throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: March 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Yamaha Corporation of America (“Petitioner”) filed a petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-31, 33-42, and
`44-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’873 patent”). Paper
`3 (“Pet.”). Black Hills Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary
`response on December 26, 2013. Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`are persuaded the information presented by Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6-13, 15-31, 35-42, and 44-46 of the ’873
`patent. Accordingly, we grant the petition and institute an inter partes
`review of these claims. We do not institute an inter partes review of claims
`4, 5, 33, and 34.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`On September 12, 2012, the Patent Owner filed a First Amended
`Complaint against Petitioner in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`Delaware alleging, inter alia, infringement of the ’873 patent. See Black
`Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp. of America, No. 1:12-cv-00635-RGA (D.
`Del.). The First Amended Complaint was served on September 19, 2012.
`Pet. 3. The Patent Owner also has filed lawsuits alleging infringement of the
`’873 patent against Pioneer (1:12-cv-00634), Logitech (1:12-cv-00636),
`Sonos (1:12-cv-00637), LG (1:13-cv-00803), Sharp (1:13-cv-00804),
`Toshiba (1:13-cv-00805), and Panasonic (1:13-cv-00806) in the District of
`Delaware, and against Samsung (2:13-cv-00379) in the Eastern District of
`Texas. On August 5, 2013, the Delaware Court transferred four of the cases
`to the Central District of California, where the Yamaha (2:13-cv-06054),
`Pioneer (2:13-cv-05980), Logitech (2:13-cv-06055), and Sonos (2:13-cv-
`06062) cases are now pending. Id.
`The Patent Owner also initiated a Section 337 action in the U.S.
`International Trade Commission against LG, Sharp, Toshiba, Panasonic, and
`Samsung alleging, inter alia, infringement of the ’873 patent. See Certain
`Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home
`Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and
`Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882 (USITC). Pet. 3-4.
`
`B. Real Party-in-Interest
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner fails to identify all real parties-in-
`3
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`interest and requests the petition be dismissed for noncompliance with
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Prelim. Resp. 1-6. Patent
`Owner asserts that Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc.
`(collectively “Pioneer”) should have been identified in the petition as real
`parties in interest. Id. at 2. Patent Owner and Pioneer currently are engaged
`in a patent infringement lawsuit in parallel with the patent infringement
`lawsuit between Patent Owner and Petitioner. Id. AV receivers, Networked
`Blu-Ray players, and home theater systems from Pioneer and Petitioner are
`alleged to infringe claim 1 of the ’873 patent. Id. at 3. Thus, according to
`Patent Owner, Pioneer and Petitioner are aligned on claim construction and
`invalidity of the claims asserted in the district court litigation. Id. Patent
`Owner also argues that Petitioner’s counsel in this proceeding has spoken on
`behalf of Petitioner and Pioneer at a district court technology tutorial
`directed to the ’873 patent. Id. at 3-4. Finally, Patent Owner states that
`Pioneer’s counsel agreed to be bound by the outcome of this proceeding if
`the district court would agree to stay the district court litigation. Id. at 4.
`On this record, we are not persuaded Pioneer is a real party-in-interest
`in this matter. A determination as to whether a non-party to an inter partes
`review is a real party-in-interest is a “highly fact-dependent question,” based
`on whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over a
`party’s participation in a proceeding” and the degree to which a non-party
`funds, directs, and controls the proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759-60 (Aug. 14, 2012). In other words, the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`question before us is whether there is a non-party “at whose behest the
`petition has been filed” or a relationship “sufficient to justify applying
`conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.” Id.
`We are not persuaded Pioneer is in position to exercise control over
`Petitioner’s involvement in this proceeding. It is common for one lawyer to
`speak on behalf of multiple parties at a technology tutorial in patent
`infringement litigation. This can occur for efficiency purposes and does not,
`by itself, signify control over the decision making of the various entities in
`the litigation. In addition, while Pioneer and Petitioner both may be
`interested in the patentability of the ’873 patent claims, this does not mean
`that the parties have the same interests. Litigation alliances may arise for
`numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, parties having a similar
`perspective on one or more issues in a case. However, the existence of such
`alliances, alone, generally does not rise to the level that would require
`naming the ally/co-defendant as a real party-in-interest. Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We, therefore, will
`not deny the petition for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`C. The ’873 Patent
`The subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’873 patent relates
`generally to a system and method for media sharing between electronic
`devices, by using a first device to provide remote control of playing of
`media items (e.g., songs or videos) on a second device such as a stereo or
`5
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`television. Ex. 1001, Abstract, col. 9, ll. 8-14. The first device receives a
`playlist and selects the second device, and a user selects the media items to
`be played on the second device, without user input via the second device.
`Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 6; Ex. 1001, Abstract; col. 2, ll. 28-40, 52-68.
`Figure 1 of the ’873 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of the invention wherein a playlist is
`communicated from playlist server 11 via Internet 12 to first device 13 or
`second device 14. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 51-56. First device 13 comprises a
`remote control for second device 14, which may comprise a music rendering
`device such as a stereo, television, or home computer. Id. at col. 9, ll. 27-32,
`55-63.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-31, 33-42, and 44-46 are the subject of the
`petition. Claims 1, 17, 23, 25-27, 30, and 46 are independent claims.
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced as follows.
`1. A method for facilitating the presentation of media, the
`method comprising:
`
`displaying, on a first device, at least one device identifier
`identifying a second device;
`
`receiving user first input selecting the at least one device
`identifier;
`
`receiving, on the first device, a playlist, the received playlist
`comprising a plurality of media item identifiers;
`
`receiving user second input selecting at least one media item
`identifier from the received playlist; and
`
`directing, from the first device, the second device to receive a
`media item identified by the at least one media item identifier
`from a content server, without user input via the second device.
`
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following 11 prior art references.
`
`
`
`Reference
`Janik ’946
`Janik ’558
`
`Title
`US 2005/0113946 A9
`US 2002/0068558 A1
`
`Ex. No.
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1007
`
`7
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Reference
`Janik ’902
`Neoh
`Cardoza
`
`Janik ’955
`Bi
`Erekson
`Sony/Ericsson
`White Paper
`
`Berman
`Van Ryzin
`
`
`Title
`US 2002/0065902 A1
`US 2002/0040255 A1
`“Take a Look at the Latest Integrated
`PDA/Cell Phone Devices,”
`www.techrepublic.com (Apr. 8, 2002)
`US 2003/0045955 A1
`US 2002/0087996 A1
`US 6,622,018 B1
`Sony/Ericsson P800/P802 White Paper
`(Jan. 2003) (pp. 1-4, 24-25, 36, 70-72, 87-
`88, 94, and 112)
`US 6,502,194 B1
`US 6,127,941
`
`Ex. No.
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`eight grounds, as follows.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Janik ’558 and Janik ’902
`
`Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and Neoh
`Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and
`Cardoza
`Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and Janik
`’955
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 15-31, 33, 35-
`41, and 44-46
`§ 103(a) 9 and 38
`
`§ 103(a) 5 and 34
`
`§ 103(a) 13 and 42
`
`8
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Bi and Erekson
`Bi, Erekson, and Sony Ericsson
`White Paper
`Bi, Erekson, and Janik ’955
`
`Berman and Van Ryzin
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and
`44-46
`§ 103(a) 4, 5, 33, and 34
`
`§ 103(a) 13 and 42
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 6-13, 15-31, 33, 35-42,
`and 44-46
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,766. Also, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Petitioner submits proposed constructions for four claim terms,
`“identifier,” “directing the second device to receive a media item,” and
`“download” and “stream.” Pet. 6-9. Patent Owner responds to Petitioner’s
`proposed constructions and proposes alternative constructions for the terms.
`Prelim. Resp. 8-12. The broadest reasonable meaning of “identifier” and
`“directing the second device to receive a media item” are apparent in the
`context of the claims. “Download” and “stream” have well-established
`
`9
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`ordinary meanings. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, these claim terms,
`and all other terms in the challenged claims, are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 –
`Obvious over Bi and Erekson
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi and Erekson. Pet.
`28-44. Patent Owner asserts claim 1 covers a method where a handheld
`portable device, such as a mobile phone, receives a media playlist from
`another location (e.g., a user’s PC, or a server accessed over the Internet,
`such as one maintained by YouTube or Netflix). Prelim. Resp. 8. The
`portable device then allows for selection of a media item from the playlist,
`and the selection of a larger device, such as a television, on which the media
`item will be played. The portable device acts as a controller of the player
`device by directing the player device to receive the media item, without
`requiring user input at the player device. Prelim. Resp. 8. See Ex. 1001, col.
`16, ll. 35-48.
`
`Bi (Exhibit 1012)
`Bi is titled, “Interactive Remote Control of Audio or Video Playback
`and Selections.” Petitioner contends Bi discloses a system for an interactive
`remote control, which may be wireless, of an audio or playback application
`running on a personal computer or other computing platform. Pet. 29.
