CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Broadsign International, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`T-Rex Property AB,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,430,603
`Issue Date: August 6, 2002
`Title: SYSTEM FOR DIRECT PLACEMENT OF COMMERCIAL
`ADVERTISING, PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND OTHER
`CONTENT ON ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD DISPLAYS
`
`
`
`Case Number: CBM2017-00008
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CBM2017-00008
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... ..1
`
`D. Service Information ....................................................................................... ..9
`
`IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW ................................... ..9
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 42.8(A)(1) ............................................................. 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 42.8(A)(1) ........................................................... .. 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 1
`A. Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................... ..1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. ..1
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................ 8
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................... ..8
`D. Service Information ......................................................................................... 9
`E. Power of Attorney Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................. 9
`E. Power of Attorney Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ........................................... ..9
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A) ........................ 9
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A) ...................... ..9
`IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW ..................................... 9
`A. Brief Summary of the Subject Matter of the ’603 Patent ................................ 9
`A. Brief Summary of the Subject Matter of the ’603 Patent .............................. ..9
`1. Prosecution History of the ’603 Patent..................................................... 12
`1. Prosecution History of the ’603 Patent ................................................... .. 12
`2. Admitted Prior Art: U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,741 to Loban. ........................... 13
`2. Admitted Prior Art: U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,741 to Loban .......................... .. 13
`B. The ’603 Patent Is Eligible For CBM ............................................................ 14
`B. The ’603 Patent Is Eligible For CBM .......................................................... .. 14
`C. The ’603 Patent Claims Are Directed To A “Financial Activity” ................ 16
`C. The ’603 Patent Claims Are Directed To A “Financial Activity” .............. .. 16
`D. The ’603 Patent Claims Are Not Directed To a “Technological
`D. The ’603 Patent Claims Are Not Directed To a “Technological
`Invention” ...................................................................................................... 19
`Invention” .................................................................................................... .. 19
`V. Petitioner Is Not Estopped From Challenging The ’603 Patent
`V. Petitioner Is Not Estopped From Challenging The ’603 Patent
` and Has Standing ............................................................................................... 24
`and Has Standing ............................................................................................. ..24
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................................. 29
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 29
`VIII.
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...................................... 35
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................................... ..29
`
`VII. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... ..29
`
`VIII.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... ..35
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 11-13, 42-43, And 48-74 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 As Being Directed To An Abstract Idea .................. 36
`1. The Law On Abstract Ideas ...................................................................... 36
`2. The Challenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea .................... 38
`3. The Challenged Claims Lack Any Inventive Concept ............................. 52
`a. The Loban Reference Is A Prior-Art Admission And Evidence
`of No Inventive Concept ..................................................................... 53
`b. The Method Claims Lack An Inventive Concept ............................... 56
`c. The System Claims Lack Any Inventive Concept .............................. 63
`d. The Dependent Claims Lack Any Inventive Concept ........................ 73
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 11, and 13 Are Unpatentable As Improper
`Means-Plus-Function Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 And
`Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. .......................................................... 81
`1. Claim 1 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 As Indefinite
`Because The ’603 Patent Specification Fails To Recite Any
`Corresponding Algorithms For The Computer-Implemented
`Functions .................................................................................................. 81
`2. Claims 11 and 13 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 As
`Indefinite Because The ’603 Patent Specification Fails To Recite
`Any Corresponding Algorithms For The Computer-Implemented
`Functions .................................................................................................. 86
`IX Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 87
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
` CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`
`Description of the Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,430,603
`
`Amended Complaint, Broadsign v. T-Rex Civil Action
`No. 1:16-cv-04586-LTS
`
`Schumer Letter re: CBM Review April 10, 2012
`
`Declaration by Jaime G. Carbonell, Ph.D.
