Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: November 29, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`OPENTV, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: November 29, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`OPENTV, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`OpenTV, Inc. filed a Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,252,964 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ‟964
`
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Patent Owner Cisco
`
`Technology, Inc. filed a preliminary response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the
`
`Petition. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. For the reasons that
`
`follow, the Board has determined to institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a):
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-4 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) and claims 1-6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet.
`
`19-60. We grant the Petition as to claims 1-4 on certain grounds of
`
`unpatentability as discussed below.
`
`
`
`A. The ’964 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ‟964 patent, titled “Authorization of Services in a Conditional
`
`Access System,” issued on June 26, 2001, based on Application No.
`
`09/488,230, filed January 20, 2000.
`
`The ‟964 patent relates to “systems for protecting information that is
`
`transmitted by means of a wired or wireless medium against unauthorized
`
`access.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 42-45. For example, a cable television or
`
`
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`satellite television company may want to ensure that only designated
`
`subscribers can access certain television programs. Id. at col. 1, l. 48-col. 2,
`
`l. 33.
`
`Figure 1 of the ‟964 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts conditional access system 101 in which service distribution
`
`organization (SDO) 103 (e.g., a cable television company) provides service
`
`“instances” to set-top boxes 113 of various subscribers. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`10-19. For example, the “History Channel” is a “service that provides
`
`television programs about history,” and “[e]ach program provided by the
`
`History Channel is an „instance‟ of that service.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 16-19.
`
`Service distribution organization 103 encrypts or scrambles an instance to
`
`create encrypted instance 105, which it then broadcasts to subscribers over
`
`transmission medium 112 (e.g., cable). Id. at col. 4, ll. 19-22, 33-38. As
`
`shown in Figure 1 above, encrypted instance 105 includes instance data 109
`
`
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`(information making up the television program) and entitlement control
`
`messages (ECMs) 107 (information necessary for the receiving set-top box
`
`to decrypt the data). Id. at col. 4, ll. 22-27. ECMs may be sent many times
`
`per second so that the set-top box has the most current information, and
`
`ECMs may be changed every few seconds to prevent piracy. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`27-32.
`
`In addition to encrypted instance 105, service distribution
`
`organization 103 sends to a set-top box entitlement management messages
`
`(EMMs) 111, which may indicate, for example, what services the subscriber
`
`associated with that set-top box has purchased and include a key for a
`
`particular service. Id. at col. 4, ll. 47-50, 56-58. EMMs are used by the
`
`set-top box in the authorization process. Id. at col. 4, ll. 38-47; col. 4,
`
`l. 56-col. 5, l. 6. The set-top box stores the information contained in EMMs
`
`as authorization information 121, and uses authorization information 121 in
`
`combination with ECMs 107 to determine whether the subscriber is entitled
`
`to watch encrypted instance 105. Id. If the subscriber is entitled to watch
`
`the instance, the set-top box decrypts encrypted instance 105 to produce
`
`decrypted instance 123 and sends decrypted instance 123 to the television
`
`for viewing. Id. at col. 4, ll. 38-41.
`
`The ‟964 patent describes specifically how a set-top box, or digital
`
`home communications terminal (DHCT), is permitted to access a service
`
`instance via the operation of a number of entities, including a conditional
`
`access authority (CAA) and entitlement agents (EAs). EAs send entitlement
`
`information (e.g., in EMMs) to the DHCT. Id. at col. 30, ll. 48-51. The
`
`CAA “provides and removes entitlement agents,” and facilitates
`
`communication between the DHCT and EAs. Id. at col. 10, l. 16-48; Fig. 24
`
`
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`(depicting CAA 2405 and EAs 2409). DHCT 333 “receives and interprets
`
`EMMs [and] ECMs,” “decrypts instances of services,” and sends messages
`
`back to the CAA and EAs over a reverse path. Id. at col. 15, ll. 17-23.
`
`DHCT 333 includes digital home communications terminal secure element
`
`(DHCTSE) 627, which comprises (1) a secure memory for storing keys and
`
`other information, and (2) a secure microprocessor for processing incoming
`
`EMMs and ECMs and producing the return messages. Id. at col. 15,
`
`l. 49-col. 16, l. 9; Figs. 12 (depicting DHCTSE 627), 13 (depicting memory
`
`1207 in DHCTSE 627).
`
`The ‟964 patent also describes the encryption mechanism of the
`
`disclosed system in greater detail. Figure 3 of the ‟964 patent is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`Figure 3 depicts the interactions between a service origination component
`
`305 and DHCT 333. A customer, for example, orders a service instance
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`provided by a particular EA. Id. at col. 11, ll. 54-55. Before the EA can
`
`communicate with the customer‟s DHCT, the CAA transmits to the DHCT
`
`(in an EMM) the public key of the EA and a sealed digest, both in encrypted
`
`form. Id. at col. 11, ll. 20-33, 56-65. The DHCTSE decrypts the message,
`
`allocates storage space in secure memory, and stores the public key of the
`
`EA in the allocated space. Id. at col. 11, ll. 34-44; col. 16, ll. 6-9. The EA
`
`now can communicate with the DHCT. The EA transmits to the DHCT (in
`
`an EMM) a multi-session key (MSK), entitlements for particular service
`
`instances, and a sealed digest, each in encrypted form. Id. at col. 11, ll.
`
`41-48; col. 11, l. 66-col. 12, l. 9; col. 12, ll. 15-28. The DHCTSE decrypts
`
`the message and stores the MSK and entitlements in secure memory. Id.
`
`The DHCT now has access to the service instances to which it has been
`
`entitled. The EA transmits the service instances and a control word (in an
`
`ECM), both in encrypted form. Id. at col. 9, ll. 1-13, 34-48; col. 12, ll.
`
`10-14; col. 15, l. 61-col. 16, l. 2. The DHCTSE decrypts the message to
`
`obtain the control word and provides the control word to a decryption
`
`module to decrypt the service instance for display to the user. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ‟964 patent is exemplary of the claims at issue:
`
`1. Conditional access apparatus for giving a receiver
`conditional access to an instance of service received in the
`receiver, one or more entitlements to access the instance of
`service being given by one or more entitlement agents and the
`conditional access apparatus comprising:
`
`entitlement agent establishment apparatus in the receiver
`for establishing at least one of the entitlement agents in the
`conditional access apparatus;
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`entitlement specification apparatus in the receiver for
`specifying the one or more entitlements for the at least one
`entitlement agent, and wherein the entitlement agent
`establishment apparatus and the entitlement specification
`apparatus operate in response to further messages received in
`the receiver; and
`
`access granting apparatus in the receiver for granting
`access to the instance of service in response to a first message
`received in the receiver which indicates the entitlement agent
`and the entitlement only if the entitlement agent establishment
`apparatus has established the entitlement agent, and the
`entitlement specification apparatus has granted the entitlement,
`and wherein the entitlement agent establishment apparatus
`disestablishes the entitlement agent in response to a given
`message of the further messages.
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 4,771,458, issued September 13, 1988
`(“Citta”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 4,995,080, issued February 19, 1991
`(“Bestler ‟080”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,680,457, filed April 25, 1995, issued
`October 21, 1997, continuation-in-part of application filed
`January 18, 1995 (“Bestler ‟457”) (Ex. 1003); and
`
`4. Conditional Access System for the MAC/PACKET
`Family: Eurocrypt, March 1989 (“Eurocrypt”) (Ex. 1002).1
`
`
`1 We refer to “Eurocrypt” as the English translation (Ex. 1002 at 1-175) of
`the original reference (Ex. 1002 at 177-354). Petitioner provided an
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation. See Ex. 1002 at 176;
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6 of the ‟964 patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Eurocrypt
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 1-4
`
`Bestler ‟457
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1-4
`
`Bestler ‟457, Bestler
`‟080, and Citta
`
`Eurocrypt, Bestler ‟080,
`and Citta
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 5 and 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 5 and 6
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board interprets claims using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a
`
`“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
`
`meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if
`
`the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition
`
`of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.”
