Paper 34
` November 19, 2014
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00309
`Patent 6,771,381
`____________
`
`Held: August 18, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL E. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`STUART P. MEYER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Fenwick & West LLP
`
`
`Silicon Valley Center
`
`
`801 California Street
`
`
`Mountain View, California 94041
`
`
`
`
` November 19, 2014
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00309
`Patent 6,771,381
`____________
`
`Held: August 18, 2014
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL E. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`STUART P. MEYER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Fenwick & West LLP
`
`
`Silicon Valley Center
`
`
`801 California Street
`
`
`Mountain View, California 94041
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`STEVEN G. HILL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Hill Kertscher & Wharton LLP
`
`
`3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
`
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`VIVEK A. GANTI, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Thomas Hortsemeyer
`
`
`400 Interstate North Parkway, Suite
`
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`August 18, 2014, commencing at 11:34 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE TIERNEY: We now have a hearing for
`IPR2013-00309. I believe we may have a switch of counsel for
`Petitioner side. Patent Owner, is there going to be a switch of
`counsel?
`
`MR. HILL: Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Ganti will argue the
`
`309.
`
`MR. MEYER: Stuart Meyer, Fenwick & West for
`Petitioner, Hewlett Packard. May I approach to present the
`demonstratives?
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Are you referring to 1025?
`MR. MEYER: 1025, yes.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: In the future, would you please
`provide it as a demonstrative. It wasn't clear for the record what it
`was.
`
`MR. MEYER: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Judge Anderson, if you can go to
`the record, it's Exhibit 1025 in the 309 case.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Thank you.
`MR. MEYER: And, Judge Anderson, thank you very
`much, I will not be using the screen to make it a little bit easier, and
`we can just talk through the demonstrative when we get there.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Before we begin, I would just like
`to say that we're beginning, it's IPR 2013-00309, just a quick
`question for the parties. We did have a default today for how we
`proceed. Are there any changes to the default?
`MR. MEYER: No changes.
`MR. GANTI: No changes from Patent Owner.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: My understanding, then, 45
`minutes reserved for the Petitioner, Patent Owner we reserved 45
`minutes, I didn't see a request from Patent Owner to necessarily
`participate, but it said that you may participate should there be a
`hearing. My understanding is that by you being here today you will
`be participating?
`MR. GANTI: We will. We did file a statement stating
`that we would like to participate in the event there is an oral hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: I understand. So, both sides will
`be afforded 45 minutes. Petitioner, you will be first today. Do you
`wish to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`MR. MEYER: Yes, thank you, Your Honor, I would
`like to spend about half an hour or so now on the presentation,
`reserving 15 minutes.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Thank you. You may begin when
`
`ready.
`
`MR. MEYER: I would like to thank the Board for the
`opportunity for the hearing today to highlight some of the issues that
`we raised in our papers, and to answer any questions you might have.
`I'll start by providing some context of where we are
`today and then focus on three more specific issues from our petition
`and our reply. The first of those is an explanation of some of the
`claim construction issues we presented. Then I would like to give an
`example of how our cited art applies, and finally I would like to
`provide an example or two of particular points that we raised in our
`reply to Patent Owner's opposition.
`But before getting to those three issues, I would like to
`provide a reminder of the context. Back in May of last year, we
`presented our petition with eight different grounds covering both
`anticipation and obviousness, all based on art relating to HP's own
`products from the 1990s that combined various features of scanners,
`copiers, printers and document management applications. The Board
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`decided to institute the trial on two of those grounds, stating that the
`remaining grounds were redundant.
`I won't spend a great deal of time talking about the
`specification of the '381 patent, because the '426 patent, which you
`just spent the last hour and a half or so considering, styles itself as a
`continuation of the '381. I'll just make a few general observations,
`following what we laid out in our petition and in our reply.
`First of all, the '381 repeats at least three times that its
`invention is a so-called virtual copier having "five essential
`elements." Each of which it says, and I quote again, "is a counterpart
`to an aspect that is found on a conventional copier." The five are
`input, output, process, client and server.
`Then, in an internally contradictory manner, the
`specification in describing the server module says, and I quote again,
`"Unlike conventional copiers, this is a unique subsystem that
`communicates with the other modules and with third-party
`applications."
`The '381 specification says that the architecture for this
`is implemented with what the specification calls "standard"
`Microsoft components such as COM, which is the common object
`model, and the Windows registry.
`A second observation, and this relates to claim
`construction in particular, as we pointed out in the petition, and the
`reply, and the exhibits to those, MPHJ and affiliated licensing entities
`have been very active in enforcing the '381 and family member
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`patents, sending out literally thousands of letters to primarily small
`businesses and undertaking several lawsuits.
`From that activity, there is some strong evidence of
`what the Patent Owner has asserted is the scope of the '381 and other
`portfolio patents sharing the specification and a great deal of the
`claim language that we're going to discuss.
`The Federal Trade Commission in defending a lawsuit
`that MPHJ brought against it for investigating MPHJ's tactics,
`succinctly characterized the Patent Owner's assertion as follows,
`"MPHJ's letters claim that the recipients have likely infringed the
`MPHJ portfolio by using a scanner or multifunction printer that is
`connected to a network to permit a document to be scanned directly
`to email or other application."
`In those letters, as we pointed out, the '381 is directly
`referenced, and such use of network scanners or multifunction
`devices with other software is described as, I quote again, "A typical
`example of what infringes."
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, did they limit that to
`claims 9 and 11 in this case? Is that right?
`MR. MEYER: They did not, and the examples that I am
`providing come from various sources. They come from both letters
`and infringement allegations in lawsuits, so it's an amalgam of those.
`This background is important because the Patent Owner
`has urged in its response extremely narrow constructions of
`convenience that not only contradict the '381 and the prior writings
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`of Patent Owner's own expert, but cannot be reconciled with these
`prior letters sent to the public either, or the litigations that
`corresponded to those.
`We see this inconsistency time and again. For instance,
`as we pointed out in our reply, regarding the claim term "go
`operation," Patent Owner's expert takes issue with the Board's
`interpretation, saying simply that it "does not go far enough" to
`suggest that it's overbroad, yet in litigation involving identical
`language in another patent, MPHJ has asserted that this language is
`satisfied by a feature that "only requires the user to push a button.
`That's about it."
`As another example from that same litigation, MPHJ has
`asserted in litigation that "implementation of said protocols,"
`protocols being another term used in both patents, "is a requirement
`to communicate and interface with external devices and
`applications."
`And that makes sense, since various devices and
`applications need to speak the same language in order to
`communicate, but at the same time, in this proceeding, MPHJ
`pretends that there's something special about this term, even though
`they can't cite to anything in the '381 supporting that assertion.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Let's stop here for a moment. You
`mentioned the demand letters earlier. Do you have case law saying
`that they're bound by what they say in their demand letters?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`MR. MEYER: And I recognize the fact that that
`question was asked in the prior proceeding. I'm not aware of case
`law that says that, per se; however, I believe that the whole notion of
`broadest reasonable interpretation has to account in some manner for
`what the Patent Owner itself has interpreted claim language to mean.
`So, while I don't have anything specifically to say that
`you are bound to it, it seems that the very definition requires it.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: So, you're saying we should take it
`into account?
`MR. MEYER: Yes. Yes.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, I'm just looking at their
`demand letter and I recognize the two specific examples you just
`spoke about, the go button, the go feature and the protocols, but this
`demand -- it's Exhibit 1016 at page 11, it says that an example would
`be claims 12 and 15, I misspoke earlier, of the '381 patent. Claims
`12 and 15. I don't know how that impacts what you're saying, but I
`was wondering if it did.
`MR. MEYER: Thank you for the question. There are
`some examples provided by the letters, and other examples provided
`by what they've said in litigation and what I'm saying is an amalgam
`of those things.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: For every single claim in this
`application?
