`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`DISTINCTIVE DEVELOPMENTS, LTD., ET AL.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00391
`Patent 6,857,067
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`

`

`Dis$nc$ve)Developments,)Ltd.,)et)al.)
`v.)
`Uniloc)USA,)Inc.)
`)
`IPR2013>00391)
`Patent)6,857,067)
`)
`Trial)Hearing)
`
`Pe##oners’)Demonstra#ve)
`Exhibits)DX51)through)DX527)for)July)11,)2014)Oral)Argument!
`
`Petitioners DX-1
`
`

`

`Overview'of'Presentation'
`
`U.S.$Patent$No.$7,$032,240$(“Cronce”)$$
`• “Veri;ication$Data”$
`• Claims$107$and$108$(“executable$on$an$electronic$
`device”)$
`• Claim$20$(“random$access$memory”)$
`U.S.$Patent$No.$6,008,737$(“Deluca”)$
`• “Providing$updated$license$data”$
`• Claims$21$and$22$(“cellular$telephone”)$
`
`Petitioners DX-2
`
`

`

`Unpatentability$of$$
`Claims$1,$20,$31,$67,$107$and$108$$
`in$view$of$U.S.$Patent$No.$7,032,240$$
`(“Cronce”))
`
`Pe##oners)DX53)
`
`

`

` Verification Data
`Veri0ication'Data'
`
`1. A system for preventing unauthorized access to elec-
`tronic data on an electronic device, the system comprising:
`a portable licensing medium configured to communicate
`with the electronic device and to store license data, the
`license data configured to be used by the electronic
`device to determine Whether to allow access to the
`
`electronic data; and
`
`a registration authority configured to communicate With
`the electronic device, the registration authority having
`verification data for verifying the license data stored on
`the licensing medium,
`
`wherein the registration authority provides updated
`license data for the licensing medium.
`
`
`
`
`
`—,
`
`Petitioners DX-4
`Petitioners Dx-4
`
`

`

`
`Cronce''
`
`
`
`187
`
`185
`
`100
`
`f
`
`NETWORKED
`INDIRECT INFORMATION
`AUTHORITY
`
`171, 173
`
`110
`
`147
`
`PORTABLE
`AUTHORIZATION
`a
`DEVICE
`145 14
`__
`_ - —__
`u I
`
`rI
`
`114
`
`115. 117
`
`AUTHOR'TY
`INFORMATION 171, 173
`
`160
`
`ECU
`
`171, 173)
`
`180
`
`PHYSICAL INDIRECT
`INFORMATION
`AUTHORITY
`
`PHYSICAL DIRECT
`
`Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$Fig.$1$
`EX. 1002, Cronce at Fig. 1
`
`Petitioners DX-5
`Petitioners DX-5
`
`
`
`

`

`Cronce'(veri0ication'protocol)'
`
`Cronce,$Fig.$9$
`(excerpt)$
`
`registration$
`authority$
`
`veri>ication$
`data$
`
`$$
`$”During$this$step,$the$information$authority$160/180/185$transmits$identi;ication$information$
`(not$shown)$associated$with$the$dynamic$key$selector$171$to$the$portable$authorization$
`device$140.$In$a$preferred$embodiment$of$the$invention,$the'identi0ication'information'is'a'
`number'used'to'uniquely'identify'the'item'of'protected'information$115$authorized$by$the$
`dynamic$key$selector$171.$In$this$embodiment,$the$;ixed$key$ID$151$stored$in$the$storage$
`medium$144$is$used$to$identify$the$portable$authorization$device$140.$The$portable'
`information'with'the'0ixed'key'ID'151,$whether$the$item$of$protected$
`information$115$identi;ied$by$the$identi;ication$information$is$authorized$for$use$with$the$
`portable$authorization$device.$Depending$on$the$outcome$of$this$determination,$the$portable$
`authorization$device$140$then$authorizes$or$declines$receipt$of$the$dynamic$key$selector$171.”$
`$Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$15:42;48$$
`
`authorization'device'140'then'determines,'based'on'a'comparison'of'the'identi0ication'
`
`license$data$
`
`Petitioners DX-6
`
`