`
`Id. “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to
`
`describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment
`
`
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is
`
`broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification.”).
`
`For purposes of this decision, we construe certain claim limitations as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`1. “Instance of Service” (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 recite conditional access apparatuses
`
`for “giving a receiver conditional access to an instance of service received in
`
`the receiver, one or more entitlements to access the instance of service being
`
`given by one or more entitlement agents.” Petitioner argues that “instance of
`
`service” should be interpreted to mean “a program or a service,” while
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term means “digital broadcast or interactive
`
`sessions.” See Pet. 11; Prelim. Resp. 15-16.
`
`We are persuaded that Petitioner‟s proposed interpretation represents
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. The
`
`Specification of the ‟964 patent describes an “instance” as a particular
`
`program or service, which can be encrypted and decrypted. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract (“A cable television system provides conditional access
`
`to services. The cable television system includes a headend from which
`
`service „instances,‟ or programs, are broadcast. . . .”); col. 4, ll. 12-19 (“A
`
`service distribution organization 103 . . . provides its subscribers with
`
`information from a number of services, that is, collections of certain kinds of
`
`information. For example, the History Channel is a service that provides
`
`television programs about history. Each program provided by the History
`
`
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`Channel is an „instance‟ of that service.”); col. 1, l. 63-col. 2, l. 7. Although
`
`Patent Owner cites various portions of the Specification referencing “digital”
`
`programs and “interactive sessions,” these portions merely describe
`
`exemplary instances and do not define explicitly the term “instance of
`
`service.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15-16 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 46-51,
`
`and col. 34, ll. 58-60); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
`
`only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
`
`those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”). Indeed, Patent
`
`Owner acknowledges that the Specification describes service instances to
`
`include more than just digital broadcast and interactive sessions. See Prelim.
`
`Resp. 12 (“[t]he service instances include, among other things, digital
`
`broadcast and interactive services”).
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret the term “instance of service” to mean a
`
`particular program or service.
`
`
`
`2. “Entitlement Agent” (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 recite “one or more entitlements to
`
`access the instance of service being given by one or more entitlement
`
`agents.” Petitioner argues that “entitlement agent” means:
`
`any one, or a combination of, a program or service provider, an
`entity or function that is located outside of the receiver and acts
`on behalf of a program or service provider, or an entity or
`function that is located outside of the receiver that has the right
`to provide the receiver access authorization to one or more
`programs or services.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`Pet. 12-13. As support, Petitioner cites statements made by the applicants
`
`during the prosecution of the ‟964 patent that an entitlement agent is what
`
`provides specific instances of service. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 at 17, 53-54).
`
`Petitioner also argues that the Specification of the ‟964 patent describes an
`
`entitlement agent as “an entity or function that resides outside of a receiver
`
`and gives or authorizes access rights or entitlements to a program or service
`
`through remote message, and in some instances, on behalf of a program or
`
`service provider.” Id. at 13-14. The portions of the Specification cited by
`
`Petitioner, however, do not support the proposed definition above and, in
`
`any event, merely describe exemplary “entitlement agents” rather than
`
`defining the term.
