Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 84
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 84
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 84
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. _______________
`U.S. Patent No. 9,294,430
`Issue Date: March 22, 2016
`
`Title: Method Of Enabling Digital Music Content To Be Downloaded To And Used
`On a Portable Wireless Computing Device
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,294,430
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 84
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ....................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104 .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......................................................... 2
`
`Challenge and Relief Requested - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ........................... 3
`
`Specific Statutory Grounds - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) .............. 3
`
`Claim Construction - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................... 4
`
`- 37 C.F.R. §
`Explanation of Unpatentability
`42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................ 4
`
`5.
`
`Supporting Evidence - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ........................ 4
`
`IV. THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS OF THE ’430 PATENT ................. 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 12
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 Are Not Entitled to Their Claimed
`Priority In May 2007 Because Their Subject Matter Is Not
`Disclosed In The May 2007 Priority Document, And Therefore The
`Applicants’ Own Disclosure In Knight 2010 Anticipates Or At
`Least Renders Obvious Those Claims ................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 15
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`Limitation 1.1 ................................................................. 15
`
`Limitation 1.2 ................................................................. 15
`
`Limitation 1.3 ................................................................. 16
`
`Limitation 1.4 ................................................................. 16
`
`Limitation 1.5 ................................................................. 17
`
`Limitation 1.6 ................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 84
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`Limitation 1.7 ................................................................. 18
`
`Limitation 1.8 ................................................................. 18
`
`Limitation 1.9 ................................................................. 19
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 28 .................................................................................... 22
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Limitation 28.1 ............................................................... 22
`
`Limitation 28.2 ............................................................... 22
`
`Limitations 28.3 through 28.9 ........................................ 23
`
`B.
`
`If The Subject Matter of Claims 1, 19, 23, or 28 Is Disclosed In The
`May 2007 Priority Document, The Subject Matter of Those Claims
`Would Have Been Obvious In View of Abrams and Khedouri .......... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Abrams ................................................................. 25
`
`Overview of Khedouri .............................................................. 35
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 40
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`Limitation 1.1 ................................................................. 40
`
`Limitation 1.2 ................................................................. 40
`
`Limitation 1.3 ................................................................. 41
`
`Limitation 1.4 ................................................................. 42
`
`Limitation 1.5 ................................................................. 43
`
`Limitation 1.6 ................................................................. 46
`
`Limitation 1.7 ................................................................. 46
`
`Limitation 1.8 ................................................................. 47
`
`Limitation 1.9 ................................................................. 49
`
`(1) Khedouri Discloses “A Music Application” ........ 50
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 84
`
`(2) Khedouri Discloses That the Music Application
`Uses Track Meta-Data That Defines Attributes
`of Tracks ............................................................... 50
`
`(3) Khedouri Discloses Track Meta-Data External
`to A Music Track .................................................. 51
`
`(4) Under Potential Interpretations Derived From
`Patent Owner’s Positions In The Related
`Litigation, Khedouri Discloses “Track Meta-
`Data That Is Formed As A Separate Meta-Data
`Layer” ................................................................... 51
`
`(5)
`
`The Combination of Khedouri and Abrams
`Would Have Been Obvious .................................. 53
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 28 .................................................................................... 56
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Limitation 28.1 ............................................................... 57
`
`Limitation 28.2 ............................................................... 57
`
`Limitations 28.3 through 28.8 ........................................ 58
`
`Limitation 28.9 ............................................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`If The Subject Matter of Claim 24 Is Disclosed In The May 2007
