` 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