`
`File History of U.S. App. No. 09/301,102
`
`U.S. Patent Number 5,612,741 to Loban
`
`Declaration by Burr R. Smith
`
`
`
`

`
` CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`673 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 25
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 51, 52, 68
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC,
`CBM2013-00021, 2013 WL 8538869 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) ......................... 17
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 32, 81
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ........................................................................................ 25
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO,
`689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374,
`1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................. 32
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Bancorp Serv. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 51, 68
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .......................................................................... 36, 37, 59, 61
`
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 31, 32
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1391+, 2016 WL 791107 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016) ........ 16, 19, 23, 25
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Broadsign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB,
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-04586-LTS................................................................. 27
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 32
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 52, 68
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 37, 60
`
`DealerSocket, Inc. v. AutoAlert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00203, 2015 WL 1535812 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2015) ......................... 71
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980) ................................................................. 36
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................................................................................ 37, 59, 61
`
`eBay Inc. v. MoneyCat Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00092, 2015 WL 5675577 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2015) ...................... 19
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
`587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00053, 2014 WL 3347511 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2014) ...................... 16
`
`Le Roy v. Tatham,
`55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................ 37, 59, 61
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`CBM2015-00005, 2015 WL 1456446 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015) ...................... 71
`
`
`
`Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ................................................................................ 37, 59, 61
`
`Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.,
`537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 26
`
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 20
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Health Media Network, LLC,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-05673 . (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 11.) In the HMN Action,
`T-Rex .................................................................................................................. 28
`
`Versata Dev. Grp. Inc. v SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 15, 19, 20
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 30, 31
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(2) ...................................................................................................... 32
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 .............................................................................................. 81, 84
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112, ¶ 2 ................................................................................ 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ............................................................................... 33, 34, 35, 81
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................... 30, 33, 35, 82
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A) .......................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ......................................................................................... 33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................. 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R.§ 42.301 .................................................................................................... 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ........................................................................................ 19, 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (August 14, 2012) ...................................................... 15
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736 ............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 321 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., Broadsign
`
`International, LLC (“Broadsign” or “Petitioner”) petitions for Covered Business
`
`Method Review (“CBM”) of Claims 1, 11-13, 42-43 and 48-74 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,603 (“the ’603 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to
`
`T-Rex Property AB (“T-Rex” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition demonstrates that
`
`the Challenged Claims contain defects that render them invalid on multiple
`
`grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112. Petitioner asserts that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’603 Patent is the subject of one directly-related matter between the
`
`
`
`
`
`same parties: (1) Broadsign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property AB, Civil
`
`Action No. 1:16-cv-04586-LTS (S.D.N.Y.) (“the District Court Case”), an action
`
`for declaratory judgment. Additionally, Petitioner has petitioned for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Pat. Nos. RE39,470 (IPR2016-01869) and 7,382,334 (IPR2017-
`
`00006), which are the other two patents disputed in the District Court Case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner is the first to petition for CBM of the ’603 Patent. T-Rex has filed
`
`
`
`
`
`at least 59 patent-infringement suits concerning the same patent or technology
`
`against 80 or more defendants in 17 judicial districts throughout the United States.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶ 4.) Petitioner has knowledge of the following T-Rex-initiated patent-
`
`infringement cases involving the ’603 Patent or related patents in the chart below.1
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Captivate, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`CBS Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Admirable, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Cardinal Health, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Prismview, LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Barco, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Zipcast, LLC
`
`1:15-cv-04188
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`2:12-cv-00346
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06915 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05484 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:16-cv-00404
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06938 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:15-cv-03170
`
`Southern District of Texas
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`
`4:16-cv-00458
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`1 T-Rex’s display control litigation campaign spans the following asserted
`
`patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. RE39,470 7,382,334; and 6,430,603.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`
`
`Case Name
`GPS Industries, LLC
`
`9
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Durden Outdoor
`Displays, Inc.
`10 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Time-O-Matic, LLC
`
`11
`
`12
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`RMG Networks Holding
`Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Adams Outdoor
`Advertising, Inc.
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`1:15-cv-00257 Middle District of Alabama
`
`1:14-cv-01488
`
`Central District of Illinois
`
`3:15-cv-00738
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`1:14-cv-01487
`
`Central District of Illinois
`
`13
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Lamar Advertising
`Company
`14 T-Rex Property AB v.
`AdSpace Networks, Inc.
`15 T-Rex Property AB v.
`LAND DISPLAYS, INC. 5:15-cv-02152
`16 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Destination Media, Inc.
`
`2:12-cv-00348
`
`1:15-cv-09073
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`Eastern District of
`Pennsylvania
`
`1:16-cv-01587 Northern District of Illinois
`
`17
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Six Flags Entertainment
`Corporation
`18 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Cedar Fair, L.P.
`19 T-Rex Property AB v.
`
`1:16-cv-00565 Western District of Texas
`
`0:16-cv-02018
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`4:16-cv-00393
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`
`
`Case Name
`Cinemark USA, Inc
`
`20
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc.
`21 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Contextmedia Inc. et al
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`The Wellness Network,
`LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`AMC Entertainment
`Holdings, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Regal Entertainment
`Group
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Quality Systems
`Technology, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Barnes Advertising
`Corporation
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Fairway Outdoor
`Advertising, LLC
`
`28
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`iPort Media Networks,
`LLC
`29 T-Rex Property AB v.
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`2:12-cv-00347
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-04826 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:15-cv-07847
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`6:16-cv-01029
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`6:16-cv-00927
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06942 Northern District of Illinois
`
`2:15-cv-02402
`
`Southern District of Ohio
`
`4:15-cv-00073
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-01583 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-06934 Northern District of Illinois
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`
`
`Case Name
`Four Winds Interactive,
`LLC
`
`30
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc.
`31 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Renfroe Media, LLC
`32 T-Rex Property AB v.
`AutoNetTV Media, Inc.
`
`33
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Adaptive Micro Systems,
`LLC
`34 T-Rex Property AB v.
`ECM Media, LLC
`35 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Total Outdoor Corp.
`
`36
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Health Media Network,
`LLC
`37 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Eye Corp (USA) Inc.
`
`38
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`National CineMedia,
`LLC
`39 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Table Top Media, LLC
`40 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Stokely Outdoor
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`5:12-cv-01162 Western District of Texas
`
`1:15-cv-00635 Northern District of Georgia
`
`1:16-cv-06649 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05667 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05222 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:15-cv-08197 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-05673 Northern District of Illinois
`
`1:16-cv-00406 Western District of Texas
`
`2:16-cv-00681
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`1:16-cv-06932 Northern District of Illinois
`
`4:15-cv-00356
`
`Northern District of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`
`
`Case Name
`Advertising, Inc.
`41 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Zoom Media Corp.
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Las Vegas Billboards,
`LLC
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Reach Sports Marketing
`Group, Inc.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`JCDecaux North
`America, Inc. et al
`
`45
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Maxmedia Outdoor
`Advertising LLC
`46 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Carmike Cinemas, Inc.
`
`47
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Turner Broadcasting
`System Inc et al
`48 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Screenvision, LLC et al
`
`49
`
`50
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`ANC Sports Enterprises,
`L.L.C.
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Interactivation Health
`Networks, LLC
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`Oklahoma
`
`1:16-cv-03475 Northern District of Illinois
`
`2:15-cv-01285
`
`District of Nevada
`
`0:16-cv-00070
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`4:16-cv-00303
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`6:15-cv-01575 Middle District of Florida
`
`4:16-cv-00344
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`3:16-cv-00980
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`4:16-cv-00465
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`0:16-cv-00581
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`1:15-cv-08259
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`T-Rex’s Electronic Display Litigation Campaign
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Intersection Media
`Holdings, Inc. et al
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Outfront Media, Inc. et
`al
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Disselkoen Properties,
`Inc. et al
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Clear Channel Outdoor
`Holdings, Inc. et al
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Branded Cities Network
`LLC et al
`
`3:16-cv-01005
`
`Northern District of Texas
`
`0:15-cv-01572
`
`District of Minnesota
`
`1:15-cv-00562
`
`Western District of
`Michigan
`
`6:16-cv-00974
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`2:16-cv-00033
`
`District of Arizona
`
`
`
`51
`
`52
`
`53
`
`54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`T-Rex Property AB v.
`Disselkoen Properties,
`Inc. et al
`57 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Blue Outdoor, LLC et al
`58 T-Rex Property AB v.
`Muzak, LLC et al
`
`1:15-cv-00328
`
`Western District of
`Michigan
`
`1:16-cv-00733
`
`Southern District of New
`York
`
`1:15-cv-00980 Western District of Texas
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner designates counsel as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Reg. No. 68,504
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Pro hac vice to be requested upon grant of
`authorization
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Reg. No. 58,279
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email:plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Reg. No. 72,883
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service. Petitioner may be served at the
`
`addresses provided above for counsel.
`
`E.
`
`Power of Attorney Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 AND § 42.15(A)
`
`Petitioner requests Covered Business Method Review of 33 claims of the
`
`’603 Patent. Accordingly, a payment of $43,150 accompanies this Petition. The
`
`payment is calculated based on a $12,000 request fee (for up to 20 claims), a
`
`$3,250 excess claims request fee (based on 13 excess claims), an $18,000 post-
`
`institution fee (for up to 15 claims), and a $9,900 excess post-institution claims fee
`
`(based on 18 excess claims).
`
`IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`
`A. Brief Summary of the Subject Matter of the ’603 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent is directed to the abstract concept of displaying information
`
`based on third party instructions (i.e., selections by advertising customers).
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:7–18.) (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 40.) The ’603 Patent purports to overcome the
`
`disadvantages of prior art systems by speeding up human-performed tasks via the
`
`use of conventional computers and a network. Additionally, the specification
`
`states that the network can be a human network (i.e., physical delivery as a method
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`of transmission). (Ex. 1001, 7:17–21; 9:53–59; 12:33–41.) (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 40.)
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent alleges that the prior art is replete with high-cost systems without
`
`“direct access” to update advertisements and to target geographical regions and
`
`demographic groups. Id., 1:20–53.
`
`
`
`To address these alleged problems, the ’603 Patent seeks to provide “direct
`
`access” to customers. Id., 1:66–2:5. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 41.) To achieve “direct
`
`access,” the ’603 Patent describes generic computer hardware such as servers and
`
`the Internet. The claims require a customer to choose a display time and location
`
`(Id. 2:5–12.), as shown in the bolded limitation of Claim 12 below:
`
`12. A method of providing video or still image advertisements at
`selected times and locations on a network of multiple electronic
`displays that are located in high traffic areas such as areas of high
`vehicular traffic, indoor and outdoor areas with high pedestrian traffic,
`movie theaters, restaurants, sports arenas and casinos;
`
`permitting advertising customers of the system to purchase
`time slots at selected electronic display locations for display of
`their advertising content;
`
`transmitting customer advertising content to the selected
`electronic display locations; and
`
`driving the electronic display at each selected location to
`display the customer's advertising content at the selected time.
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`In addition to “direct access,” the ’603 Patent describes a network
`
`
`
`
`
`comprising electronic displays located in public places. (Ex. 1001, 2:54–60.) The
`
`means for transmitting transmits information to the display locations and may take
`
`one of many forms: high speed cable, satellite, dedicated phone, high-speed line,
`
`cellular, PCS, Internet, radio, radio pulse transmission, or high-speed optical fiber.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 3:31-45; Figure 1.) Additionally, the ’603 Patent expressly states that
`
`the network may include physically delivering the information, because that was
`
`the common practice at the time. (Ex. 1001, 7:17–21; 9:53–59; 12:33–41.) In
`
`other words, the transmission of advertising information can be performed
`
`physically by a person.
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent does not describe any novel display systems. (Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶ 43.) Rather, the ’603 Patent describes the preferred “electronic display 30” as a
`
`large flat panel screen, such as an LED-based panel comprising display modules.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:62-65; 4:48-51; Figure 2.) The ’603 Patent describes a standard
`
`“server 100” as associated with each electronic display. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 43.) The
`
`server receives transmitted content from the central information processing station
`
`over the network. (Ex. 1001, 3:25-35; Figure 1.) The electronic displays and
`
`servers described by the ’603 Patent were ubiquitous in the art. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 43.)
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent further describes that a customer directly accesses a central
`
`information processing station through a web interface. (Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:3.) The
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`central information processing station contains a number of “modules” that permit
`
`
`
`the customer to accomplish tasks. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 44.) A “Security Router/Access
`
`module 50” permits a customer to gain access by entering security and billing
`
`codes. (Ex. 1001, 3:3–6.) A “Review Schedule and Purchase Time module 60”
`
`permits a customer to “see what time is available” and “schedule and purchase the
`
`desired advertising time slot.” (Ex. 1001, 3:8–13.) A “Video & Still Image
`
`Review and Input module 70” permits a customer to transmit the advertising
`
`content over some connection for receipt by the system. (Ex. 1001, 3:13–17.)
`
`Other than the mere recitation of functions, the ’603 Patent provides no algorithm
`
`for these “modules.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 44.)
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent’s claimed features are not “inventive,” novel, or non-
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 45.) The ’603 Patent,
`
`itself, expressly admits that U.S. Patent Number 5,612,741 (“Loban”) (Ex. 1006) is
`
`prior art. As shown below, Loban discloses the claimed features.
`
`1.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’603 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’603 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application Number 09/301,102
`
`(“the 102 Application”) on April 28, 1999. (Ex. 1001 at 1.)
`
`
`
`The ’102 Application contained 12 claims as filed and received two single-
`
`reference obviousness rejections over Schreiber (U.S. Patent Number 4,761,641).
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 38, 66, 76.) Applicants added new claims 13-76 and distinguished
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`CBM2017-00008
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,603
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1–12 by arguing that Schreiber did not disclose “a network of multiple
`
`
`
`electronic displays for displaying advertising content (Claims 1, 11 and 12) or
`
`other content (Claims 13, 48), the electronic displays comprising a matrix of
`
`LEDs.” (Ex. 1005 at 96.) The PTO issued a Notice of Allowance on March 19,
`
`2002 without explaining its reasons for allowance. (Ex. 1005 at 112.)
`
`
`
`However, as described below, none of these limitations discussed during
`
`prosecution (either alone, or as combined in the claims) were novel in the art and
`
`the art was replete with references describing digital electronic displays for
`
`advertising.
`
`2.
`
`Admitted Prior Art: U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,741 to Loban.
`
`
`
`The Loban reference, which the ’603 Patent expressly admits is prior art,
`
`discloses virtually all of the subject matter of the ’603 Pat