`Figure 2 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts data server 102 that provides digital audio or video data via
`the Internet or other network 101 to computing platform 100. Ex. 1012
`¶ 0020. Digital audio or video data also can be read from local storage 112.
`Id. Navigator 260 is a wireless remote control that communicates with
`computing platform 100 to control selection of audio or video data. Id. The
`navigator provides various functions “such as playback of current digital or
`
`11
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`audio video content; selection of new audio or video content; and providing
`lists of content for playback.” Id. ¶ 0007. The digital content in Bi can be
`controlled from a location away from the computing platform running the
`digital content playback application. Id. Navigator 260 acts as a remote
`control and allows the user to receive feedback from and provide input to
`audio or video player application 151 running on computing platform 100.
`Id. ¶ 0031. The communication with the computing platform may be
`wireless, e.g., by a Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11 interface. Id. ¶ 0028.
`Figure 5 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Figure 5 depicts navigator 260 in communication with computing platform
`100. Navigator 260 can be configured to display user outputs such as
`graphics and text for display on LCD screen 266. Id. ¶ 0018. Navigator
`control manager 154 of Figure 1 receives user inputs from navigator 260 and
`interprets and translates them into commands and actions for audio or video
`player application 151 to provide interactive remote control specifically for
`digital music playback and selection. Id. ¶ 0031.
`Figure 7 of Bi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts the software flow of navigator control manager 154. Ex.
`1012 ¶ 0015. The remote control functionality includes browsing music by
`reference to playlists (step 188). The specification describes the software
`flow, in which steps 188-193 involve browsing and selection of music
`
`14
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`utilizing navigator 260. Id. ¶ 0032. These steps include browsing of music
`local to computing platform 100 and obtaining information from data server
`102 if the music is not on the local database. Id. “Typically, a browse of
`music is based on such criteria as music track, album, artist, music genre,
`and playlists.” Id.
`Petitioner contends Bi discloses the elements of the claims of the ’873
`patent, with the exception of the display of multiple devices for selection and
`control, which Petitioner contends is disclosed by Erekson. Pet. 31.
`
`Erekson (Ex. 1013)
`
`Erekson is titled, “Portable Device Control Console with Wireless
`
`Connection.” Erekson discloses “a system and method for controlling
`remote devices over a wireless connection (e.g., using a radio signal).” Ex.
`1013, col. 2, ll. 18-19. In one embodiment, “a portable computer system
`(e.g., a palmtop or hand-held computer) having a transceiver is used to
`control compliant [remote] devices. In a preferred embodiment, the
`transceiver and the remote devices are Bluetooth-enabled devices.” Id. at
`col. 2, ll.19-24. Each of the remote devices is shown on a display device.
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 27-30. Figure 7 of Erekson is reproduced below.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts one embodiment of Erekson’s portable computing device
`100, with display 105, input 106 and stylus 90. Three remote devices 610,
`620, and 630 are indicated on display 105. Id. Fig. 7. A user can select one
`of the remote devices by touching stylus 90 to display 105, or “may simply
`touch the screen” directly. Ex. 1013, Fig. 7, col. 9, ll. 3-24. Figure 11 of
`Erekson is reproduced below.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 11 is a flowchart of the steps in a process for controlling one or more
`remote devices. Id. at Fig. 11, col. 10, l. 32 – col. 11, l. 49. Once a device is
`selected, the “characteristics and capabilities” of the selected remote device
`are “linked to indications (e.g., icons) on display device.” Id. col. 10, ll. 47-
`64. The selected remote device can be controlled “in some prescribed
`manner (e.g., turning the device off or on, raising or lowering a level, etc.)
`based on the type of device and its capabilities.” Id. col. 8, ll. 56-61.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Analysis
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi and Erekson. In
`support of this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner provides
`detailed explanations as to how the subject matter of each claim is disclosed
`by Bi and Erekson. Pet. 33-43. Patent Owner argues that for independent
`claim 1, “nowhere does Bi disclose receiving a playlist on the first device.”
`Prelim. Resp. 37. Petitioner asserts that Bi discloses the receipt of a playlist
`on navigator 260. Pet. 33. As stated in Bi, the navigator control manager
`sends to the navigator the results of a local music browse, which is “based
`on such criteria as music track, album, artist, and playlists.” Ex. 1012
`¶ 0032.
`
`Patent Owner next contends Bi “does not disclose or render obvious
`the material claim limitation of ‘selecting at least one media item identifier
`from the received playlist . . . .’” Prelim. Resp. 38 (emphasis omitted).
`Petitioner cites to Bi’s “navigator 260 with graphical output capabilities”
`that “operates as part of interactive remote control specifically for digital
`music playback and selection.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 0031. Petitioner also cites
`Figure 7 and Bi’s disclosure of how the navigator control manager reads
`data sent from the user interface on the navigator. Id. Fig. 7, ¶ 0032.
`
`Patent Owner further contends that Erekson does not disclose the
`display of multiple devices. Prelim. Resp. 38. Petitioner contends that
`Erekson discloses the display of multiple devices for selection and control
`
`18
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`(Ex. 1013, Figs. 7, 11; col. 2, ll. 27-30 (“the present invention pertains to a
`system and method for controlling remote devices over a wireless
`connection”), col. 9, ll. 11-17 (“each of the remote devices 610-630 are
`indicated on display device 105”).
`
`Finally, Patent Owner states there is no reason to combine Erekson
`with Bi. Prelim. Resp. 38. Petitioner contends it would have been obvious
`to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the handheld device disclosed in
`Erekson in the system disclosed in Bi. Using Erekson’s handheld device in
`Bi’s system involves applying a known technique to improve a known
`device by providing the ability to select and control multiple devices, such as
`the computing platform and an amplifier used to play audio signals from the
`platform of Bi, from a single remote. Pet. 32-33; Ex. 1002 (Bove Decl.) ¶¶
`26-27. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-22 (2007). For
`purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence as to
`claim 1. For the remaining limitations of claim 1, we have reviewed
`Petitioner’s supporting evidence and determine that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`The remaining independent claims 17, 23, 25-27, 30, and 46 “contain
`the same or similar limitations as those of claim 1.” Prelim. Resp. 39; Ex.
`1001, col. 16, l. 36 – col. 20, l. 64. For the remaining dependent claims 2, 6-
`12, 15, 16, 18-22, 24, 28-29, 31, 35-41, 44, and 45, we have reviewed
`Petitioner’s supporting evidence and determine that Petitioner has made an
`adequate showing under 35 U.S.C § 314(a). We are persuaded there is a
`
`19
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in establishing the
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 of the ’873
`patent as obvious over Bi and Erekson.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 4, 5, 33, and 34: Obvious Over Bi, Erekson,
`and Sony Ericsson White Paper
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 4, 5, 33, and 34 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and the Sony
`Ericsson White Paper. Pet. 44-45. Claims 4 and 5 depend from independent
`claim 1, with claim 4 further reciting that the first device comprises an MP3
`player, and claim 5 further reciting that the first device comprises a mobile
`phone. Claims 33 and 34 depend from independent claim 30, with claim 33
`further reciting that the first device comprises an MP3 player, and claim 34
`further reciting that the first device comprises a mobile phone.
`
`Sony Ericsson White Paper (Exhibit 1014)
`The Sony Ericsson White Paper is titled, “Sony Ericsson P800/P802
`White Paper.” Petitioner contends the Sony Ericsson White Paper discloses
`the Sony Ericsson P800 product, which is described as a combination
`telephone, PDA, and MP3 player that included Bluetooth communication
`functionality. Pet. 44; Ex. 1014, pp. 8, 24, 87. On claims 4 and 33,
`Petitioner’s expert Dr. Bove opines, without further evidentiary support, that
`it would have been obvious to add the MP3 player functionality disclosed in
`the Sony Ericsson White Paper into the navigator of Bi and the PDA of
`Erekson, to provide the desirable option of playing music on the device
`20
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`itself, in addition to controlling other devices. Pet. 44; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29-31.
`Dr. Bove further opines, without further evidentiary support, that for claims
`5 and 34, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to add the
`mobile telephone functionality disclosed in the Sony Ericsson White Paper
`product to Bi’s navigator and the PDA of Erekson. Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29,
`32. Dr. Bove’s conclusions, however, are unsupported by any evidence as to
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Bi, Erekson, and the
`Sony Ericsson White Paper. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`made an adequate showing under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, on the
`present record, we determine there is not a reasonable likelihood of
`Petitioner prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of dependent claims
`4, 5, 33, and 34 of the ’873 patent as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and the Sony
`Ericsson White Paper.
`
`D. Claims 13 and 42 – Obvious Over Bi, Erekson, and Janik ’955
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 13 and 42 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi, Erekson, and Janik ’955. Pet.
`45. Claims 13 and 42 depend from independent claims 1 and 30 and further
`recite that the second device receives a plurality of media items, “in an order
`other than the first order.”
`Janik ’955 discloses such an out of order, or “shuffle,” functionality.
`Ex. 1011 ¶ 0099 (“Some possible functions for user-defined button 124 are
`. . . shuffle the tracks in the existing playlist . . . .”). Petitioner’s expert Dr.
`Bove opines that it would have been obvious to add the shuffle control of
`21
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Janik ’955 to the audio system of Bi, as that merely would have entailed
`adding a known feature to a known device to achieve predictable results.
`Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 33. We have reviewed Petitioner’s supporting evidence
`and determine that Petitioner has made an adequate showing under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, on the present record, we are persuaded there
`is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in establishing the
`unpatentability of dependent claims 13 and 42 of the ’873 patent as obvious
`over Bi, Erekson, and Janik ’955.
`
`E. Other Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 15-31, 33, 35-41, and 44-46
`of the ’873 patent would have been obvious over Janik ’558 (“System and
`Method for Providing Content, Management, and Interactivity for Client
`Devices”) and Janik ’902 (“Webpad and Method for Using the Same”).
`Petitioner further contends: (i) claims 9 and 38 would have been obvious
`over Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and Neoh; (ii) claims 5 and 34 would have been
`obvious over Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and Cardoza; and (iii) claims 13 and 42
`would have been obvious over Janik ’558, Janik ’902, and Janik ’955. On
`the present record, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that these proposed grounds would have rendered obvious the challenged
`claims.
`Claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
`directing, from the first device, the second device to receive a
`media item identified by the at least one media item identifier
`from a content server, without user input via the second device.
`22
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`In all of these asserted grounds, Petitioner relies upon Janik ’558 or
`Janik ’902 to teach this limitation. Pet. 11-26. We agree with Patent Owner
`that neither Janik ’558 nor Janik ’902 discloses this limitation. Prelim.
`Resp. 20-24; see Ex. 1001, Fig. 4 and col. 2, ll. 52-58, col. 3, ll. 35-39, 54-
`57, col. 9, ll. 33-37, col.11, ll. 53-67, col. 12, ll. 9-15. In particular, neither
`Janik ’558 nor Janik ’902 discloses the receipt of media items by a second
`device. Janik ’558 discloses that the audio playback device or PC, which
`Petitioner argues to be second devices, receive XML messages from the first
`device, webpad 92. Pet. 18; Ex. 1007 ¶ 0243. XML messages are not media
`items that can be played back on the second device. Similarly, in Janik ’902,
`webpad 32 sends XML messages to a PC. Ex. 1008 ¶ 0069. The PC is not
`receiving media items, but rather, XML messages, which transport data and
`are not defined as media items in either Janik reference. Neither the Petition
`nor the Declaration of Dr. Bove explains why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have found it obvious to add the capability of sending media
`items. On this record, we are not persuaded that the teachings of Janik ’558
`or Janik ’992 would teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
`The remaining alleged ground of unpatentability in the Petition, based
`on Berman and Van Ryzin, is redundant in light of the above grounds of
`unpatentability on which we are instituting review for the same claims, with
`the exception of claim 33. We deny the Petition as to claim 33 based on
`Berman and Van Ryzin, for lack of evidentiary support. For claim 33, the
`
`23
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 23
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`Petition’s claim chart states only, “see claim 4,” but claim 4 was not
`challenged based on Berman and Van Ryzin.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the information presented
`in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 of
`the ’873 patent as obvious over Bi and Erekson, and of claims 13 and 42 as
`obvious over Bi, Erekson, and Janik ’955.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`any challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`hereby instituted as to the following claims and grounds:
`1.
`Claims 1, 2, 6-12, 15-31, 35-41, and 44-46 of the ’873
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Bi and Erekson;
`Claims 13 and 42 of the ’873 patent are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bi, Erekson,
`and Janik ’955; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the Petition are
`denied for reasons discussed above.
`
`2.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 24
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`commences on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 4:00 PM, Eastern Time on April 9, 2014; the parties are
`directed to the Office Trial Practice Guide1 for guidance in preparing for the
`initial conference call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed
`changes to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the
`parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765-66
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`25
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 25
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00598
`Patent 8,214,873 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`David L. Fehrman
`Mehran Arjomand
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Thomas Engellenner
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`engellennert@pepperlaw.com
`mollaaghababar@pepperlaw.com
`
`Theodosios Thomas
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`ted.thomas@sceneralabs.com
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1003 Page 26
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket