UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., &
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and AVAYA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-013661
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,704
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION OF AMICUS BRIEFING FROM
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC. V. SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`No. 15-1212 (FED. CIR.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01011 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01366
`Patent No. 6,009,704
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s March 27, 2015 Conduct of the Proceeding Order
`
`(the “Order”) in the above captioned case, Patent Owner Straight Path IP Group,
`
`Inc. (“Straight Path”) hereby submits the following amicus briefing and Orders
`
`(Attachments A – G) filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively
`
`“Samsung”) and Straight Path in Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`
`No. 15-1212 (Fed. Cir.) (“the appeal”), which was Straight Path’s appeal of the
`
`Final Written Decision in related case, Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00246:
`
`1. Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief by Samsung in Support of
`
`Appellee Sipnet EU S.R.O. (May 4, 2015) (“Samsung’s Motion”)
`
`[Attachment A];
`
`2. Brief of Amici Curiae (Samsung) in Support of Appellee Sipnet EU
`
`S.R.O. Urging Affirmance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
`
`Decision in IPR2013-00246 (May 4, 2015) [Attachment B];
`
`3. Order regarding Samsung’s Motion (May 5, 2015) [Attachment C];
`
`4. Straight Path’s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae
`
`Brief by Samsung (May 12, 2015) [Attachment D];
`
`5. Samsung’s Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae
`
`Brief (May 15, 2015) [Attachment E];
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01366
`Patent No. 6,009,704
`
`6. Order referring Samsung’s Motion to merits panel (May 28, 2015)
`
`[Attachment F]; and
`
`7. Order granting Samsung’s Motion (August 11, 2015) [Attachment G].
`
`In addition to the aforementioned amicus briefing, Straight Path has
`
`submitted the following briefing and opinion from the appeal in this proceeding:
`
`1. Brief of Appellant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (Paper 18);
`
`2. Brief of Appellee Sipnet EU S.R.O. (Paper 22);
`
`3. Reply Brief of Appellant Straight Path (Paper 22); and
`
`4. Federal Circuit’s November 25, 2015 Opinion (Paper 38).
`
`
`Dated: December 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William Meunier/
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Michael C. Newman (admitted pro
`hac vice)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1845
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01366
`Patent No. 6,009,704
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I certify that a copy of Patent Owner’s Submission of Amicus Briefing from
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., No. 15-1212 (Fed. Cir.) is being
`
`served by electronic mail on the following counsel for the Petitioners:
`
`For Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`For Cisco Systems, Inc. and AVAYA Inc.
`
`DLA Piper LLP
`Brian Erickson (Reg. No. 48,895)
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`Jeff Cole (Reg. No. 56,052)
`jeff.cole@dlapiper.com
`Samsung-SP-IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`and Dorr LLP
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`Jason D. Kipnis (Reg. No. 40,680)
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`For AVAYA Inc.
`
`Fish & Richardson
`Dorothy P. Whelan (Reg. No. 33,814)
`Christopher O. Green (Reg. No. 52,964)
`Whelan@fr.com
`cgreen@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/William Meunier/
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Michael C. Newman (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1845
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 8, 2015
`
`
`44522786v.1
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`No. 2015-1212
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`
`Appellant,
`
`Appellee.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, No. IPR2013-00246.
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF BY SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC IN SUPPORT
`OF APPELLEE SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`
`
`
`Mark D. Fowler
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 833-2000
`
`Aaron Fountain
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`(713) 425-8400
`
`May 4, 2015
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`Brian K. Erickson
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 457-7000
`
`Attorneys for Amici Curiae
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Samsung Telecommunications America,
`LLC
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`Certificate of Interest
`
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC certifies the
`following to the best of his knowledge:
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.
`
`The names of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is
`not the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`N/A
`
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`
`or more of the stock of the party or amici curiae represented by me are:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.: None
`
`For Samsung Electronics America, Inc.: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`For Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC: Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US): Aaron G. Fountain, Brian K. Erickson, and Mark
`
`
`
`
`D. Fowler
`
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`
`the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are
`
`expected to appear in this court are:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian K. Erickson
`Brian K. Erickson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`Under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 29 of
`
`the Federal Circuit Rules, proposed Amici Curiae Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) respectfully ask this Court to grant this motion to
`
`file the accompanying Brief of Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner-Appellee
`
`SipNet EU S.R.O. (“SipNet”), who consents to this motion for leave. Patent
`
`Owner-Appellant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”) opposes this
`
`motion for leave.