`Priority Document, The Subject Matter of Claim 24 Would Have
`Been Obvious In View of Abrams, Khedouri, and The Knowledge
`of a POSITA About Multitasking and Multithreading ....................... 58
`
`If The Subject Matter of Claims 1, 19, 23, or 28 Is Disclosed In The
`May 2007 Priority Document, The Subject Matter of Those Claims
`Would Have Been Obvious In View of Abrams and Partovi ............. 63
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Partovi .................................................................. 63
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 65
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Partovi Discloses “A Music Application” ...................... 66
`
`Partovi Discloses That the Music Application Uses
`Track Meta-Data That Defines Attributes of Tracks ...... 66
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 84
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Partovi Discloses Track Meta-Data External to A
`Music Track .................................................................... 67
`
`Under Potential Interpretations Derived From Patent
`Owner’s Positions In The Related Litigation, Partovi
`Discloses “Track Meta-Data That Is Formed As A
`Separate Meta-Data Layer” ............................................ 68
`
`e)
`
`The Combination of Partovi and Abrams Would Have
`Been Obvious .................................................................. 69
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 28 .................................................................................... 71
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`VI. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ............................ 71
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 84
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,648,132
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 9,992,322
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 9,924,430
`1004 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,510,847
`1005 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,924,430
`1006 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,132
`1007 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,322
`1008 PCT Publication No. WO 2007/129081
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0021750 (“Abrams”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 8,572,169 (“Partovi”)
`1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0008256 (“Khedouri”)
`1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0031366 (“Knight 2010”)
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`in N.D. Cal. 4:20-CV-7572 (Redacted) (dated Aug. 27, 2021)
`Steve Monas, YourSpace: A Friend’s Guide to MySpace.com: The Basics
`(2006) (excerpts)
`“Java Threads” (2nd Edition, 1999), by Oaks & Wong
`1015
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,134,548 (“Gottsman”)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,567,974 (“Czajkowski”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0192818 (“Bourges-
`Sevenier”)
`Pages from www.cnet.com archived on Wayback Machine (dated in 2005
`and 2006)
`1020 U.S. Pat. No. 5,963,951 (“Collins”)
`Opposition to Triller’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding
`Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief in Second Amended
`Complaint (N.D. Cal. 4:20-7572, Dkt. No. ) (dated Sep. 29, 2021)
`“MySpace, America's Number One,” available at
`https://mashable.com/archive/myspace-americas-number-one
`“Module 19321 (2012),” available at
`https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/modules/2012/06-19321/mds
`“Module 06-19321 (2012) Software System Components A,” available at
`https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/modules/2012/06-19321
`1025 Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D.
`1026 Order Re: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, To Stay
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 84
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1027
`
`First Claim for Relief of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (N.D. Cal.
`4:20-7572, Dkt. No. 44) (dated Mar. 30, 2021)
`Order Vacating Hearing and Briefing Schedule on Motion for Judgment
`on the Pleadings (N.D. Cal. 4:20-7572, Dkt. No. 47) (dated Apr. 15,
`2021)
`1028 Docket Sheet from N.D. Cal. 4:20-7572
`First Amended Complaint (N.D. Cal. 3:20-7572, now 4:20-7572) (filed
`Nov. 11, 2020) (without exhibits)
`
`1029
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 84
`
`The petitioner in this matter is Triller, Inc. (“Petitioner”). Inter partes review
`
`is requested for claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,294,430 (“the
`
`’430 patent”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`(a) Real Party-In Interest: The real party-in-interest is Petitioner Triller,
`
`Inc., a Delaware corporation. Triller Holdco LLC is the parent company of Triller,
`
`Inc.
`
`(b) Related Matters: The ’430 patent is being asserted against Petitioner in
`
`Bytedance Inc. et al. v. Triller, Inc., 4:20-CV-07572 (N.D. Cal.). In addition,
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing petitions for inter partes review against U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,648,132 and U.S. Pat. No. 9,992,322, which share common specifications
`
`and claims of similar scope and which are also being asserted against Petitioner in
`
`the related litigation. Petitioner requests that IPR proceedings with regard to all
`
`three petitions be consolidated.
`
`(c) Lead and Back-Up Counsel: Lead counsel is Chad E. Nydegger (USPTO
`
`Registration No. 61,020). Back-up counsel are Brian N. Platt (USPTO Registration
`
`No. 62,249) and David R. Todd (USPTO Registration No. 41,348).
`
`(d) Service Information: Petitioner consents to electronic service in this
`
`matter. Papers should be served on the following:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 84
`
`Chad E. Nydegger (cnydegger@wnlaw.com)
`Brian N. Platt (bplatt@wnlaw.com)
`David R. Todd (dtodd@wnlaw.com)
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple, Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`Telephone: (801) 533-9800
`Facsimile: (801) 328-1707
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`
`Review is requested for 5 claims. The fees required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`are calculated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) as follows:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) – Inter Partes Review Request Fee
`
`$19,000
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) –Inter Partes Review Post-Institution Fee
`
`$22,500
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(3) – Excess Claims Request Fee
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(4) –Excess Claims Post-Institution Fee
`
`
`
`0 claims x $375/claim =
`
`$0
`
`0 claims x $750/claim =
`
`$0
`
`TOTAL: $41,500
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’430 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped. Petitioner was first alleged to
`
`have infringed the ’430 patent in a First Amended Complaint filed in the related
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 84
`
`litigation on November 11, 2020 and served no earlier than that date. (Ex. 1029.)
`
`Therefore, the one-year limitation in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is not applicable. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b); 35 U.S.C. § 21(b).
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`1.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28.
`
`2.
`
`Specific Statutory Grounds - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Statutory Ground 1a: Claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 are unpatentable for
`
`anticipation by Knight 2010 (Ex. 1012) under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Statutory Ground 1b: In the alternative, claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Knight 2010.
`
`Statutory Ground 2: In the alternative, claims 1, 19, 23, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Abrams (Ex. 1009)
`
`and Khedouri (Ex. 1011).
`
`Statutory Ground 3: In the alternative, claim 24 is unpatentable for
`
`obviousness in view of Abrams and Khedouri and the knowledge of a POSITA about
`
`multitasking and multithreading (as evidenced by Java Threads (Ex. 1015) and expert
`
`testimony (Ex. 1025)).
`
`Statutory Ground 4: In the alternative, claims 1, 19, 23, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Abrams and Partovi
`
`(Ex. 1010).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 12 of 84
`
`3.
`
`Claim Construction - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Where necessary, claim construction is addressed below in Section V in the
`
`context of analyzing the patentability of claims in which the construed terms appear.
`
`4.
`
`Explanation of Unpatentability - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 are unpatentable is
`
`provided in Section V below.
`
`5.
`
`Supporting Evidence - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The supporting evidence is discussed in Section V below. Exhibit numbers are
`
`identified when they are first used in this petition and in the Exhibit List beginning at
`
`page vi, above.
`
`IV. THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS OF THE ’430 PATENT
`
` The particular claims challenged here are directed to a social network
`
`implemented on a computerized network that allows its users to engage in social
`
`networking functions, including sharing information about music. Independent
`
`claim 1 reads as follows (brackets with numbering have been added to facilitate
`
`discussion of the various claim limitations):
`
`[1.1] A portable wireless computing device comprising:
`
`[1.2] a hardware processor programmed with a software application
`
`embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, [1.3] that enables
`
`an end-user to interact with other users in which [1.4] (a) the
`
`software application allows the end-user to, over a wireless HTTP
`
`connection, create on a remote server one or more user accounts
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 13 of 84
`
`with associated profiles for that end-user; and [1.5] (b) the
`
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`
`HTTP connection, view profiles created by other users of a
`
`service; and [1.6] (c) the software application allows the end-user
`
`to, over the wireless HTTP connection, interact with other users of
`
`the service; and [1.7] (d) the software application allows the end-
`
`user to, over the wireless HTTP connection, send and receive
`
`messages to and from other users of the service; and [1.8] (e) the
`
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`
`HTTP connection, link his or her user account on the remote server
`
`to user accounts on the remote server of other users of the service
`
`[1.9] wherein the software application is a music application and uses
`
`track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and
`
`defines attributes of tracks, the meta-data being external to a music
`
`track to make sharing and browsing of track information possible
`
`without needing to distribute the related music track files.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 85:54-86:11.)
