CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PATRICK ZUILI,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00022
`Patent 8,326,763 B2
`January 12, 2017
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RENEWED MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`Before Administrative Patent Judges JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PATRICK ZUILI,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00022
`Patent 8,326,763 B2
`January 12, 2017
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RENEWED MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`Before Administrative Patent Judges JAMESON LEE, GLENN J. PERRY, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`II. TESTIMONY OF G. IVIE CONTRADICTS AFFIDAVIT BY MR. BUTLER
`
`AND THE METADATA OF DIFFERENT EXHIBITS. ......................................... 4
`
`III. PETITIONER’S LINKS IN THE EMAIL (EX. 1042) DOES NOT PROVE
`
`ANYTHING ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF EXHIBITS 1005 & 1011 BEFORE
`
`THE PRIORITY DATE OF ‘763 PATENT. ............................................................ 5
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT ANSWERED ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES IN
`
`THE METADATA AND HAS NEVER GIVEN ANY PROPER EVIDENCE FOR
`
`ESTABLISHING AUTHENTICITY AND PUBLICATION DATES OF
`
`EXHIBITS 1004, 1005, 1011, AND 1037. ............................................................... 6
`
`V. OTMTE SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE....................... 7
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner seeks denial of Motion to Exclude Evidence by saying that the Judge Lee
`
`did not relied on the fabricated Exhibits in the MTE for its non-final decision.
`
`Petitioner is trying to cover up its acts of perjury by saying so. Also, in the institution
`
`decision (pages 21, 22, 23) PTAB did relied on the testimony of Stephen Gray
`
`(Exhibit 1006) which cites IAB which is sought to be excluded through the MTE.
`
`The George Ivie declaration was not objected to due to the PTAB rules of limiting
`
`Patent Owner to just 15 pages and PTAB also did not mentioned it inside its Non-
`
`Final Decision to institute CBM. Patent Owner thus, seeks only to exclude those
`
`Exhibits which were relied upon Board during institution of CBM.
`
`Also, Patent Owner suggests Petitioner to see mirror before talking about pain
`
`they have taken to obtain testimony. Paid testimony of Stephen Gray was executed
`
`(December 15, 2015) a day just before, Petitioner filed its instant Petition i.e.
`
`December 16, 2015. Patent Owner asks PTAB of logical thinking and conclude if
`
`the Petitioner was so involved in the testimony of Stephen Gray, so embedded with
`
`Gray testimony that logically, Mr. Siddiqui or Mr. Rosenthal cannot receive an
`
`unbiased testimony on day 1 and file the whole petition on the very day 2 itself.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`II. TESTIMONY OF G. IVIE CONTRADICTS AFFIDAVIT BY MR.
`
`BUTLER AND THE METADATA OF DIFFERENT EXHIBITS.
`
`At the very first argument, Petitioner is again telling a lie that George Ivie has
`
`authenticated the Exhibit 1037 which is nowhere in his testimony. Authenticating
`
`the Exhibit 1004, 1005 and 1011 does not imply at all that 1037 is also authenticated.
`
`
`
`George Ivie (Exhibit 1014) in his sworn declaration stated that the Exhibits
`
`were available for download on January 15, 2002 but the Board can see that the
`
`metadata of the Exhibit 1004 which shows the date of February 6, 2002 and that date
`
`is after January 15, 2002. If George Ivie downloaded the Exhibit 1004 around
`
`January 15,2002, then it should have the date of January 15, 2002 or before. There
`
`is no other reliable and solid authentication besides the affidavit by Mr. Butler, which
`
`shows that the Exhibits were available for download after the priority date of the
`
`‘763 Patent which contradicts declaration of George Ivie. Exhibits 1004, 1005 and
`
`1011 were not available for public to download. Even the links provided by Mr.
`
`Siddiqui as evidence to corroborate existence of prior art in 2002 corresponds
`
`factually to the year 2007 and not the year 2002. Mr. Siddiqui with the help of the
`
`2007 links claims to provide the original copies whose metadata shows the date of
`
`January 15 2002. All those false exhibits are plenty of evidence for the PTAB to
`
`allow Patent Owner to file its motion for sanction against Google & its attorneys
`
`conspiring in presenting the misleading and wrong bunch of proofs, declarations,
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`testimonies, excuses, and portraying Patent Owner as a conspirator. Such a labelling
`
`by Google is hilarious and is defying the law because it is devoid of evidence. Justice
`
`should not prevail based on fabricated proofs. Furthermore, Petitioner should be
`
`sanctioned for presenting them.