`
`I.
`
`THE PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SAMSUNG
`
`The accompanying Brief of Amici Curiae Samsung will assist the Court in
`
`its review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Final Decision in
`
`IPR2013-00246 that claims 1-7 and 32-42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704
`
`patent”) are invalid. Samsung, as explained further below, is one of many parties
`
`with IPRs pending on the ’704 patent and its family that may be affected by the
`
`Court’s decision in this case. Accordingly, the accompanying Brief presents three
`
`arguments that were not addressed by the parties’ principal briefs, including: (1)
`
`that the patents are invalid even if the Phillips claim construction standard applies;
`
`(2) that the prior art of record, including WINS (A1236-A1525) and NetBIOS
`
`(A702-A1235), expressly disclose the “process” limitation under the claim
`
`construction offered by Appellant; and (3) that the Phillips claim construction
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`standard supports the Board’s refusal to read Straight Path’s proffered “temporal
`
`requirement” into the claim term “connected to the computer network.” These
`
`issues are highly relevant to the parties’ dispute before this Court, and Samsung
`
`respectfully requests that the Court give them full consideration before issuing a
`
`decision that could directly impact Samsung and many other parties.
`
`II.
`
`SAMSUNG’S INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS APPEAL
`
`The ’704 patent has an extensive history in district court litigations and in
`
`IPRs, many of which continue today. (Appellant Br. viii, ix). Straight Path’s
`
`predecessor-in-interest, Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc., asserted
`
`the ’704 patent in a patent infringement action against Stalker Software, Inc. in
`
`Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. v. Stalker Software, Inc., 2:12-cv-
`
`00009 (E.D. Va.) (filed Jan. 4, 2012). (A0003.) SipNet is a reseller of Stalker
`
`Software products and filed IPR2013-00246 on April 11, 2013 (A0010.)
`
`After SipNet filed the IPR petition that gave rise to this appeal, Straight Path
`
`began expanding its enforcement campaign on the ’704 patent and other related
`
`patent family members. Beginning with Samsung on August 23, 2013, Straight
`
`Path began asserting the ’704 patent against much larger companies that
`
`manufacture products capable of streaming media content over the internet.
`
`(Appellant Br. ix, x). Current Straight Path targets include Samsung, Vizio,
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Sony Corporation, Panasonic Corp., Toshiba Corp., LG
`
`Electronics and others. Id.
`
`Rather than take on multiple defendants with substantial resources, Straight
`
`Path has stayed its later-filed litigations against Samsung and others to focus on
`
`this Appeal. The outcome of this appeal is likely to impact numerous pending
`
`IPRs and litigations that involve the ’704 patent family and issues that are identical
`
`or nearly identical to those before the Court.
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND ACCEPT
`THE PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SAMSUNG
`
`Permission to file an amicus brief may be granted if the amicus has an
`
`interest in a different case that may be affected by the decision in the case at issue.
`
`Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 223 F.3d 615, 616-17 (7th Cir. 2000).
`
`Samsung has a direct interest in its own pending instituted inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of the ’704 patent. Additionally, Samsung has pending instituted IPRs of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,131,121 (“the ’121 patent”) and 6,009,469 (“the ’469 patent”),
`
`both of which are related to the ’704 patent, and both of which use claim language
`
`that is identical to the claim language at issue in this appeal. For example,
`
`instituted claims 6, 8, 13, and 14 of the ’121 patent and instituted claims 3 and 6 of
`
`the ’469 patent each claim a process “connected to the [network / computer
`
`network].” Additionally, each patent uses claim language, for example a process
`
`having an “on-line status,” that Appellant construes in a similar, if not identical,
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`manner to its proposed construction for “connected to the network” in its principal
`
`brief. The Court’s decision regarding Appellant’s appeal of the Final Decision for
`
`IPR 2013-000246 therefore may impact Samsung’s IPR for the ’704 patent, its
`
`IPRs for the ’121 and ’469 patents, and its district court litigation with Straight
`
`Path.
`
`Counsel for Straight Path indicated that Straight Path will oppose this
`
`motion because Samsung is “an interested party.” But Samsung’s interest in its
`
`own disputes with Straight Path do not weigh against granting this motion. Briefs
`
`provided by amici curiae do not need to be impartial. Funbus Sys., Inc. v. Calif.
`
`Utils. Commission, 801 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Neonatology
`
`Associates, P.A. v. C.I.R., 293 F.3d 128, 131 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[I]t is not easy to
`
`envisage an amicus who is ‘disinterested’ but still has an ‘interest’ in the case.”).
`
`The idea that amicus must be impartial is “outdated” because “an amicus who
`
`makes a strong but responsible presentation in support of a party can truly serve as
`
`the court’s friend.” Neonatology Associates, P.A., 293 F.3d at 131. While there is
`
`a “bright line distinction between amicus curiae and named parties/real parties in
`
`interest,” Siam Food Products Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 22 CIT 826, 830, 24
`
`F. Supp. 2d 276, 280 (1998) (quoting United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165
`
`(6th Cir. 1991)), amicus curiae may argue adversarial positions, Michigan, 940
`
`F.2d at 166, and may have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the appeal,
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 7 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`Neonatology Associates, P.A., 293 F.3d at 131-32.
`
`Samsung is not a real party in interest to this appeal or the IPR below,
`
`Samsung is not a named party to this appeal or the IPR below, and Samsung has no
`
`relationship with SipNet. Further, Samsung is not rehashing arguments made in
`
`SipNet’s principal brief or attempting to insert a partisan view of the facts.
`
`Instead, Samsung succinctly raises issues ignored or not adequately addressed by
`
`the parties’ principal briefs that will directly impact other pending litigation and
`
`IPRs. Indeed, the combined word count of SipNet’s principle brief and Samsung’s
`
`independent amici curiae brief is less than the total allotment available to Sipnet
`
`for its principle brief.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Samsung respectfully asks this Court to grant
`
`this motion for leave to file the accompanying Brief of Amici Curiae.
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 8 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`Dated: May 4, 2015.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian K. Erickson
`Brian K. Erickson
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 457-7000
`
`Mark D. Fowler
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 833-2000
`
`
`Aaron Fountain
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`(713) 425-8400
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`Attorneys for Amici Curiae
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Samsung Telecommunications America,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 9 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`No. 2015-1212
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`
`Appellant,
`
`Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, No. IPR2013-00246.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Brian K. Erickson
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 457-7000
`
`Attorneys for Amici Curiae
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Samsung Telecommunications America,
`LLC
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`Mark D. Fowler
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 833-2000
`
`Aaron Fountain
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`(713) 425-8400
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 15-1212 Document: 31 Page: 10 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION FOR
`
`LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF BY SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
`CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
`
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC IN SUPPORT OF
`
`APPELLEE SIPNET EU S.R.O. with the Clerk of the Court for the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and served it on counsel of record
`
`by using the appellate CM/ECF system on May 4, 2015.
`
`/s/Brian K. Erickson
`Brian K. Erickson
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\258327873.6
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT B
`
`ATTACHMENT B
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`No. 2015-1212
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`STRAIGH PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`
`Appellant,
`
`Appellee.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, No. IPR2013-00246.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`URGING AFFIRMANCE OF THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD’S
`DECISION IN IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`Mark D. Fowler
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 833-2000
`
`Aaron Fountain
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`(713) 425-8400
`
`
`
`
`May 4, 2015
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`Brian K. Erickson
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 457-7000
`
`Attorneys for Amici Curiae
`Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Samsung Telecommunications America,
`LLC
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`Certificate of Interest
`
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC certifies the
`following to the best of his knowledge:
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.
`
`The names of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is
`not the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`N/A
`
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`
`or more of the stock of the party or amici curiae represented by me are:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.: None
`
`For Samsung Electronics America, Inc.: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`For Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC: Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
`
`the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are
`
`expected to appear in this court are:
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US): Aaron G. Fountain, Brian K. Erickson, and Mark D.
`
`
`
`
`Fowler
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Erickson
`Brian Erickson
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 05/04/2015
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST ............................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Affirming the Board’s Decision Under Phillips Would Best Serve
`the Public Interest ......................................................................................... 5
`NetBIOS and WINS Both Expressly Disclose the Claimed “Process” ....... 6
`1.
`NetBIOS and WINS’s Disclosures of Processing Units
`Expressly Disclose the Claimed “Processes” .................................... 7
`NetBIOS and WINS’s Disclosure of NetBIOS Applications
`Expressly Disclose the Claimed “Processes” .................................. 10
`The Board Did Not Commit Reversible Error By Not
`Explicitly Construing “Process” ..................................................... 14
`The Board’s Construction of “Connected to the Computer Network”
`Should Be Affirmed Under Phillips ........................................................... 16
`1.
`The Claim Language Does Not Support Straight Path’s
`Temporal Requirement .................................................................... 17
`Straight Path’s “Temporal Requirement” Directly Contradicts
`the Teachings and Language of the Specification .......................... 18
`The Prosecution History, Wherein Straight Path’s Proposed
`Construction Was Expressly Rejected, Supports The Board’s
`Construction Under Phillips ............................................................ 24
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 05/04/2015
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................19
`
`Bancorp. Servcs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur Co.
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................3
`
`Elkay Mfg. v. Ebco Mfg.
`192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................8, 24
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................................................8
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................................................................................5
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .........................................................................................17
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................................8
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.
`498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................3, 7, 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................. passim
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc.
`21 F. App’x 910 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................6
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .........................................................................................3
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-Cor Inc.
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .........................................................................................9
`
`Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex, Inc.
`746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................11
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`C.A. No. 6:13-cv-00606 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Aug. 23, 2013) .......................................1
`
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 05/04/2015
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................................11
`
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST
`Appellant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”) accuses amici
`
`curiae Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) of
`
`infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”) and related patents in the
`
`United States District Court action styled Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 6:13-cv-00606 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Aug. 23, 2013).
`
`Straight Path’s case against Samsung is stayed pending the outcome of this appeal
`
`and the inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”) listed below.
`
`1. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 by
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., IPR2014-01366 (filed August 22,
`2014);
`
`2. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 by
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., IPR2014-01367 (filed August 22,
`2014);
`
`3. Petition for inter partes review of U.S. patent No. 6,131,121 by
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., IPR2014-01368 (filed August 22,
`2014).
`
`Samsung is the real-party-in-interest to these IPRs and its litigation with
`
`Straight Path. Straight Path and Appellee SipNet EU S.R.O. (“SipNet”) both stated
`
`that each of these matters may be affected by this appeal. (Appellant Br. ix, x;
`
`Appellee Br. viii, ix.) Because the claim construction and invalidity issues
`
`presented in this appeal are central to each Samsung dispute with Straight Path,
`
`Samsung submits this brief as amici curiae to clarify and present additional
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 7 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`reasons for affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written
`
`decision that the Parties have either not directly addressed or completely ignored.1
`
`A motion for leave to file accompanies this brief. Counsel for Straight Path
`
`opposes Samsung’s motion for leave and will file an opposition. Counsel for
`
`SipNet consents to Samsung’s motion for leave to file.
`
`II.
`The present appeal comes to the Court from merely one of a dozen pending
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`litigations and IPRs involving the ’704 patent and patents that claim priority to it.
`
`Straight Path has asserted the ’704 patent against Samsung and numerous other
`
`companies in the video streaming industry. The Court’s decision in this appeal is
`
`therefore likely to affect a number of companies, many of whom, like Samsung,
`
`have not yet had their day in court or before the Board.
`
`The Board’s decision below was that two prior art references, NetBIOS
`
`(A0702-A1235) and WINS (A1236-A1525), both anticipate claims 1-7 and 32-42.
`
`To reach that decision, the Board (1) explicitly addressed the claim construction
`
`issues identified by Straight Path in its appeal and (2) identified express disclosure
`
`of the construed claim limitations in the NetBIOS and WINS prior art references.
`
`
`1 No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party or party’s
`counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this
`brief. No person—other than Samsung, its members or its counsel—contributed
`money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
`- 2 -
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 8 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`Both of the Board’s conclusions are directly at issue in Samsung’s (and other
`
`companies’) IPRs and litigation with Straight Path.
`
`While the Court is of course obligated to decide the case presented to it, it is
`
`axiomatic that the Court “review[s] decisions, not opinions.” Ormco Corp. v.
`
`Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen we are able to
`
`fully comprehend the specification, prosecution history, and claims and can
`
`determine that … the district court arrived at the correct conclusion, we need not
`
`exalt form over substance and vacate what is essentially a correct decision.”) And
`
`the Court is not bound by claim constructions or claim construction arguments
`
`presented by the parties to this appeal. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306,
`
`1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the court has an independent obligation to
`
`construe the terms of a patent, we need not accept the constructions proposed by
`
`either party ….”); Bancorp. Servcs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur Co., 687 F.3d 1266,
`
`1274 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Just as a district court may construe the claims in a way
`
`that neither party advocates, we may depart from the district court and adopt a new
`
`construction on appeal.” (internal citation omitted)).
`
`Because the Court’s decision in this appeal is likely to affect Samsung’s
`
`(and other companies’) disputes with Straight Path, Samsung submits this amici
`
`curiae brief to present three arguments supporting affirmance of the Board’s
`
`decision in the manner that will most efficiently conserve the resources of the
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 9 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`Board, Samsung, and the many parties currently in disputes with Straight Path.
`
`The arguments presented by Samsung are apparent from the current record, but all
`
`three are unaddressed by one or both of the parties to this appeal. Samsung urges
`
`the Court to give full consideration to these arguments when issuing its decision
`
`that could have wide applicability beyond the instant case.
`
`First, the Court should make clear that the patents are invalid even if the
`
`Phillips claim construction standard applies. The ’704 patent and its related
`
`patents will expire September 25, 2014, (Appellants Br. 29), and the Board will
`
`apply Phillips in the IPRs filed by Samsung and other parties sued by Straight Path
`
`after SipNet. Applying Phillips now will make clear that the resolution of this
`
`appeal should bind Straight Path in the subsequent IPRs.
`
`Second, the Board found that the prior art of record expressly discloses the
`
`“process” limitation, even under the construction Straight Path seeks here. The file
`
`history of the ’704 patent and the relevant portions of the prior art references cited
`
`by the Board confirms that the Board was correct. Despite the obvious relevance
`
`of this part of the Board’s analysis, Straight Path attempts to obfuscate the Board’s
`
`analysis and SipNet does not address it.
`
`Third, the Phillips claim construction standard urged by Straight Path on
`
`appeal does not support the “temporal requirement” that Straight Path seeks to read
`
`into the limitation “connected to the computer network.” Neither party applies the
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 10 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`claim construction principles espoused in Phillips to address Straight Path’s
`
`proposed construction of this term.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Affirming the Board’s Decision Under Phillips Would Best Serve the
`Public Interest
`
`Because the ’704 patent will expire on September 25, 2015, the parties
`
`dispute whether this Court should apply the claim construction standard of Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) or the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation as applied by In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). This dispute is immaterial, as both standards lead to affirmance.
`
`However, the Court could apply Phillips, by holding that it applies to these facts or
`
`by assumption without decision, to affirm the Board’s decision for at least three
`
`reasons.
`
`First, as shown below, the claims are invalid under the Phillips standard for
`
`claim construction urged by Straight Path. The NetBIOS and WINS references
`
`disclose a process under any construction of the term, and the well-accepted
`
`methodologies and principles articulated by Phillips do not support Straight Path’s
`
`attempt to read a temporal requirement into the term “connected to the computer
`
`network.”
`
`Second, although the parties differ as to which claim construction standard
`
`should apply, neither party explains how the application of either standard would
`
`WEST\258337874.10
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1212 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 32 Page: 11 Filed: 05/04/2015
`
`
`affect the result. For example, Straight Path explicitly argues, “Under either
`
`standard, however, the proper construction and the applicable fundamental issues
`
`are the same.” (Appellant Br. at 29.) The Court should therefore make clear that
`
`the Board’s decision is affirmed applying the narrow standard.
`
`Third, by explicitly affirming the Board’s decision under the Phillips
`
`standard, the Court will foreclose Straight Path from wastefully rearguing the
`
`issues currently befor