UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEM ARK OFFICE
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`BEFO RE TH E PATENT TRIALAND APPEALBO ARD
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`SAM SUNG ELECTRO NICS CO ., LTD.,
`SAM SUNG ELECTRO NICS AM ERICA, INC.,
`SAM SUNG TELECO M M UNICATIO NS AM ERICA, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEM S, INC., and AVAYA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGH T PATH IPGRO UP, INC.
`PatentO wner
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`CaseNo. IPR2014-013681
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`PATENT O W NER’S RESPO NSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`1 IPR2015-01006 hasbeenjoined withthisproceeding.
`
`
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`BEFO RE TH E PATENT TRIALAND APPEALBO ARD
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`SAM SUNG ELECTRO NICS CO ., LTD.,
`SAM SUNG ELECTRO NICS AM ERICA, INC.,
`SAM SUNG TELECO M M UNICATIO NS AM ERICA, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEM S, INC., and AVAYA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGH T PATH IPGRO UP, INC.
`PatentO wner
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`CaseNo. IPR2014-013681
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`PATENT O W NER’S RESPO NSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`1 IPR2015-01006 hasbeenjoined withthisproceeding.
`
`
`
`TABLE OFCONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction......................................................................................................1
`
`Background And O verview O fThe’121 Patent.............................................2
`
`A.
`
`TheProblemsAnd SolutionsIdentified ByThe’121 Patent...............3
`
`1.
`
`TheProblem Identified ByThe’121 Patent: Determining
`
`W hetherA ComputerProgram IsCurrentlyO n-Line,
`
`And IfSo, ItsAddressAtTheTimeTheConnectionIs
`
`Sought.........................................................................................3
`
`2.
`
`The’121 Patent’sSolution: AnInternetProtocolThat
`
`TracksTheCurrentO n-lineStatusO fA Computer
`
`Program And ItsCurrentNetworkAddress...............................4
`
`B.
`
`TheChallenged ’121 PatentClaims......................................................8
`
`1.
`
`Thechallenged claimsconcernscomputerprograms, not
`
`computers....................................................................................8
`
`2.
`
`Thechallenged claimsconcernthedeterminationof
`
`whethera processiscurrentlyconnected tothecomputer
`
`network, notwhetheritwaspreviouslyconnected...................10
`
`C.
`
`The’121 Patent’sProsecutionH istory...............................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`TheO riginalProsecution..........................................................12
`
`TheExParteReexaminations...................................................13
`i
`
`
`
`III. TheM icrosoftM anualand NetBIO S References.........................................14
`
`A.
`
`NetBIO S and M icrosoftM anualbothdisclosea nameserverfor
`
`registeringthenameofa computer, nota computerapplication........14
`
`B.
`
`NeitherNetBIO S norM icrosoftM anualdisclosesa meansfor
`
`determiningwhethera computerisactuallyconnected tothe
`
`networkatthetimeanothercomputerseekstocommunicate
`
`withit...................................................................................................16
`
`IV. Claim Constructions......................................................................................21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TheM aterialClaim ConstructionIssuesFacingTheBoard...............21
`
`TheCorrectClaim ConstructionAnalysisUnderTheDistrict
`
`CourtStandard.....................................................................................22
`
`V.
`
`Samsung’sReferencesDoNotDiscloseThe“Process”Elements
`
`Found InAllChallenged Claims...................................................................25
`
`A.
`
`SamsungH asNotO vercomeTheH eavyPresumptionThat
`
`“Process”Should BeGivenItsO rdinaryM eaning.............................26
`
`1.
`
`Samsung’sConstructionof“Process”IsInconsistent
`
`W ithItsO rdinaryM eaningAnd TheClaims...........................27
`
`ii
`
`
`
`2.
`
`TheApplicantsDid NotRedefineO rDisclaim “Process”
`
`InThe’121 Patent’sSpecificationO rProsecution
`
`H istory.......................................................................................28
`
`B.
`
`SamsungFailed ToProveThatTheM icrosoftM anualand
`
`NetBIO S DisclosetheClaimed “Process”Elements..........................31
`
`VI.
`
`Samsung’sReferencesDoNotDiscloseThe“IsConnected ToThe
`
`Network”/”O n-LineStatus”Elements..........................................................36
`
`A.
`
`SamsungH asNotO vercomeTheH eavyPresumptionThat“Is
`
`Connected totheComputerNetwork”And “O n-lineStatus”
`
`Should BeGivenTheirO rdinaryM eaning.........................................37
`
`1.
`
`TheO rdinaryM eaning“IsConnected ToTheComputer
`
`Network”And “O n-lineStatus”DoesNotIncluded
`
`Registered W itha Server..........................................................38
`
`2.
`
`SamsungAnd ItsExpertAdmitThatThePatenteesDid
`
`NotDisclaim O rSpeciallyDefineTheO rdinaryM eaning
`
`of“O n-LineStatus”or“IsConnected ToTheComputer
`
`Network”...................................................................................42
`
`B.
