WEST/CRS
`
`2008-1121
`
`2m..,
`l,',:; _°t'''2 20 Pft 1.
`
`,L c/,._c_;
`
`and UNILOC
`
`INC.
`UNILOC USA,
`LIMITED,
`SINGAPORE
`PRIVATE
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`";;LS FOR
`::.-,,,'-'. AL CidCblT
`
`_,ai, _ £ Z088
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`JA,_n,41_;,!J-_
`_'
`g][
`*J •
`_h'---
`
`CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`Appeal
`the District
`
`for
`
`Court
`States District
`from the United
`of Rhode
`Island
`in case
`no. 03-CV-440,
`Judge William
`E. Smith.
`
`BRIEF OF
`NONCONFIDENTIAL
`DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
`MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach
`Kurt L. Glitzenstein
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`225 Franklin
`Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel:
`(617) 542-5070
`Fax:
`(617) 542-8906
`
`P.C.
`
`Isabella Fu
`Richard J. Anderson
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Microsoft Corporation
`60 South Sixth Street
`One Microsoft Way
`Suite 3300
`Redmond, WA 98052-6399
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel:
`(425) 882-8080
`Tel:
`(612) 335-5070
`Fax:
`(425) 936-7329
`Fax:
`(612) 288-9696
`
`March 19, 2008
`
`Attorneys
`
`for Defendant-Appellee,
`
`Microsoft
`
`Corporation
`
`2008-
`
`BACHMAN
`
`LEGAL
`
`PRINTING-
`
`FAX (612) 337-8053-
`
`PHONE (612) 339-9518
`
`or 1-800-715-3582
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 1
`
`
`
`2008-1121
`
`2m..,
`l,',:; _°t'''2 20 Pft 1.
`
`,L c/,._c_;
`
`and UNILOC
`
`INC.
`UNILOC USA,
`LIMITED,
`SINGAPORE
`PRIVATE
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`";;LS FOR
`::.-,,,'-'. AL CidCblT
`
`_,ai, _ £ Z088
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`JA,_n,41_;,!J-_
`_'
`g][
`*J •
`_h'---
`
`CORPORATION,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`Appeal
`the District
`
`for
`
`Court
`States District
`from the United
`of Rhode
`Island
`in case
`no. 03-CV-440,
`Judge William
`E. Smith.
`
`BRIEF OF
`NONCONFIDENTIAL
`DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
`MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach
`Kurt L. Glitzenstein
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`225 Franklin
`Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel:
`(617) 542-5070
`Fax:
`(617) 542-8906
`
`P.C.
`
`Isabella Fu
`Richard J. Anderson
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. Microsoft Corporation
`60 South Sixth Street
`One Microsoft Way
`Suite 3300
`Redmond, WA 98052-6399
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel:
`(425) 882-8080
`Tel:
`(612) 335-5070
`Fax:
`(425) 936-7329
`Fax:
`(612) 288-9696
`
`March 19, 2008
`
`Attorneys
`
`for Defendant-Appellee,
`
`Microsoft
`
`Corporation
`
`2008-
`
`BACHMAN
`
`LEGAL
`
`PRINTING-
`
`FAX (612) 337-8053-
`
`PHONE (612) 339-9518
`
`or 1-800-715-3582
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel
`
`for the Defendant-Appellee Microsoft Corporation
`
`certifies
`
`the following:
`
`1. The full name of every party represented
`
`by us is:
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`2. The name of the real party in interest
`the real party in interest)
`represented
`
`(if the party named in the caption is not
`by us is:
`
`N/A
`
`and any publicly held companies
`3. All parent corporations
`more of the stock of the party represented
`by us are:
`
`that own 10 percent or
`
`None.
`
`that appeared for the
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates
`party now represented
`by us in the trial court or are expected to appear
`in this
`COUl_ are:
`
`P.C., Frank E. Scherkenbach, Kurt L. Glitzenstein,
`Fish & Richardson
`Richard J. Anderson, Laura R. Braden
`
`Blish & Cavanagh,
`
`Joseph V. Cavanagh,
`
`Jr.
`
`Microsoft Corporation,
`
`Isabella E. Fu
`
`March 19, 2008
`Date
`
`_J__--___-_
`Signature
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 2
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL RELATED TO THE
`OPERATION OF MICROSOFT'S
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS HAS
`BEEN DELETED ON PAGES 17, 26, 37, 41, 42
`
`TABLE OFCONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ............................................................
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..............................................
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................
`
`RESTATEMENT
`
`OF THE ISSUES ...................................................
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`................................................................................
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..........................................................
`
`- Symmetric Software Registration Using
`A.
