UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TWILIO, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`_________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TWILIO, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01977
`Patent No. 8,755,376
`_________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner TeleSign objects under the Federal Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.62 to the admissibility of Exhibits 2010, 2018-2020, 2022, 2023, 2025-27,
`
`2029, 2040, 2046-54, 2055-70 (the “Challenged Exhibits”) cited in Twilio Inc.’s
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 26). These objections are being timely filed within
`
`five (5) business days of Twilio’s service of the exhibits to which these objections
`
`are directed. TeleSign files and serves Twilio with these objections to provide notice
`
`that TeleSign may move to exclude the Challenged Exhibits and Paper 26 under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`1.
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`TeleSign objects to ¶¶ 130-158 of Exhibit 2010 – the secondary considerations
`
`of non-obviousness section of Dr. Negus’ expert declaration – as improper expert
`
`testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 and 703. Dr. Negus is not
`
`qualified to offer the proffered expert testimony, the testimony is based on
`
`insufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and
`
`Dr. Negus has not reliably applied the appropriate principles and methods to the
`
`facts. TeleSign further objects to ¶¶ 130-158 of Exhibit 2010 as improperly relying
`
`on hearsay, namely the statements from Patent Owner’s co-founder John Wolthuis
`
`set forth in ¶¶ 144-148 of Exhibit 2010 as well as Exhibits 2022-23, 2029, 2040,
`
`2055-58, 2059-62, and 2069-70, in violation of FRE 801-802 that does not fall under
`
`any exceptions, including those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 805.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`2.
`
`EX. 2018
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibit 2018 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and
`
`802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE 803, 804, 805,
`
`or 807. TeleSign further objects to the Exhibit 2018 as irrelevant under FRE 402 and
`
`403. In addition, even if relevant, the probative value of the evidence is outweighed
`
`by its tendency to confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and waste the time of the
`
`Board and Petitioner such that the evidence should be excluded under FRE 403.
`
`3.
`
`EX. 2019, EX. 2020, EX. 2022, EX. 2023, EX. 2029, EX. 2055, EX. 2056,
`EX. 2057, EX. 2058, EX. 2069, EX. 2070
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibits 2019-2020, 2022-2023, 2029, 2055-58, and
`
`2069-2070 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under
`
`any exceptions, including those of FRE 803, 804, 805, or 807.
`
`4.
`
`EX. 2040, EX. 2059, EX. 2060, EX. 2061, EX. 2062
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibits 2040 and 2059-62 as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE
`
`803, 804, 805, or 807. TeleSign further objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2040
`
`and 2059-62 under FRE 402 as irrelevant at least because there is no evidence
`
`tending to show that any company chose to become a Twilio customer because of
`
`patented technology. In addition, even if relevant, the probative value of the
`
`evidence is outweighed by its tendency to confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`waste the time of the Board and Petitioner such that the evidence should be excluded
`
`under FRE 403.
`
`5.
`
`EX. 2025, EX. 2026, EX. 2027
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibits 2025-2027 as inadmissible under FRE 602
`
`because no foundation has been laid for these documents such that the Board will be
`
`unable to understand these documents without representations by counsel or
`
`speculation, either of which would be improper. TeleSign further objects to the
`
`admissibility of Exhibits 2025-2027 under FRE 402 as irrelevant. In addition, even
`
`if relevant, the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its tendency to
`
`confuse the issues, cause undue delay, and waste the time of the Board and Petitioner
`
`such that the evidence should be excluded under FRE 403.
`
`6.
`
`EX. 2046
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibit 2046 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and
`
`802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE 803, 804, 805,
`
`or 807 to the extent it is used to show the date printed on any Exhibit is its publication
`
`date.
`
`7.
`
`EX. 2047, EX. 2048, EX. 2049, EX. 2050, EX. 2051, EX. 2052, EX 2053,
`EX. 2054, EX. 2063, EX. 2064, EX. 2065, EX. 2066, EX. 2067
`
`TeleSign objects to Exhibits 2047-2054 and 2063-2067 under FRE 901 as
`
`lacking a proper authentication. Patent Owner has failed to produce any evidence to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`support a finding that these exhibits are what the Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`TeleSign further objects to the admissibility of Exhibits 2047-2054 and 2063-2067
`
`under FRE 602 because no foundation has been laid for these documents such that
`
`the Board will be unable to understand these documents without representations by
`
`Twilio’s counsel or speculation, either of which would be improper.
`
`8.
`
`EX. 2068
`
`TeleSign further objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2068 as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 402 at least because this document contains only attorney argument that
`
`is not probative of any issue in this IPR proceeding. In addition, even if relevant,
`
`the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its tendency to confuse the
`
`issues, cause undue delay, and waste the time of the Board and Petitioner such that
`
`the evidence should be excluded under FRE 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christine Guastello
`Christine Guastello
`Reg. No. 58,716
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 29, 2018, a copy of the
`
`foregoing was served by electronic mail on the persons listed below at their
`
`corresponding addresses, which includes all counsel of record.
`
`Wayne Stacy
`
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah Guske
`
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`Michelle Jacobson Eber
`
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`
`Dated: June 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christine A. Guastello
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