`
`Independent claim 28 is of similar scope to claim 1, claiming a “software
`
`application” that is “executable on a portable wireless computing device” to allow
`
`a user to carry out the same social networking functions as claim 1 (brackets with
`
`numbering have been added to facilitate discussion of the various claim
`
`limitations):
`
`[28.1] Software application embodied on a non-transient
`
`storage medium, [28.2] wherein the software application is executable
`
`on a portable wireless computing device, [28.3] wherein the software
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 14 of 84
`
`application enables an end-user to interact with other users and [28.4]
`
`in which (a) the software application allows the end-user to, over a
`
`wireless HTTP connection, create on a remote server one or more user
`
`accounts with associated profiles for that end-user; and [28.5] (b) the
`
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless HTTP
`
`connection, view profiles created by other users of a service; and
`
`[28.6] (c) the software application allows the end-user to, over the
`
`wireless HTTP connection, interact with other users of the service;
`
`and [28.7] (d) the software application allows the end-user to, over the
`
`wireless HTTP connection, send and receive messages to and from
`
`other users of the service; and [28.8] (e) the software application
`
`allows the end-user to, over the wireless HTTP connection, link his or
`
`her user account on the remote server to user accounts on the remote
`
`server of other users of the service
`
` [28.9] wherein the software application is a music application and
`
`uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer
`
`and defines attributes of tracks, the meta-data being external to a
`
`music track to make sharing and browsing of track information
`
`possible without needing to distribute the related music track files.
`
`(Ex. 1003, 88:1-25.)
`
`The specification illustrates the social networking functionality described in
`
`these two independent claims. For example, Figure 135 shows the user interface
`
`for a software application running on a mobile telephone that allows an end-user to
`
`create a user account with an associated profile, as recited in claims 1 and 28:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 15 of 84
`
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 135, 75:5-18.) In this example, the user is creating a user profile
`
`with the profile name “Billy Pepper.” Once a user has created his profile, the
`
`software allows a user to see his “profile” on a “My Profile” screen, shown below:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 136.) The profile includes the user’s member name (here,
`
`“Murdock”), an image unique to the user, a rating indicating how other users have
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 16 of 84
`
`rated the user (here, with five stars), the number of times other users have listened
`
`to one of the user’s shared music playlists (here, 0), the number of friends that the
`
`user has (here, 1), and a “catchphrase” (here, “I knew it, I knew it…you had a
`
`plan!”). (Ex. 1003, 75:20-47.)
`
`The specification further illustrates how a user can view profiles created by
`
`other users, as recited in claims 1 and 28:
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, Figs. 141, 142.) The specification explains that in the screens shown in
`
`Figure 141, a user can see a list of the users that the user has added as a friend, and
`
`in the screen shown in Figure 142, the user can view the member profile of other
`
`users (here, another user named “DJ Coldplay”). (Ex. 1003, 76:24-52.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 17 of 84
`
`
`
`The specification also illustrates how a user can link his or her user account
`
`to user accounts of other users (via friend requests), can interact with other users
`
`(by sharing recommendations about music), and can send and receive messages to
`
`and from other users, as recited in claims 1 and 28. (Ex. 1003, 31:60-67.) This
`
`functionality is illustrated in Figures 146 and 148:
`
`(Ex. 1003, Figs. 146, 148.) In Figure 146, the user is sending a friend request to a
`
`user named “Matt,” and in Figure 148, the user is sending a recommendation about
`
`a music track to another user. (Ex. 1003, 76:64-77:5, 77:16-29, 77:49-54.) In both
`
`figures, the user is also sending messages to other users. In Figure 146, the user is
`
`sending the message “Billy is ready to rock!” and in Figure 148, the user is sending
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 18 of 84
`
`the message “U know I’m a bit…” A friend request or a recommendation causes a
`
`message to arrive in the other user’s “inbox.” (Ex. 1003, 76:64-77:5, 77:53-54,
`
`77:55-78:63, Figs. 149-154.)
`
`
`
`As can be seen from the disclosure above, the software application disclosed
`
`in the ’430 patent is “a music application” because it has to do with music. The
`
`application uses “track meta-data” that “defines attributes of tracks” and that is
`
`“external to a music track” so that “sharing and browsing of track information [is]
`
`possible without needing to distribute the related music files,” as claims 1 and 28
`
`require. For example, Figure 123 shows a list of names and associated artists for
`
`tracks where the user has searched for tracks that have the word “crazy” in the title:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 19 of 84
`
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 123.) As another example of track meta-data, the Patents disclose
`
`that “[t]he Playing tab displays the details of the track that is currently playing”
`
`and then lists several examples of track meta-data, set forth below:
`
`(Ex. 1003, ’430 Patent, 82:17-32.) However, there is no disclosure in the figures or
`
`written description of the ’430 patent of track meta-data that is “formed as a
`
`separate meta-data layer.” (Ex. 1025, ¶¶68, 74.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 20 of 84
`
`V. CLAIMS 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 Are Not Entitled to Their Claimed
`Priority In May 2007 Because Their Subject Matter Is Not
`Disclosed In The May 2007 Priority Document, And Therefore
`The Applicants’ Own Disclosure In Knight 2010 Anticipates Or
`At Least Renders Obvious Those Claims
`
`The ’430 patent claims priority to five applications filed in Great Britain on
`
`May 5, 2006, to another application filed in Great Britain on February 9, 2007, and
`
`to a PCT application filed on May 8, 2007. (Ex. 1003, 1:9-15.) However, the
`
`challenged claims are not entitled to the priority to the filing date of the May 2007
`
`PCT application because it does not disclose the subject matter of those claims.1
`
`Independent claims 1 and 28 both require (and therefore all the challenged
`
`claims require) that “the software application…uses track meta-data that is formed
`
`as a separate meta-data layer….” However, there is no disclosure in the May 2007
`
`PCT application of anything that could reasonably be characterized as “track meta-
`
`data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer.” (Ex. 1008, passim; Ex. 1025,
`
`
`1 Even if the ’430 patent were entitled to the filing date of the May 2007
`PCT application, it still would not be entitled to the May 5, 2006 provisional filing
`dates to which it claims priority because the PCT application was filed more than
`12 months after that date on May 8, 2007 and therefore did not comply with the
`“12 month” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 365(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 119(a). Although
`35 U.S.C. § 21(b) would have permitted the PCT application to have been filed on
`Monday, May 7, 2007, the PCT application was not filed until Tuesday, May 8,
`2007 and therefore did not comply with that requirement.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 21 of 84
`
`¶¶81.)2 Therefore, none of the challenged claims is entitled to priority to the filing
`
`date of the May 2007 PCT application.
`
`In addition, claim 24, which depends from claim 1, further requires that “the
`
`software application uses a multithreaded architecture to balance the computational
`
`demands of network access; and the computational demands of one or more of: a
`
`user interface of the software application; a DRM program; media operations.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, 87:51-55.) There is no disclosure in the May 2007 PCT application (as
`
`filed) of using a multithreaded architecture to balance the computational demands
`
`of a DRM (digital rights management) program. (Ex. 1008, passim; Ex. 1025,
`
`¶82.) Therefore, claim 24 is not entitled to priority to the May 2007 PCT
`
`application for this additional reason.
`
`Claims reciting these elements were first introduced in a preliminary
`
`amendment dated November 4, 2008 in U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`12/299,505, which is the serial number for the nationalization of the May 2007
`
`PCT application in the United States. (Ex. 1004, Nov. 4, 2008 Preliminary
`
`
`2 Not only is there no disclosure in the May 2007 PCT application of
`anything that could reasonably be characterized as using “track meta-data that is
`formed as a separate meta-data layer,” but Petitioner’s expert further concludes
`that the phrase is indefinite because the absence of any such disclosure in the ’430
`specification and associated prosecution histories means—in combination with
`other relevant factors—that there is no “reasonable certainty” about what the
`phrase covers. (Ex. 1025, ¶¶67-75.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 22 of 84
`
`Amendment, pp. 3, 4.) The amendment asserted that no new matter was added (Id.
`
`at p. 9), but that assertion was not true (Ex. 1025, ¶¶81-82). And “[a] preliminary
`
`amendment filed after the filing date of the application is not part of the original
`
`disclosure of the application.” MPEP § 608.04(b). As a result, the earliest possible
`
`filing date to which the challenged claims are entitled is the filing date of the
`
`application for the ’430 patent itself on August 5, 2013. As a further result, the
`
`Applicants’ own disclosure
`
`in U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2010/0031366 (“Knight 2010”) (Ex. 1012), which was published on February 4,
`
`2010 and more than a year before August 5, 2013, is prior art to the challenged
`
`claims under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).3 Knight 2010 is a publication of
`
`U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/299,505—with the claims that were added
`
`by preliminary amendment on November 4, 2008—and therefore is intervening
`
`prior art that discloses in haec verba the limitations that are missing from the May
`
`2007 PCT application.
`
`
`3 The amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 102 made by the Leahy-Smith America
`Invents Act apply to “any patent application that contains or contained at any time
`a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after
`[March 16, 2013].” Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 3(n), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011). For the
`reasons set forth above, the challenged claims all have an effective filing date after
`March 16, 2013, and therefore the ’430 patent is subject to post-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102. If pre-AIA § 102 were applicable, Knight 2010 would qualify as prior art
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 23 of 84
`
`Because Petitioner establishes below that the Applicants’ own disclosure in
`
`Knight 2010 anticipates the challenged claims, or at least renders them obvious,
`
`Patent Owner has the burden of production to come forward with evidence and
`
`argument that those claims are entitled to the May 8, 2007 priority date.
`
`Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326-29 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). As demonstrated above, however, those claims are not entitled to the May
`
`8, 2007 priority date.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The Applicants’ own disclosure in Knight 2010 anticipates, or at least
`
`renders obvious, claim 1 as demonstrated below:
`
`a)
`
`Limitation 1.1
`
`Knight 2010 discloses limitation 1.1. (Ex. 1025, pp. 93, 83-84.) In the same
`
`words as the ’430 patent, Knight 2010 teaches the use of a “portable wireless
`
`computing device” and explains that the term “should be expansively construed to
`
`cover any kind of portable device with two way wireless communication
`
`capabilities,” including “mobile telephones, smart phones, …[and] personal
`
`computers.” (Ex. 1012, Abstract, ¶2.)
`
`b)
`
`Limitation 1.2
`
`Knight 2010 discloses limitation 1.2. (Ex. 1025, pp. 93, 84.) As explained
`
`above, Knight 2010 teaches the use of a “portable wireless computing device” or
`
`“smart phone[]” in the same words as the ’430 patent. (Ex. 1012, ¶2.) A
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 24 of 84
`
`“computing device” / “smart phone” that operates in the way described in Knight
`
`2010 inherently has a “hardware processor programmed with a software
`
`application embodied on a non-transitory storage medium.” (Ex. 1025, p. 84.)
`
`Specifically, Knight 2010 teaches that the MusicStation software application is
`
`installed on the computing device and provides no indication that it must be
`
`reinstalled every time the device is powered off. (Ex. 1012, ¶15; Ex. 1025, p. 84.)
`
`At the very least, it would have been obvious to do this so that the application
`
`would not need to be reinstalled every time power is lost. (Ex. 1025, p. 62.)
`
`c)
`
`Limitation 1.3
`
`Knight 2010 discloses limitation 1.3. (Ex. 1025, pp, 93, 84.) In the same
`
`words as
`
`the ’430 patent, Knight 2010 discloses
`
`that “the client and
`
`server…provide certain community functionality whereby users can interact with
`
`one another.” (Ex. 1012, ¶520.)
`
`d)
`
`Limitation 1.4
`
`Knight 2010 discloses limitation 1.4. (Ex. 1025, pp. 93-94, 84-85.) Using the
`
`same words and figures as the ’430 patent, Knight 2010 discloses the ability of “a
`
`user to register a unique profile within the community environment (also known as
`
`Buzz),” discloses the use of a “remote server,” and discloses that “[e]ach user has
`
`the ability to create an individual profile” on that server. (Ex. 1012, Figs. 135, 136,
`
`¶¶15, 520-530, 1098-1110.) Because Knight 2010 discloses the use of a “portable
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 70-3 Filed 11/11/21 Page 25 of 84
`
`wireless computing device,” all interactions with the remote server (including
`
`those that allow a user to create a profile) are over a “wireless connection.” (Ex.
`
`1025, p. 8