`
`SamsungFailed ToProveThatNetBIO S and theM icrosoft
`
`M anualDiscloseThe“IsConnected ToTheNetwork”And
`
`“O n-LineStatus”Elements.................................................................49
`
`iii
`
`
`
`VII. Samsung’sRemainingProposed ConstructionsAreNotM aterialTo
`
`TheIPR ..........................................................................................................53
`
`VIII. Conclusion.....................................................................................................55
`
`iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OFAUTH ORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`ACTV, Inc. v. WaltDisneyCompany,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................41
`
`AventisPharmaS.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................23, 24
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................24
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 19 9 9 )..........................................................................41
`
`InreRambusInc.,
`69 4 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................22
`
`K-2 Corp. v. SalomonS.A.,
`19 1 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 19 9 9 )..........................................................................24
`
`LaryngealMaskCo. Ltd. v. Ambu,
`618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................24
`
`Phillipsv. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................22
`
`Thornerv. SonyComputerEntm’tAm. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...................................................................passim
`
`ToshibaCorp. v. ImationCorp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................24, 42
`
`v
`
`
`
`PATENT OW NER’SUPDATED EXH IBIT LIST
`CASE IPR2014-01368
`
`Description
`CopyofWonderlandNurserygoodsCo. v. ThorleyIndus., LLC,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148788 (W .D. Pa. O ct. 20, 2014)
`FileH istoryforReexam ControlNo. 9 0/010,422
`JointClaim ConstructionAnd PrehearingStatement
`CopyofStraightPathIPGroup, Inc. v. Bandwidth.com, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2539 4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2014)
`ICTv. Vivox(2:12-cv-00007)and ICTv. StalkerSoftware(2:12-cv-
`00009 ), O pinionand O rder(E.D. Va. O ct. 26, 2012)
`Excerptfrom DictionaryofComputerW ords(Rev. ed. 19 9 4)
`Excerptfrom Que’sComputer&
`InternetDictionary(6thed. 19 9 5)
`Excerptfrom M icrosoftComputerDictionary(4thed. 19 9 9 )
`DeclarationofM ichaelC. NewmaninSupportofUnopposed
`M otionforProH ac ViceAdmission
`BiographyofM ichaelC. Newman
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121 [IncludingReexam Certificate]
`Reserved
`Reserved
`19 9 0–19 9 4: W indows3.0–W indowsNT— Gettingthegraphics
`2015 O ld ComputerM useum - M icrosoftW indowsNT 3.5
`Reserved
`M odifyingW INS ServerDefaults
`"M icrosoftmakesitsmovewithW indowsNT SDK". InfoW orld 14
`(28): 1, 9 2.
`Reserved
`W hatisstatus?(computerhope.com)
`M icrosoftComputerDictionary(19 9 7)–“process”and “status”
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`2022
`2023
`
`Description
`5-26-2015 DepositionTranscriptofDr. H enryH ouh
`DeclarationofDr. StuartStubblebine(6/8/15)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`IntheBoard’sInstitutionInterPartesReview (PaperNo. 12, “Institution
`
`Decision”), itinstituted interpartesreview ofStraightPathIPGroup’sU.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,131,121 ononlythefollowingGround, references, and claimsidentified in
`
`Samsung’sPetition:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`ChallengedClaims
`
`1
`
`M icrosoftM anual&
`NetBIO S
`
`§103(a)
`
`6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14
`
`Samsunghasnotmetitsburdenofprovinganyofthesechallenged claims
`
`areunpatentableunderthisGround foratleastthefollowingreasons:
`
`
`
`“Process”vs. Computer: Samsung’sownexpert, Dr. H enryH ouh,
`
`admitted athisdepositionthateachclaimed “process”elementshould beconstrued
`
`asan“application,”nota computerasSamsungproposes. Dr. H ouhalsoadmitted
`
`thatthattheNetBIO S/M icrosoftregistrationsystem relied onbySamsungforthese
`
`“process”elementscanregisteronlya computer, nota “process”/applicationas
`
`required byallofthechallenged claims.
`
`
`
`“IsConnected”vs. Registration: Dr. H ouhalsoadmitted that,
`
`contrarytoSamsung’sproposed construction, allofthechallenged claimsrequirea
`
`queryastowhethera processisconnected tothecomputernetworkatthetimeof
`
`thequery, whichthereferencesadmittedlycannotdo.
`
`1
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`II.
`
`BackgroundAndOverview OfThe’121 Patent
`
`The’121 patentconcernsa system forenabling“realtimepoint-to-point
`
`communications”betweenrunningcomputerprogramsand applicationsconnected
`
`tothesamecomputernetwork, suchasprogramsand applicationsforallowing
`
`“realtimevideoteleconferencing”orother“point-to-pointcommunicationsin
`
`realtimeofvoiceand video.”(Ex. 2011(U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121)at2:32-40,
`
`9 :19 -28, 10:5-13). M anydifferentcomputerprogramscanbeinstalled ona
`
`computer, butnotallofthem aretypicallyrunningand availableatthesametime.
`
`(Ex. 2023 (DeclarationofDr. StuartStubblebine)at¶12). Atanygiventime, even
`
`ifa computerisitselfconnected toa networksuchastheInternet(i.e., is“on-
`
`line”), atleastsomeofthecomputer’sprogramsmaystillbeoff-lineand
`
`unavailableforcommunicationoverthenetwork. (Id.;seealsoEx. 2022 at63:5-
`
`64:13). Becausereal-timepoint-to-pointcommunicationsbetweencomputer
`
`programscanonlybeestablished betweenprogramsthatareon-lineatthetimethe
`
`desired communicationissought(Ex. 2011 at7:50-53), the’121 patentdisclosesa
`
`realtimepoint-to-pointInternetcommunicationsprotocolthatenables: (1)a first
`
`computerprogram toquerya connectionservertodetermineifa second computer
`
`program iscurrentlyconnected tothenetwork, and (2)ifthesecond computer
`
`program isconnected, toobtainitsexistingnetworkaddresssothatthedesired
`
`point-to-pointcommunicationcanbeestablished atthetimeitissought. (Ex.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`2023 at¶13;Ex. 2011 at3:8-20, 5:10-24, 6:50-7:53, 7:24-53, claims6 –8, 10 –
`
`14).
`
`A.
`
`TheProblemsAndSolutionsIdentifiedByThe’121 Patent
`
`1.
`
`TheProblem IdentifiedByThe’121 Patent: Determining
`W hetherA ComputerProgram IsCurrentlyOn-Line, And
`IfSo, ItsAddressAtTheTimeTheConnectionIsSought.
`
`The’121 patentissued from a continuation-in-partapplicationclaiming
`
`prioritytotheapplicationthatissued asU.S. PatentNo. 6,108,704, whichwasfiled
`
`onSeptember25, 19 9 5, whentheInternetwasinitsinfancy. (Ex. 2011 at1:7-12).
`
`Justtwoyearsbeforethatfilingdatetherewereonlya hundred orsoweb servers
`
`inexistence, and aboutoneyearbeforethefirstliveinternetvideowasinitiated
`
`from a website. (Ex. 2022 at14:14 –15:4). The’121 patentspecificationexplains
`
`thattheincreased popularityofon-lineservicessuchasAmerica O nlinespurred
`
`thedevelopmentofcomputerprogramsthatprovideon-lineservicessuchas
`
`realtimevideoconferencing. (Ex. 2011 at1:61 –2:5, 2:33-41, 9 :19 -28, 10:5-9 ).
`
`Asexplained inthe’121 patent, devicesand computerprogramsproviding
`
`on-lineservicesmaycommunicatewithoneanotherovera networkbyusingtheir
`
`respectivenetwork“addresses”(suchasInternetProtocoladdresses), whichare
`
`used toroutecommunicationstoand from theassociated deviceorcomputer
`
`program. (Ex. 2011 at2:6-10). Thespecificationdescribesthatthepriorartmadeit
`
`possibletocreatepoint-to-pointcommunicationsbetweendevicesand programs
`
`3
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`thathad permanentInternetProtocol(“IP”)addresses. (Ex. 2023 at¶14;Ex. 2011
`
`at2:32-38). Butsomedevicesand computerprogramsdonothavea permanent
`
`and stableaddressontheInternet. Instead, theyrepeatedlylogonand offofthe
`
`Internetand mayreceivea new, temporary(or“dynamicallyallocated”)IPaddress
`
`eachtimetheyreconnecttothenetwork. (Ex. 2023 at¶14;Ex. 2011 2:19 -31,
`
`6:50-64, 7:6-16).
`
`UnlikepermanentIPaddressesthatdonotchange, these“dynamic”IP
`
`addressesmadeitdifficulttoestablishrealtimepoint-to-pointvoiceand video
`
`communicationsbetweencomputerprogramsthat(a)arenotpermanently
`
`connected tothenetworkand (b)mayhavea new, as-yet-unknownIPaddress
`
`whentheyreconnecttothenetwork. (Ex. 2023 at¶15;Ex. 2011 at2:32-42). The
`
`’121 patentsolved thesetwoproblems. (Ex. 2023 at¶16;Ex. 2011 at3:8-20, 6:50
`
`–7:53, 9 :19 -23, 12:7-21, claims6 –11, 13 –14).
`
`2.
`
`The’121 Patent’sSolution: AnInternetProtocolThat
`TracksTheCurrentOn-lineStatusOfA Computer
`Program AndItsCurrentNetworkAddress.
`
`The’121 patentsolved theproblem ofrealtimepoint-to-point
`
`communicationsbetweenvoiceand videocomputerprogramsthatarenot
`
`permanentlyconnected toa networkand mayhavea new, as-yet-unknownIP
`
`addresswhentheyreconnecttoa networkbyprovidinga real-timepoint-to-point
`
`Internetcommunicationsprotocolfor: (1)determiningwhethera specific, targeted
`
`4
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`computerprogram iscurrentlyrunningand connected toa network;
`
`(2)determiningthatcomputerprogram’saddressonthenetworkatthetimethe
`
`communicationissought;and (3)establishinga point-to-pointcommunication
`
`withthatcomputerprogram. (Ex. 2011 at3:8-20, 6:50 –7:53, 9 :19 -23, 12:7-21,
`
`claims6 –11, 13 –14;seealsoEx. 2022 at14-21).
