throbber
Filed on behalf of Securus Technologies, Inc.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Daniel F. Olejko (dolejko@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Terry A. Saad (tsaad@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Nicholas C. Kliewer (nkliewer@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01220
`U.S. Patent No. 9,007,420
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(B)(1) AND 42.64(C)
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. GTL Ignores That Exhibit 1021 Uses the Word “Actual” in a Fundamentally
`Different Way Than the ’420 Patent. .................................................................. 1
`
`
`III. Exhibit 1021 Is Not Authentic and Is Inadmissible Hearsay. ............................. 3
`
`IV. The Board Should Deny GTL’s Request to Expunge Exhibit 2010. .................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The unrefuted evidence demonstrates that that Exhibit 1021 is irrelevant to
`
`the interpretation of the ’420 patent because the exhibit’s use of “actual geometry of
`
`the face” is particular to its context, and entirely distinct from the use of “actual face”
`
`in the claims of the ’420 patent. Because GTL cannot refute the evidence on the
`
`merits, it resorts to a procedural attack on the supporting declaration. But GTL’s
`
`argument is bereft of any authority to expunge it. Further, Exhibit 1021’s distinctive
`
`characteristics only undermine its authenticity, since the date of publication that
`
`appears on the document is contradicted by other evidence of record. Exhibit 1021
`
`is also inadmissible hearsay because GTL seeks to show that it describes an “actual
`
`geometry of the face.” Accordingly, the Board should exclude Exhibit 1021.
`
`II. GTL Ignores That Exhibit 1021 Uses the Word “Actual” in a Fundamentally
`Different Way Than the ’420 Patent.
`
`GTL contends that Exhibit 1021 is relevant because it allegedly shows how a
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand the word “actual” and allegedly
`
`contradicts Prof. Kakadiaris’ testimony. Paper 24 at 2-4. But GTL did not make these
`
`arguments in its Reply. Paper 19 at 7. Instead, GTL attempted to use Exhibit 1021
`
`to show that Dr. Beigi’s understanding of “actual” is consistent with how
`
`Prof. Kakadiaris “has used the word in his own writing related to face detection and
`
`recognition.” Id. But that alleged consistency is simply not relevant to the
`
`interpretation of “actual face” in the ’420 patent or Prof. Kakadiaris’ credibility
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`because Exhibit 1021 uses “actual” in an entirely different context.
`
`GTL does not meaningfully attempt to refute Prof. Kakadiaris’ explanation of
`
`the fundamental differences between Exhibit 1021 and the ’420 patent. Instead, GTL
`
`contends that Exhibit 1021 is relevant because it relates to the broad topic of facial
`
`recognition. Paper 24 at 3. But GTL ignores the fact that “actual” has different
`
`meanings within the art, depending upon the context. Paper 23 at 2-5. By attempting
`
`to rely on the use of “actual geometry of the face” in prior art from a different context
`
`to support its construction of “actual face” in the ’420 patent, GTL makes the same
`
`error as the Board in In re NuVasive, Inc., --- F. Appx. ---, 2017 WL 2365257, at *5
`
`(Fed. Cir. May 31, 2017). Paper 23 at 5-6.
`
`Like the prior-art patent in NuVasive that “disclose[d] a species of anterior
`
`approach that does not involve traversing the nerve-rich part of the psoas,” the
`
`portion of Exhibit 1021 highlighted by GTL does not involve verifying that an
`
`“actual face” is present in an image. Compare 2017 WL 2365257, at *5, with
`
`Paper 23 at 3-5. Indeed, Exhibit 1021 uses “actual geometry of the face” to refer to
`
`geometric information (x, y, and z components of a vertex in R3) in the context of
`
`enrolling a 3D facial mesh into a model. Paper 23 at 3-5; Exhibit 2010 ¶¶ 4-7. Thus,
`
`unlike the ’420 patent, the “actual geometry of the face” in Exhibit 1021 refers to
`
`the existence of geometric data, not the presence of an “actual face” in an image.
`
`GTL does not contend otherwise. Instead, it argues that “[w]hat the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`’420 patent is saying when it describes ‘verify[ing] that an actual face was present
`
`in the image’ is verifying whether the image includes the likeness, or geometry of
`
`the face.” Paper 24 at 4. But GTL fails to demonstrate that the ’420 patent verifies
`
`whether an image includes an “actual geometry of the face” in the context of
`
`Exhibit 1021. Nor could it. The ’420 patent discloses verifying the presence of an
`
`“actual face” in an image, not the existence of geometric information from a 3D
`
`facial mesh. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 150-52.
