`
`Paper No.
`Filed: March 27, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPENTV, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00267
`Patent 7,409,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,409,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1
`
`The Board Should Deny Netflix’s Petition Because All of the Grounds
`in the Petition are Uninstitutable ..................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The Throckmorton grounds for claims 1-4 are uninstitutable
`because the petition fails to articulate information necessary to
`show obviousness .................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The petition fails to apply the cited art to the claims, as it
`proposes to construe them ........................................................... 5
`
`The petition fails to articulate where each of the claim
`elements is found in the cited art ................................................ 6
`
`The petition fails to articulate a complete obviousness
`analysis with respect to Throckmorton ....................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`The Palmer grounds for claims 1-4 are uninstitutable because
`the petition fails to articulate how the cited subject matter of
`Palmer is prior art ................................................................................ 13
`
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Application of Klesper, 397 F.2d 882 (C.C.P.A. 1968) ........................................... 14
`
`In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................... 14
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................. 9
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..............................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48620 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................................... 4
`
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (Jul. 31, 2013) ........................................................... 9, 13
`
`IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) .............................................................. 15
`
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (Feb. 12, 2014) .................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`The patented technology at issue relates to Over-the-Top delivery of content
`
`(such as movies, television, and other media) over the Internet, which forms a
`
`foundation for Patent Owner OpenTV’s highly successful digital television
`
`business. That business includes over 200 million digital set-top boxes and
`
`televisions shipped to consumers with OpenTV software, and 80 worldwide
`
`customers that run OpenTV solutions. Indeed, The Kudelski Group, of which
`
`OpenTV is a subsidiary, has been innovating in the content industry for more than
`
`60 years, and its founder, Stefan Kudelski, has received numerous awards for his
`
`innovations in the industry, including recently being honored in memoriam as an
`
`inventor by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the 86th Annual
`
`Academy Awards in March, 2014.
`
`OpenTV formally notified Petitioner Netflix, Inc. that it was using
`
`OpenTV’s patented technology in its streaming video service, and on December
`
`19, 2012, after nearly 12 months of Netflix ignoring OpenTV’s repeated requests
`
`for a license, OpenTV reluctantly filed a patent infringement lawsuit against
`
`Netflix in Delaware. See OPENTV Exhibit 2002, Complaint in OpenTV, Inc., v.
`
`Netflix, Inc. Netflix could no longer ignore OpenTV’s patents, but instead of
`
`addressing the matter directly, Netflix continued its delay tactics, waiting until the
`
`very last moment to file a flawed and incomplete petition for inter partes review of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,409,437, hoping to side-step liability from its continuing use of
`
`OpenTV’s patented technology.
`
`Netflix’s petition fails because, among other things, it fails to support its
`
`proposed grounds of unpatentability with reasoning required by the statute and the
`
`Board’s rules, with multiple fatal flaws in the proposed obviousness grounds for
`
`every claim.
`
`A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition
`
`identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on
`
`which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312. To ensure that this
`
`statutory requirement is met, the Board’s rules specify detailed requirements for a
`
`petition, including an identification of how each challenged claim is to be
`
`construed, how each construed claim is unpatentable, and where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring a full statement of the reasons for the relief requested,
`
`including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including
`
`material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent). Here, the petition’s
`
`analysis is incomplete for these and other reasons, and such an incomplete analysis
`
`cannot establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for any claim.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Netflix’s petition requests the cancellation of claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,409,437 based on alternative obviousness grounds, some relying on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,818,441 to Throckmorton et al. (“Throckmorton”) and others relying on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,905,865 to Palmer et al. (“Palmer” or “the Palmer patent”). All of
`
`these grounds are uninstitutable, however, because the petition fails to articulate
`
`information required by the statute and the Board’s rules. For the Throckmorton
`
`grounds, the petition fails to apply the cited art to the claims, as the petition
`
`proposes to construe them, fails to specify where each element of the claims is
`
`found in the cited art, and fails to provide a complete obviousness analysis. For the
`
`Palmer grounds, the petition fails to articulate how the portions of Palmer it relies
`
`upon are even prior art.
`
`Because Netflix’s petition is deficient in multiple ways, the Board should
`
`deny it as uninstitutable for failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on any claim.
`
`II. The Board Should Deny Netflix’s Petition Because All of the Grounds in
`the Petition are Uninstitutable
`
`For a petition to be institutable, it must establish that there is “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). To do so, the statute requires that
`
`“the petition identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312.
`
`To implement the statute, the Board’s rules require that each petition include
`
`“[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed
`
`explanation on the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the
`
`governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Compliance with
`
`this rule is essential because “[v]ague arguments and generic citations to the record
`
`are fundamentally unfair to an opponent and do not provide sufficient notice to an
`
`opponent and creates inefficiencies for the Board.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48620 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`Because Netflix’s petition fails to satisfy these requirements, inter partes
`
`review should not be instituted.
`
`A. The Throckmorton grounds for claims 1-4 are uninstitutable
`because the petition fails to articulate information necessary to
`show obviousness
`
`The petition alleges that claims 1-4 are obvious over Throckmorton, alone or
`
`in combination with other references. Pet. 7. These grounds are deficient for
`
`several reasons: (i) the grounds fail to apply the cited art to the claims, as the
`
`petition proposes to construe them; (ii) the grounds fail to specify where each
`
`element of the claims is found in the cited art; and (iii) the grounds fail to provide a
`
`complete obviousness analysis.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`1. The petition fails to apply the cited art to the claims, as it
`proposes to construe them
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 312, which requires that “the petition identif[y],
`
`in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the
`
`challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim,” Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires that the petition must set forth
`
`“[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified.”
`
`(Emphasis added). The petition does not articulate how any of the claims, as it
`
`proposes to construe them, are obvious over Throckmorton, alone or in
`
`combination with other references, so it lacks the particularity required by the
`
`statute and the rules.
`
`The petition proposes construing the claim limitation “a processor which
`
`automatically directs the web browser to establish a communications link with the
`
`online information source” to mean “a processor which directs the web browser to
`
`establish a communications link with the online information source, where the act
`
`of directing occurs without human intervention.” Pet. 7. This limitation is recited
`
`by every claim. In particular, it is part of claim elements discussed on pages 18-19
`
`(element 1.4), 24 (element 2.4), 27-28 (element 3.4), and 32 (element 4.4) of the
`
`petition. Even if the petition’s proposed construction were proper (which OpenTV
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`does not concede1), the petition fails to articulate how Throckmorton, alone or in
`
`combination with other references, maps to the claims as construed. Indeed, the
`
`petition fails to even make an allegation regarding any relationship between “the
`
`act of directing occurs without human intervention” and the disclosures of the cited
`
`references. To the contrary, the petition merely cites various lines of Throckmorton
`
`with reference to the original claim language, not the proposed construction. Pet.
`
`18-19, 24, 27-28, 32. The declaration filed with the petition repeats this error.
`
`NTFX-1003 at 23-25. Thus, no explanation is provided of how any of the
`
`construed claims are obvious over Throckmorton, alone or in combination with
`
`other references, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 35 U.S.C. § 312.
`
`Therefore, the Throckmorton grounds proposed for claims 1-4 are all
`
`uninstitutable.
`
`2. The petition fails to articulate where each of the claim elements
`is found in the cited art
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 312, which requires that “the petition identif[y],
`
`in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the
`
`challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim,” Rule 42.104(b)(4) requires that the “petition must specify
`
`
`1 OpenTV is not currently proposing any claim constructions but reserves the right
`
`to do so if inter partes review is instituted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`
`publications.” The petition does not articulate where each of the claim elements is
`
`found in the cited art, so it lacks the particularity required by the statute and the
`
`rules.
`
`Every claim recites “a processor which automatically directs the web
`
`browser to establish a communications link with the online information source.” In
`
`particular, the limitation is part of claim elements discussed on pages 18-19
`
`(element 1.4), 24 (element 2.4), 27-28 (element 3.4), and 32 (element 4.4) of the
`
`petition. The petition never identifies where the “automatically” limitation is found
`
`in the cited art, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(4) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 312.
`
`Instead, the petition simply states:
`
`Throckmorton teaches (i) a microprocessor that is
`connected to the two-way communication channel, (ii)
`the two-way communication channel is used to connect
`to an online service, (iii) the connection to the service is
`automatically performed by the system (which is
`controlled by the microprocessor), and (iv) the
`referenced online information is retrieved for display in
`the web browser, thereby disclosing “a processor which
`automatically directs the web browser to establish a
`communications link with the online information source
`identified by the address . . . .”
`
`Pet. 18-19 (citing NTFX-1003 at 23-25) (emphasis added).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Instead of explaining where the “automatically” limitation is found in the
`
`cited art, the petition cites only the declaration filed with it. Id. But arguments
`
`presented in an expert declaration cannot cure the deficiencies of the petition. The
`
`Board has previously “decline[d] to consider information presented in a supporting
`
`declaration, but not discussed in a petition, because, among other reasons, doing so
`
`would encourage the use of declarations to circumvent the page limits that apply to
`
`petitions. Along those lines, [the Board’s] rules prohibit arguments made in a
`
`supporting document from being incorporated by reference into a petition. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).” IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (Feb. 12, 2014), at 8-9. Indeed,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 requires that “the petition identif[y], in writing and with
`
`particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each
`
`claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim.” (Emphasis added). Netflix’s petition fails to identify where at least the
`
`“automatically” limitation of every claim is found in Throckmorton or any other
`
`reference, so the Throckmorton grounds proposed for claims 1-4 are all
`
`uninstitutable.
`
`3. The petition fails to articulate a complete obviousness analysis
`with respect to Throckmorton
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 312, which requires that “the petition identif[y],
`
`in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the
`
`challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`challenge to each claim,” Rule 42.22(a)(2) requires that the petition set forth “[a]
`
`full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed
`
`explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the
`
`governing law, rules, and precedent.” Although all of the Throckmorton grounds
`
`rely upon obviousness arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the petition does not
`
`provide a complete obviousness analysis, so it lacks the particularity required by
`
`the statute and the rules.
`
`To provide a complete obviousness analysis, a petition must include
`
`“explanation of how the teachings of the references would be arranged or
`
`combined or why a person of ordinary skill would have made the combination”
`
`and “some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to
`
`combine particular available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art,
`
`to reach the claimed invention.” IPR2013-00183, Paper 12, at 9 (Jul. 31, 2013)
`
`(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). When, as here, a
`
`petition’s analysis of obviousness is “incomplete,” it is “insufficient to demonstrate
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on [the] obviousness challenge.” Id. at 10.
`
`Netflix’s petition does not explain its proposed combination of disparate
`
`portions of Throckmorton, so it lacks a complete analysis. The petition states that
`
`its application of Throckmorton relies upon the teachings contained in two
`
`embodiments of Throckmorton: “a one-way communication system and a two-way
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`communication system.” Pet. 12. It, however, fails to articulate how these different
`
`systems would be combined or even which system teaches which claim element.
`
`Instead, the petition merely cites sections of Throckmorton in the abstract, without
`
`explaining whether each section addresses the one-way communication system or
`
`the two-way communication system. See, e.g., Pet. 15. For example, with respect
`
`to element 1.1, Netflix’s petition cites Throckmorton at 7:63-65 and 9:1-12. Pet.
`
`15. The first citation refers to a section addressing the one-way communication
`
`system of Throckmorton, while the second refers to a section addressing the two-
`
`way communication system of Throckmorton. See NTFX-1004 at 8:16-24
`
`(introducing the two-way communication system for the first time). The petition,
`
`however, fails to articulate how the teachings of the different sections (which
`
`address different systems) would be combined. See Pet. 15.
`
`Worse, after contrasting the one-way communication system’s handling of
`
`web pages with the two-way communication system’s handling of URLs2, Pet. 11,
`
`Netflix’s petition cites the one-way communication system of Throckmorton at
`
`7:63-65 for the proposition that “Throckmorton teaches that the associated data
`
`(e.g., the URL) could be encoded into the television signal,” Pet. 15. Such internal
`
`contradiction demonstrates why the petition’s failure to articulate how the different
`
`2 Throckmorton only discuses a URL in the context of the two-way communication
`
`system, not the one-way communication system. NTFX-1004 at 9:1-7.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`systems would be combined or even which system teaches which claim element
`
`cannot be overlooked.
