titled “Multimedia Architecture Offering Open
`
`Distance Learning Services Over Internet” and authored by A. Bazaios, C. Bouras,
`
`P. Lampsas, P. Spirakis, P. Zarafidis, and A. Zoura. See Ex. 1024 at 1.
`
` Exhibit 1024 is authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1)
`
`by the Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt. In her Declaration, Ms. Babbitt explains
`
`that Exhibit 1024 is what it is claimed to be. Ex. 1038, § III.C. Thus, it satisfies the
`
`rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1024 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1024 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1024. It is available online
`
`from Semantic Scholar at
`
`https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Multimedia-Architecture-Offering-Open-
`
`Distance-over-Bazaios-Bouras/e117d9e6392aa716879aa07c287648b6c5f80094—a
`
`place where scholarly papers would likely be. As explained in the Declaration of
`
`Jennifer A. Babbitt, Exhibit 1024 was published in 1998, more than twenty years
`
`ago. See Ex. 1038, § III.C. As explained above in Section I.B, the P.T.A.B.
`
`11
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`routinely finds papers like Exhibit 1024 to be authenticated as ancient documents.
`
`Thus, it satisfies the rules for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`J.
`
`Exhibit 1025 (Stein)
` Exhibit 1025 is an article titled “Chat and Instant Messaging Systems”
`
`and authored by Jennifer Stein, Debbie Garber, and Jon Baggaley. See Ex. 1025 at
`
`1. It indicates that it was published in April 2002 in volume 3, issue number 1 of
`
`the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. See id.
`
` Exhibit 1025 is self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material purporting to
`
`be a newspaper or periodical.” F.R.E. 902(6). As explained above in Section I.C,
`
`the P.T.A.B. routinely finds such journal articles to be self-authenticating. Thus, it
`
`satisfies the rules for authentication.
`
` Exhibit 1025 is also authenticated as an ancient document under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8). It is in a condition that creates no suspicion
`
`about its authenticity, nor has Patent Owner identified anything regarding Exhibit
`
`1025 that creates suspicion about its authenticity. See Ex. 1025. It is available online
`
`from the database Érudit at https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/irrodl/2002-v3-n1-
`
`irrodl05617/1073007ar—a place where scholarly papers would likely be. Exhibit
`
`1025 indicates it was published in April 2002, more than twenty years ago. See id.
`
`at 1. As explained above in Section I.B, the P.T.A.B. routinely finds articles like
`
`12
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1025 to be authenticated as ancient documents. Thus, it satisfies the rules
`
`for authentication for this additional reason.
`
`K. Exhibit 1029 (Grinter)
` Exhibit 1029 is a paper titled “Instant Messaging in Teen Life” and
`
`authored by Rebecca E. Grinter and Leysia Palen. See Ex. 1029 at 1. It indicates
`
`that it was presented at “CSCW ’02, November 16–20, 2002, New Orleans,
`
`Louisiana, USA.” See id. It also bears the inscription “Copyright 2002 ACM 1-
`
`58113-560-2/02/0011.” See id.
`
` Exhibit 1029 is authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1)
`
`by the Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt. In her Declaration, Ms. Babbitt explains
`
`that Exhibit 1029 is what it is claimed to be. Ex. 1038, § III.D. Thus, it satisfies the
`
`rules for authentication.
`
`L.
`
`Exhibit 1034 (Patil)
` Exhibit 1034 is an article titled “The Challenges in Preserving Privacy
`
`in Awareness Systems” authored by Sameer Patil and Alfred Kobsa and published
`
`by the Institute for Software Research of the University of California, Irvine. See
`
`Ex. 1034 at 1–3. It indicates that it is “ISR Technical Report # UCI-ISR-03-3,”
`
`referring to the third report published by the Institute of Software Research in 2003.
`
`See id. It further indicates it was published in April 2003. See id. at 2.
`
`13
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 18
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1034 is self-authenticating as “[p]rinted material purporting to
`
`be a newspaper or periodical.” As explained above in Section I.C, the P.T.A.B.
`
`routinely finds such journal articles to be self-authenticating. Thus, it satisfies the
`
`rules for authentication.
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Yimeng Dou
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1037
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00291 p. 19
`
`
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
