throbber
SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`EXHIBIT 2379
`CBM2013-00023 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2013-00020 and CBM2013-00023
`Patents 5,191,573 and 5,966,440
`____________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`

`
`The Hair Inventions
`
`2
`
`

`
`CompuSonics
`
`What was CompuSonics?
`
`CompuSonics sold “DSPs” (Digital Signal Processors).
`DSPs were “digital stereo recorders that were chiefly
`intended to replace audio tape recorders in home stereo
`systems,” and which recorded onto optical or floppy
`disks. Ex. 2121/2321 at ¶ 8.
`
`“Telerecording capability never existed on any DSP
`that was sold or commercially available by
`CompuSonics.” Ex. 2121/2321 at ¶ 15.
`
`Telerecording was a “concept” that CompuSonics
`tested internally and demonstrated on one occasion.
`“CompuSonics did not plan the use of telerecording in
`any specific or particular type of transaction
`methodology.” Ex. 2121/2321 at ¶ 20.
`
`“Similarly, CompuSonics never developed a system or
`method for selling digital audio or video signals over
`telecommunications lines.” Ex. 2121/2321 at ¶ 21.
`
`All quotes from the undisputed testimony of John
`Stautner (Ex. 2121/2321), CompuSonics’ second
`employee and President of CompuSonics Video
`Corporation.
`* Ex. 2122/2322
`
`3
`
`

`
`The Board Instituted Review Based Upon A
`“CompuSonics system” Unsupported By The Record
`
`Petitioner asserted:
`
`• “CompuSonics produced and sold a line of digital recording and playback devices . . . capable
`of . . . receiving and storing a digital recording from another computer over a communications
`interface. The DSP-1000 Home Digital Disk Recorder is shown in Figure 3.” Declaration of
`John Kelly (Ex. 4132/4334) at ¶ 33.
`
`Board relied upon:
`
`• “Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are anticipated by a computer system developed
`by CompuSonics Corp. and CompuSonics Video Corp. (collectively, ‘CompuSonics’) in the
`1980s, which Petitioner refers to as the ‘CompuSonics system.’” Decision to Institute
`CBM2013-00020 (Paper 14) at 17-18; see also Decision to Institute CBM2013-00023 (Paper
`12) at 19.
`• “A DSP could ‘download digital data from a remote source to a local disk’ (a process
`CompuSonics called ‘[t]elerecording’) and playback the stored digital data.” Decision to
`Institute CBM 2013-00020 (Paper 14) at 19; see also Decision to Institute CBM2013-00023
`(Paper 12) at 20-21.
`
`In fact:
`
`• There was no single “CompuSonics system.”
`• Telerecording capability never existed on any commercially available DSP.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Exhibit 4131/4333 (“Figure 3”) Is Not A DSP 1000
`
`-- The Unrebutted Declaration Testimony of John Stautner (Ex. 2121/2321) at ¶ 26
`
`* Ex. 4131/4333
`
`5
`
`

`
`The Compusonlcs DSP 1000 is the first digital audio recorder that makes permanent
`laser recordings on optical disks. Each disk stores one hour of high fidelity stereo or
`eight hours of monaurai speech. Applications Include home archiving of records
`and tapes, live recording, music editing, random access playback, and
`preservation of original master recordings.
`
`cmflnuflonxc.
`
`* Ex. 2122/2322
`
`Exhibit 2122/2322 Is A DSP 1000
`
`* Ex. 2122/2322
`
`6
`
`

`
`The Board Instituted Review Based Upon A
`“CompuSonics system” Unsupported By The Record
`
`In reply, Petitioner changed course:
`
`• Petitioner now claims it is only relying upon “public disclosures” regarding CompuSonics and
`not “public use.” Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 80/76)
`at 15.
`
`Yet, none of the references anticipate the claims and many are deficient in other respects:
`
`• Exhibit 4131/4333 is not an accurate picture of a DSP 1000. The machine depicted in the
`image was “a mock-up” that featured a nonoperational “telerecord” button. Declaration of
`John Stautner (Ex. 2121/2321) at ¶ 26.
`• Exhibits 4112/4315 and 4117/4320 are not printed publications.
`• Exhibits 4116/4321 and 4318/4323 (Shareholder Letters) were not public at all.
`
`Further:
`
`• Prophetic statements in pop culture magazines (e.g., Billboard and Fortune) do not anticipate
`the patented claims or render them obvious.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Exhibit 4112/4315 Is Not A Printed Publication
`
`
`
`* Ex. 4112/4315
`
`8
`
`

`
`Exhibit 4117/4320 Is Not A Printed Publication
`
`* Ex. 4117/4320
`
`9
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Specification
`
`The specification consistently disparages
`removable media.
`
`* ‘573 patent at 1:16-37; see also ‘440 patent at 1:23-44.
`
`10
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Specification
`
`The specification consistently disparages
`removable media.
`
`
`
`* ‘573 patent at 2:26-35; see also ‘440 patent at 2:39-48.
`
`11
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Specification
`
`The primary purpose of the
`invention is the “high speed transfer
`of Digital Audio Music . . . onto one
`piece of hardware, a hard disk.”
`
`* ‘573 patent at 2:10-19, 2:26-35, 2:63-67; see also ‘440 patent at 2:22-33, 2:39-48, 3:6-9.
`
`12
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Specification
`
`Every embodiment disclosed in the
`specification shows the “second
`memory” as a non-removable form
`of memory.
`
`
`* ‘573 patent at Figs. 1, 2; see also ‘440 patent at Figs. 1, 2.
`
`13
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Reexamination History
`
`During the prosecution and
`reexamination of the ‘573 and ‘440
`patents, Patentee consistently
`distinguished between removable
`media as taught by the prior art and
`non-removable media as taught by
`Patentee’s invention.
`
`
`* Patentee’s May 25, 2010 Response during the ‘573 Reexamination (Ex. 4103/4306) at 1532.
`
`14
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`The Reexamination History
`
`The Examiner interpreted the “ordinary and customary meaning of ‘second memories’ as not
`including cassette tapes, CDs and the like.”
`
`David Schwartz describing the likeness of
`floppy discs to records, tapes, and CDs:
`
`* Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate in the ‘573 Reexamination
`(Ex. 4103/4306) at 1587; Deposition of David Schwartz (Ex. 2124/2324) at 41:18-23.
`
`15
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`Petitioner’s First Argument In Reply
`
`First, Petitioner argues that the “logical reading” of the claims is that they are not limited to non-
`removable media, which is a “newly-minted construction.”
`
`• Petitioner admitted that the Patentee argued during the ‘573 reexamination that “‘second
`memory’ had to be construed as excluding removable media such as CDs or cassette tapes,” and
`that the “Examiner accepted Patentee’s arguments.” CBM2013-00020 Petition (Paper 6) at 27;
`see also CBM2013-00023 Petition (Paper 5) at 30.
`• Further, Petitioner itself asserted that “[t]he originally filed claims were directed to
`electronically transferring binary ‘Digital Audio Music’ via telephone lines from a seller’s hard
`disk to the hard disk of a user in a software configuration allowing for repeated future
`playback.” CBM2013-00020 Petition (Paper 6) at 18-19; see also id. at 2 (identifying “second
`memory” as the “user’s Hard Disk”), 12 (same); CBM2013-00023 Petition at 3, 12, 17.
`• The Board shared Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s construction: “The patent describes how
`three types of media used for storing music at the time of the invention—records, tapes, and
`compact discs—did not allow for music to be transferred easily and had various problems, such
`as low capacity and susceptibility to damage during handling. . . . The patent describes a
`process by which a user transfers money ‘via a telecommunications line’ to purchase music
`from the agent and the music is transferred electronically ‘via a telecommunications line’ to the
`user and stored on the user’s hard disk.” Decision to Institute CBM2013-00020 (Paper 14) at
`3-4; see also Decision to Institute CBM2013-00023 (Paper 12) at 3-4.
`
`16
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`Petitioner’s Second Argument In Reply
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that the “specification urges reducing inventory and delay associated
`with traditional distribution and sale of music . . . [and] the use of removable hard disks or floppy
`disks to store electronically purchased music would have provided those same benefits.”
`
`• Petitioner ignores the multitude of remarks found in the specification and file history that
`disparage removable media because of its removable nature.
`
`17
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`Petitioner’s Third Argument In Reply
`
`Third, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s “expert could not defend his stated position that the
`Claims require ‘non-removable’ media.”
`
`• In the very citation supplied by Petitioner, Mr. Snell did just that:
`
`* Declaration of John Snell (Ex. 4165/4366) at 226:5-227:23.
`
`18
`
`

`
`“Second Memory” Limited To Non-Removable Media:
`Petitioner’s Fourth Argument In Reply
`
`Fourth, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “urged its customers to store music purchased from its
`website on removable optical memory.”
`
`• Patent Owner urged its
`customers to use “[a]
`minimum of 700 Mb of
`available hard drive space,” as
`this was a “system
`requirement[].”
`• Optical memory was to be
`used as an optional archival
`memory.
`• Patent Owner is not
`obligated to tailor its business
`plan around its patented
`technology.
`
`* Ex. 4167/4368 at 10.
`
`19
`
`

`
`A Single “CompuSonics system” Does Not Exist:
`The Legal Framework
`
`Petitioner contends, for the first time in Reply,
`that “CompuSonics invalidates because it was
`‘known . . . by others,’ and its features can be
`demonstrated by a public presentation or by
`various publications that disclose the
`invention’s capabilities.” Reply (Paper 52/49)
`at 5.
`
`Ex parte Lauterbach, No. 2009-008811, 2011 WL
`2713727 (B.P.A.I. July 11, 2011)
`
`20
`
`

`
`A Single “CompuSonics system” Does Not Exist:
`The Legal Framework
`
`Additional Legal Support
`
`Generac Power Sys., Inc. v. Kohler Co., No. 11-
`CV-1120-JPS, 2012 WL 6562153, at *13 n.4
`(E.D. Wisc. Nov. 29, 2012). See also id. at *13,
`*14 n.5.
`
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart
`Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-27 (Fed. Cir.
`1984)
`Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
`771 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`
`“And, while IP Innovation did hold that there was ‘no error in
`using multiple references to describe a single prior art system
`for the purpose of showing anticipation,’ that point of law was
`applied where there was a single device. Here, there seems to
`have been multiple devices, or a ‘suite of products,’ including
`the Generator Power Control and en telligent software, all of
`which Encorp may have hypothesized could be used together . .
`. but of which there is no evidence that it was actually
`combined and created as a product.”
`
`“It is hornbook law that anticipation must be found in a single
`reference, device, or process.”
`
`“[O]ne who seeks such a finding must show that each element
`of the claim in issue is found, either expressly described or
`under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference, or
`that the claimed invention was previously known or embodied
`in a single prior art device or practice.”
`
`21
`
`

`
`A Single “CompuSonics system” Does Not Exist:
`Deposition Testimony Of Petitioner’s Witnesses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Deposition Testimony of David Schwartz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Deposition Testimony of Dr. John Kelly
`
`* Deposition of David Schwartz (Ex. 2124/2324) at 28:3-12; Deposition of Dr. John Kelly (Ex. 2126/2326) at 85:7-12.
`
`22
`
`

`
`A Single “CompuSonics system” Does Not Exist:
`Deposition Testimony Of David Schwartz
`
`Throughout his deposition, Mr. Schwartz described the supposedly single “CompuSonics system”
`as including the following products, concepts, and features:
`
`Professional digital audio equipment (22:22 - 23:5)
`
`Recording live audio (98:12-14)
`
`Workstations (22:22 - 23:5)
`
`Digital audio telecommunications system (44:8-10)
`
`Broadcast service recorder/players (22:22 - 23:5)
`
`Random access commercial digital carousel (87:10-19)
`
`Consumer disc recorders (22:22 - 23:5)
`
`Audio engineering (67:11 - 68:6)
`
`DATI hardware (80:2-10)
`
`Decoding CompuSonics’ data format (67:11 - 68:6)
`
`Making copies of music on floppies or other memory and
`selling the copies (67:11 - 68:6)
`
`Music mastering in conjunction with Sony professional
`equipment (107:24 - 108:6)
`
`IBM PC class equipment that was re-labeled “CompuSonics”:
`re-configured PC’s with CompuSonics’ PC Sonic Software
`already loaded and the correct audio card to support 16-bit
`digital audio (86:16-20)
`
`Using an independent IBM PC or a MAC computer in
`conjunction with CompuSonics’ DSP equipment to extend the
`capabilities of the DSP equipment (85:21 - 86:6)
`
`Electronic record/music store (26:19 - 27:8)
`
`Editing software (83:4-9)
`
`Telerecording (31:14-22)
`
`Telerecording software (82:25 - 83:3)
`
`Compression technology (164:23 - 165:3)
`
`Data scanning software (82:25 - 83:3)
`
`Data storage (67:11 - 68:6)
`
`Editing audio (77:16-20)
`
`Front panel control software (109:8-17)
`
`Editing video (77:16-20)
`
`Recording music from a CD player to an optical disc (42:8-12)
`
`Creating a searchable database for redistribution (67:11 - 68:6)
`
`23
`
`* All citations to the Declaration of David Schwartz (Ex. 2124/2324).
`
`

`
`A Single “CompuSonics system” Does Not Exist:
`Declaration Testimony Of John Stautner
`
`-- The Unrebutted Declaration Testimony of John Stautner
`(Ex. 2121/2321) at ¶ 21
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`The Claims At Issue Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`All of the claims at issue are not invalidated by the CompuSonics art because:
`
`• The CompuSonics art does not teach an electronic payment from a “second party” to a “first
`party.”
`• The CompuSonics art does not teach the consumer using a non-removable memory.
`
`Additionally, claims 2 and 5 of the ‘573 patent are not invalidated by the CompuSonics art
`because:
`
`• The CompuSonics art does not teach the steps of “searching” and “selecting” after the
`“transferring” step, and such a method is not inherently disclosed.
`
`Additionally, claims 4 and 5 of the ‘573 patent are not invalidated by the CompuSonics art
`because:
`
`• The CompuSonics art does not teach transferring a “desired digital video signal” in the
`method described by the ‘573 patent.
`
`Additionally, claims 64 and 95 of the ‘440 patent are not invalidated by the CompuSonics art
`because:
`
`• The CompuSonics art does not teach the consumer using a hard disk.
`
`25
`
`

`
`Petitioner Does Not Apply The Correct
`Standard For Anticipation
`
`Patent Owner’s Response:
`
`* Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 41/38) at 21-22.
`
`26
`
`

`
`Petitioner Does Not Apply The Correct Standard For
`Obviousness Under KSR
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Brief:
`
`* CBM2013-00020 Reply (Paper 52) at 10; see also CBM2013-00023 Reply (Paper 49) at 9-10.
`
`27
`
`

`
`Petitioner Does Not Apply The Correct Standard For
`Obviousness Under KSR
`
`* KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 396, 418-19 (2007).
`
`28
`
`

`
`The Board Lacks Jurisdiction To Review
`CompuSonics Under § 103
`
`The Petition fails to assert that the CompuSonics disclosures supported a § 103 finding of
`obviousness.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c):
`
`* 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(a) incorporates 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c) into covered business method patent reviews.
`
`29
`
`

`
`The Claims At Issue Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`Exhibit 4106/4309 (BILLBOARD Article, Oct. 5, 1985):
`Discloses a “five-and-a quarter-inch ‘supper-floppy’ disk” for the home user; does not disclose a non-removable
`form of memory
`Does not disclose the first party in terms of payment
`
`Does not disclose any “searching” or “selecting” steps (claims 2 and 5 of the ‘573 patent)
`
`Does not disclose any “video” applications (claims 4 and 5 of the ‘573 patent)
`
`* Ex. 4106/4309 at 3.
`
`30
`
`

`
`The Claims At Issue Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`Exhibit 4119/4324 (FORTUNE Article, Nov. 12, 1984):
`
`Discloses a “floppy disk” for the home user as part of CompuSonics’ fabricated “telerecording” process; does
`not disclose a non-removable form of memory
`
`Does not disclose first party or second party in vague references to “sell direct to consumers” and “ordered by
`credit card”
`
`Discloses CompuSonics’ business plan to “make floppy disks the standard”
`
`Does not disclose any “searching” or “selecting” steps (claims 2 and 5 of the ‘573 patent)
`
`* Ex. 4119/4324 at 1-2.
`
`31
`
`

`
`The Claims At Issue Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`Exhibits 4120/4321 (Stanford Lecture) and 2128/2328 (Full Transcript of Stanford Lecture):
`Discloses “write once optical disks” in the DSP 1000 for the home user; does not disclose a non-removable form
`of memory
`Does not disclose first party in vague references to “credit card number” (MTV, cable company, or third party)
`
`Does not disclose any form of electronic payment (“say I’ll buy it, add it to my bill”; “credit card number”)
`
`Does not disclose any “searching” or “selecting” steps (claims 2 and 5 of the ‘573 patent)
`
`Does not disclose any “video” applications (claims 4 and 5 of the ‘573 patent)
`
`* Ex. 2128/2328 at 3:18-19, 6:13-20, 33:3-13.
`
`32
`
`

`
`Dependent Claims 2 And 5 Of The ‘573 Patent Are Not
`Inherently Disclosed In The CompuSonics Art
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner ignores the “after the
`transferring” language in its flawed inherency analysis.
`
`* CBM2013-00020 Petition (Paper 6) at 51-52.
`
`33
`
`

`
`Dependent Claims 2 And 5 Of The ‘573 Patent Are Not
`Inherently Disclosed In The CompuSonics Art
`
`In Reply, Petitioner alleges only that “a POSITA would
`have understood that the ‘searching’ and ‘selecting’
`steps may take place either before or after the
`‘transferring money electronically’ step.” Thus,
`Petitioner admits such a step is not necessary and thus
`inherent.
`
`* CBM2013-00020 Reply (Paper 52) at 7.
`
`34
`
`

`
`Claims 4 And 5 Of The ‘573 Patent Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`Petitioner has cited Exhibits 4116, 4118, and 4119 as invalidating claims 4 and 5 of the ‘573 patent.
`
`Exhibit 4116 (CompuSonics
`Video Application Notes):
`
`* Ex. 4116 at 2-3.
`
`35
`
`

`
`Claims 4 And 5 Of The ‘573 Patent Are Not Invalidated
`By The CompuSonics Art
`
`Exhibit 4118 (U.S. Patent No. 4,682,248):
`
`Exhibit 4119 (FORTUNE Article, Nov. 12, 1984):
`
`* Ex. 4118 at Abstract, 5:52-58; Ex. 4119 at 2.
`
`36
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`
`

`
`Importance of Secondary Considerations
`
`Legal Framework
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 808
`F.2d 1490, 1499 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1256 (Fed.
`Cir. 2013)
`
`Secondary considerations are “not just a
`cumulative or confirmatory part of the
`obviousness calculus but constitute[]
`independent evidence of nonobviousness.”
`Secondary considerations “can compel a
`finding of nonobviousness even where
`“standing alone, the prior art provides
`significant support for the [] contention that the
`[] patent would have been obvious.”
`“Such objective evidence . . . helps turn back
`the clock and place the claims in the context
`that led to their invention.”
`
`38
`
`

`
`The Hair Inventions
`
`39
`
`

`
`Praise For The Invention
`
`* Exs. 2114/2314, 2115/2315, 2116/2316.
`
`40
`
`

`
`
`Copying: Patent Owner Disclosed Its Patented
`Technology To Petitioner
`
`
`* Ex. 2117/2317 at 1.
`
`41
`
`

`
`Copying: Patent Owner Disclosed Its Patented
`Technology To Petitioner
`
`* Ex. 2117/2317 at 2.
`
`42
`
`

`
`
`Petitioner’s Denial Of Copying Is
`Not Supported By Its Declarants
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`Page 54:2-12
`
`Page 32:1-8
`
`Deposition Testimony of Jeffrey Robbin (Ex. 2176/2377)
`
`Mr. Jobs was involved in the decision to develop a music purchase service
`within Petitioner and that “we had lots of conversations that included
`Steve just around doing a music store.”
`
`Mr. Jobs “would be involved in how we decided to build iTunes, so he
`would work on user interface and feature definition, and just generally
`coming up with ideas of how it should all work.”
`
`* CBM2013-00020 Reply (Paper 52) at 2; see also CBM2013-00023 Reply (Paper 49) at 2.
`
`43
`
`

`
`Commercial Success: The Nexus Presumption
`
`Legal Framework
`
`DeMaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing
`Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 723 F.3d
`1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`“A prima facie case of nexus is generally made
`out when the patentee shows both that there is
`commercial success, and that the thing (product
`or method) that is commercially successful is
`the invention disclosed and claimed in the
`patent.”
`When the commercially successful product is
`coextensive with the asserted claims, this
`“trigger[s] a presumption of a nexus between
`the [product’s] commercial success and the
`claimed invention.”
`
`44
`
`

`
`Commercial Success: iTMS Is
`Co-Extensive With The Claims
`
`Declaration Testimony of Patent Owner’s Expert John Snell:
`
`* Declaration of John Snell (Ex. 2153/2353) at ¶ 98.
`
`45
`
`