`
`The petition also fails to articulate any reasons why the different systems of
`
`Throckmorton would be combined to achieve the subject matter of claims 1-4.
`
`Instead, all of the purported “reasons to combine” are either unsupported attorney
`
`argument or citations to a declaration that just parrots the language of the petition.
`
`a)
`Netflix’s petition asserts, without citing any supporting evidence, that (i)
`
`Unsupported attorney arguments to combine
`
`“the combination amounts to simply combining elements contained in the same
`
`reference in precisely the manner described in the reference,” (ii) “[c]ombining the
`
`retrieving-internet-information-using-a-URL as described in the two-way
`
`embodiment, with the known method of displaying a web page simultaneously
`
`with a video program as described by the one-way embodiment, yields the
`
`predictable result of displaying a web page retrieved with a URL simultaneously
`
`with a video program,” and (iii) “[t]his implementation of the teachings of
`
`Throckmorton would be desirable because it would allow the user to have direct
`
`access to relevant online information during the program reception without the
`
`need for changing screens.” Pet. 12-13. These unsupported reasons to combine
`
`should be given no weight.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`b)
`The rest of the purported “reasons to combine” are supported by only
`
`“Reasons to combine” parroted by declaration
`
`citations to a declaration filed with the petition. In particular, Netflix’s petition
`
`asserts that (i) “[t]his result is predictable because Throckmorton specifically
`
`teaches such a result,” and (ii) “Throckmorton specifically provides a motivation to
`
`make this combination, because it was desirable to make an experience for viewers
`
`that integrated data with television program reception.” Pet. 13. The declaration
`
`merely parrots the petition without further explanation or even citation to
`
`underlying evidence:
`
`Pet. 13
`This result is predictable because
`
`NTFX-1003 at 16
`This result is predictable because
`
`Throckmorton specifically teaches such
`
`Throckmorton specifically teaches such
`
`a result. (NTFX-1003 at 16.)
`
`a result.
`
`Throckmorton specifically provides a
`
`Throckmorton specifically provides a
`
`motivation to make this combination,
`
`motivation to make this combination,
`
`because it was desirable to make an
`
`because it was desirable to make an
`
`experience for viewers that integrated
`
`experience for viewers that integrated
`
`data with television program reception.
`
`data with television program reception.
`
`(NTFX-1003 at 16.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Rule 42.65 explains that expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying
`
`facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little to no weight. Here,
`
`where the declaration simply parrots attorney argument, it should be entitled to no
`
`weight.
`
`Nowhere does Throckmorton specifically teach any result of combining its
`
`different one-way and two-way communication systems, as alleged by the petition
`
`and declaration. Nor does Throckmorton specifically provide a reason to make the
`
`combination. Indeed, both systems of Throckmorton appear to individually fulfill
`
`the purposes espoused by Throckmorton, so Throckmorton provides no reason to
`
`combine them. At best, Throckmorton demonstrates that the systems are in the
`
`same field of endeavor, which the Board has found to be insufficient to provide a
`
`reason to combine. See, IPR2013-00183, Paper 12, at 9-10.
`
`Because the obviousness presentation is incomplete, it is “insufficient to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on [the] obviousness challenge.”
`
`Id. at 10. Accordingly, the Throckmorton grounds proposed for claims 1-4 are all
`
`uninstitutable for this additional reason.
`
`B.
`
`The Palmer grounds for claims 1-4 are uninstitutable because the
`petition fails to articulate how the cited subject matter of Palmer
`is prior art
`
`The petition proposes two grounds based on U.S. Patent No. 5,905,865 to
`
`Palmer et al. Pet. 7-8. The petition does not argue that the Palmer patent is prior art
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`to the ’437 patent on its own. Instead, the petition argues that “[t]he Palmer patent
`
`is prior art to the extent that its subject matter is contained in [an] earlier filed
`
`provisional patent application.” Pet. 33. However, the petition does not explain
`
`how the cited subject matter of the Palmer patent is contained in the provisional
`
`patent application even though that is the only way it can be prior art.3 See In re
`
`Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Section 102(e) codified the
`
`‘history of treating the disclosure of a U.S. patent as prior art as of the filing date
`
`of the earliest U.S. application to which the patent is entitled, provided the
`
`disclosure was contained in substance in the said earliest application.’”) (quoting
`
`Application of Klesper, 397 F.2d 882, 885 (C.C.P.A. 1968)) (Underlining added).