`MR. MEYER: No, I apologize if that impression came
`across, I'm trying to provide examples.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: I'm trying to provide examples, yes.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Thank you.
`MR. MEYER: The third observation I want to make
`before moving to the specifics of the claims has to do with the Patent
`Owner's reaction to the Board's institution decision. As we pointed
`out in our reply, the Board agreed with a number of observations that
`we made in the petition about flaws in the claims, and, in fact,
`identified some others that we didn't have space to address in our
`petition.
`
`The Board invited the Patent Owner to address these
`issues, and during the scheduling conference with the Board, the
`Patent Owner said that it planned to amend the claims, but unlike the
`case with the '426 patent that you were just considering a few
`minutes ago, here the Patent Owner never even bothered to propose
`amended claims. Instead, the Patent Owner essentially ignored a
`number of the flaws in the claims and presented its response as if the
`flaws were not there. Put another way, the Patent Owner argued
`claims that are not in the '381 patent by simply pretending that it
`didn't have to account for a variety of issues. If the Patent Owner
`wanted different claims, it had an opportunity to ask the Board to
`amend accordingly.
`I would like to now move into the specifics of the first
`two independent claims and illustrate how this is played out with a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`few examples. And, Judge Anderson, if you could turn your
`attention now to the Exhibit 1025, page 1.
`JUDGE ANDERSON: I have it. You can go ahead.
`MR. MEYER: Thank you. The first page of this exhibit
`is essentially just showing how we parsed claim 1 into various
`elements for ease of dealing with it. And it just walks through each
`of the various elements from the preamble to 1.4 in a manner that's
`fairly ready reference.
`So, if you could turn your attention to page 2, I would
`like to illustrate two different points about how we are construing
`claim 1. The first is to recognize, as we said in our papers and as the
`Board also recognized, that there are numerous instances, half a
`dozen or so instances in claim 1 of the use of the phrasing "at least
`one of."
`
`So, as was pointed out with some of the claims in the
`'426, there's a lot of language in these claims, but the phrasing "at
`least one of" leads to alternatives that we will discuss more in a few
`minutes.
`
`I also would like to point out to you -- and those are all
`marked in yellow. I would also like to point out to you that marked
`in red is a phrase that says, "Communicable with said at least one
`input, output, client and process modules in external applications."
`Now, that language in red refers to several items for which there
`should be antecedent basis, but there's not. There's antecedent basis
`for input module, there's antecedent basis for external applications,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`but not any of the others, which leads us to, in our claim construction
`task, try to figure out how to handle that. And I point that out
`because some of the details that are provided about what various
`modules have to have and so forth, there's no prior element in the
`claim that gives further guidance on those. There may be some other
`issues with the patent as well, but we're here to talk about only the
`prior art with respect to this claim language.
`If you could turn your attention now to page 3. In page
`3, what we've done is to indicate by continued yellow marking the
`change in phrasing but not in meaning of what it means to use the "at
`least one of" language. And as you can see in the brackets, you can
`replace the "at least one of" phrasings with a simple "or" to get the
`same meaning.
`There is one instance where this is sufficiently
`convoluted, it's nested and instead of putting that in yellow, we've put
`that in blue so that you can see that there's a nested set of ors here.
`And this is just a matter of allowing us to try to parse what these
`claims actually mean.
`So, let's go ahead and move to page 4 to show how we
`can start comparing the claim language as thus understood against
`the cited art, and we're just going to use the example here of SJ5 for
`the purposes of time, but each of these checkmarks is something we
`can compare against the art to see how it stacks up, which we
`commenced to doing on page 5.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`So, on page 5, we take a look at the preamble, and the
`claim talks about a computer data management system, systems
`claim, comprising a management system for -- it says, "Electronic
`image graphics or document management system capable of
`transmitting an electronic image, graphics or document to a plurality
`of external destinations, including external devices or applications
`responsively connectable locally or via the Internet." And that's an
`important point to make because that point gets lost a great deal in
`the response that the Patent Owner has provided. There are
`numerous instances where the Patent Owner has stated that there is a
`requirement of a claim that simply isn't met, and in many cases, it's
`just an alternative. So, even if you were to accept the argument, it
`wouldn't follow.
`What we provide beneath the claim language on page 5
`of this exhibit is an excerpt from the expert declaration that HP
`provided about the SJ5 reference, and below that, a portion of the
`actual reference itself. So, once again, this is sort of a ready way to
`take a look at what the claim really means, and, of course, the SJ5
`reference is a user manual that talks in the getting started section
`about what the product can do. And it says, "The HP network
`Scanjet 5 scanner can scan items, such as memos, letters, brochures,
`photographs, et cetera, and distribute them electronically. Anyone
`can use the scanner to scan documents and send them to destinations
`listed in the scanner control panel, or fax numbers; however, if you
`want to create your own destination, you will use the Scanjet 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`utility. In addition, PaperPort software has been provided to allow
`your inbox to receive scanned documents at your computer.
`So, if we take a look at how that relates to the preamble,
`we see that the various requirements, however -- whether you want to
`consider an electronic image or a document, those are -- those are
`referenced, and the external destinations, being external devices or
`applications, are referenced in the locally or via the Internet, to the
`extent you can consider there to be another choice anyway, is
`referenced both here and in other places.
`Now, I'll remind you that these are examples that we are
`providing here.
`Let's move to page 6. So, page 6, just very quickly,
`reminds us where we are in the claim, and we've gotten the first three
`checkmarks. So, now we'll go to the next one. The next one is
`detailed on page 7. Page 7 says, "at least one memory storing a
`plurality of interface protocols for interfacing and communicating." I
`know in the prior case that the Board discussed this morning, there
`was a lot of discussion about protocols and multiple protocols and
`what that means and so forth. There is discussion just in the portion
`of the SJ5 reference that's cited here about, well, first of all, the
`memory requirements, and at least one memory. Well, that's quite
`clear, there are several references to different types of memory for
`maintaining -- well, there are numerous examples provided. To use
`the OCR software, for instance, is one that is provided, for
`decompressing files and comparisons, temporary memory is recited.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`So, there are numerous, numerous examples given there.
`And the interfacing and communicating aspects are also referenced
`with the installation in memory, of course, of the utility software,
`Acrobat Reader, PaperPort software and OCR software, the CAERE
`on the page OCR software. So, we have that element addressed.
`If we go to page 8, we see that that one is checked off so
`we can move to the next one, which is at page 9. Page 9 talks about
`at least one processor, system claim, talks about at least one
`processor, connectable, to the memory, and implementing the
`plurality of interface protocols as a software application.
`So, here, we have, once again, the same reference, the
`same example reference from this SJ5 document, which specifically
`referenced a personal computer 386 or above, 486 recommended,
`those are references, of course, to processors, specific processors in a
`personal computer, and once again it talks about the various types of
`software that can be put into the system, and as is discussed in other
`places of Scanjet 5, exactly what happens with those things.
`So, element 1.2 is addressed as shown on page 10.
`Now, once we get to page 10, we'll see that there are two more
`checked boxes that were made. Those two checked boxes are
`alternatives, either one of them satisfies the language. In this case,
`we have no problem, we'll talk about how each one of them is
`satisfied, but it's important to remember, because the Patent Owner's
`argument suggests this is not the case, but it's important to remember
`that either one of these can be satisfied and that's sufficient.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`So, now let's take a look at page 11, where element 1.3
`talks about an input module managing data comprising either paper
`or electronic paper, input into the system, and managing at least one
`imaging device, and managing the electronic paper from at least one
`third party software application. And here, as the declaration shows,
`there is, once again, a disclosure of an imaging device that's used to
`capture images from paper using a scanner, selection of the scanner
`as an import -- input source is inherent, and SJ5 expressly discloses
`OCR software that manages the electronic paper as one example,
`once again.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: What's the third party software
`application, is that the OCR?
`MR. MEYER: OCR, that's the CAERE product, C A E
`R E, for the reporter, on the page that's the third party provider.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: CAERE means?
`MR. MEYER: CAERE, C A E R E.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That's the manufacturer?
`MR. MEYER: Yes.
`So, we at this point have addressed all of the checked
`boxes in this claim, but for the purposes of completeness, we'll go
`ahead and -- all of the required ones, first for completeness, we'll do
`the last one as well, page 13.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Can I ask you, so the third party
`application, is that the OCR, is that also satisfying the one imaging
`device input? Is that what you said? You know, for that top phrase
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`that says "managing data comprising input for the computer data
`management managing at least one imaging device to input data?"
`MR. MEYER: It's managing the electronic data.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: The last one. And then what's
`doing the other two?
`MR. MEYER: The other two are handled by the actual
`software of the scanner, which as we'll discuss in a moment, is
`comprised both of the -- both of the software that's directly within the
`product, as well as the utility software operating on --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, similar to the last, we have to
`find that this application can be a suite of applications, if you will?
`MR. MEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: And then the last bullet point on page
`13, here there's a module communicable with input module and
`external applications, and able to dynamically combine the external
`applications with either digital capturing devices or imaging devices.
`And here, once again, we see that there is reference to electronically
`linking scanned documents to other applications, such as fax, email,
`word processing applications, and there's a general features
`discussion from the reference itself that talks about that as well.
`So, that is provided as an illustration of the manner that
`we believe is appropriate to parse claim 1.
`I would like to turn my attention to claim 12 as another
`example, and in claim 12, as you'll see on page 14, there's the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`preamble and three separate elements. Now, the preamble, once
`again, talks about -- we might as well turn to page 15 now.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Counsel, just to let you know, you
`have five minutes remaining.
`MR. MEYER: Thank you. Because the highlighting is
`helpful. The highlighting here references the fact that in the
`preamble, there is reference to a system. That's the red highlighting,
`system, system, system.
`Then in each of the elements, we see terms such as
`operation, method, method, method, and presenting users. And this
`is a point that we addressed, the Board addressed as well, and that
`Patent Owner has ignored, where there are apparently attempts here
`to describe a system in terms of a method, which is our task here is to
`figure out how best to interpret that, and also in the yellow
`highlighting we have the same alternative phrasings that we had
`before.
`
`So, when we get down to interpretation of the
`alternatives, on page 16, you can see that we have another example
`of the nested alternative in blue and the rest of the yellow
`alternatives. And then if we get to page 17, we also see that there's
`scanned actual system description in claim 12 with a tremendous
`amount of discussion of methods instead.
`So, this is provided once again as an example of how
`to -- how to parse the claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`I would like to turn attention now to the last page of the
`demonstrative, page 18, which is simply a copy of the front page of
`the '381 patent, and I want to point out just a couple of things,
`because I think they're helpful in understanding what I'm sure we'll
`be talking about for the remainder of this hearing.
`There is a tremendous thrust of Patent Owner's
`argument about the importance of modular stand-alone software
`applications, but just taking a look at the front page of the patent by
`itself, the title, "distributed computer architecture." The abstract,
`talking about the virtual copier, the highlighted portion near the
`bottom says, "The VC invention is software that manages paper so
`that it can be electronically and seamlessly copied in and out of
`devices and business applications," and then it says, "The VC
`software can reside on a PC, LAN/WAN server, digital device, such
`as digital copier, or on a web server to be accessed over the Internet."
`So, I would direct your attention to that as a starting
`point, and I will reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Thank you.
`Counsel for Patent Owner, whenever you're ready to
`
`begin.
`
`MR. GANTI: Your Honors, my name is Vivek Ganti, I
`am counsel for Patent Owner MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC.