`
`Inoneembodiment, thedisclosed protocolworksasfollows: a firstuserwho
`
`isconnected totheInternetorothercomputernetwork(thecaller)and whowishes
`
`tocommunicatewithanotheruserovertheInternetlaunchesa program onher
`
`computerorherPersonalDigitalAssistant(“PDA”)and connectsthatprogram to
`
`thenetwork. (Ex. 2023 at¶¶17;Ex. 2011 at5:10-16, 5:61-67, 6:56-59 , 11:58-62).
`
`Thisprogram, whichcanbewritteninC+ + , thentransmitsitsIPaddresstoa
`
`“connectionserver,”which, amongotherthings, maythendeterminewhetherother
`
`programsareon-lineand availableforcommunication, and ifso, facilitate
`
`communicationsbetweendifferenton-lineprograms. (Ex. 2023 at¶¶17, 26;Ex.
`
`2011 at5:10-24, 6:60-66, 7:24-53, 11:58 –12:6). From thisinitialtransmission, the
`
`connectionserverobtainsand storesthefirstuser’sthen-currentdynamic IP
`
`addressina database. (Ex. 2023 at¶17;Ex. 2011 at6:60-66). Thisinitial
`
`transmissionalsoestablishesthefirstuser’scomputerprogram asan“activeon-
`
`lineparty”intheconnectionserverdatabase. (Ex. 2023 at¶17;Ex. 2011 at6:66 –
`
`7:3, 7:24-29 , 7:38-53).
`
`5
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`Butthefirstuser’scomputerprogram maylaterdisconnectfrom the
`
`network, and thereforenolongerbean“activeon-lineparty”availablefora point-
`
`to-pointcommunication. (Ex. 2023 at¶18;Ex. 2011 at7:38-51). Accordingly, to
`
`enabledeterminingwhethertheuser’sprogram isactuallyconnected tothe
`
`networkand availableforcommunicationata particulartime, thespecification
`
`disclosesthat“[w]hena userlogsofforgoesoff-linefrom theInternet24, the
`
`connectionserver26 updatesthestatusoftheuserinthedatabase34;forexample
`
`byremovingtheuser’sinformation.” (Ex. 2023 at¶18;Ex. 2011 at7:43-51). The
`
`connectionservercould alsousea statusflagtoidentifythata registered program
`
`isoffline. (Ex. 2011 at7:43-51) Theuser’sstatusisupdated whenshelogsoff
`
`becausethereal-timepoint-to-pointInternetcommunicationsdisclosed inthe
`
`patentrequirethatusersbeconnected totheInternetatthetimethedesired
`
`communicationissought, and “anoff-lineuseriseffectivelydisabled from making
`
`and/orreceivingpoint-to-pointInternetcommunications.” (Id.)
`
`Likethefirstuser, a second user(thecallee)mayalsostarta computer
`
`program onhisconnected computerorPDA, therebystoringhisthen-currentIP
`
`addressintheconnectionserverdatabaseand establishinghiscomputerprogram as
`
`activeand on-line. (Ex. 2023 at¶19 ;Ex. 2011 at7:3-7, 11:58-62). Thefirst
`
`user’scomputerprogram canattempttoinitiatea point-to-pointconnectionwith
`
`6
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`thesecond user’scomputerprogram bysendinga requesttotheconnectionserver.
`
`(Ex. 2023 at¶19 ;Ex. 2011 at5:10-17, 7:14-26, 11:59 -62, 12:11-16).
`
`Inresponsetothefirstuser’srequest, theconnectionserverwillsearchits
`
`databasetodetermineifthesecond user’scomputerprogram ison-line. (Ex. 2023
`
`at¶19 ;Ex. 2011 at7:27-29 , 12:11-21). Ifitison-line, theconnectionserverwill
`
`thenforward theIPaddressofthesecond user’scomputerprogram tothefirst
`
`user’scomputerprogram, whichthenusesthatIPaddresstoestablishthepoint-to-
`
`pointcommunicationbetweenitselfand thesecond user’sprogram (without
`
`intermediationbytheconnectionserver). (Ex. 2023 at¶19 ;Ex. 2011 at5:10-17,
`
`7:29 -37, 11:62-12:3, 12:16-21). If, however, thesecond user’scomputerprogram
`
`isnoton-lineatthetimethefirstcomputerprogram makesitsquery, thenthe
`
`connectionserverchecksitsdatabase, determinesthatthesecond computer
`
`program isnotcurrentlyon-line, and sendsthefirstuser’sprogram an“off-line”
`
`signalormessage. (Ex. 2023 at¶20;Ex. 2011 at7:38-53, 11:62 –12:6). The
`
`connectionserverwillsend thefirstuser’scomputerprogram an“off-line”signal
`
`ormessagewhenthesecond user’sprogram isnotcurrentlyconnected tothe
`
`networkand isflagged asoff-line, evenifthatsecond program’snameand address
`
`remainstored in(orregistered with)theconnectionserver. (Ex. 2023 at¶20;Ex.