`
`GTL’s attempt to distinguish NuVasive fails. Although GTL posits that it is
`
`not asking the Board to rely on and adopt any statements from Prof. Kakadiaris for
`
`the meaning of “actual face,” GTL is clearly relying on Exhibit 1021 to support its
`
`interpretation of “actual” in the ’420 patent, just like the Board erroneously relied
`
`on testimony about the prior-art patent to support its construction in NuVasive. 2017
`
`WL 2365257, at *3-7. Because Exhibit 1021 uses “actual” in an entirely different
`
`context than the ’420 patent, it would be highly prejudicial (and in fact erroneous)
`
`to consider the reference when evaluating the parties’ competing constructions of
`
`“actual face” or the credibility of Prof. Kakadiaris.
`
`III. Exhibit 1021 Is Not Authentic and Is Inadmissible Hearsay.
`
`GTL contends that “Securus completely ignores [Exhibit 1021]’s intrinsic
`
`characteristics,” which show it is a book chapter referenced in Prof. Kakadiaris’ CV.
`
`Paper 24 at 8. But Exhibit 1021 states that it was “[f]irst published in 2011,” a year
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`after the reference identified in Prof. Kakadiaris’ CV. Compare Ex. 2004 at 92, with
`
`Ex. 1021. Thus, the characteristics of the exhibit actually undermine, rather than
`
`support the authenticity of Exhibit 1021.
`
`While GTL argues that it is not offering Exhibit 1021 to show that the authors
`
`in truth employed the model, or that the number of channels in the geometry is seven,
`
`there is no dispute that GTL relies on Exhibit 1021 to show that the document in
`
`truth “describes an actual geometry of the face” and that the description is allegedly
`
`consistent with Dr. Beigi’s interpretation of “actual face.” Paper 24 at 10-11. This
`
`argument relies on the truth of the matter asserted (e.g., whether and how the
`
`document describes “an actual geometry of the face”). Moreover, GTL does not seek
`
`to use Exhibit 1021 for impeachment purposes. See Paper 19 at 7.
`
`IV. The Board Should Deny GTL’s Request to Expunge Exhibit 2010.
`
`The Board should reject GTL’s improper request to expunge Exhibit 2010
`
`through argument in its response brief, as the Board has not provided GTL with
`
`authorization to make such a request. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(a)-(b). To the extent the
`
`Board considers GTL’s request, it should be denied.
`
`Parties regularly file evidence in support of authorized motions to the Board.
`
`For example, in Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, the Patent Owner
`
`filed deposition testimony with a motion to exclude certain publications based on a
`
`lack of authenticity. See IPR2015-01951, Paper 77 at 9 (Ex. 2111) and 14 (Ex. 2110).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`Responsive evidence can also be filed to oppose a motion to exclude. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2015-01996, Ex. 1156; IPR2015-01236, Ex. 1020; IPR2013-00593, Ex. 1025.
`
`Indeed, the Board has encouraged the filing of expert declarations with motions to
`
`avoid conclusory argument. IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 7-8.
`
`GTL identifies no rule or case authority for the proposition that a party must
`
`seek permission from the Board before submitting evidence in support of an
`
`authorized motion to the Board. The cases cited by GTL involve attempts to submit
`
`a supplemental declaration supporting a Patent Owner Response (IPR2016-00022,
`
`Paper 30 at 8) and a new exhibit along with an opposition to a motion to exclude
`
`(IPR2015-00300, Paper 54 at 29). Both of these cases are distinguishable.
`
`Exhibit 2010 does not “supplement” any prior paper, and it addresses directly
`
`the issues raised in the Motion to Exclude and supports those arguments. It is
`
`therefore unlike the supplemental declaration in IPR2016-00022, which belatedly
`
`sought to supplement a Patent Owner Response, as well as the new exhibit in
`
`IPR2015-00300, which was “not responsive to the Motion to Exclude,” and thus did
`
`not support the party’s opposition brief. IPR2015-00300, Paper 54 at 29.
`
`Finally, GTL’s allegation that it has been deprived of any opportunity to cross-
`
`examine Prof. Kakadiaris and file a motion for observation is a red herring. GTL’s
`
`counsel has never requested to depose Prof. Kakadiaris about Exhibit 2010, and it
`
`specifically declined to do so when asked during the parties’ meet and confer.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`Date: July 26, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document was served via electronic mail
`
`on July 26, 2017, to Petitioner via counsel, mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com, jmutsche-
`
`PTAB@skgf.com, and PTAB@skgf.com, pursuant to Petitioner’s consent in its
`
`Petition at page 60.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`7
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket