IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED and ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––
`
`Case IPR2017-01082
`Patent 7,682,243
`
`––––––––––
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order (Paper 57), Petitioners hereby object to
`
`portions of Patent Owner’s oral hearing demonstratives that were served June 29,
`
`2018 (“PO’s Original Demonstratives” attached as Attachment A). Petitioners also
`
`object to untimely demonstratives that Patent Owner served four days after the
`
`deadline on July 3, 2018 (“PO’s Second Set of Demonstratives” attached as
`
`Attachment B). See also Attachment D (second email in exchange, sent by R.
`
`Castellano on July 3).
`
`I.
`
`Objections to PO’s Original Demonstratives
`As explained below, portions of PO’s Original Demonstratives contain new,
`
`undisclosed arguments that were not contained in any prior briefing. Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that they be stricken or excluded from consideration. See
`
`Paper 57 at 2; 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A party may rely
`
`upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only
`
`present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new
`
`evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”).
`
`Petitioners are also concerned that the demonstratives indicate new
`
`arguments and theories that Patent Owner’s new counsel, who substituted in after
`
`briefing was complete, is planning to introduce at the hearing next week.
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that Patent Owner be precluded from raising these
`
`new arguments and theories. See id.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`Objected-to Portion
`
`Slide
`No.1
`Slide 3 The diagram on slide 3 and the bottom
`
`Reason for Objection
`
`The Patent Owner Response and
`
`paragraph: “In order for a Gamer to
`
`expert materials did not discuss
`
`have the option (i.e. 'may control' or
`
`computer programming issues or
`
`'permissive language') the Programer
`
`mention any of these
`
`must have programed the Pilot to have
`
`programming considerations.
`
`the ability to control as an always
`
`available property. The Gamer cannot
`
`change the fundamental attributes that
`
`make a Pilot a Pilot and not just
`
`another Avatar. A pilot must be able to
`
`control the motions of a Unit so that a
`
`Gamer may exercise such control
`
`should he so choose.”
`
`Slide 6 “Ability denotes skill, either native or
`
`Patent Owner’s prior briefing
`
`acquired, and refers to action under its
`
`made no mention of ability
`
`1 PO’s Demonstratives do not contain page numbers. The slide numbering in this
`
`chart refers to the PDF page number, with the title slide being slide 1, and the last
`
`slide being slide 10.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`plain meaning”
`
`denoting “skill” or “action,” did
`
`“Petitioner conflates
`
`‘ability' with
`
`not propose plain and ordinary
`
`‘capability,’ which pertains to unique
`
`meaning, and in fact proposed a
`
`fitness for a defined end, and does not
`
`different construction requiring
`
`neessariliy refer to action”
`
`an “innate ability.”
`
`“PO’s
`
`proposed
`
`construction
`
`is
`
`constituent with the plaint meaning of
`
`ability”
`
`“Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`would rewrite the ‘ability’ recitation
`
`despite absence of a special definition
`
`of the term in the instrinsic record”
`
`Slide 5 “Ability is to be construed according
`
`These are
`
`improper
`
`for
`
`the
`
`to its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`reasons explained above
`
`for
`
`which is consistent with the prior art.”
`
`Slide 6.
`
`Slide 7 “Ability is not limited to the six basic
`
`These are
`
`improper
`
`for
`
`the
`
`abilities of D&D. See Reply at 7. The
`
`reasons explained above
`
`for
`
`six abilities of D&D are examples of
`
`Slide 6.
`
`abilities,
`
`consistent with
`
`PO’s
`
`proposed construction requiring that
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`‘ability’ be interpreted to pertain to
`
`skill or action.”
`
`Slide 9 “HP is not an ability or skill and does
`
`These are
`
`improper
`
`for
`
`the
`
`not pertain to action such as illustrated
`
`reasons explained above
`
`for
`
`by way of example by the six basic
`
`Slide 6.
`
`abilities in Dungeons & Dragons. The
`
`‘243 Patent does not include a special
`
`definition of
`
`'ability' that includes
`
`HP.”
`
`II.
`
`Objections to PO’s Second Set of Demonstratives
`Petitioners object to PO’s Second Set of Demonstratives as untimely and
`
`prejudicial: Patent Owner should not be permitted to revise and create new slides
`
`four days after the deadline with the unfair advantage of having reviewed
`
`Petitioner’s slides. Petitioners respectfully request that Patent Owner be precluded
`
`from using its Second Set of Demonstratives.
`
`Additionally, PO’s Second Set of Demonstratives include the arguments
`
`listed above for PO’s Original Demonstratives. Petitioners object to those portions
`
`for the same reasons explained above. Furthermore, at least Slides 2, 4, 6, and 8
`
`introduce new substantive material that was not included in PO’s Original
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`Demonstratives and should be excluded for this additional reason.
`
`July 5, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Harper Batts/
`Harper Batts, Reg. No. 56,160
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01082
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on July 5,
`
`2018, a complete and entire copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and
`
`served via email to all parties to this proceeding at the addresses indicated:
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph J. Zito
`Richard Castellano
`DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
`jzito@dnlzito.com
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`
`William H. Mandir
`Peter S. Park
`John M. Bird
`Christopher Bezak
`Fadi Kiblawi
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`gat@sughrue.com
`jbird@sughrue.com
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`pspark@sughrue.com
`cbezak@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`
`July 5, 2018
`
`FOR ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`Sharon Israel
`John D. Garretson
`Tanya Chaney
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON
`sisrael@shb.com
`jgarretson@shb.com
`tchaney@shb.com
`
`/Harper Batts/
`Harper Batts
`
`6
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT A
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`