`The '216 Patent
`Unique IDs Based On Personal
`Identifying Details .........................
`
`Pa_e
`
`i
`
`ix
`
`x
`
`xi
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`3
`
`Software
`Product Activation-
`Microsoft's
`B.
`Anonymous
`Activation Using No Personally
`Identifiable
`Information .............. 10
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`..............................................................
`
`Uniloc's Motion For Recusal
`
`................................................
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................
`
`A.
`
`The Standard of Review .......................................................
`
`14
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`23
`
`The District Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment
`B.
`Nonin_'mgement
`.............................................................................
`
`of
`
`24
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 3
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(cont'd)
`
`1. Uniloc
`algorithm"
`
`Pa_e
`on the "same
`as non-movant
`its burden
`failed to meet
`requirement
`of claims
`12 and 19 ...............................
`25
`
`a. Uniloc's
`
`evidentiary
`
`showing was inadequate .................. 26
`
`In any event, Uniloc cited no evidence that Microsoft's
`b.
`hashing values are "unique."
`....................................................
`
`36
`
`terms of claims 12 and 19,
`2. Uniloc lacked evidence on other
`providing additional grounds
`for affirmance ...............................
`
`37
`
`system
`Product Activation does not have a registration
`a.
`replicated at a registration
`authority,
`as claim 12 requires
`...... 3 8
`
`does not have a "licensee unique ID
`Product Activation
`b.
`generating means," as claim 19 requires ..................................
`
`41
`
`Product Activation does not employ "information
`input to
`c.
`said software which uniquely identifies
`an intended registered
`user," as claim 12 requires
`.......................................................
`
`43
`
`The district court erred in construing the term "Licensee
`3.
`Unique ID", and under a correct construction
`there is no dispute
`that Microsoft's
`Product Activation
`technology
`does not include a
`"Licensee Unique ID" ..................................................................
`45
`
`a.
`
`The district court's construction was erroneous
`
`............... 45
`
`the use
`disclaimed
`and categorically
`b. Uniloc affirmatively
`of any information
`from the software vendor
`to generate the
`licensee unique ID ....................................................................
`
`47
`
`about
`The "licensee unique ID" is based on information
`c.
`user, not the user's
`computer
`...................................................
`
`the
`48
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 4
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(cont'd)
`
`the computer hardware is not
`about
`Information
`d.
`the user .......................................................
`information
`about
`
`49
`
`the district court's construction, Uniloc has no
`Even under
`e.
`evidence of infringement
`..........................................................
`52
`
`in Denying
`The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
`C.
`Uniloc's Recusal Motion Based on the Intern's Prior Unrelated
`Connections with Microsoft
`............................................................
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................
`
`53
`
`59
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 5
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page_)
`
`CASES
`
`v. Ca_ett,
`Celotex
`477U.S.
`317 (1986)
`
`................................................................
`
`25,32
`
`Al-Site Corp. _ VSIInt% Inc.,
`174 F.3d
`1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .....................................................
`
`42
`
`Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`Arthur A. Collins,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`..............................
`
`23, 24-25, 27, 33
`
`BarmagBarmerMasehmenfabrikAGv.
`731F.2d
`831(Fed.
`Cir. 1984)
`
`Ltd.,
`MurataMaeh.,
`.......................................................
`
`30
`
`Group,
`Inc., v. Covad Commen's
`Servs.,
`Bell Atl. Network
`262 F.3d.
`1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`..............................................
`
`Inc.,
`
`35, 51
`
`General Corp. _DuramedPharms.,Inc.,
`BmTeeh.
`325 F.3d 1356(Fed.
`Ci_ 2003)
`...............................................
`
`31, 32
`
`Biotec Biologische
`Biocorp,
`Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`Naturverpackungen
`
`GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`.....................................................
`
`v. Nezhat,
`Byrne
`261"F.3d
`105 (11th Cir. 2001)
`
`.......................................................
`
`lndus., 1no.,
`Inc. v. Cardinal
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed, Cir. 1998) .....................................................
`
`28
`
`58
`
`42
`
`Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.,
`Dynacore Holdings
`363 F.3d 1263 (Fed Cir. 2004)
`.........................................
`
`............. 23
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 6
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(cont'd)
`
`v. Northlake Mlctg. & Supply,
`Societe Anonyme
`Glaverbel
`45 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`.................................................
`
`Inc.,
`
`v. Price Waterhouse,
`Hamid
`51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995)
`
`.........................................................
`
`v. Douglas Dynamics,
`Hayes
`8 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1993)
`
`Inc.,
`...............................................................
`
`Inc. v. Aria Group Int'l,
`Hockerson-Halberstadt,
`Inc.,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`.......................................................
`
`Page(s)
`
`30, 42
`
`58
`
`30
`
`49
`
`Hunt v. Am. Back & Trust Co.,
`783 F.2d 1011 (11th Cir. 1986)
`
`................................
`
`......................
`
`56
`
`Inc.,
`In re Allied-Signal,
`891 F.2d 967 (lst Cir. 1989)
`
`.........................................................
`
`57
`
`24
`
`In re United States,
`158 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998)
`
`In re United States,
`666 F.2d 690 (1st Cir. 1981)
`
`...........................................................
`
`.............................................
`
`24, 55, 58
`
`Inc.,
`Sys.,
`Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration
`Water,
`Innova/Pure
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`.....................................................
`
`40
`
`Inc.,
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral,
`324 F.3d
`1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`...................................
`
`23, 24, 34, 35
`
`Corp.,
`Co. v. Microsoft
`Keyboard
`Motionless
`486 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`.....................................................
`
`35
`
`Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs.,
`Novartis
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`Inc.,
`...................................
`
`23, 25, 28, 30
`
`vi
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 7
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(cont'd)
`
`in Motion, Ltd.,
`NTP, Inc. v. Research
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`.....................................................
`
`Omega Eng' g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`.....................................................
`
`PC Connector
`406 F.3d
`
`Corp.,
`LLC v. SmartDisk
`Solutions
`1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`.....................................................
`
`Inc.,
`v. Durand Weyland,
`Pennwalt
`833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`(en bane)
`
`.......................................
`
`Corp.,
`Polymers
`Co. v. Hunstman
`Phillips Petroleum
`157 F.3d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`.......................................................
`
`Inc.,
`Specialties,
`Inc. v. Hunter's
`Primos,
`451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`.......................................................
`
`Page(s)
`
`50
`
`52
`
`35
`
`24
`
`30
`
`50
`
`Societa,
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`158 F.3d
`1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`...............................................
`
`40, 41
`
`Inc.,
`Indus.,
`v. Regal Mach.
`Schoell
`247 F.3d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`.....................................................
`
`52
`
`Aktiengesellschafi,
`Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister
`305 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`...........................................
`
`, ......... 29
`
`Inc. v. Cardinal
`Techs.,
`Southwall
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`IG Co.,
`.......................................................
`
`49
`
`Ltd.,
`LP v. Shade-O-Marie
`Springs Window Fashions
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`...........................................
`
`47, 48, 52
`
`Tanabe Seiyaku Co. v. U.S. Int7 Trade Comm 'n,
`109 F.3d 726 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`.......................................................
`
`24
`
`vii
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 8
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(cont'd)
`
`LLC v. lntel Corp.,
`TeehSearch,
`286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`
`.....................................................
`
`Inc.,
`Telemae Cellular Corp. v. Topp Teleeom,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`.....................................................
`
`Page(s)
`
`37
`
`51
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 455 ................................................................
`
`24, 54, 55, 56
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6 ............................................................................
`
`41
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Cir. P. 56................................................................................
`
`25
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 30(b)(6).....................................................................42
`
`viii
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 9
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No appeal
`
`in or from the same civil action was previously
`
`before this Court
`
`or any other appellate
`
`court.
`
`There are no other cases in this or any other court
`
`known to directly affect or be directly
`
`affected
`
`by the Court's
`
`decisions
`
`in the
`
`instant appeal.
`
`ix
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 10
`
`
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF JURISDICTION
`
`The United
`
`States District Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Rhode
`
`Island
`
`had
`
`jurisdiction
`
`under
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331,
`
`1338(a).
`
`This Court
`
`has
`
`exclusive
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`X
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 11
`
`
`
`RESTATEMENT
`
`OF THE ISSUES
`
`o
`
`the district
`Should
`affirmed, where:
`
`court's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`of noninfringement
`
`be
`
`(a)
`
`Uniloc
`
`failed to make
`
`a sufficient
`
`showing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`"same
`
`algorithm"
`
`requirement
`
`of claims 12 and 19 of the '216 patent
`
`is met
`
`in Microsoft's
`
`accused Product Activation
`
`technology;
`
`(b)
`
`Uniloc lacked evidence on other terms of claims 12 and 19 not
`
`reached by the district court; and
`
`(c)
`
`The district court erred in construing
`
`the term "licensee unique
`
`ID", and under
`
`the correct construction
`
`there is no dispute that
`
`Microsoft's
`
`Product Activation
`
`technology
`
`does not
`
`include
`
`a
`
`"licensee unique ID"?
`
`*
`
`Did the district
`
`court exercise due discretion in denying Uniloc's motion
`
`for recusal, where:
`
`(a)
`
`The court properly determined
`
`that
`
`the unpaid judicial
`
`intern in
`
`question had no ethical conflict; and
`
`(b)
`
`Applied
`
`the correct
`
`legal
`
`standard under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 455 in
`
`determining
`
`that
`
`the court's
`
`impartiality
`
`could not
`
`reasonably
`
`be questioned?
`
`xi
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 12
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a failed patent
`
`infringement
`
`case, remarkable
`
`for the lengths to which
`
`the plaintiffs, Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc., and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited ("Uniloc")
`
`went
`
`to avoid a reckoning
`
`of
`
`their
`
`failed evidence
`
`against
`
`defendant Microsoft
`
`Corporation
`
`("Microsoft").
`
`During the course of this action, Uniloc obfuscated
`
`its
`
`numerous
`
`infringement
`
`theories with reams
`
`of dense
`
`and nearly
`
`impenetrable
`
`technical
`
`expert
`
`reports;
`
`refused to drop any of its sixteen asserted claims and eight
`
`infringement
`
`theories,
`
`despite
`
`claim constructions
`
`that
`
`rendered
`
`them untenable;
`
`opposed the district
`
`court's
`
`effort
`
`to hire a technical
`
`advisor
`
`to assist with parsing
`
`Uniloc's
`
`technical
`
`evidence;
`
`opposed the court's plan to hire an intern to likewise
`
`• assist
`
`in understanding Uniloc's
`
`evidence;
`
`and,
`
`foiled in its attempt
`
`to evade the
`
`scrutiny of an engaged judge
`
`assisted by a qualified technical
`
`person, moved to
`
`recuse
`
`the district
`
`judge
`
`based
`
`on what
`
`the judge
`
`described
`
`as an intern's
`
`"gossamer"
`
`connections
`
`to Microsoft.
`
`Uniloc
`
`styles
`
`its appeal as being about "fairness."
`
`But
`
`this case was, and
`
`remains,
`
`about
`
`the appropriate
`
`grant of summary
`
`judgment
`
`in the absence
`
`of
`
`evidence,
`
`nothwithstanding
`
`Uniloc's
`
`attempts
`
`to blame
`
`the district
`
`judge
`
`for
`
`its
`
`own failures of evidence
`
`and in presenting
`
`its case, and its unfounded
`
`and unfair
`
`attack on the impartiality
`
`of Judge Smith. Uniloc's
`
`cries of "unfairness"
`
`ring
`
`particularly
`
`hollow in the face of its tacit concession
`
`now that
`
`it never had any case
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 13
`
`
`
`on all but one of
`
`its infringement
`
`theories (hashing), and all but two of
`
`its claims
`
`(claims 12 and 19).
`
`STATEMENT
`
`OF THE CASE
`
`This suit involves a patent for registering software
`
`to run on a "platform,"
`
`i.e., a computer,
`
`if and only if a specified
`
`licensing procedure has taken place.
`
`After
`
`claim construction
`
`and discovery,
`
`the parties
`
`filed summary
`
`judgment
`
`motions.
`
`Microsoft
`
`presented
`
`evidence
`
`of noninfringement
`
`and pointed to
`
`Uniloc's
`
`lack of any evidence
`
`to show that any of
`
`the sixteen
`
`asserted claims
`
`covered Microsoft's
`
`accused Product Activation technology under any of Uniloc's
`
`eight
`
`infringement
`
`theories,
`
`in light of the district court's
`
`claim construction of
`
`twenty-four disputed claim terms. Following
`
`the summary judgment
`
`submissions
`
`and hearing, Uniloc filed a motion seeking recusal of the district judge based on
`
`the judge's hMng of an intern with a computer science background
`
`to assist him in
`
`technical aspects of this case. The district court denied that motion. The district
`
`court
`
`later granted
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`of noninfringement with respect
`
`to all
`
`asserted claims.
`
`Uniloc
`
`appeals
`
`the judgment of noninfringement
`
`only with
`
`respect
`
`to claims 12 and 19 and only with respect
`
`to one of
`
`its infi'ingement
`
`theories (hashing), and also appeals the denial of its motion to recuse.
`
`While Microsoft believes
`
`the judgment below can and should be affirmed on
`
`the bases
`
`explained
`
`by the district
`
`court,
`
`there are alternative
`
`grounds
`
`for
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 14
`
`
`
`affirmance.