`
`The few hundred lawsuits for patent infringement that Google has been facing,
`
`the intense lobbying by Google in Washington (427 Google visits to the WH in the
`
`past 8 years) in part to introduce AIA and Michelle Lee, a former Google executive,
`
`nominated as the USPTO Director to implement CBM proceedings and hiring a
`
`Board of patent judges dubbed by retired CAFC Judge “Patent Death Squad”,
`
`including the switching of Boards for the same family of patents, all the above should
`
`easily deflect the lights of “conspiracy theorist” from Patent Owner to Google.
`
`III. PETITIONER’S LINKS IN THE EMAIL (EX. 1042) DOES NOT
`
`PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF EXHIBITS 1005 & 1011
`
`BEFORE THE PRIORITY DATE OF ‘763 PATENT.
`
` To address Patent Owner’s objections about metadata, Petitioner’s lead counsel Mr.
`
`Siddiqui sent an email (Ex. 1042) to Patent Owner having irrelevant links which
`
`came into existence first time in 2007.
`
` Petitioner has failed completely in establishing dates for the availability of the
`
`Exhibits 1004, 1005 & 1011. The only authority to authenticate Exhibits is Wayback
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`Machine or some third party without any direct or indirect interest with Google. All
`
`the affidavits except Butler Which Petitioner has provided are tainted with direct or
`
`indirect financial links to Petitioner. Even by simply changing the computer’s time
`
`and then saving a pdf could produce an Exhibit which can dated as early as 1980s.
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT ANSWERED ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES IN
`
`THE METADATA AND HAS NEVER GIVEN ANY PROPER EVIDENCE
`
`FOR ESTABLISHING AUTHENTICITY AND PUBLICATION DATES OF
`
`EXHIBITS 1004, 1005, 1011, AND 1037.
`
`Petitioner again misleads PTAB by telling that metadata of pdf document
`
`changes when downloaded and saved locally. Metadata doesn’t change which PTAB
`
`can verify. Also, Petitioner said that it applied bates labels due to which metadata
`
`has been changed. Patent Owner argues that if this is the case, metadata of each
`
`document should reflect uniformity with authors and dates, which is not the case at
`
`all. Documents should not have different authors and their created and modified
`
`dates should not be different. Therefore, above argument by the petitioner gets moot.
`
`The dates on the face of the document can be changed very easily. All the
`
`declarations have failed to show the authenticity and publication dates of these
`
`documents but has given weight to the objections made by the Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`V. OTMTE SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.
`
`Petitioner is making still the same error after 12 months of proceeding
`
`confusing
`
`the PTAB by
`
`incorrectly showing either “BRITE SMART
`
`CORPORATION” or “Brite Smart Corp.” as real Party of Interest. Those “above
`
`parties” have been wrongly and mistakenly used by Google instead of “Patrick Zuili”
`
`which is the Real Party of Interest. Also, why the Board is allowing Google' OTMTE
`
`when just recently Petitioner tried to circumvent the page limit by avoiding “double
`
`spacing” in the various headings of the OTMTE and has earlier promptly rejected
`
`MTE for the same. Is the PTAB doing justice by moving to what would become the
`
`“double standard” by not rejecting OTMTE for exactly the same reason of non-
`
`compliance with the rules set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide?
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner has used the word “Conspiracy” so many times in the OTMETE in
`
`an attempt to brush off the illegality of false exhibits presented by Google. Facts
`
`presented by Patent Owner are not mere speculations but have evidentiary support
`
`which is presented in front of the Board. Petitioner cannot hide behind PTAB in
`
`anyway by saying that the Exhibits are not relied upon by the Board for institution
`
`of CBM. Instead, Petitioner’s Exhibits should be excluded and the filing of a Motion
`
`for Sanction against Google must be authorized in the “interest of Justice”.
`
`Therefore, above objected evidence must be excluded from those proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S RENEWED MOTION TO” was served on January 12, 2017 by
`
`filing this document through the PTAB E2E System as well as e-mailing a
`
`copy to ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Patrick Zuili/
`Patrick Zuili
`pro se
`Patrick@tenderbox.tv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.11
`
`Pursuant 37 CFR 42.11, the undersigned certifies that this response to Opposition is
`
`not being presented for an improper purpose and that all legal contentions,
`
`allegations, and denials are warranted and have evidentiary support.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Patrick Zuili/
`Patrick Zuili
`pro se
`Patrick@tenderbox.tv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 B2
`
`
` CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that this Reply complies
`
`with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c). The page count application
`
`of the word processing program used to prepare this Motion indicates that the Reply
`
`contains 5 pages, excluding the Front Page, Table of Contents, List of Exhibits and
`
`Certificates exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Patrick Zuili/
`Patrick Zuili
`pro se
`Patrick@tenderbox.tv
`
`
`
`
`-10-
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