`

`WARGAMING V. GAT CO., LTD.
`WARGAMING V. GAT CO., LTD.
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE
`FOR
`FOR
`IPR2017-01082 PATENT 7,682,243
`|PR2017-O1082 PATENT 7,682,243
`
`

`

`Construction of “Pilot” and “Unit”
`A “Pilot” is a special form of avatar that has certain
`properties, including the mandatory ability to control
`the motion of a “Unit.”
`Decision on Institution at Page 9:
`"On this record, we determine Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction is not the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`light of the specification of the ’243 patent for at least the
`following two reasons. First, the specification states that a
`“gamer may control motions of a unit through the pilot.” Ex.
`1001, 3:9–10 (emphasis added). The specification,
`therefore, uses permissive language rather than restrictive
`language to describe this relationship between the gamer
`and the unit. "
`A Pilot cannot be any generic "player character
`representing a Gamer" as proposed by Petitioner.
`
`

`

`As recognized by teh Board, the patent specifies that “gamer may control motions of a unit through
`the pilot.” Ex. 1001, 3:9–10 (emphasis added by the Board).
`
`GAMER
`
` AVATAR
`
`PILOT
`
`WIZARD
`
`UNIT
`
`SPELLS
`
`In order for a Gamer to have the option (i.e. "may control" or "permissive language") the Programer
`must have programed the Pilot to have the ability to control as an always available property. The
`Gamer cannot change the fundamental attributes that make a Pilot a Pilot and not just another
`Avatar. A pilot must be able to control the motions of a Unit so that a Gamer may exercise such
`control should he so choose.
`
`

`

`A “Unit” is an object that is operated by control of the
`Pilot, not the Gamer.
`
`The “Unit” must have the ability to move.
`
`The “Unit” must have its motions controlled by the Pilot.
`
`“Second, Patent Owner’s proposed contruction of “pilot”
`requires a “unit” to be a “mount,” and, for reasons explained
`below, we do not agree that this is the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the “unit.” Decision on Institution, page 9.
`
`

`

`Construction of “Ability”
`Petitioner mischaracterizes PO’s expert’s statements in
`attempt to mislead this Board.
`Ability is to be construed according to its
`plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`consistent with the prior art. See PO expert
`statement:
`“The abilities in the ‘243 Patent are
`synonymous with abilities in Dungeons &
`Dragons.” Ex[1030], 99:17-25.
`PO does not propose “narrowing using
`extrinsic evidence” as alleged by Petitioner.
`Reply, at 4.
`
`

`

`Ability denotes skill, either native or acquired, and
`refers to action under its plain meaning.
`
`The plain meaning of “ability” in the context of the ‘243
`Patent is not a statistic derived from an ability. POR, 65;
`Ex[0130], 88:10-17, 95:23-97:14.
`
`A hit point is a statistic, not an ability. A hit point is an
`attribute, and perhaps a capability.
`
`Petitioner conflates “ability” with “capability,” which pertains
`to unique fitness for a defined end, and does not neessariliy
`refer to action.
`
`PO’s proposed construction is constitent with the plaint
`meaning of ability.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction would rewrite the “ability”
`recitation despite absence of a special definition of the term
`in the instrinsic record.
`
`

`

`Ability is not limited to the six basic abilities of D&D. See
`Reply at p. 7. The six abilities of D&D are examples of
`abilities, consistent with PO’s proposed construction
`requiring that “ability” be interpreted to pertain to skill or
`action.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly asserts that PO’s infringement
`contentions are inconsistent with PO’s proposed
`construction of ability. Id.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly alleges that PO’s proposed
`construction of ability in this proceeding is inconsistent with
`PO’s assertion that riding skill and recon skill or view range,
`as used in World of Warcraft and World of Tanks,
`respectively, are abilities as claimed in the ‘243 Patent. Id.
`This is true because riding skill is a skill, and recon skill is a
`skill.
`
`

`

`Construction of “Sync Point”
`
`A pilot’s ability affects an ability of a unit piloted by the pilot
`using a ratio to change the ability of the unit proportionally
`to changes in the ability of pilot.
`
`The asserted prior art combination of Levine and Dungeons
`& Dragons does not disclose sync points, which are used to
`adjust “unit ability information” in view of “pilot ability
`infromation.
`
`Yet, Petitioner contends that each of Levine and Dungeons
`& Dragons discloses sync points by way of 1) sorceror’s
`familiar’s HP; and 2) druid’s companion bonus tricks. See
`Reply, at p. 17.
`
`

`

`1) HP is not an ability or skill and does not pertain to action
`such as illustrated by way of example by the six basic
`abilities in Dungeons & Dragons.
`
`The ‘243 Patent does not include a special definition of
`“ability” that includes HP.
`
`2) The druid’s companion is not piloted by the druid at least
`because the druid is not in control over the companion.
`The companion is not piloted by the unit, as required by the
`claims.
`
`Accordingly, the applied combination cannot fairly be
`interpreted as disclosing a sync point used to adjust a unit
`ability based on a change in a pilot ability.
`
`

`

`Distric Court Claim Construction
`
`The District Court construed “pilot” as “a player-operated
`game character that operates the motion controls of a
`separate unit.” See CC Order, at p. 23.
`
`The District Court construed “unit” as “a mount, such as a
`vehicle or robotm which is controlled by the pilot. See CC
`Order, at p. 22.
`
`The District Court construed “sync point information” as a
`ration that governs how changes in the ability of the pilot
`and the ability of the unit. See CC Order, at p. 26.
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT B
`
`ATTACHMENT B
`
`

`

`
`
`WARGAMING V. GAT CO., LTD.
`WARGAMING V. GAT CO., LTD.
`
`FOR
`
`|PR2017-O1082 PATENT 7,682,243
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE
`FOR
`IPR2017-01082 PATENT 7,682,243
`
`PATENT OWNER DEMONSTRATIVE
`
`

