`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER MAJOR DATA UAB’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Petitioner hereby moves to exclude evidence included in Patent Owner’s
`
`Sur-Reply filed on May 1, 2023 (Paper 38), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I. Compliance With Trial Practice Guide
`
`Petitioners comply with requirements (a)-(d) found in the Board’s Trial
`
`Practice Guide (p.79):
`
`(a)
`
`Petitioner objected to the new evidence in Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply in Petitioner’s Objections filed May 8, 2023 (Paper 41),
`
`within five business days of service of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`(b)
`
`Patent Owner relies on the new evidence on page 29 of its Sur-
`
`Reply, in the chart reproduced below in Section II.
`
`(c)-(d) Petitioner argues below in Section II that the evidence should be
`
`excluded because it is new evidence.
`
`II. Patent Owner’s New Evidence in its Sur-Reply Should be Excluded
`
`Patent Owner included the following table in its Sur-Reply:
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Sur-Reply at 29. As shown above, Patent Owner’s purported support for “Approx.
`
`$22.1 million revenue in 2021” is its footnote 13, which cites to a document from
`
`another proceeding: “IPR2022-00687, Paper 18 at 75 (PTAB Jan. 20, 2023).” Id.
`
`at n.13.
`
`Petitioner moves to exclude the alleged new evidence cited in footnote 13
`
`from a different proceeding (IPR2022-00687) and the evidentiary sentence
`
`(“Approx. $22.1 million revenue in 2021”) that is based on the new evidence.
`
`The basis for Petitioner’s motion is simple: Patent Owner cannot include
`
`new evidence in its Sur-Reply. 37 CFR § 42.23 (“A sur-reply may only respond to
`
`arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new
`
`evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply
`
`witness.”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`(November 2019) at 73 (same). Not only has Patent Owner included new evidence
`
`in its Sur-Reply, but the cited evidence is not even from this proceeding.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner moves for the Board exclude this new
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Date: May 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Liang Huang/
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Liang Huang (Reg. No. 67,016)
`Wensheng Ma (Reg. No. 80,420)
`Jason R. Bartlett (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`15 W. 26th Street, 7th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`MAJOR DATA UAB
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on May 25, 2023, a
`
`complete and entire copy of PETITIONER MAJOR DATA UAB’S MOTION
`
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served via e-mail on Patent Owner’s Lead
`
`Counsel and First Back-Up Counsel:
`
`Thomas M. Dunham
`tomd@cherianllp.com
`
`Robert M Harkins
`bobh@cherianllp.com
`
`Elizabeth A. O’Brien
`elizabetho@cherianllp.com
`
`
`
`Date: May 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`/Liang Huang/
`Liang Huang (Reg. No. 67,016)
`
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`15 W. 26th Street, 7th Floor
`New Yok, NY 10010
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`Major Data UAB
`
`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
