`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Askeladden LLC Petitioner v. Sean 1. McGhie and Brian K. Buchheit, Patent
`
`Owners
`
`Case IPR2015-00125
`
`US. Patent No. 8,540,152
`
`PATENT OWNERS' REPLY TO OPPOSITION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`The Proceeding is part of an initiative of the PQI (Ex 2033, 2034; Ex 1533, pg 8,
`
`first para). The PQI is an initiative of The Clearing House (TCH)(Ex 2033, pg 1). TCH
`
`includes PayCo and The Clearing House Association (the Association) (Ex 2028, pg
`
`2; Ex 2030). Questions regarding the PQI initiative are directed to the Association (Ex
`
`2034, pg 1 — emailed PQI at theclearinghouse.org the questions). TCH is owned by
`
`Member Banks (Ex 2051). The PQI [PR initiative is funded_ (Ex
`
`1533, pg 10; S‘h point)_
`
`- (Ex 1533, pg 12, 2nd point, first sentence; 4th point (2)). Selection of patents is
`
`constrained by_
`
`- Individuals hold Positions
`
`(referring herein to employee/committee
`
`member/officer/director) indicative of blurred lines between the Acknowledged RPI
`
`(Askeladden and PayCo) and the Alleged RPI (Association and Member Banks). Each
`
`— for the PQI IPR initiative (Ex 1533, 2nd point). Funding
`
`of the PQI initiative comes from— (Ex 1533, pg 10, 5‘h point
`
`and Ex 2034, pg 2). PQI funding is used by the Association and Askeladden (Ex 2052,
`
`2049, 2050). Artifacts used in Poi ms—
`
`_ (Ex 1533, pg 8, first pass,
`
`item (2)).
`
`Petitioner alleges requests indicative of the overlap of Positions between the
`
`Acknowledged RPI and the Alleged RPI is prohibitively burdensome and relies on
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC v. SEAN MCGHIE AND BRIAN BUCHHEIT
`
`IPR2015-00125
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`information not in possession of the Acknowledged RPI. It is not credible that neither
`
`Askeladden nor PayCo maintains a personnel system or organization chart. PayCo
`
`must ensure selections of_ comply with-
`
`- (Ex 1533, pg 10,
`
`ISI point). Regarding sufficiency of possessed information,
`
`known PQI executives and known Association positions overlap (Ex 2029, 2028,
`
`2030)._
`
`—>.
`
`Askeladden and PayCo position holders— can
`
`concurrently hold positions in—. Member Banks
`
`
`possess key Proceeding data, yet names (currently unknown) must be provided to even
`
`request depositions.
`
`Funding used in the Proceeding was provided for the PQI initiative by -
`
`— (Ex 1533, page 10). This PQI initiative funding was consumed by
`
`Askeladden and the Association(Ex 2052).—
`
`_. Similarly, use of artifacts
`
`funded outside Askeladden (for amounts over $1000) is a reasonable request to target
`
`specific information for the Proceeding for RPI purposes—. The
`
`burden of providing this information is minimal relative to its probative value.
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC v. SEAN MCGHIE AND BRIAN BUCHHEIT
`
`IPR2015-00125
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Regarding requested dates, Petitioner relies on information that is inconsistent
`
`with norms of the industry, with regards to timelines required to produce Proceeding
`
`artifacts. Clarification of these inconsistencies goes towards Patent Owners burden of
`
`Persuasion, to rebut the Petitioner identified RPI as it reasonably calls into question
`
`facts upon which the indicated RPI was made. Heavy reliance on- to refute the
`
`rebutting of the presumption of RPI
`
`is problematic,—
`
`—). No attorney client
`
`privilege exists between Askeladden and PayCo (—
`
`—) and none applies between Askeladden and the Expert.
`
`Additionally, dates of deliverables are non-privileged information subject to public
`
`audits and financial disclosure (e.g., IRS audits, reporting of expenses/income).
`
`Lines between Acknowledged and Alleged RPI are blurred. _
`
`—. RPI determinations are fact intensive ones based on the
`
`totality of circumstances. The presumption of validity of the Asserted RPI is highly
`
`questionable given known facts. The requested additional discovery will reasonably
`
`yield significant facts to rebut the presumption (of validity of RPI) while imposing a
`
`minimal burden, and should therefore be granted.
`
`ASKELADDEN LLC v. SEAN MCGHIE AND BRIAN BUCHHEIT
`
`IPR2015-00125
`
`
`
`42.6(e) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document was served or simultaneously is being served on
`each opposing party with the filing of this document.
`I certify that the following
`exhibits being filed along with this document, if any, have been or simultaneously
`are being served on each opposing party:
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`42.6(e)(4) (iii)(A) The date and manner of service are (Electronic or Express Mail):
`June 9, 2015 (ELECTRONIC), via email to askeladdenIPR@fchs.com.
`
`42.6(e)(4)(iii)(B) The name and address of every person served are:
`
`Robert H. Fischer, Reg. No. 30,051
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10104
`
`Telephone: (212) 218-2100
`Fax: (212) 218-2200
`
`/BRIAN K. BUCHHEIT/
`
`Brian K. Buchheit
`
`Patent Owner
`14955 sw 33rd Street
`
`Davie, FL 33331
`
`Tel: (305) 761-1972
`Email: bbuchheit@ gmail.com
`
`