`
`During
`
`claim construction,
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`rejected Microsoft's
`
`proposed
`
`construction
`
`of
`
`the term "licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID,"
`
`and in its summary
`
`judgment
`
`order reconstrued
`
`a claim term, "wherein said registration
`
`is replicated
`
`at
`
`the registration
`
`authority," more broadly
`
`than it had previously
`
`done
`
`in claim
`
`construction. Microsoft
`
`believes
`
`each of these constructions
`
`is erroneous. When
`
`those terms are correctly construed,
`
`the complete
`
`absence
`
`of record evidence
`
`on
`
`each of these claim limitations
`
`provides
`
`additional
`
`bases on which the judgment
`
`should be affirmed.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Software Registration Using Unique
`- Symmetric
`The '216 Patent
`Based On Personal
`Identifying Details
`
`IDs
`
`At the outset, we note that Uniloc,
`
`in its opening brief
`
`(as it did below),
`
`describes U.S. Patent 5,490,216
`
`("the
`
`'216 patent") and its alleged invention
`
`primarily
`
`based
`
`on its understanding
`
`of how Microsoft's
`
`Product Activation
`
`technology operates. For example, Uniloc describes
`
`its anti-piracy technology
`
`as
`
`"machine
`
`locking" that "attempts
`
`to tie use of the software to one or more specific
`
`computers"
`
`based on information about those computers.
`
`[Blue Br. at 11]
`
`In so
`
`doing, Uniloc disregards the true focus of the '216 patent on registering
`
`software
`
`based on unique identifiers generated from personal
`
`identification details, as it told
`
`the Patent Office during prosecution.
`
`[A623
`
`("The uniqueness
`
`is ultimately
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 15
`
`
`
`provided by the end users of
`
`the software in the course of supplying their own
`
`identification details.")]
`
`The discussion below describes the '216 patent based on
`
`the intrinsic
`
`record of
`
`the patent
`
`itself, without
`
`reference to the accused
`
`technology.
`
`The '216 patent
`
`is directed to a software registration system.
`
`[A370
`
`(abstract); A383 (1:5-8)] An example of an application for such a system is to
`
`enable a "try before you buy" approach to software distribution,
`
`in which sample
`
`software can be freely distributed in a "demonstration" mode in which certain
`
`functions, such as "save" or "print," are disabled.
`
`[A385 (6:47-49)] A user can
`
`evaluate most of the software but not make full use of
`
`it, and can then choose to
`
`undertake a process to unlock the full
`
`functionality, entering what the patent refers
`
`to as "use mode." [A383-84 (2:53-3:32)]
`
`The background
`
`section of
`
`the patent concedes that
`
`such software
`
`registration systems were known in the prior art.
`
`[See generally A383 (1:5-2:49)]
`
`According
`
`to Uniloc,
`
`the key differentiator
`
`of the patented system was that
`
`it used
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the person using the software,
`
`rather
`
`than about
`
`the computer on
`
`which the sotIware
`
`is to be run,
`
`in order to register
`
`the software:
`
`to Pride Software Development
`assigned
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,796,220,
`Corporation,
`discloses
`a system for unique recognition
`of a platform
`on which licensed software
`is to be executed. However, U.S. Pat. No.
`4,796,220 does not contemplate
`or disclose utilization
`of information
`as part of
`the
`which
`is unique
`to the user or intended
`licensee
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 16
`
`
`
`registration process which is to be distinguished from identification
`is proposed
`of the platform upon which the software
`to be run.
`
`[A383 (1:57-65)
`
`emphases
`
`added]
`
`Specifically,
`
`the registration
`
`system of the '216
`
`patent
`
`involves
`
`steps that take place both locally at the user's
`
`location and remotely
`
`at a "registration
`
`authority."
`
`[A384 (4:13-.17)]
`
`In each embodiment
`
`of the patent,
`
`the system focuses on identifying
`
`details about
`
`the new user.
`
`[A385 (6:1-8)
`
`and
`
`A386 (7:8-20); A386 (8:57-65); A387 (9:35-52); A387 (10:53-62); A388 (11:45-
`
`65); A388-89
`
`(12:51-13:17)]
`
`A user enters his identifying
`
`details,
`
`for example his
`
`credit card number, birth date, or full name and address.
`
`[A373 (Fig. 2B); A376
`
`(Fig. 4); A384 (3:50-53); A386 (7:8-14)] A registration number algorithm on the
`
`user's
`
`computer
`
`processes
`
`the user's
`
`details
`
`to generate what
`
`the patent
`
`calls a
`
`"local
`
`licensee unique ID", which is kept hidden from the user.
`
`[A386 (7:14-20)]
`
`The algorithm is a "summation
`
`algorithm"
`
`or a "summer,"
`
`i.e., addition.
`
`[Id., see
`
`also,
`
`e.g., A388
`
`(12:58-64)]
`
`In some instances,
`
`certain information
`
`about
`
`the
`
`user's
`
`computer may also be used, but that does not eliminate the requirement
`
`that
`
`identifying
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the user himself be used as well.