`

`Construction of “Pilot” and “Unit”
`The term pilot should be according meaning and not
`just be constricted as synonymous with the generic
`term “avatar.” A “Pilot” is a special form of avatar that
`has certain properties, including the mandatory ability
`to control the motion of a “Unit.”
`A Pilot cannot be any generic "player character
`representing a Gamer" as proposed by Petitioner.
`The term “Pilot” is purposely used in the patent
`because of the particular ability to pilot a unit.
`
`

`

`Decision on Institution at Page 9:
`"On this record, we determine Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction is not the
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`the specification of the ’243 patent for at
`least the following two reasons. First, the
`specification states that a “gamer may
`control motions of a unit through the pilot.”
`Ex. 1001, 3:9–10 (emphasis added). The
`specification, therefore, uses permissive
`language rather than restrictive language to
`describe this relationship between the gamer
`and the unit. "
`
`

`

`a Gamer may exercise such control should he so choose.
`
`As recognized by the Board, the patent specifies that
`“gamer may control motions of a unit through the pilot.” Ex.
`1001, 3:9-10 (emphasis added by the Board).
`
`However, the Gamer controls the Pilot, the pilot controls the
`Unit.
`
`

`

`(NUMER
`GAMER
`
` AVATAR
`
`PILOT
`
` SPELLS
`
`WIZARD
`
`UNIT
`
`SPELLS
`
`

`

`Once “Pilot” is properly narrowly construced,
`it becomes clear that no “pilot” character is
`found in the prior art and no “unit” is taught.
`
`

`

`A “Unit” is an object that is operated by control of the
`Pilot, not the Gamer.
`
`The “Unit” must have the ability to move. See POPR, p. 10,
`para. 2 through end.
`
`The “Unit” must have its motions controlled by the Pilot.
`“Second, Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pilot”
`requires a “unit” to be a “mount,” and, for reasons explained
`below, we do not agree that this is the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the “unit.” Decision on Institution, page 9.
`
`

`

`“Second, Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
`“pilot” requires a “unit” to be a “mount,” and, for
`reasons explained below, we do not agree that this is the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the “unit.”
`Decision on Institution, page 9.
`
`A unit must be a mount because piloting is not the ability to
`tell a pet where to go or who to attack, it is the ability to
`actively steer the unit that is being piloted.
`
`

`

`Construction of “Ability”
`Petitioner mischaracterizes PO’s expert’s statements in
`attempt to mislead this Board.
`
`Ability is to be construed according to its plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is consistent with the prior art. See PO expert
`statement:
`“The abilities in the ‘243 Patent are synonymous with abilities in Dungeons
`& Dragons.” Ex[1030], 99:17-25.
`PO does not propose “narrowing using extrinsic evidence” as alleged by
`Petitioner. Reply, at 4.
`
`See also POPR at page 17; POR at pages 31-33.
`
`

`

`Ability denotes skill, either native or acquired, and refers to action under its plain
`meaning.
`
`The plain meaning of “ability” in the context of the ‘243 Patent is not a statistic
`derived from an ability. POR, 65; Ex[0130], 88:10-17, 95:23-97:14.
`
`A hit point is a statistic, not an ability. A hit point is an attribute, and perhaps a
`capability.
`
`Petitioner conflates “ability” with “capability,” which pertains to unique fitness for a
`defined end, and does not necessarily refer to action.
`
`PO’s proposed construction is consistent with the plaint meaning of ability.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction would rewrite the “ability” recitation despite
`absence of a special definition of the term in the intrinsic record.
`
`See also POPR at para bridging pp. 17-18; POR 31-33.
`
`

`

`Ability is not limited to the six basic abilities of D&D. See
`Reply at p. 7. The six abilities of D&D are examples of
`abilities, consistent with PO’s proposed construction requiring
`that “ability” be interpreted to pertain to skill or action. See
`POPR at page 25; POR at pages 31-34.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly asserts that PO’s infringement
`contentions are inconsistent with PO’s proposed construction
`of ability. Id.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly alleges that PO’s proposed construction
`of ability in this proceeding is inconsistent with PO’s assertion
`that riding skill and recon skill or view range, as used in World
`of Warcraft and World of Tanks, respectively, are abilities as
`claimed in the ‘243 Patent. Id. This is true because riding skill
`is a skill, and recon skill is a skill.
`
`