`
`2011 at7:38-53, 11:62 –12:6). Thus, asdescribed inthe’121 patentspecification,
`
`whethera computerprogram iscurrentlyconnected tothenetworkoron-lineisnot
`
`7
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`and cannotbedetermined bywhetheritsnameand addressareregistered witha
`
`connectionserver, fortheprogram maybesoregistered and yetbeoff-line. (Ex.
`
`2011 at7:38-53).
`
`B.
`
`TheChallenged’121 PatentClaims.
`
`Samsungchallengesthepatentabilityofindependentclaims6, 8, 10, 11, 13,
`
`and 14. Eachchallenged claim concernsa method, apparatus, orcomputerprogram
`
`productforestablishinga point-to-pointcommunicationbetweena first“process”
`
`and a second “process.”Eachchallenged claim concernscommunicationsbetween
`
`processes, notcomputers, and eachconcernsdeterminingwhetherthoseprocesses
`
`arecurrentlyon-line, notwhethertheywereon-lineatsomeundetermined point
`
`inthepast. (SeeEx. 2011 atclaims6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14).
`
`1.
`
`Thechallengedclaimsconcernscomputerprograms, not
`computers.
`Allthechallenged claimsconcernprocesses— computerprogramsor
`
`applications— notthecomputersonwhichthoseprocessesmay(ormaynot)be
`
`running. (SeeEx. 2011 atclaims6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14). Forexample, claim 6
`
`describesa “computerprogram productforusewitha computersystem capableof
`
`executinga firstprocessand connectingtootherprocesses,”wherethecomputer
`
`program productincludes, amongotherthings, program codeto“forward tothe
`
`serverprocessa dynamicallyassigned networkprotocoladdressatwhichthefirst
`
`8
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`processisconnected tothecomputernetwork,”“receivea dynamicallyassigned
`
`networkprotocoladdressofthesecond processfrom theaddressserver,”and
`
`“establisha point-to-pointcommunicationlinkwiththesecond processoverthe
`
`computernetwork.”
`
`Samsung’sownexpert, Dr. H ouh, admitted athisdepositionthat, contraryto
`
`Samsung’scurrentargumentthat“process”means“computer,”“process”should
`
`beconstrued tomeana “a runninginstanceofa computerprogram orapplication.”
`
`(Ex. 2022 at19 2:21 –19 3:15).
`
`Samsungitselfpreviouslyadmitted thesamething. StraightPathhas
`
`accused Samsungofinfringingthe’121 patentintheUnited StatesDistrictCourt
`
`fortheEasternDistrictofTexas(CivilActionNo. 6:13-cv-00604). O nSeptember
`
`12, 2014, thepartiessubmitted totheDistrictCourta “JointClaim Construction
`
`And PrehearingStatement,”inwhichSamsungagreed thatthecorrectconstruction
`
`oftheclaim term “process”isa “runninginstanceofa computerprogram or
`
`application.”(Ex. 2003 at10, JointClaim ConstructionAnd PrehearingStatement,
`
`ExhibitA). ThisisthesameconstructionthatStraightPathproposeshere, and itis
`
`directlyatoddswiththeconstructionof“process”onwhichSamsungnow bases
`
`allofitsGroundsforinvalidity.
`
`Thecorrectconstructionof“process”iscurrentlyatissueinStraightPath’s
`
`appealoftheBoard’sFinalW rittenDecisionintheinterpartesreview ofthe’704
`
`9
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`patentbroughtbySipnetEU S.R.O . (“Sipnet”)(App. No. 15-1212). O nappeal,
`
`SipnetconcedestotheFederalCircuitthatStraightPath’sconstructionof
`
`“process”iscorrect, that“a processisnotitselfa computerbuta program running
`
`ona computer.”(PaperNo. 22, AttachmentA (“SipnetO pp. Br.”)at17). Sipnet
`
`alsoadmitsthatStraightPath’sconstructionis“consistentwiththeordinary
`
`meaningoftheterms‘process’asitisused intheart.”(Id.)
`
`Thecorrectconstructionof“process”wasalsoaddressed inseveralother
`
`priorlawsuits. InStraightPathIPGroup, Inc. v. Bandwidth.com, Inc., 2014 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 2539 4, at*13 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2014)(Ex. 2004), thedistrictcourt
`
`construed “process”inU.S. PatentNo. 6,513,066, a continuationofthe’704 patent
`
`application, asa “runninginstanceofa computerprogram orapplication.”InICT
`
`v. Vivox(2:12-cv-00007)and ICTv. StalkerSoftware(2:12-cv-00009 ), theparties
`
`agreed that“theclaim term ‘process,’found throughoutthepatents-in-suit, means
`
`“a runninginstanceofa computerprogram orapplication.”(Ex. 2005 at3, O ctober
`
`26, 2012 O pinionAnd O rder).
`
`2.
`
`Thechallengedclaimsconcernthedeterminationof
`whetheraprocessiscurrentlyconnectedtothecomputer
`network, notwhetheritwaspreviouslyconnected.
`
`Thechallenged claimsconcerna determinationofwhetherthetargetprocess
`
`withwhichthecallerwishestocommunicateiscurrentlyconnected tothe
`
`computernetwork(iscurrently“on-line”)notwhethertheprocesswasconnected
`
`10
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`atsomeprevioustime. (SeeEx. 2011 atclaims6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14). For
`
`example, theproductofclaim 6 queries“theaddressserverastowhetherthe
`
`second processisconnected tothecomputernetwork”and receivesthesecond
`
`process’sdynamic address“whenthesecond processisconnected tothenetwork.”
`
`ContrarytoSamsung’sproposaland IPR, itsexpert, Dr. H ouhadmitted at
`
`hisdepositionthatthe’121 patentclaimsrequirea queryastothewhethera
`
`processisconnected tothecomputernetworkatthetimeofthequery. (Ex. 2022 at
`
`14-21).
`
`Thisclaim constructiondisputeiscurrentlyatissueinStraightPath’sappeal
`
`oftheBoard’sFinalW rittenDecisionintheSipnetIPR onthe’704 patent. Like
`
`thechallenged ’121 patentclaims, the’704 patentclaimsatissueintheappeal
`
`includelimitationssuchasa queryto“theaddressserverastowhetherthesecond
`
`processisconnected tothecomputernetwork”and receivingthesecond process’s
`
`dynamic address“whenthesecond processisconnected tothenetwork.”Inlight
`
`oftheselimitations, onappeal, Sipnethasconceded totheFederalCircuitthatthe
`
`“challenged claimsthemselves. . . disclose[]‘(1)determiningwhethera specific,
`
`targeted computerprogram iscurrentlyrunningand connected toa network.’”
`
`(SipnetO pp. Br. at17 (quotingStraightPath’sopeningbrief)).
`
`C.
`
`The’121 Patent’sProsecutionH istory
`
`The’121 patentissued from a continuation-in-partapplicationclaiming
`
`11
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`prioritytotheapplicationthatissued asthe’704 patent, whichwasfiled on
`
`September25, 19 9 5. The’121 patentispartofa familyofpatentsclaimingpriority
`
`totheSeptember25, 19 9 5 filing, includingU.S. PatentNo. 6,009 ,469 . Likethe
`
`’121 patent, therelated ’704 and ’121 patentsarethesubjectsofco-pendingIPRs
`
`filed bySamsung.
`
`1.
`
`TheOriginalProsecution
`
`Duringtheoriginalprosecutionofthe’121 patentapplication, theapplicants
`
`madeexplicittheirintenttoclaim determiningthecurrenton-linestatusand
`
`addressesofprocessesratherthancomputers, amendingalloftheclaimsand
`
`advisingtheexaminerthat“alloccurrencesof‘processors’havebeenchanged to
`
`‘process’.”(Ex. 1002 at349 -355, 366 –Sept. 7, 19 9 9 Amendment& Responseat
`
`1-7, 18). Theapplicantsalsoexplained thatintheirsystem “[o]therprocesses
`
`wishingtocontacta desiredtargetprocesssimplyquerytheaddressdirectory
`
`servertodeterminewhetherthetargetprocessison-lineand thecurrentnetwork
`
`protocoladdressatwhichthetargetprocessislocated.”(Ex. 1002 at367-368 –
`
`Sept. 7, 19 9 9 Amendment& Responseat19 -20)(emphasisadded). Applicants
`
`alsostated thatthepriorart“doesnotteachorsuggestApplicants’inventive
`
`client/servicesystem inwhichtheclientprocessesthemselvesupdatethe
`
`databasewiththeircurrentinformation.”(Ex. 1002 at369 –Sept. 7, 19 9 9
`
`Amendment& Responseat21)(emphasisadded).
`
`12
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`TheExParteReexaminations
`2.
`O nFebruary23, 2009 , expartereexaminationrequestswerefiled forthe
`
`’121, ’469 , and ’704 patents. Duringtheresultingreexaminations, applicantsand
`
`thePTO addressed theclaim elementsconcerningtheon-linestatusofa process.
`
`Ineachreexamination, applicantssubmitted anexpertdeclarationfrom Ketan
`
`M ayer-Patelexplainingthatthenameregistrationsystem disclosed intheNetBIO S
`
`referencedoesnotteachtheon-linestatuselementofthepatentclaims:
`
`W hileNetBIO S usesnameentrieswith‘active’statusesaspart
`ofitsnamemanagementprocess, ananalysisofhow that“active”
`statusisused showsthat“anactivename”isnotsynonymouswith
`“anon-linestatus”withrespecttothecomputernetwork. Anactive
`namesimplyreferstoa namethathasbeenregistered and thathasnot
`yetbeende-registered, independentofwhethertheassociated
`computerisorisnot-on-line.
`
`(Ex. 1003, Part2 –FileH istoryforReexam ControlNo. 9 0/01024 at1071-1072,
`
`DeclarationofKetanM ayer-PatelUnder37 C.F.R. 1.132 at7-8, ¶25)(emphasis
`
`added).
`
`ThePTO affirmed thepatentabilityofthechallenged claims. Inthe
`
`reexaminationoftherelated ’469 patent, thePTO agreed thatthe“NetBIO S name
`
`registrationsystem doesnotmeanthata ‘firstcalleeprocessisaccessible’asname
`
`registrationisoftenpermanentand thecorrespondencebetweennameand IP
`
`13
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`addresswould notalwaysbeindicativeofaccessibility.”(Ex. 2002, Part1 at130,
`
`FileH istoryforReexam ControlNo. 9 0/010422, Jul. 20, 2010 ExParte
`
`ReexaminationAdvisoryActionat2).
`
`III. TheM icrosoftM anualandNetBIOSReferences
`
`TheNetBIO S and M icrosoftM anualreferencesgenerallydescribethesame
`
`relevantnameservertechnology: NetBIO S concernsa theoreticalnameserver,
`
`whileM icrosoftM anual, whichdisclosesthe“W indowsInternetNameService”
`
`(“W INS”), concernsthatsamenameserverimplemented witha W indowsNT
`
`computer. (Ex. 2023 at¶53;SeeEx. 1012 at4, 11-12, 61 (“W INS isa NetBIO S
`
`overTCP/IPmodeofoperationdefined inRFC 1001/1002 asp-node”);Ex. 1012
`
`at65 (“W INS consistsoftwocomponents: theW INS server, whichhandlesname
`
`queriesand registering, and theclientsoftware, whichqueriesforcomputername
`
`resolution”);66-67;Ex. 1003 at384-5;seealsoStraightPathIPGroup, Inc. v.
`
`SipnetEU S.R.O ., CaseNo. IPR-2013-00246, PaperNo. 62 at22 (“W INS, an
`
`implementationofNetBIO S”);Ex. 2022 at20:3-12).
`
`A.
`
`NetBIOSandM icrosoftM anualbothdiscloseanameserverfor
`registeringthenameofacomputer, notacomputerapplication.
`
`TheM icrosoftM anualreferenceexplainsthepurposeofa nameserver:
`
`computerusersprefertousecomputernamesinstead ofIPaddresses, sothename
`
`serverallowsuserstoidentifya computerusinga uniquenamebutstillbeableto
`
`14
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`determinethatcomputer’sIPaddresstoenablecommunication. (Ex. 1012 at61;
`
`Ex. 1004 at¶¶37-41). Tothatend, NetBIO S and M icrosoftM anualdescribea
`
`wayforcomputerstoclaim names, tomanageconflictsthatcanarisewhen
`
`computersonthesamenetworkclaim orhavethesamename, and tomap
`
`computernamestotheircorrespondingIPaddresses. (See, e.g., Ex. 1014 at379 ,
`
`384-5, 39 5-6, 408-10, 416-8;Ex. 1012 at61-3, 64-5, 67-8, 122;Ex. 1004 at¶¶37-
`
`40).
`
`Forexample, M icrosoftM anualdescribesthatthe“W indowsInternetName
`
`service(W INS)[is]fordynamicallyregisteringand queryingcomputernameson
`
`aninternetwork”and isa “nameresolutionserviceforeasy, centralized
`
`managementofcomputername-to-IPaddressresolutioninmedium and large
`
`internetworks.”(Ex. 1012 at4, 11 (emphasisadded);Ex. 2023 at¶38). M icrosoft
`
`M anualthusdescribesthepurposeofW INS astheregistrationand resolutionof
`
`computer(alsoknownasa “node”)names:
`
` “Registrationistheprocessused toacquirea uniquenameforeachnode
`
`(computersystem)onthenetwork.”
`
` “Resolutionistheprocessused todeterminethespecific addressfora
`
`computername.”
`
`(Ex. 1012 at62)(emphasisadded);Ex. 2023 at¶39 -41).
`
`15
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`NetBIO S similarlydescribesthatitisthe“dominantmechanism forpersonal
`
`computernetworking”and thatithas“generallybeenconfined topersonal
`
`computers”butcanalsobeapplied to“largercomputers.”(Ex. 1014 at375).
`
`NetBIO S thenreferstothesecomputersas“stations”or“nodes”and describesthe
`
`registrationand resolutionproceduresforcomputers/stations/nodes: “Beforea
`
`namemaybeused, thenamemustberegistered bya node.”(Id. at39 5).
`
`TheM icrosoftM anualand NetBIO S referencesthusdescribethatthename
`
`registrationsystem theydiscloseconcernstheregistrationofthenamesand IP
`
`addressesofcomputers(alsocalled “nodes”or“stations”inthereferences), and
`
`theydonotdescribea system forregisteringnamesforindividualcomputer
`
`programsrunningonthosecomputers. (See, e.g., Ex. 1012 at4, 11, 62;Ex. 1014 at
`
`375, 39 5-6). Samsung’sexpert, Dr. H ouh, admitted thisathisdeposition. (Ex.
`
`2022 at174:12 –175:24).
`
`B.
`
`NeitherNetBIOSnorM icrosoftM anualdisclosesameansfor
`determiningwhetheracomputerisactuallyconnectedtothe
`networkatthetimeanothercomputerseekstocommunicatewith
`it.
`
`NetBIO S and M icrosoftM anualdisclosethat, uponbeingstarted up, a
`
`computercanreceiveanIPaddressand thenattempttoregistera namewitha
`
`nameserver. (Ex. 1012 at61-3, 67-9 ;Ex. 1014 at384-5, 39 5-6). Ifthatregistration
`
`attemptissuccessful— if, forexample, noothercomputerhasalreadyclaimed the
`
`16
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`samename— thenthenameserverwillregisterthatnameforthecomputerand
`
`storethenameand IPaddressina look-uptable. (Ex. 1012 at68-9 ;Ex. 1014 at
`
`39 5, 403-6, 408). W henanothercomputer(callercomputer)wishestoaddressa
`
`communicationtothatregistered computer(thecalleecomputer), thatcaller
`
`computercanprovidethecalleecomputer’snametothenameserver, whichwill
`
`thenlookupand providethestored IPaddresstothecallercomputer. (Ex. 1012 at
`
`60-1, 67-8;Ex. 1014 at407-10).
`
`H owever, theM icrosoftM anualand NetBIO S referencesareclearthata
`
`nameserverdoesnotand cannotdeterminewhetherthecalleecomputeris
`
`currentlyconnected tothenetworkoris“on-line”atthetimethesecond computer
`
`seekstocommunicatewithit. (Ex. 1012 at67-8;Ex. 1014 at416-8). Thereason
`
`forthis, asthesereferencesexplain, isthatthedatabasescontainregistered name-
`
`to-IPaddressmappingsforcomputersthatareoffline. Forexample, thereferences
`
`allow forpermanentstatic computername-to-IP-addressmappingsthatcannot
`
`evenbechallenged orremoved. (Ex. 1012 atp. 131). Also, simplyshuttinga
`
`computeroffordisconnectingitfrom thenetworkdoesnotautomaticallyremove
`
`thecomputer’snamefrom thelook-uptable. (Ex. 1014 at379 (“a commonwayto
`
`stopusinga PC istoturnitoff;inthiscase, thegracefulgive-backmechanism
`
`provided bytheDeleteNamefunction, isnotused. Becausethisoccursfrequently,
`
`thenetworkservicemustsupportthisbehavior.”);Ex. 1012 at67-8 (“[M ]apping
`
`17
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`inthedatabasedoesnotensurethattherelated deviceiscurrentlyrunning, only
`
`thata computerclaimed theparticularIPaddressand itisa currentlyvalid
`
`mapping.”);Ex. 1012 at69 , 149 -50). Indeed, computernamesregistered witha
`
`nameservercanhaveaninfinitelifetimeora pre-setfinitelifetime(onethatmay
`
`berenewed onlyatspecific intervals). (Ex. 1014 at39 7, 413-4;Ex. 1012 at69 ,
`
`113-5, 164-6).
`
`Evenwhena computerdisconnectsfrom thenetworkorgoesofflineina
`
`gracefulmanner, itremainsregistered inthedatabase. Dr. H ouhtestified that
`
`“[m]yunderstandingisthatevenwhenanentryinW INS ismarked asreleased it
`
`retainstheold IPaddress… it’sstillinthedatabase, itjusthappenstobemarked as
`
`released. (Ex. 2022 at156). Thesereleased computertoIPaddressmappings
`
`remaininthedatabaseasvalid mappingsfora longtime. A registered butreleased
`
`mappingcanstayintheW INS databaseforovertwomonths. (SeeEx. 2017).
`
`Thus, onceregistered, a computer’snamewillcontinuetoappearinthe
`
`nameserverlook-uptable, and willcontinuetobeprovided uponrequest—
`
`regardlessofwhetherthatcomputeris, atthetimeitsnameisrequested, actually
`
`connected tothenetwork— untilitsnameisreleased. (Ex. 2017 at2;Ex. 1014 at
`
`26-7, 379 , 39 5, 39 7, 404-6, 408-9 , 412-8;Ex. 1012 at62-3, 67-8, 131-2, 137-8,
`
`149 -50, 164-6). Thecomputer’snamemaybereleased whenitischallenged
`
`successfullyand claimed byanothercomputer, orwhena finitelifetimeexpires
`
`18
`
`
`
`CaseIPR2014-01368
`U.S. PatentNo. 6,131,121
`
`withoutrenewal. (Ex. 1014 at39 6-9 ;Ex. 1012 at68-9 ). Shuttingth
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