`
`[See, e.g., A388
`
`(11:45-65 and 12:3-18)
`
`The user
`
`then calls
`
`the registration
`
`authority to unlock the software,
`
`and
`
`provides
`
`the registration
`
`authority with the same user-identifying
`
`details that were
`
`used
`
`to generate
`
`the
`
`local
`
`licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID.
`
`[A371
`
`(Fig.
`
`1); A380
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 17
`
`
`
`(Fig. 8); A386 (7:22-35)] An administrator at the registration authority receives
`
`those user details and enters them into a registration authority computer.
`
`[A373
`
`(Fig. 2b); A386 (7:27-28)] The registration authority computer contains an exact
`
`copy of
`
`the registration number algorithm present on the user's computer
`
`that
`
`generates the local
`
`licensee unique ID. This exact copy of the algorithm is used at
`
`the registration authority to generate a "remote licensee unique ID."
`
`[A380 (Fig.
`
`8); A386 (7:22-35)] The administrator
`
`reads the remote licensee unique ID to the
`
`user, who then enters it into his computer.
`
`[A374 (Fig. 2c); A386 (7:36-40)] This
`
`"symmetry," whereby the same algorithm is present and used both locally and
`
`remotely to generate unique IDs based on personal details, is central
`
`to the '216
`
`patent and is required by all
`
`its claims.
`
`[A389 (13:60-14:1); A389 (14:45-46);
`
`A390 (15:15-17); A390 (16:4-8); A390 (16:22-26)]
`
`Because the same algorithm is used on both the local and remote sides, if the
`
`same identifying user details are correctly entered into the computers on both sides,
`
`the local
`
`licensee unique ID will be identical
`
`to the remote licensee unique ID.
`
`[A386 (7:36-51)] A comparator determines if the local and remote licensee unique
`
`IDs match, and, if so, the sottware program is unlocked.
`
`[A386 (7:40-51); A389
`
`(13:37-40)]
`
`All claims of the '216 patent
`
`require a "licensee unique ID," a "registration
`
`key," "enabling key," or "security key."
`
`[A389 (13:54-14:1
`
`and 14:40-49); A390
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 18
`
`
`
`(15:1-17, 15:21-16:8, and 16:9-26)] The parties do not dispute that these terms are
`
`synonymous, and are referred to in this brief collectively as "licensee unique ID."
`
`[A11;
`
`see also A119-121
`
`(summary
`
`judgment
`
`order
`
`treating
`
`"security
`
`key"
`
`as
`
`synonymous with "licensee
`
`unique ID")] During claim construction,
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`construed
`
`the term licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID to mean
`
`"[a] unique
`
`identifier
`
`associated with
`
`a licensee,"
`
`and in doing
`
`so rejected Microsoft's
`
`proposed
`
`construction
`
`[A22]; Microsoft
`
`urged a construction
`
`requiring
`
`(1) that
`
`the licensee
`
`unique ID be based on information
`
`about
`
`the person who will use the software,
`
`(2)
`
`that no vendor
`
`information
`
`be included,
`
`and (3)
`
`that
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the
`
`computer
`
`on which the software
`
`is installed is not
`
`information
`
`about
`
`the person
`
`who will use the software.
`
`[A10]
`
`All claims of the '216 also contain a "same algorithm requirement," which
`
`the district court construed to require that
`
`the same algorithm be present
`
`and used
`
`to generate the licensee unique ID both locally and remotely.
`
`[A31-36; Al14-17;
`
`Al19-22]
`
`The
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`characterized
`
`this
`
`as a requirement
`
`of
`
`"essential
`
`symmetry."
`
`[A122]
`
`Only claims 12 and 19 are on appeal. Claim 12 reads as follows, with the
`
`claim limitations
`
`at issue on appeal emphasized:
`
`said
`to software to be protected,
`system attachable
`12. A registration
`a security key from information
`registration
`system generating
`input
`to said software which
`uniquely
`identifies
`an intended
`registered
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 19
`
`
`
`is to be
`user of said software on a computer on which said software
`installed;
`and wherein
`said registration
`system is replicated
`at a
`and used for the purposes
`of checking
`by the
`registration
`authority
`registration
`authority
`that
`the
`information
`unique
`to the
`user
`is
`correctly
`entered at the time that
`the security
`key is generated
`by the
`registration
`system.
`
`[A389 (14:40-49)]
`
`As noted,
`
`the parties
`
`agreed
`
`that
`
`"security
`
`key"
`
`is
`
`synonymous
`
`with
`
`"licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID."