`

`Construction of “Sync Point”
`
`A pilot’s ability affects an ability of a unit piloted by the pilot
`using a ratio to change the ability of the unit proportionally
`to changes in the ability of pilot.
`
`The asserted prior art combination of Levine and Dungeons
`& Dragons does not disclose sync points, which are used to
`adjust “unit ability information” in view of “pilot ability
`information.
`
`Yet, Petitioner contends that each of Levine and Dungeons
`& Dragons discloses sync points by way of 1) sorcerer’s
`familiar’s HP; and 2) druid’s companion bonus tricks. See
`Reply, at p. 17.
`
`

`

`1) HP is not an ability or skill and does not pertain to action such as
`illustrated by way of example by the six basic abilities in Dungeons
`& Dragons.
`
`The ‘243 Patent does not include a special definition of “ability” that
`includes HP.
`
`2) The druid’s companion is not piloted by the druid at least
`because the druid is not in control over the companion. The
`companion is not piloted by the unit, as required by the claims.
`
`See POPR at page 25; POR at page 33.
`
`Accordingly, the applied combination cannot fairly be interpreted as
`disclosing a sync point used to adjust a unit ability based on a
`change in a pilot ability.
`
`

`

`District Court Claim Construction
`
`The District Court construed “pilot” as “a player-operated game character
`that operates the motion controls of a separate unit.” See CC Order, at p.
`23.
`
`The District Court construed “unit” as “a mount, such as a vehicle or robot
`which is controlled by the pilot. See CC Order, at p. 22.
`
`The District Court construed “sync point information” as a ration that
`governs how changes in the ability of the pilot and the ability of the unit.
`See CC Order, at p. 26.
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT C
`
`ATTACHMENT C
`
`

`

`Batts, Harper
`Richard A. Castellano; Liang, Jeffrey; SISRAEL@shb.com; jgarretson@shb.com; Chaney, Tanya L. (SHB)
`Joseph J. Zito; Bird, John M.; cbezak@sughrue.com; fkiblawi@sughrue.com; wmandir@sughrue.com; Park, Peter
`S.; Ponder, Chris
`RE: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT"s Demonstratives- Wargaming Group Limited v. GAT
`Monday, July 2, 2018 9:51:03 AM
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Counsel,
`
`Patent Owner’s demonstratives served on Friday contain new arguments and theories that are undisclosed and do not
`appear in the record. Such new arguments are not permitted, as outlined in the Amended Oral Hearing Order
`(Docket 58). If you disagree, please specifically identify (by Noon Eastern tomorrow) where the argument and
`evidence is in the record for each of the following:
`
`• Slide 3: arguments and diagrams regarding programming and fundamental attributes, e.g., the diagram on slide
`3 and statements such as “In order for a Gamer to have the option (i.e. 'may control' or 'permissive language') the
`Programer must have programed the Pilot to have the ability to control as an always available property. The Gamer
`cannot change the fundamental attributes that make a Pilot a Pilot and not just another Avatar. A pilot must be able
`to control the motions of a Unit so that a Gamer may exercise such control should he so choose.”
`• Slide 4: arguments that “[t]he ‘Unit’ must have the ability to move.”
`• Slide 5: arguments that “Ability is to be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`consistent with the prior art.”
`• Slide 6: arguments regarding the following points: “Ability denotes skill, either native or acquired, and refers
`to action under its plain meaning”; “Petitioner conflates 'ability' with 'capability,' which pertains to unique fitness for
`a defined end, and does not neessariliy refer to action”; “PO’s proposed construction is constituent with the plaint
`meaning of ability”; “Petitioner’s proposed construction would rewrite the 'ability' recitation despite absence of a
`special definition of the term in the instrinsic record”
`• Slide 7: arguments that “Ability is not limited to the six basic abilities of D&D” and “[t]he six abilities of D&D
`are examples of abilities, consistent with PO’s proposed construction requiring that 'ability' be interpreted to pertain
`to skill or action.”
`• Slide 8: arguments that “[a] pilot’s ability affects an ability of a unit piloted by the pilot using a ratio to change
`the ability of the unit proportionally to changes in the ability of pilot.”
`• Slide 9: arguments that “HP is not an ability or skill and does not pertain to action such as illustrated by way of
`example by the six basic abilities in Dungeons & Dragons. The ‘243 Patent does not include a special definition of
`'ability' that includes HP.”
`
`Slide numbering refers to the PDF page number, with the title slide being slide 1, and the last slide being slide 10.
`
`In light of Wednesday being the 4th of July, please let us know when you are available to meet and confer on these
`issues tomorrow afternoon or evening.
`
`Regards,
`
`- Harper
`
`Harper Batts
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`650.739.7509
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`-----Original Message-----
`From: Richard A. Castellano <rcastellano@dnlzito.com>
`Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:47 PM
`To: Batts, Harper <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com>; Liang, Jeffrey <jeffrey.liang@bakerbotts.com>;
`SISRAEL@shb.com; jgarretson@shb.com; Chaney, Tanya L. (SHB) <TCHANEY@shb.com>
`
`

