`
`Paper No. 35
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`CHEGG, INC., MATCH GROUP, LLC, AND RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETSOC, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`Case No.
`
`IPR2019-01171
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107
`Filing Date: December 18, 2015
`Issue Date: May 22, 2018
`
`Title:
`Method And System For Establishing And Using A Social Network
`To Facilitate People In Life Issues
`
`
`
`JOINT OBJECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order Granting Request for Oral Argument
`
`(Paper 34), Petitioners and Patent Owner submit this joint list of objections to
`
`demonstratives.
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Demonstratives:
`
`Slides 4, 5 – Petitioners object to the demonstrative slides titled “The ‘107
`
`provisional supports the use of [d] a ‘rating system’” because they contain new
`
`arguments presented for the first time in Patent Owner’s sur-reply.
`
`Slide 6 – Petitioners object to the demonstrative slide titled “The ‘107
`
`provisional supports the use of [g] a ‘updating the rating associated with each of the
`
`one or more participants based at least on the tracked response time’” because it
`
`contains new argument presented for the first time in Patent Owner’s sur-reply.
`
`Slide 7 – Petitioners object to the demonstrative slide titled “Walker alone
`
`does not teach ‘maintaining a list’ or ‘presenting [a user with] an interface’” because
`
`it contains new argument presented for the first time in Patent Owner’s sur-reply.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstratives:
`
`Slide 6 – Patent Owner objects to “3. Patent Owner provides no evidence
`
`regarding whether the ’107 Provisional supports the ’107 Patent’s dependent
`
`claims.” because it contains new argument not presented until Petitioner’s reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 10 – Patent Owner objects to “Patent Owner’s sur-reply relies on new
`
`arguments, citing pages 20, 36, 38, and 111 of the ’107 Provisional—these new
`
`arguments should be deemed waived.” because Patent Owner’s arguments were
`
`necessitated by Petitioner’s reply.
`
`Slide 15 – Patent Owner objects to “3. The ’107 Patent’s dependent claims
`
`are not entitled to a priority date earlier than Collins.
`
`•Patent Owner did not even attempt to prove that the ’107 Provisional
`provides support for any of the dependent claims
`•Effective filing date is evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis—a claim
`is only entitled to the filing date of the earliest-filed application supporting
`that claim
`•X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1366
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)
`•The Petition explains that the prior art renders obvious each of the
`dependent claims.
`•Petition at 41-48 (claims 2, 3, and 5), 53-55 (7, 8, 10, and 11), 60-64
`(claims 4 and 9), and 69-71 (claims 3 and 8)
`•Patent owner failed to meet its burden “of going forward with evidence
`. . . that the alleged prior art is not actually prior art because the challenged
`claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the date of the alleged
`prior art.”
`•Nintendo of America, INC. v. iLife Technologies, Inc., IPR2015-
`00112, Paper 39 at 29 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
`Petitioners’ Reply at 8-9.
`See POR and POSR generally.”
`
`because it contains new arguments not presented until Petitioner’s reply.
`
` Slide 23 – Patent Owner objects to “Patent Owner has waived any arguments
`
`related to claims 2-5 and 7-11.” because Patent Owner addressed the claims in Patent
`
`Owner’s response and Patent Owner’s sur-reply.
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Nathan J. Rees/
`
`Nathan J. Rees (Reg. No. 63,820)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, TX 75201-7932
`Tel: 214.855.7164
`Fax: 214.855.8200
`nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`/William P. Ramey/
`William P. Ramey, III (Reg. No. 44,295)
`Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
`5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
`Houston, TX 77006
`Tel: 713.426.3923
`Fax: 832.900.4941
`wramey@rameyfirm.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on September
`
`3, 2020, a complete copy of this Joint Objections to Demonstratives was provided
`
`via email to the Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence address of record
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`William P. Ramey, III
`Melissa Schwaller
`Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
`wramey@rameyfirm.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Nathan J. Rees/
`
`Nathan J. Rees (Reg. No. 63,820)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`Tel: 214.855.7164
`Fax: 214.855.8200
`nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
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