`
`The district
`
`court
`
`construed
`
`"information
`
`input
`
`to said
`
`software which uniquely identifies
`
`an intended user" to mean "information
`
`that
`
`is
`
`uniquely associated with a person who intends to become
`
`a licensee so as to access
`
`full functionality
`
`of the digital data."
`
`[A25]
`
`During
`
`claim construction,
`
`the court construed
`
`"wherein
`
`said registration
`
`system is replicated
`
`at a registration
`
`authority"
`
`to mean "wherein the registration
`
`system attachable
`
`to software
`
`to be protected
`
`is
`
`reproduced
`
`exactly
`
`at
`
`the
`
`registration
`
`authority."
`
`[A56]
`
`In so doing,
`
`the court noted that "[t]his claim term,
`
`therefore, does not contemplate
`
`just any registration
`
`system capable of generating
`
`a
`
`security key, but
`
`instead, envisions
`
`a replica of the registration
`
`system first recited
`
`in claim 12" [i.e., the registration
`
`system attached to the software to be registered].
`
`[A57 (emphasis
`
`in original)]
`
`In its summary judgment
`
`order,
`
`the court reconstrued
`
`this claim term more broadly to mean "Wherein
`
`the portion
`
`of
`
`the registration
`
`system that generates
`
`a security
`
`key from information
`
`input
`
`to software
`
`to be
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 20
`
`
`
`protected is reproduced exactly at the registration authority."
`
`[A119 (emphasis in
`
`original)].
`
`The court
`
`stated that
`
`"[t]his
`
`clarifies
`
`that only the portion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`registration
`
`system responsible
`
`for generating
`
`the security key must be replicated
`
`exactly at the registration
`
`authority."
`
`[A119-20]
`
`Claim 19 reads
`
`as follows, with the claim limitations
`
`at
`
`issue on appeal
`
`emphasized:
`
`remote
`incorporating
`station
`registration
`19. A remote
`licensee
`a
`part
`of
`forming
`said
`station
`unique
`1D generating
`means,
`registration
`system for
`licensing
`execution
`of digital
`data in a use
`mode,
`said
`digital
`data
`executable
`on a platform,
`said
`system
`including
`local
`said system
`licensee
`unique
`ID generating means,
`further
`including mode switching means
`operable
`on said platform
`which permits
`use of said digital
`data in said use mode
`on said
`platform only if a licensee unique ID generated by said local
`licensee
`unique
`ID generating means
`has matched
`a licensee
`unique
`ID
`by said remote licensee
`and
`generated
`unique ID generating means;
`wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means
`comprises
`software
`executed
`on a platform
`which
`includes
`the algorithm
`utilized
`by
`said local
`licensee
`unique
`ID generating
`means
`to
`produce
`said licensee unique ID.
`
`[A390 (15:21-16:8)]
`
`In addition to the "licensee unique ID" and "same algorithm"
`
`requirements
`
`discussed above that are present
`
`in all claims of the '216 patent, claim 19 requires
`
`a "licensee unique ID generating means."
`
`The district court and the parties agreed
`
`that
`
`this claim term is a means-plus-function
`
`term subject
`
`to 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`[A26-29] The court construed the function required by this term as "to generate
`
`a
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 21
`
`
`
`local or
`
`remote licensee unique ID/registration
`
`key," and the corresponding
`
`structure as "a summation algorithm or a summer and equivalents thereof."
`
`[A29]
`
`B.
`
`Product
`Microsoft's
`Using No Personally
`
`Activation
`Identifiable
`
`- Anonymous
`Information
`
`Software
`
`Activation
`
`The accused Product Activation
`
`feature
`
`is found in Microsoft's Windows
`
`XP,
`
`Office
`
`XP,
`
`and
`
`Office
`
`2003
`
`software
`
`along
`
`with
`
`individual
`
`Office
`
`applications.
`
`1 [A2038]
`
`A retail copy of one of the accused Microsoft products
`
`contains
`
`a CD with a
`
`sticker
`
`on the back of
`
`the CD case containing
`
`a 25-character
`
`"Product Key."
`
`[Al183-84
`
`¶6; Al191-92
`
`¶5] To install
`
`sotb,vare on a computer
`
`under Product
`
`Activation,
`
`a user
`
`inserts
`
`a CD into the computer
`
`and is prompted
`
`to enter
`
`the
`
`Product Key at the outset of the installation
`
`process.
`
`The user
`
`is then shown the
`
`End User License Agreement
`
`("EULA")
`
`that dictates
`
`the terms and conditions of
`
`use of the software.
`
`In order to become a licensee and install
`
`the software,
`
`the user
`
`must
`
`affirmatively
`
`indicate
`
`acceptance
`
`of the terms of
`
`the EULA.
`
`[Al184
`
`¶7;
`
`A1192 ¶6]
`
`Once the EULA has been agreed to and the installation
`
`process
`
`is complete,
`
`the licensed software
`
`is available
`
`for use, but at that point
`
`the user
`
`is in a "grace
`
`period,"
`
`a defined period between installation
`
`and activation.
`
`If the user
`
`fails to
`
`is different
`process
`and installation
`activation
`1 The
`Windows
`and Office products not accused in this case.
`
`in numerous Microsoft
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 22
`
`
`
`activate by the end of the grace period (which lasts either a set number of uses or a
`
`set duration), some features of the software become unavailable.
`
`[A2886; A3973]
`
`When the user launches the software during the grace period, she can choose to
`
`activate, which launches an "activation wizard" and gives her the opportunity to
`
`activate the software.
`
`[Al185 ¶¶9-10; Al193 ¶¶8-10] Software can be activated
`
`in two ways - over the Internet and by telephone,
`
`lid.] During Internet activation,
`
`the user, at any time during the grace period, simply chooses to activate without
`
`any further
`
`intervention required.
`
`[Id.] During telephone activation,
`
`the user is
`
`presented with a number to dial and a 54-digit
`
`Installation ID ("IID").
`
`The user
`
`then dials the number, provides the IID, and in return receives a Confirmation ID
`
`(CID) which she enters on the computer. Once the user enters the CID and selects
`
`the "Next" button, activation is complete.
`
`[Id.]
`
`Microsoft developed Product Activation
`
`("PA") with three key goals in
`
`mind. First, Microsoft wanted to educate its customers about their license rights,
`
`and in particular
`
`to inform them that most
`
`retail versions of
`
`its software are
`
`licensed to be installed on only one or a limited number of computers.
`
`[A989;
`
`A2069-70]
`
`Second, Microsoft wanted to reduce "casual copying," such as where fi'iends
`
`or relatives share a single software product by installing it on their
`
`respective
`
`computers.
`
`[A990; A2071-72]
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 23
`
`
`
`Third, Microsoft wanted to achieve these first
`
`two objectives, while at the
`
`same time respecting and protecting its customers' privacy, which is paramount to
`
`many computer and internet users. PA is completely anonymous, and Microsoft
`
`contractually promises to maintain that anonymity in the EULA, which states:
`
`"Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable
`
`information
`
`from your
`
`device during this process."
`
`[See, e.g., A2108]
`
`Elsewhere
`
`(e.g., on Microsoft's
`
`website),
`
`this commitment
`
`to privacy protection
`
`is reaffirmed with statements
`
`such
`
`as: "Product Activation
`
`is a simple, straightforward,
`
`and anonymous
`
`process,"
`
`and
`
`"[n]o personally identifiable
`
`information
`
`is required."
`
`[A2043; A2045-47]
`
`Once the software
`
`has been installed
`
`and licensed,
`
`and the user elects
`
`to
`
`activate
`
`it,
`
`the
`
`software
`
`communicates,
`
`among
`
`other
`
`things,
`
`two pieces
`
`of
`
`information
`
`to a "Clearinghouse"
`
`at Microsoft:
`
`a Product
`
`Identifier
`
`("PID"),
`
`which is based on the 25-character
`
`Product Key printed
`
`on the CD case sticker
`
`[A1186 ¶¶13-14; A1193 ¶¶11-12];
`
`and a Hardware
`
`Identifier
`
`("HWID")
`
`generated
`
`from information
`
`about
`
`the user's
`
`computer.
`
`[Id.]
`
`The
`
`collection
`
`of HWID
`
`information
`
`is done in a way that makes
`
`it
`
`impossible
`
`to determine whether
`
`a
`
`particular
`
`computer
`
`is associated with any HWID.
`
`Specifically,
`
`PA uses special
`
`one-way "hashing"
`
`functions
`
`to ensure this anonymity.
`
`[A2047-48]
`
`This hashing
`
`function
`
`is different
`
`from the hashing
`
`function
`
`on which Uniloc
`
`premises
`
`its
`
`appeal.
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1045 Page 24
`
`
`
`The
`
`Clearinghouse
`
`compares
`
`the
`
`PID
`
`and HWID
`
`information
`
`with
`
`information
`
`in a database.
`
`[A992; A1200-01]
`
`When
`
`a particular
`
`PID is
`
`first
`
`activated,
`
`the HWID for
`
`that PID is stored
`
`in the database
`
`at
`
`the Clearinghouse.
`
`lid.] With the
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