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 312, which requires that “the petition identif[y],
`
`in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the
`
`challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim,” Rule 42.22(a)(2) requires that the petition set forth “a
`
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” The petition does not
`
`articulate how the cited subject matter of the Palmer patent is prior art, so it lacks
`
`the particularity required by the statute and the rules.
`
`
`3 No other application leading to the Palmer patent was filed before March 8, 1996,
`
`the effective filing date of the ’437 patent. NTFX-1007 at 1; NTFX-1001 at 1.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Instead of explaining how the cited subject matter of the Palmer patent
`
`relates to the earlier filed provisional patent application (“the Palmer provisional”),
`
`the petition simply states, in a conclusory manner, that “[f]or each element of the
`
`Palmer patent identified below, there is a corresponding teaching in the provisional
`
`applications.” Pet. 33-34. While the petition does list a string of citations to
`
`multiple pages of the Palmer provisional for some claim elements, see, e.g., Pet. 39
`
`(“NTFX-1007 [the Palmer patent], 8:13-19; see NTFX-1008 [the Palmer
`
`provisional], pp. 1, 3.”), these string citations are insufficient to establish grounds
`
`with the particularity required by 35 U.S.C. § 312. Indeed, the Board previously
`
`denied a request for rehearing premised on string citations in a petition because the
`
`petition did “not point out with particularity [a portion of a prior art reference] or
`
`how it satisfies certain claim limitations.” IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 (Oct. 23,
`
`2013), at 3. Citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), the Board noted that the petitioner
`
`must identify in its petition “specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge” and that “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence
`
`where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support the challenge.” Id. The Board should do so here, and rule that
`
`the petition has not established that the Palmer patent is prior art as of the filing
`
`date of the Palmer provisional.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`Even if the Board were inclined to consider the string citations and
`
`undertake its own analysis of the relationship between the Palmer patent and the
`
`Palmer provisional, the citations would be found lacking. For example, one string
`
`citation alleges that the Palmer patent’s recitation of “extracted by receiver 30 and
`
`provided to the computer” is contained somewhere in pages 1 and 3 of the Palmer
`
`provisional. See, e.g., Pet. 39:
`
`Palmer discloses “an address extractor which extracts the
`address from the programming signal” because it teaches
`that the URL embedded in the television broadcast can
`“be extracted by receiver 30 and provided to the
`computer.” NTFX-1007 [the Palmer patent], 8:13-19; see
`NTFX-1008 [the Palmer provisional], pp. 1, 3.
`
`But neither page 1 nor page 3 of the Palmer provisional even contains the word
`
`“extracted.” Netflix’s petition contains more than a dozen similar string citations
`
`spread across its arguments with respect to every claim. Pet. 35-56. Accordingly,
`
`the petition fails to prove that the Palmer patent is prior art as of the filing date of
`
`the Palmer provisional. Lacking a complete explanation of the significance of the
`
`Palmer patent (e.g., how any portion of it constitutes prior art) with respect to even
`
`one claim, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 312, the
`
`petition is left wanting and the Palmer grounds proposed for claims 1-4 are all
`
`uninstitutable.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above, the petition is deficient and institution
`
`should be denied.
`
`The undersigned attorneys welcome a telephone call should the Office have
`
`any requests or questions. If there are any fees due in connection with the filing of
`
`this paper, please charge the required fees to our deposit account no. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`Erika H. Arner
`Registration No. 57,540
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Registration No. 59, 369
`
`Counsel for OpenTV, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,409,437 and Exhibit 2002 were served on March 27, 2014 via FedEx and
`
`email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Scott Jarratt
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`/s/ Ashley F. Cheung
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`