`
`Patent Owner‟s proposed interpretation of “entitlement agent” is “an
`
`entity that provides digital broadcast or interactive session entitlement
`
`information to receivers.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We agree with Patent Owner
`
`that an “entitlement agent” provides entitlement information to receivers.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 12-15; col. 30, ll. 48-51. We disagree,
`
`however, to the extent Patent Owner‟s proposed interpretation recites
`
`“digital broadcast or interactive session” entitlement information. As
`
`explained above, an “instance of service” is a particular program or service,
`
`not a “digital broadcast or interactive session.” See supra Section I.E.1.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “entitlement agent” to mean an entity that
`
`provides program or service entitlement information to receivers.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`3. “Entitlement Agent Establishment Apparatus in the Receiver” and
`“Entitlement Specification Apparatus in the Receiver” (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`The parties‟ proposed interpretations of “entitlement agent
`
`establishment apparatus in the receiver” and “entitlement specification
`
`apparatus in the receiver” in independent claims 1, 3, and 5 are as follows:
`
`Term
`
`Petitioner‟s Proposed
`Interpretation
`
`Patent Owner‟s Proposed
`Interpretation
`
`entitlement
`agent
`establishment
`apparatus in
`the receiver
`
`entitlement
`specification
`apparatus in
`the receiver
`
`any one, or a combination
`of[,] a device, a
`component within a
`device, a microprocessor
`or a controller, in the
`receiver, for establishing
`one or more entitlement
`agents
`
`any one, or a combination
`of, a device, a component
`within a device, a
`microprocessor or a
`controller, in the receiver,
`for specifying one or
`more entitlements
`
`a processor and memory
`in the receiver operable to
`establish multiple
`entitlement agents
`
`a processor and memory
`in the receiver operable to
`specify entitlements for
`multiple entitlement
`agents
`
`See Pet. 14-16; Prelim. Resp. 16-18. Other than in the claims, the ‟964
`
`patent does not use the terms “entitlement agent establishment apparatus”
`
`and “entitlement specification apparatus.” The Specification, however,
`
`describes how the DHCT, including the DHCTSE with a secure memory and
`
`secure microprocessor, establishes entitlement agents and specifies
`
`entitlements for an entitlement agent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 7, l. 18-col.
`
`13, l. 9; col. 15, l. 15-col. 16, l. 9; Figs. 3-4, 6, 12-13.
`
`The primary dispute between the parties is with respect to the number
`
`of entitlement agents required. Petitioner argues that the apparatuses are for
`
`
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`establishing, and specifying entitlements for, “one or more” entitlement
`
`agents, while Patent Owner asserts that they must be for “multiple”
`
`entitlement agents. See Pet. 14-16; Prelim. Resp. 16-18. We agree with
`
`Petitioner. While Patent Owner is correct that exemplary embodiments
`
`described in the Specification have multiple entitlement agents, see Prelim.
`
`Resp. 16-18, the claims recite an “entitlement agent establishment apparatus
`
`in the receiver for establishing at least one of the entitlement agents in the
`
`conditional access apparatus” and an “entitlement specification apparatus in
`
`the receiver for specifying the one or more entitlements for the at least one
`
`entitlement agent” (emphases added). Likewise, the Specification describes
`
`exemplary embodiments including a processor and memory, see id., but does
`
`not disclose an “entitlement agent establishment apparatus” or “entitlement
`
`specification apparatus” as being so limited.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “entitlement agent establishment apparatus
`
`in the receiver” to mean a device in the receiver operable to establish one or
`
`more entitlement agents, and interpret “entitlement specification apparatus in
`
`the receiver” to mean a device in the receiver operable to specify one or
`
`more entitlements for one or more entitlement agents.
`
`
`
`4. “Access Granting Apparatus in the Receiver” (Claims 1, 3, and 5)
`
`Petitioner argues that the term “access granting apparatus in the
`
`receiver” in independent claims 1, 3, and 5 should be interpreted to mean
`
`“any one, or a combination of, a device, a component within a device, a
`
`microprocessor or a controller, in the receiver, for granting access to a
`
`program or service received at the receiver.” Pet. 14-16. Patent Owner does
`
`
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`not dispute Petitioner‟s proposed interpretation other than to replace
`
`“program or service” with “digital broadcast or interactive sessions.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 18-19. We do not adopt this language because the “instance
`
`of service” language in the claims is not limited to “digital broadcast[s] or
`
`interactive sessions,” as explained above. See supra Section I.E.1. Further,
`
`the digital embodiments in the Specification are examples and do not define
`
`the term “access granting apparatus in the receiver” (which only appears in
`
`the claims of the ‟964 patent).
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “access granting apparatus in the receiver”
`
`to mean a device in the receiver operable to grant access to a program or
`
`service received at the receiver.