`

`Patent'Owner’s'Construction'
`
`$“veri;ication$data$for$verifying$the$license$data”$in$Claim$1$is$“data$that$allows$
`the$license'data'itself'to'be'independently'veri0ied,$for$example,$by”:$…$“(i)$
`comparing$the$license$data$bit$by$bit$to$an$exact$copy$of$the$license$data;$(ii)$
`comparing$a$message$digest$(or$hash)$of$the$license$data$to$another$such$
`message$digest,$or$(iii)$comparing$an$encrypted$message$digest$of$the$license$
`data$to$another$such$encrypted$message$digest.”$$
`Patent$Owner$acknowledges$that$similar$limitations$in$claims$67,$107$and$108$
`are$“subject$to$the$same$construction$established$for$its$usage$in$claim$1”$
`
`Paper$22[PO$Response]$at$16,$17$
`
`Paper$22$[PO$Response]$at$21,$22$
`
`Petitioners DX-7
`
`

`

`‘067'Patent'Speci0ication'
`
`The$‘067$Patent$speci;ication$provides:$
`“The$electronic$device$may$send$registration$information$to$the$
`registration$authority.$The$registration$information$may$include$a$
`random$identi;ier$associated$with$the$electronic$data.$The'veri0ication'
`of'authorized'identi0iers'that'allow'access'to'the'electronic'data.$The$
`registration$authority$may$provide$updated$license$data$to$the$licensing$
`medium$when$the$identi;ier$sent$with$the$registration$information$
`corresponds$to$one$of$the$authorized$identi;iers.”$
`
`data'stored'in'the'registration'authority'database'may'include'a'list'
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$4:34;42$
`(emphasis$added)$$
`
`Petitioners DX-8
`
`

`

`‘067'Patent'Speci0ication'
`
`compares'the'identi0ier'received'with'the'registration'information'to'a'
`
`“The$client$program$reads$the$data$from$the$smart$card$and$transmits$it$to$the$
`registration$authority$along$with$a$set$of$registration$information.$The$
`registration$authority$0irst'compares'the$smart$card$data$to$corresponding$data$
`stored$in$a$database$to$verify$that$the$smart$card$is$valid.$The$registration$
`authority$then'compares'the$registration$information$to$corresponding$data$
`stored$in$a$database$to$verify$that$the$new$software$registration$is$authorized.”$$
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$9:13;20$
`“The$registration$information$sent$to$the$registration$authority$includes$the$
`unique$identi;ier$of$the$software$to$be$registered.$…$The$registration$authority$
`database'of'valid'identi0iers'provided$by$the$software$vendor.”$$$
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$9:41;52$
`“If$the$registration$information$is$veri;ied$by$the$registration$authority,$then$a$new$
`registration$entry$is$created$for$the$newly$granted$or$updated$license$for$the$
`software.$The$registration'authority'generates'new'smart'card'data'
`to'be'stored'on'the'smart'card.”$$
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$9:41;52.$
`$
`
`re0lecting'these'changes'and'sends'the'new'data'back'to'the'client'computer'
`
`Petitioners DX-9
`
`

`

`The$‘067$Patent$claims$provide:$
`
`‘067'Patent'Claims'
`
`Petitioners DX-10
`
`

`

`3
`identifier associated with the electronic data. Do
`in its entirety; that not even one bit has been
`23
`with, has not been modified.
`vulnerable to tampering. For example, the user may
`4
`24
`exchanged, omitted or added to the license data as
` Moreover, with respect to the claim 13
`seek to increase the number of authorized users for
`25
`that you just mentioned, that's also discussed in
`a site licensing by changing licensing data stored
`5
`Patent'Owner’s'Expert'
`compared to the license data that is being stored on
`Page 30
`6
`the registration authority.
`1
`7
`the body of the patent, in column 4, starting at
`in the module.
` Q. So you would agree with me that the
`2
`line 35, where it says "the registration information
` So we learn here from column 3, 19
`8
`verification data of claim 1 can include authorized
`3
`may include a random identifier associated with
`through 28, that simply using identification codes
`9
`identifiers?
`4
`electronic data. The verification data stored in
`to associate with electronic data that you're trying
`5
`10
`the registration authority database may include a
`to protect is insufficient; that it could allow for
` A. Yes.
`6
`list of authorizing -- authorized identifiers that
`tampering of the license itself, even while keeping
`11
` Q. You just think it needs to be something
`7
`allow access to the electronic data."
`that identifier unmodified.
`12 more than that?
`12 moving back through 12 through 11 and then to 1,
`8
` Q. If the registration authority has an
` So what we see here is a clarification
`9
`authorized identifier, then the registration
`of that word that's used in the claim language of
`13
` A. It necessarily must be something more
`10
`authority has verification data; is that correct?
`claim 13 of "comprise" to make it clear that what is
`14
`than that. '067, as I mentioned in my declaration,
`11
`being implied by that word is that it may include.
` A. If the registration authority has an
`15
`12
`teaches away from what's called the license module
` And indeed, when you look at the '067
`identifier, that may be something that is included
`13
`patent in its entirety, you see that it's teaching
`as a part of verification data but would not
`16
`approach. Here in column 3, it says the license
`14
`away from using only authorizing identifiers for
`exclusively be the whole of verification data.
`17
`module contains a fixed identification code that may
`15
` Q. And my question was: If a registration
`authorizing access. Also, in several places talking
`18
`16
`be ascertained through analysis of the module.
`authority has an authorization identifier, it has
`in detail about the process about how to verify
`17
`verification data; does it not?
`license data, namely either by comparing the license
`19
`Ascertaining the identifying code will allow an
`Petitioners DX-11
`18
`data bit by bit to an exact copy that is stored in
` MR. CORDREY: Objection. Asked and
`20
`unauthorized user to duplicate the module.
`19
`the registration authority; or comparing a hash
`answered.
`
`Ex.$1013,$Goodrich$Dep.$Tr.$at$31:7;10$
`
`Page 32
`
`Ex.$1013,$Goodrich$Dep.$Tr.$at$32:8;14$
`
`