`
`Commercial Success: iTMS
`Practices The Claims
`
`Deposition Testimony of Petitioner’s Expert Dr. John Kelly:
`
`* Deposition of Dr. John Kelly (Ex. 2126/2326) at 55:16-23.
`
`46
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Confirms The Nexus
`
`Page 59:8-18
`
`Page 86:7-12
`
`Pages 124:14-
`125:20, 143:1-7
`
`Deposition Testimony of Lawrence Kenswil (Ex. 2174/2375)
`
`The claims of Patent Owner’s patent “were certainly necessary for digital
`sales.”
`“[T]here are people who value buying music online” and some iTMS
`consumers make a choice to acquire music in a particular format.
`
`“[T]he number one reason” that digital downloads began replacing
`physical medial sales “was disaggregation. . . . [T]he consumer now had
`the choice to buy one or two tracks for a dollar each rather than having to
`pay 12 to $16 for an entire CD. That was a huge incentive to switch to
`buying that way. . . . [Consumers] enjoyed the flexibility of listening to
`music by their own play lists so they could re-order the songs which --
`having basically a track-by-track jukebox facilitated as opposed to having
`to put CDs in and out of a CD player . . . . [T]hose are the main reasons
`why it took off as it did as industry format.”
`
`47
`
`

`
`Benefits Of The Patented Features
`
`Declaration Testimony of Patent Owner’s
`Expert John Snell:
`
`* Declaration of John Snell (Ex. 2153/2353) at ¶¶ 22, 24.
`
`48
`
`

`
`
`The Patent Owner Was Not Required To Disprove That
`iTMS Embodies Other Inventions
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply:
`
`DeMaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff
`Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1394
`(Fed. Cir. 1988):
`
`* CBM2013-00020 Reply (Paper 52) at 10; see also CBM2013-00023 Reply (Paper 49) at 10.
`
`49
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Argument That The Success Of iTMS Is
`Due To Its Own Patents Is Unsupported
`
`Declaration Testimony of Jeffrey Robbin:
`
`Deposition Testimony of Jeffrey Robbin (Ex. 2176/2377)
`
`Page 41:18-42:9
`
` “Q. Okay. So for the nine patents, you are not certain whether you reviewed them after
`the application stage prior to signing your declaration; correct?
` MS. FUKUDA: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I don’t remember when I last reviewed any one or each of these
`patents. I just don’t remember.”
`
`Page 74:23-75:6
`
` “Q. Did you go back for any of the patents listed in this paragraph 7 and look at the
`claims that were ultimately issued before signing your declaration?
` A. I don’t remember.”
`
`* Declaration of Jeffrey Robbin (Ex. 4255/4413) at ¶ 7.
`
`50
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Argument That The Success Of iTMS Is
`Due To Its Own Patents Is Unsupported
`
`Declaration Testimony of Petitioner’s Expert Dr. John Kelly:
`
`Page 69:10-18
`
`Deposition Testimony of Dr. John Kelly (Ex. 2175/2376)
`
` “Q. Let’s go back to paragraph 67.
` Did you, for any of the patents mentioned in paragraph 67, which are
`U.S. Patent 7,650,570, U.S. Patent 7,865,927, U.S. Patent 8,136,030, U.S. Patent
`7,853,893, U.S. Patent 7,685,163, and U.S. Patent 8,032,565, generate any claim
`charts to establish that iTunes or iTMS were practicing the claimed invention?
` A. I did not.”
`
`* Declaration of Dr. John Kelly (Ex. 4262/4420) at ¶ 67.
`
`51
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Opinion On Commercial Success Is
`Unreliable And Unsupported
`
`Not an expert in advertising, marketing, sales, or patent law
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Lawrence Kenswil:
`
`Consumer behavior “not [his] specialty” and “[g]enerally when he needed knowledge about that,
`[he] would refer to others in [his record company] to answer [his] questions”
`No discussions with Apple personnel; did not ask for any internal surveys or sales information
`
`Flawed standard of what is “important to commercial success”
`
`Did not know when many features that he relied upon were released or what impact on sales may
`have been
`
`52
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Argument That The Success Of iTMS Is
`Due To Later-Added Features Is Self-Contradictory
`
`Deposition Testimony of Lawrence Kenswil:
`
`Declaration Testimony of
`Lawrence Kenswil:
`
`Declaration Testimony of
`Jeffrey Robbin:
`
`* Declaration of Lawrence Kenswil (Ex. 4256/4414) at ¶ 25; Deposition of Lawrence
`Kenswil (Ex. 2174/2375) at 60:11-61:10; Declaration of Jeffrey Robbin (Ex. 4255/4413) at ¶ 9.
`
`53

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket