`Patent 9,380,282
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01497
`
`Patent 9,124,950
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
`
`TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01498
`Patent 9,380,282
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, and in accordance with Due Date 6 of the
`
`Scheduling Order (Paper No. 14), CustomPlay, LLC. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”)
`
`respectfully submits this Reply in support of its Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 28)
`
`(the “Motion”) and in response to Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper No. 29). Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be granted.
`
`Petitioner incorrectly argues that the objected-to testimony is “highly
`
`probative” and that there is no unfair prejudice. But Patent Owner clearly stated that
`
`“the improper form of the questions asked renders the resulting testimony
`
`meaningless [and] prone to misunderstanding.” (Paper 28, 1.) Further, whether Dr.
`
`Reader’s testimony is probative is not a substitute (nor a cure) for the flaws in
`
`Petitioner’s line of questioning that gave rise to Patent Owner’s counsel’s objections
`
`during cross-examination.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further pointed out that portions of Dr. Reader’s testimony were
`
`rendered irrelevant by Petitioner’s improper questioning. And this is especially true
`
`with respect to Petitioner’s vague and ambiguous questions that gave rise to Patent
`
`Owner’s objections where Petitioner relies on the improperly elicited testimony in a
`
`confusing and misleading manner. For example, Petitioner previously cited to Dr.
`
`Reader’s testimony as an alleged admission that “receiving a request for additional
`
`information, retrieving that information and displaying it was known.” (Paper 22
`
`(“Petitioner’s Reply”) at 12, citing Ex. 1101, 55:13-59:8 (emphasis added).) Now,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01498
`Patent 9,380,282
`
`in support of its arguments for admissibility of the objected to portion (Ex. 1101,
`
`56:13-22), Petitioner explains that “[t]his testimony is probative of obviousness
`
`because it shows that the additional limitations recited in claims 9 and 16 were well-
`
`known in the art.” (Paper 29 at 4 (emphasis added).) However, in the Petition,
`
`Petitioner did not argue that the corresponding claim limitations were “well-known
`
`in the art.” Instead, the argument in the Petition was that “McIntire further discloses
`
`requesting, retrieving and displaying additional information.” (Paper 1 at 33
`
`(emphasis on “McIntire” added).) Thus, even if the question were clear (it is not)
`
`with respect to what was “well-known in the art”, it certainly is not probative of the
`
`very different theory Petitioner advanced in the Petition based on McIntire.
`
`Further Petitioner also justifies admissibility for the vague and ambiguous
`
`terms, “through that information” on the basis that Reader testified that additional
`
`information might be accessed through a hyperlink and because he did not ask for
`
`clarification. (Paper 29 at 3-4.) However, Petitioner fails to connect how a prior
`
`answer to a question about accessing information by use of a link corresponds to the
`
`later question that asked about what a user could request and receive through
`
`information that is not a video. Accordingly, Petitioner’s attempts to show that the
`
`objected-to questions were not vague and ambiguous fall short.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to exclude the challenged
`
`portions of Exhibit 1101 should be granted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01498
`Patent 9,380,282
`
`Date: November 25, 2019
`
`/s/ Bryan E. Wilson
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Bryan E. Wilson, Lead Counsel
` Registration No. 70,086
`
`Adam C. Underwood, Back-Up Counsel
`Reg. No. 45,169
`
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP
`1395 Brickell Ave. Suite 700
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: (305) 372-7474
`Fax: (305) 372-7475
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01498
`Patent 9,380,282
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that, on November 25, 2019, I caused a
`
`true and correct copy of the foregoing:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record, pursuant to
`
`Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notice:
`
`Colin B. Heideman
`
`2cbh@knobbe.com
`
`Joseph R. Re
`
`2jrr@knobbe.com
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Christie R.W. Matthaei
`
`2crw@knobbe.com
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`Date: November 25, 2019
`
`/s/ Bryan E. Wilson
`
`
`
`
`
`Bryan E. Wilson, Lead Counsel
`Registration No.70,086
`
`Adam C. Underwood, Back-Up Counsel
`Reg. No. 45,169
`
`Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP
`1395 Brickell Ave. Suite 700
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: (305) 372-7474
`Fax: (305) 372-7475
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
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