`

`Claims'107'and'108'(“executable'on'an'electronic'device”)'
`
`Petitioners DX-12
`
`

`

`$
`
`Page 44
`
`“Importantly,$Cronce’s$comparison$is$carried$out$entirely$on$the$
`portable$device.”$$
`Patent$Owner’s$Expert$Con;irms:$
`
`12
` Q. BY MR. BURESH: We're going back on
` With respect to these topics in
`7
`patent. I want to ask you one set of questions
`13
`record.
`paragraphs 21 through 23, is there any difference
`8
`instead of two.
`14
` Dr. Goodrich, did you talk with your
`between claim 107 and 108 or can I ask a unified set
`Patent'Owner'Construction'of''
`9
` So I would just refer you to your
`15
`counsel about your testimony at all during the
`of questions?
`“executable'on'an'electronic'device”'
`10
`declaration at paragraph 23 where you say that "for
`16
`break?
` A. I think it's fine in principle to be
`11
`the same reasons given above for claim 107."
`17
` A. No.
`asking a unified set of questions. There are some
`12
` With respect to these topics in
`18
` Q. About the substance of this matter at
`differences between the two claims, but there's also
`13
`paragraphs 21 through 23, is there any difference
`19
`all?
`a lot of commonality. So if the questions are
`14
`between claim 107 and 108 or can I ask a unified set
`20
` A. No.
`dealing with that commonality, I think it's fine to
`15
`of questions?
`21
` Q. I'm going to refer you back to Cronce
`be discussing them as a group.
`Paper$22$[PO$Response]$at$23$
`16
` A. I think it's fine in principle to be
`22
`for a moment. In Cronce, in the embodiment where
` Q. Is it your opinion that to the extent a
`17
`asking a unified set of questions. There are some
`23
`there's indirect information authority -- I'm sorry,
`comparison is required for verifying the license
`18
`differences between the two claims, but there's also
`24
`let me -- a networked indirect authorization
`data it must be done entirely on the electronic
`19
`a lot of commonality. So if the questions are
`25
`authority, it is the host that communicates with
`device for purposes of claims 107 and 108?
`20
`dealing with that commonality, I think it's fine to
`Page 42
`21
`be discussing them as a group.
`22
`1
`for a moment. In Cronce, in the embodiment where
` Q. Is it your opinion that to the extent a
`that information authority; is that correct?
` A. So for the purposes of claims 107 and
`23
`2
`there's indirect information authority -- I'm sorry,
`comparison is required for verifying the license
`108, the code must be executable on the electronic
` A. The host is a medium for messages that
`24
`3
`data it must be done entirely on the electronic
`device. That is the requirement. And what is
`could either be coming from the host or are used --
`25
`4
`device for purposes of claims 107 and 108?
`are coming from the portable authorization device
`lacking in Cronce is any disclosure that what is
`5
`through the host.
`being construed as this type of a comparison is
`Page 42
`Page 44
`6
` Q. So the host is in direct communication
`being performed on what Cronce calls the host. It's
`Ex.$1013,$Goodrich$Dep.$Tr.$at$43:22;44:8$
`1
`7 with the networked indirect information authority?
`7
` A. So for the purposes of claims 107 and
`instead being performed on this device, the small
`2
`8
`108, the code must be executable on the electronic
` A. Yes. As you see in Figure 1, it is the
`portable device.
`3
`9
`device. That is the requirement. And what is
` Q. And in the context of claims 107 and
`host that is connected to the network 187.
`4
`10
`lacking in Cronce is any disclosure that what is
` Q. Refer with me to your declaration.
`108, is it enough for the electronic device to
`5
`11
`being construed as this type of a comparison is
`Paragraph 21, please. In this paragraph you are
`control a comparison or must the electronic device
`6
`12
`being performed on what Cronce calls the host. It's
`discussing the comparison that is done in Cronce,
`do the comparison itself in your opinion?
`Petitioners DX-13
`7 with the networked indirect information authority?
`7
`13
`and you note at the top of page 12 that the
`instead being performed on this device, the small
` MR. CORDREY: Object to form.
`8
`14
`comparison is carried out entirely on the portable
`portable device.
` A. So again, what's required of both claims
`
`

`

`‘067'Patent'Speci0ication'
`
`“The$electronic'device'may'send'registration'information'to'the'registration'
`authority.$The$registration$information$may$include$a$random$identi;ier$associated$
`with$the$electronic$data.$The$veri;ication$data$stored$in$the$registration$authority$
`database$may$include$a$list$of$authorized$identi;iers$that$allow$access$to$the$
`electronic$data.$The$registration$authority$may$provide$updated$license$data$to$the$
`licensing$medium$when$the$identi;ier$sent$with$the$registration$information$
`corresponds$to$one$of$the$authorized$identi;iers.”$
`“The$registration$information$sent$to$the$registration$authority$includes$the$
`unique$identi;ier$of$the$software$to$be$registered.$…$The$registration'authority'
`compares$the$identi;ier$received$with$the$registration$information$to$a$database$
`of$valid$identi;iers$provided$by$the$software$vendor.”$$$
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$4:34;42$
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$9:41;52$
`
`Petitioners DX-14
`
`

`

`Cronce'
`
`$“The$authorization$process$is$coordinated$by$the$access$control$program$117$
`associated$with$the$item$of$protected$information.”$Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$8:9;12$
`“The$access$control$programs$117$handle'the'portion'of'[t]he'communications'
`occurring$between$the$host$system$110$and$the$indirect$information$authorities$180$
`and$185.”$$Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$9:31;34$
`$“The$key$exchange$process$is$initiated'and'controlled'by'the'access'control'
`program'117$associated$with$the$item$of$protected$information$115$in$conjunction$
`with$the$host$system$10.”$$Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$14:35;38$
`
`$
`
`'
`
`Petitioners DX-15
`
`

`

`Claim'20'of'the'‘067'Patent'
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$7:38;47$
`
`Petitioners DX-16
`
`

`

`Cronce'
`
`145
`
`I
`
`PHYSICAL DIRECT
`INFORMATION
`HOST
`SYSTEM
`PROCESSING
`AUTHORITY
`
`UNIT
`1 10
`160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROM
`
` PROGRAM
`
`PROGRAM &
`DATA RAM
`
`
`
`Ex.$1002,$Cronce$at$Fig.$3$
`EX. 1 002, Cronce at Fig. 3
`
`Petitioners DX-17
`5—; Petitioners lax-17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Unpatentability$of$$
`Claims$1,$20]22,$30,$31,$67,$107$and$108$
`in$view$of$U.S.$Patent$No.$6,008,737$
`(“Deluca”))
`
`Pe##oners)DX518)
`
`

`

`“Provides'Updated'License'Data”'
`
`Petitioners DX-19
`
`

`

`Deluca'(Creating'Authorization'Record)'
`
`See#generally#Ex.#1004,##
`Deluca#at#5:36967,#
`10:30911:60#
`
`“The$external$authorization$
`response$message$preferably$
`comprises$an$authorization$
`command,$the$process$name$of$the$
`authorized$process$and$an$
`expiration$time$for$the$process.”$
`
`Ex.$1004,$Deluca$at$5:64;67$
`
`Petitioners DX-20
`
`

`

`Page 69
`
`Page 71
`
`Deluca'(Deleting'Authorization'Record)'
`MICHAEL GOODRICH 4/30/2014
`See#generally#Ex.#1004,##
`Deluca#at#15:66916:18,#
`1
` A. But it's not disclosed that that's how
`10:5929,#6:53958#
`2
`an authorization record becomes invalid.
`3
` Q. Okay. I think we have the battlegrounds
`4
`nice and fenced off there.
`5
` You would agree with me in Deluca that
`6
`if, under your definition of the acts that would
`7
`result in invalidity, a CRC not matching, that the
`8
`internal authorization record is deleted?
`9
` A. That is correct.
`10
` Q. And that would result in the portable
`11
`device no longer having a license to the software
`12 with which that CRC was associated?
`13
` A. That is correct.
`14
` Q. So in that context, a license previously
`15
`existed on the device; post deletion the license
`16
`does not exist on the device. Is that fair to say?
`17
` A. Yes.
`18
` Q. All right. Let's talk about deleting a
`19
`little bit, then.
`20
` A. Okay.
`21
` Q. I'm going to refer you to your
`22
`declaration as a starting point. Paragraph 28 in
`23
`particular at the bottom of that you cite to three
`24
`sections of the '067 patent in support of your point
`Petitioners DX-21
`25
`that erasing is not updating in the context of the
`Page 72
`
`an authorization record because -- and again, Deluca
`only discloses such deletions on an occasion when
`the authorization record has become invalid. It
`only discloses an authorization record as becoming
`invalid if the CRCs do not match anymore.
` And then in your hypothetical scenario,
`a new authorization record is then installed that
`has an expiration date into the future.
` Q. Yes.
` A. Such a hypothetical scenario is not
`disclosed in Deluca. It is not inherent in the
`invention of Deluca that such a sequence of events
`would occur.
` Moreover, in that scenario, what you're
`doing is installing a new authorization record
`rather than a replacing of an old one.
` Q. And why is that?
` A. Because in that scenario, the software
`that was stored on the device, that presumably was
`purchased, came with an expiration date based on
`that purchase. If now you are installing -- and
`then it became invalid. Again, the only way that
`that can become invalid is if the software somehow
`was damaged or tampered with in some way.
` And now you're presuming this scenario
`Page 70
`
`Ex.$1013,$Goodrich$Dep.$Tr.$at$71:$3]20$
`
`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
`
`

`

`Patent'Owner'Construction'of'“provides'updated'license'data”'
`
`“‘Provides$updated$license$data’$in$the$context$of$the$‘067$Patent$claims$means$
`to$modify'existing'data'with'new'data'in$such$a$way$that$the$existing$data$is$
`brought$up$to$date$or$made$more$current.”$
`“As$shown$below,$a$relevant$de;inition$for$‘update’$when$used$as$a$verb$is$
`provided$by$a$1999$publication$of$The$Microsoft$Computer$Dictionary:$
`update:$$To$change$a$system$or$a$data$;ile$to$make$it$more$current.$
`‘Computer$Dictionary’,$Microsoft$Press,$1999.”$
`
`$
`
`$
`
`Paper$22$[PO$Response]$at$27)$
`
`Paper$22$[PO$Response]$at$27$
`
`Petitioners DX-22
`
`

`

`Exemplary'Claim'Limitations''
`Relating'to'“updated'license'data”'
`
`Claim'1:'
`
`Claim'107:'
`
`Petitioners DX-23
`
`

`

`‘067'Patent'Speci0ication'(Creating)'
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$9:56;65$
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$4:34;42$
`Petitioners DX-24
`
`

`

`‘067'Patent'Speci0ication'(Deleting)'
`
`Ex.$1001,$‘067$Patent$at$11:30;36$
`
`Petitioners DX-25
`
`

`

`Claims'21'and'22'(“cellular'telephone”)'
`
`Petitioners DX-26
`
`

`

`Deluca
`
`''
`
`“Deluca$expressly$contemplates$two]way$
`communication$protocols$that$are$used$
`with$the$portable$communication$device,$
`which$in$my$opinion$include$cellular$
`telephones.”$
`see$also$Ex.$2005,$Tygar$Dep.$Tr.$at$36:21;37:20$$$
`
`Ex.$1015,$Tygar$Decl.$at$¶9;$
`
`Petitioners DX-27
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`
`IPR2013-00391
`U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies that
`on July 8, 2014, a complete and entire copy of Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits
`were served on Counsel for Patent Owner by filing the document through the Patent
`Review Processing System as well as sending a copy via e-mail to the addresses
`identified below:
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`gxc@jmbm.com
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`Legacy Town Center
`7160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
`Plano, Texas 75024
`sean.burdick@uniloc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Eric A. Buresh/
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Mark C. Lang, Reg. No. 55,356
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS
`
`