`The only issue in front of the Board in this proceeding is
`anticipation. It's not obviousness, it's only anticipation. The Board
`has heard some statements from Petitioner about infringement. I
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`would like to say that the '381 patent is not subject to any litigation at
`this time.
`
`The issue of infringement is only relevant if there is
`some sort of accused product that we know of out there, and
`Petitioner has not raised any accused product to compare it to in any
`of the prior art references. I trust the Board that the Board will not be
`distracted with issues such as infringement, especially when there's
`no accused product that's being discussed in the record.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: Just to clarify for me, are there any
`demand letters concerning the '381 patent that are currently out?
`MR. GANTI: Yes, to my knowledge, there are.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: And do the products that are
`accused of infringement, or at least in a demand letter, are there any
`implications from a claim construction point of view?
`MR. GANTI: Not to my knowledge. I have to confess,
`my knowledge of those demand letters is pretty low, but from a claim
`construction issue, the focus is entirely on the specification and the
`expert declarations, as well as some of the extrinsic evidence of the
`record.
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: So, there's no estoppel that could
`be gleaned from demand letters that are given in the context of
`infringement for the purpose of a hearing before the Board?
`MR. GANTI: That's correct.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE ANDERSON: So, you don't have a position on
`the -- on whether the construction -- on whether we should look at
`the demand letters as far as the scope of these claims?
`MR. GANTI: I don't think that would be a helpful
`exercise, Your Honor, particularly because the demand letters focus
`on accused products and the workings of those accused products are
`not in the record.
`The --
`JUDGE ANDERSON: Do you have any -- do you have
`any authority? Have you looked into it at all? Do you have any
`authority that says we cannot or should not look at demands that the
`Patent Owner -- that the owner of the patent has made as to the scope
`of the claims in construing the claims?
`MR. GANTI: I don't have any authority on the
`negative. There is authority on the positive on what you do look at,
`and I have not seen demand letters as part of that consideration.
`JUDGE TIERNEY: So, just one point I'd like to raise,
`though, it's been alleged that you've been inconsistent -- the Patent
`Owner has been inconsistent with its approach, doing one thing with
`vis-à-vis the demand letters but another thing before the Board. Can
`you comment on the consistency between the two?
`MR. GANTI: Like I said, I don't have a full working
`knowledge on the infringement aspect of this patent portfolio. I'm
`here prepared to talk about how the claim elements map to the cited
`references.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Well, maybe I can help you out a
`little bit, at Exhibit 1016, they're citing, and I'll just read the
`statement that your client says, it says, "Reviewing those, you can see
`that the patent claims are directed to a system having a digital copper,
`scanner, multifunction device with an interface to office equipment
`and related software for scanning, for copying," it says,
`"electronically to one or more destinations such as email." So,
`scanning or copying, and then it says, "Coverage of this type of
`system, and of the more generally worded example in the previous
`paragraph, infringes on claims 12 and 15 of this patent," the '381
`patent.
`
`MR. GANTI: Without understanding the inner
`workings of that system, it wouldn't be helpful to come up with a
`claim construction that I can map to that.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: That was a general statement, that
`wasn't a system. It says, "a good example of an infringing system
`and one your company likely uses is an office LAN, which is in
`communication with a server, employing computers having email
`software such as Outlook or Lotus, and a third party scanner which
`permits the scanning of a document directly to employee email
`addresses as PDF attachment. Such a system would be a technical
`example of what infringes."
`MR. GANTI: That could be more helpful if there is a
`context of any other evidence about what was good about that system
`that -- of the company that that demand letter was sent to.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00309
`Patent No. 6,771,381
`
`
`JUDGE TIERNEY: It's not clear from the demand letter
`that any of those were known other than these that used a third party
`scanner. So, help us put it in context, then, since it is the Patent
`Owner's own demand letter and it is of record.
`MR. GANTI: Well, Your Honors, there's not much I
`can say based on the evidence on the recor
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