`

`Cc: Joseph J. Zito <jzito@dnlzito.com>; Bird, John M. <jbird@sughrue.com>; cbezak@sughrue.com;
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com; wmandir@sughrue.com; Park, Peter S. <pspark@sughrue.com>
`Subject: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT's Demonstratives- Wargaming Group Limited v. GAT
`
`Counsel:
`
`GAT's demonstratives are attached.
`
`Best Regards.
`
`Richard A. Castellano
`DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
`1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20036
`301-448-8071
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT D
`
`ATTACHMENT D
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Batts, Harper
`Richard A. Castellano
`Liang, Jeffrey; SISRAEL@shb.com; jgarretson@shb.com; TCHANEY@shb.com; jzito@dnlzito.com;
`jbird@sughrue.com; cbezak@sughrue.com; fkiblawi@sughrue.com; wmandir@sughrue.com;
`pspark@sughrue.com; Ponder, Chris
`RE: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT"s Demonstratives- Wargaming Group Limited v. GAT
`Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:50:53 AM
`
`Counsel,
` 
`We are surprised that G&T would disregard the PTAB’s rules and procedures by serving a new set of
`slides 4 days after the deadline. The new slide deck, rather than removing objectionable materials,
`instead revises mistakes in the original deck and adds new content beyond the original slides,
`including on slides 2, 4, 6, and 8.  If Patent Owner had in good faith attempted to address our
`objections, it would have deleted its new arguments, not created a new set of slides after having
`four days to review and consider our slides.
` 
`Additionally, the slides confirm that Patent Owner’s new IPR counsel, who substituted in after
`briefing here was complete, plans to ambush us with entirely new arguments at oral argument next
`week. Such an approach is prohibited by the Board.
` 
`Regarding our objections, the vague citations you provided do not support the new arguments.
`For slide 3, Patent Owner’s revised slides deleted the identified paragraph but did not provide
`support for the objectionable diagram.
`For slide 4, the citation includes a range of 27 pages, which is about 3/4 of the entire brief.
`None of this appears to support a claim construction requiring that the “Unit” must have the
`ability to move.
`For slides 5 and 6, the citations do not support Patent Owner’s new construction of ability.
`POPR at 17-18 discusses Patent Owner's original proposed construction of “ability,” while POR
`31-33 discusses Patent Owner’s second construction requiring an “innate ability.” None of
`these mention ability requiring “skill or action.” Nor do they mention adopting the plain and
`ordinary meaning of ability; in fact, each citation proposes a different construction of the
`term.
`Similarly, for slide 7, the citation to POPR at 25 discusses PO's previous construction of
`"performance characteristic," not PO’s current construction. The citation to POR at 31-34
`discusses Patent Owner’s “innate ability” construction, with no mention that ability must
`“pertain to skill or action” as indicated by the demonstratives.
`No citations were provided for our objections to slide 9.
`
` 
`We will be filing our objections with the Panel today, and also notify them of your obvious intent to
`inject new arguments and theories at the hearing beyond those briefed in the case.
` 
`Regards,
` 
`Harper
` 
`Harper Batts
`
`

`

`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`650.739.7509
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
` 
` 
`From: Richard A. Castellano <rcastellano@dnlzito.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 7:35 PM
`To: Batts, Harper <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com>
`Cc: Liang, Jeffrey <jeffrey.liang@bakerbotts.com>; SISRAEL@shb.com; jgarretson@shb.com;
`TCHANEY@shb.com; jzito@dnlzito.com; jbird@sughrue.com; cbezak@sughrue.com;
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com; wmandir@sughrue.com; pspark@sughrue.com; Ponder, Chris
`<chris.ponder@bakerbotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT's Demonstratives- Wargaming Group Limited v. GAT
` 
`Harper,
` 
`There must be some miscommunication because that is not GAT’s position.  To clarify, as my email
`indicated, GAT’s position is that the slides you refer to include statements pertaining to arguments
`and evidence already of record and having unmistakable original basis in at least Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response and Response to the Petition.
` 
`For your better ease of reference, however, the attached Patent Owner’s Demonstrative adds
`additional citations as you requested, and clarifies or removes language that seems to be causing
`confusion.
` 
`Thank you.
` 
`Best Regards.
` 
`Richard 
` 
`Richard A. Castellano
`DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
`1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20036
`301-448-8071
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`
`On Jul 3, 2018, at 2:14 PM, <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com> <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com> wrote:
`
`Richard,
` 
`We disagree with your position that only new evidence is precluded, but that new
`arguments and theories can be raised for the first time in slides or at the hearing.  The
`
`

`

`slides clearly indicate new theories and arguments now being raised by G&T,
`something the PTAB specifically prohibits.
` 
`Please let us know today if you will provide the requested citations for the portions of
`the slides identified below.  Given the impending holiday and oral hearing, we request
`G&T provide those citations today.  If we do not hear back from you, we will move
`forward with raising our objections to the new theories and arguments with the Panel.
` 
`Thanks.
` 
`Harper
` 
`Harper Batts
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`650.739.7509
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
` 
` 
`From: Richard A. Castellano <rcastellano@dnlzito.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 8:55 AM
`To: Batts, Harper <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com>; Liang, Jeffrey
`<jeffrey.liang@bakerbotts.com>; SISRAEL@shb.com; jgarretson@shb.com;
`TCHANEY@shb.com
`Cc: jzito@dnlzito.com; jbird@sughrue.com; cbezak@sughrue.com;
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com; wmandir@sughrue.com; pspark@sughrue.com; Ponder, Chris
`<chris.ponder@bakerbotts.com>
`Subject: Re: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT's Demonstratives- Wargaming Group Limited
`v. GAT
` 
`Harper,
`
`The demonstratives are summaries of the arguments, not quotations, and all rely upon
`the evidence already before the Board, and arguments presented in Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response and Patent Owner's Response to the Petition in the case.  
`Moreover, the demonstratives include statements made responsive to issues and
`arguments raised by Petitioner in Petitioner's Reply.  
`
`The point of an oral hearing is not to read from the briefs, but to explain in person what
`the evidence and the briefs mean.  The prohibition is against entering new evidence,
`not against providing a better explanation of the evidence or an oral clarification of the
`briefs.
`
`Best Regards.
`
`

`

`Richard
`
`Richard A. Castellano
`DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
`1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20036
`301-448-8071
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`On 7/2/2018 12:51 PM, harper.batts@bakerbotts.com wrote:
`Counsel,
`
`Patent Owner’s demonstratives served on Friday contain new arguments
`and theories that are undisclosed and do not appear in the record. Such
`new arguments are not permitted, as outlined in the Amended Oral
`Hearing Order (Docket 58). If you disagree, please specifically identify (by
`Noon Eastern tomorrow) where the argument and evidence is in the
`record for each of the following: 
`
`• Slide 3: arguments and diagrams regarding programming and
`fundamental attributes, e.g., the diagram on slide 3 and statements such
`as “In order for a Gamer to have the option (i.e. 'may control' or
`'permissive language') the Programer must have programed the Pilot to
`have the ability to control as an always available property. The Gamer
`cannot change the fundamental attributes that make a Pilot a Pilot and
`not just another Avatar. A pilot must be able to control the motions of a
`Unit so that a Gamer may exercise such control should he so choose.”
`• Slide 4: arguments that “[t]he ‘Unit’ must have the ability to move.”
`• Slide 5: arguments that “Ability is to be construed according to its plain
`and ordinary meaning, which is consistent with the prior art.”
`• Slide 6: arguments regarding the following points: “Ability denotes skill,
`either native or acquired, and refers to action under its plain meaning”;
`“Petitioner conflates 'ability' with 'capability,' which pertains to unique
`fitness for a defined end, and does not neessariliy refer to action”; “PO’s
`proposed construction is constituent with the plaint meaning of ability”;
`“Petitioner’s proposed construction would rewrite the 'ability' recitation
`despite absence of a special definition of the term in the instrinsic record”
`• Slide 7: arguments that “Ability is not limited to the six basic abilities of
`D&D” and “[t]he six abilities of D&D are examples of abilities, consistent
`with PO’s proposed construction requiring that 'ability' be interpreted to
`pertain to skill or action.”
`• Slide 8: arguments that “[a] pilot’s ability affects an ability of a unit
`piloted by the pilot using a ratio to change the ability of the unit
`proportionally to changes in the ability of pilot.”
`• Slide 9: arguments that “HP is not an ability or skill and does not pertain
`to action such as illustrated by way of example by the six basic abilities in
`Dungeons & Dragons. The ‘243 Patent does not include a special
`definition of 'ability' that includes HP.”
`
`

`

`Slide numbering refers to the PDF page number, with the title slide being
`slide 1, and the last slide being slide 10.
`
`In light of Wednesday being the 4th of July, please let us know when you
`are available to meet and confer on these issues tomorrow afternoon or
`evening.
`
`Regards,
`
`- Harper
`
`Harper Batts
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`650.739.7509
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`-----Original Message-----
`From: Richard A. Castellano <rcastellano@dnlzito.com> 
`Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:47 PM
`To: Batts, Harper <harper.batts@bakerbotts.com>; Liang, Jeffrey
`<jeffrey.liang@bakerbotts.com>; SISRAEL@shb.com;
`jgarretson@shb.com; Chaney, Tanya L. (SHB) <TCHANEY@shb.com>
`Cc: Joseph J. Zito <jzito@dnlzito.com>; Bird, John M.
`<jbird@sughrue.com>; cbezak@sughrue.com; fkiblawi@sughrue.com;
`wmandir@sughrue.com; Park, Peter S. <pspark@sughrue.com>
`Subject: Service: IPR2017-01082: GAT's Demonstratives- Wargaming
`Group Limited v. GAT
`
`Counsel:
`
`GAT's demonstratives are attached.
`
`Best Regards.
`
`Richard A. Castellano
`DNL ZITO CASTELLANO
`1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20036
`301-448-8071
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`
`Confidentiality Notice:
`
`

`

`The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended only
`for the recipient[s] listed above and may be privileged and confidential. Any
`dissemination, copying, or use of or reliance upon such information by or to
`anyone other than the recipient[s] listed above is prohibited. If you have
`received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately at the
`email addre