`
`
`
`5. “Conditional Access Authority” (Claims 2, 4, and 5)
`
`Claims 2 and 4 recite that “the entitlement agent establishment
`
`apparatus includes a first key representing a conditional access authority.”
`
`Claim 5 recites that “the entitlement agent establishment apparatus includes
`
`other keys representing conditional access authorities.” Petitioner does not
`
`propose a specific interpretation for “conditional access authority.” Patent
`
`Owner argues that the term means an “entity that provides and removes
`
`entitlement agents and places limits on the services to which an entitlement
`
`agent may grant entitlements,” citing portions of the Specification in
`
`support. Prelim. Resp. 20-21. We agree with Patent Owner in part. The
`
`Specification provides that “[t]he entity which provides and removes
`
`entitlement agents is called the conditional access authority (CAA).” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 10, ll. 16-17. The Specification then describes seven
`
`
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`“advantages” of the disclosed arrangement, one of which is that the
`
`arrangement “places limits on the services to which an entitlement agent
`
`may grant entitlements.” Id. at col. 10, ll. 26-48. We do not read these
`
`“advantages” as defining the term “conditional access authority.” Moreover,
`
`they apply to the disclosed arrangement as a whole, not the conditional
`
`access authority by itself.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “conditional access authority” to mean an
`
`entity that provides and removes entitlement agents.
`
`
`
`6. Other Terms
`
`For purposes of this decision, all other terms in claims 1-6 are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`We turn now to Petitioner‟s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner‟s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`A. Asserted Grounds Based on Eurocrypt
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-4 are anticipated by Eurocrypt under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable over Eurocrypt,
`
`Bestler ‟080, and Citta under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 27-38, 56-60. To
`
`support its assertions, Petitioner relies on the declaration of Mr. Alan Young
`
`(Ex. 1007). We are persuaded for the reasons explained below that
`
`
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`assertion that claims 1-4 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`1. Eurocrypt (Ex. 1002)
`
`Eurocrypt is directed to a conditional access system that “permits
`
`ensuring that . . . television, radio or data services programs are only
`
`accessible to those users who meet very specific conditions, associated
`
`generally with a payment.” Ex. 1002 at 7. It does so by sending ECMs and
`
`EMMs to receivers. Id. at 20.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 on page 10 of Eurocrypt is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above depicts a “scrambled source” being sent from an encoder in
`
`the conditional access system to a decoder, where it is unscrambled if the
`
`decoder has the right information. Id. at 8-10. Specifically, the decoder
`
`receives an issuing key (IK) and unique address (UA). Id. As shown in the
`
`“ECM path” in the figure above, the encoder sends to the decoder (in an
`
`ECM) control words (CWs) and program parameters (P), both encrypted
`
`
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`using an operating key (SK) of a service provider. Id. at 8-10, 25. As
`
`shown in the “EMM path,” the encoder also sends to the decoder (in an
`
`EMM) (1) the SK, encrypted using either the management key (PDK) of the
`
`service provider or the issuing key (IK), and (2) access entitlements E,
`
`encrypted with the PDK. Id. at 8-10. The entitlements are stored in
`
`“Entitlement memory” in the decoder, id. at 8-10, 13, and one of the
`
`parameters sent in the EMM is “the maximum memory size allocated to the
`
`service operator,” id. at 36.
`
`As shown in the hierarchy of Figure 1 above, the decoder uses IK, SK,
`
`PDK, and CWs to generate the unscrambling sequence to unscramble the
`
`source content. Id. at 8-10. New service providers are added in Eurocrypt
`
`by sending new keys (SK and PDK), and removed by deleting keys. Id. at 9
`
`(lines 17-22), 11. Eurocrypt discloses an “issuer” that maintains the IK and
`
`distributes and invalidates the service keys. Id. at 9, 11.
`
`
`
`2. Anticipation
`
`Petitioner contends that Eurocrypt discloses all of the limitations of
`
`claims 1-4. Pet. 27-38. For example, with respect to independent claim 1,
`
`Petitioner argues that Eurocrypt discloses a “conditional access apparatus”
`
`(decoder in Figure 1), one or more “entitlement agents” (a service provider),
`
`and an “entitlement agent establishment apparatus in the receiver” (one or
`
`more of the “ECM uncrypting” module, “Entitlement memory,” and “EMM
`
`uncrypting” modules in Figure 1) that establishes a service provider by
`
`receiving, decoding, and storing the SK and PDK (associated with the
`
`service provider), and disestablishes a service provider in response to a
`
`message. Id. at 27-31, 35-36; see Ex. 1007 at 50-53, 56-57. Petitioner
`
`
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`further argues that Eurocrypt discloses an “entitlement specification
`
`apparatus in the receiver” (one or more of the “ECM uncrypting” module,
`
`“Entitlement memory,” and “EMM uncrypting” modules in Figure 1) that
`
`specifies entitlements for a service provider, and an “access granting
`
`apparatus in the receiver” (one or more of the “unscrambling sequence
`
`generator” module, “CW local control word” module, “CW computation”
`
`module, and “ECM uncrypting” module in Figure 1) that grants access to a
`
`program. Pet. 31-35; see Ex. 1007 at 53-56. Based on the current record
`
`and claim interpretations set forth above, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`
`has made a threshold showing that Eurocrypt discloses all of the limitations
`
`of claim 1.
`
`Patent Owner makes three arguments as to claim 1. First, Patent
`
`Owner argues that Eurocrypt does not disclose “entitlement agents” because
`
`the service providers in Eurocrypt provide analog broadcasts, not “digital
`
`broadcasts or interactive sessions,” and does not disclose an “entitlement
`
`agent establishment apparatus in the receiver” because Eurocrypt does not
`
`disclose establishing multiple entitlement agents. Prelim. Resp. 25-27.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Eurocrypt does not disclose
`
`“entitlements” because its entitlements are for analog broadcasts, not “digital
`
`broadcast[s] and interactive sessions,” and does not disclose an “entitlement
`
`specification apparatus in the receiver” because Eurocrypt does not specify
`
`entitlements for multiple entitlement agents. Id. at 28-29. Third, Patent
`
`Owner argues that Eurocrypt does not disclose an “access granting apparatus
`
`in the receiver” for granting access to an “instance of service” because it
`
`discloses analog broadcasts, not “digital broadcast[s] and interactive
`
`sessions.” Id. at 30-31. Patent Owner also argues as to claim 2 that the
`
`
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01106
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00329
`Patent 6,252,964 B1
`
`issuer in Eurocrypt is not a “conditional access authority” because it does
`
`not have ultimate authority to remove entitlement agents and place limits on
`
`the services offered by entitlement agents. Id. at 31-33; see Pet. 36-37.
`
`All of Patent Owner‟s arguments regarding Eurocrypt are premised on
`
`its proposed claim interpretations of the disputed limitations, with which we
`
`do not agree for the reasons explained above. See Sections I.E.1-5.
`
`Specifically, we interpret “entitlement agent” to mean an entity that provides
`
`program or service entitlement information to receivers; “entitlement agent
`
`establishment apparatus in the receiver” to mean a device in the receiver
`
`operable to establish one or more entitlement agents; “entitlement
`
`specification apparatus in the receiver” to mean a device in the receiver
`
`operable to specify one or more entitlements for one or more entitlement
`
`agents; “instance of service” to mean a particular program or service; and
`
`“conditional access authority” to mean an entity that provides and removes
`
`entitlement agents. Based on the current record, Petitioner has shown
`
`sufficiently that these limitations are present in Eurocrypt.
`
`Upon review of Petitioner‟s analysis and Mr. Young‟s declaration, we
`
`are persuaded that Petitioner has made a threshold showing that claim 1, as
`
`well as claims 2-4, are anticipated by Eurocrypt.
`
`
`
`3. Obviousness
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable over
`
`Eurocrypt, Bestler ‟080, and Citta under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 56-60.
`
`Upon review of Petitioner‟s analysis and Mr. Young‟s declaration, we are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing as to claims 5 and 6.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2004, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. U
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
