throbber
WEST/CRS
`
`2008-1121
`
`Unitfi) _tat_
`
`(_ourt of App_ab
`
`for
`
`the
`
`_b_ral
`
`(_ircuit
`
`I
`
`II
`
`UNmOC
`
`USA, INC. AND UN_L0C SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,
`
`FILED
`OF tkPP_--IkLs-I:01_
`
`tP_"7,2_
`
`a_N aoa_Jx_.Y
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`V.
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`Appeal
`
`States District
`from the United
`in case no. 03-CV-00440,
`
`of Rhode
`for the District
`Court
`Judge William E. Smith
`
`Island
`
`NON-CONFIDENTIAL
`
`REPLY
`
`BRIEF
`
`OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`
`UNILOC
`
`USA,
`
`INC.
`
`and UNILOC
`
`SINGAPORE
`
`PRIVATE
`
`LIMITED
`
`PAUL J. HAYES
`DEAN G. BOSTOCK
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`
`AND POPEO,
`GLOVSKY
`ONE FINANCIAL
`CENTER
`
`P.C.
`
`BOSTON, MA 02111
`
`(617)
`
`542-6000
`
`for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`Attorneys
`Uniloc USA,
`fnc.
`and Uniloc
`
`Singapore
`
`Private
`
`Limited
`
`April
`
`7, 2008
`
`Counsel Press, LLC
`
`(202) 783-7288
`
`*
`
`(888) 277-3259
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 1
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE
`
`OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel
`Private Limited
`
`for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`certifies
`the following:
`
`Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. and Uniloc Singapore
`
`1.
`
`The full name
`
`of every party or amicus
`
`represented
`
`by us is:
`
`,
`
`,
`
`4.
`
`°
`
`Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. and Uniloc Singapore
`
`Private Limited.
`
`of the real parties
`The names
`not
`the real party in interest)
`
`in interest
`represented
`
`(if the party named
`by us are:
`
`in the caption
`
`is
`
`N/A
`
`and any publicly
`corporations
`All parent
`more of the stock of the party or amicus
`
`held companies
`curiae
`represented
`
`that own 10% or
`by us are:
`
`Uniloc Corp. Pty. Ltd.
`corporation
`is the parent
`Inc. and Uniloc Singapore
`Uniloc USA,
`Private
`
`of
`Limited.
`
`23 There
`
`is no such corporation
`
`as listed in paragraph
`
`3.
`
`that appeared for
`of all law firms and the partners
`or associates
`The names
`the party or amicus
`now represented
`by us in the trial court or agency
`or are
`expected
`to appear
`in this Court
`are:
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`Paul J. Hayes
`Dean G. Bostock
`Patrick
`J. Sharkey
`Paul J. Cronin
`Rosemary M. Allen
`
`DUANE,
`TAYLOR,
`Andria Coletta
`Francis A. Connor,
`Sheri L. Pizzi
`
`BARTON & GILMAN,
`
`LLP
`
`III
`
`(i)
`
`Paul Hayes
`
`Date
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Io
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`...........................................................................................
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Uniloc Submitted
`
`Evidence
`
`of the "Same Algorithm"
`
`.........................
`
`Hashing Values
`that Microsoft's
`Evidence
`Uniloc Submitted
`are "Unique"
`..........................................................................................
`
`1
`
`5
`
`5
`
`9
`
`C.
`
`Microsoft's
`
`Other Non-Infringement
`
`Arguments
`
`..............................
`
`10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Uniloc Presented
`Uses a Replicated
`
`that Product Activation
`Evidence
`Registration
`System ...................................
`
`that Product Activation
`Evidence
`Uniloc Presented
`Has a "Licensee Unique
`ID Generating Means"
`.....................
`
`that Product Activation
`Evidence
`Uniloc Presented
`an
`Employs
`Information
`that "Uniquely
`Ident'ffies
`Intended User
`.........................................................................
`
`9,
`
`the Full Range of Equivalents
`is Allowed
`Uniloc
`to
`ID Generating Means" Pursuant
`"Licensee Unique
`§ 112, q[6 and the Doctrine
`of Equivalents
`..............................
`
`of
`
`D*
`
`the Asserted
`that
`The District Court did not Err in Finding
`Claims Do Not Require
`the Use of Only "Personally
`Identifiable
`Information"
`....................................................................
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Uniloc Did Not Disclaim the Use of Vendor
`Information
`to Generate
`a "Licensee Unique
`
`ID" ...................
`
`18
`
`Uniloc Did Not Disclaim the Use of Information
`a
`Associated With a User's Computer
`to Generate
`"Licensee Unique
`ID Generating Means"
`...............................
`
`s
`The Intrinsic Record Does not Support Microsoft'
`Argument Regarding
`"Platform Unique
`IDs"
`.........................
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(ii)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 3
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Uniloc's Motion
`
`for Recusal
`
`Should Have Been Granted
`
`.................
`
`28
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`.............................................................................................
`
`30
`
`STATEMENT
`
`REGARDING
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`The material
`
`omitted
`
`on pages 5-7, 9, 12 and 15 of this brief describes
`
`the
`
`internal
`
`operation
`
`of the accused
`
`software.
`
`The material
`
`omitted
`
`on page 16 of this
`
`brief discloses
`
`financial
`
`information.
`
`All of this material
`
`has been designated
`
`as
`
`"Confidential"
`
`by Defendant-Appellee,
`
`Microsoft
`
`Corporation,
`
`under
`
`the
`
`Protective Order
`
`entered
`
`by the district
`
`court.
`
`(iii)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Inc.,
`v. Liberty Lobby,
`Anderson
`477 U.S. 242 (1986)
`....................................................................................
`
`2, 5, 12
`
`In re Bernard,
`31 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 1994)
`
`................................................................................
`
`Inc.,
`Bio Tech. General Corp. v. Duramed Pharms.,
`325 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`............................................................................
`
`29
`
`1
`
`In re Boston's Children First,
`244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001)
`
`.........................................................................
`
`28, 30
`
`v. Wadsworth Mfg. Co.,
`Callicrate
`427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`..........................................................................
`
`16
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`CCS Fitness,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`....................................................................
`
`v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico.,
`Cruz-Queipo
`417 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005)
`...................................................................................
`
`In re Martinez-Catala,
`129 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 1997) .........................................................................
`
`10, 11
`
`4
`
`28, 30
`
`In Motion, Ltd.,
`Inc. v. Research
`NTP,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
`cert. denied,
`
`546 U.S. 1157
`
`(2006)
`
`...............
`
`16
`
`v. Raytek Corp.,
`lnc.
`Omega Eng'g,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`........................................................
`
`20, 24, 26, 27
`
`Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics,
`208 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`............................................................................
`
`1
`
`v. A WH Corp.,
`Phillips
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`........................................................
`
`11, 17, 18, 20
`
`0v)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 5
`
`

`

`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`....................................................................
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`Co.,
`......................................................................
`
`21, 22
`
`18, 20
`
`Transp. Corp.,
`Despatch
`v. Merchants
`Stepanischen
`722 F.2d 922 (1st Cir. 1983) .....................................................................
`
`4, 5, 7, 9
`
`In re United States,
`441 F.3d 44 (/st Cir. 2006)
`
`.................................................................................
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`Inc.,
`............................................................................
`
`Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech.,
`WMS Gaming
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`..........................................................................
`
`v. Fedders Corp.,
`Wanlass
`145 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`............................................................................
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 455(a)
`
`...................................................................................................
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112,][6
`
`.................................................................................................
`
`30
`
`26
`
`15
`
`4
`
`28
`
`11
`
`(v)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 6
`
`

`

`STATEMENT
`
`REGARDING
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`The material
`
`omitted
`
`on pages 5-7, 9, 12 and 15 of this brief describes
`
`the
`
`internal
`
`operation
`
`of the accused
`
`software.
`
`The material
`
`omitted
`
`on page
`
`16 of this
`
`brief discloses
`
`fmancial
`
`information.
`
`All of this material
`
`has been designated
`
`as
`
`"Confidential"
`
`by Defendant-Appellee,
`
`Microsoft
`
`Corporation,
`
`under
`
`the
`
`Protective Order entered
`
`by the district
`
`court.
`
`(vi)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 7
`
`

`

`STATEMENT
`
`OF RELATED
`
`CASES
`
`No other appeal
`
`in or from this action has previously
`
`been before
`
`this or any
`
`other appellate
`
`court.
`
`Appellants,
`
`Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. and Uniloc Singapore
`
`Private Limited
`
`(together
`
`"Uniloc"),
`
`are unaware
`
`of any case pending
`
`in this or any other
`
`court
`
`that
`
`will directly
`
`affect,
`
`or be directly
`
`affected
`
`by,
`
`the decision
`
`in this appeal.
`
`(vii)
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 8
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As it was in the district
`
`court, Microsoft's
`
`entire
`
`argument
`
`on appeal
`
`is based
`
`upon a fiction.
`
`As it did in the district
`
`court, Microsoft
`
`repeatedly
`
`argues
`
`on appeal
`
`that Uniloc
`
`presented
`
`"no evidence"
`
`of infringement
`
`with respect
`
`to the limitations
`
`herein.
`
`See MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 14, 22, 27 n. 2, 36, 37, 52, 53. Microsoft
`
`is simply
`
`wrong.
`
`For example, Uniloc would have offered
`
`"no evidence"
`
`had it responded
`
`to
`
`Microsoft's
`
`non-infringement
`
`motion
`
`solely with unsupported
`
`attorney
`
`argument.
`
`Uniloc,
`
`however,
`
`did not do that. To the contrary, Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`the
`
`declaration
`
`of its expert
`
`(Mr. Klausner) with an accompanying
`
`detailed
`
`report
`
`and
`
`claim charts.
`
`Mr. Klausner's
`
`declaration
`
`addressed
`
`each and every element
`
`of the asserted
`
`claims. Cf. OpticalDisc
`
`Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics,
`
`208 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000)
`
`(summary
`
`judgment
`
`improper
`
`because
`
`reasonable
`
`person
`
`could find
`
`infringement
`
`based on expert's
`
`report);
`
`see also Bio Tech. General Corp. v.
`
`DuramedPharms.,
`
`Inc., 325 F.3d 1356, 1360-61
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`(expert
`
`declaration
`
`and package
`
`insert
`
`sufficient
`
`to withstand
`
`summary
`
`judgment motion).
`
`Appealed
`
`claims
`
`12 and 19 were addressed
`
`on pages 56-65 and 93-105,
`
`respectively,
`
`of Mr. Klausner's
`
`report. A2741-2750;
`
`A2778-90. With respect
`
`to
`
`literal
`
`infringement,
`
`for each element, Mr. Klausner
`
`directed
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`to
`
`his attached
`
`claim charts. See, e.g., A2742
`
`("[m]y
`
`analysis with respect
`
`to literal
`
`-1-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 9
`
`

`

`infringement of this element is set forth in Exhibit D"). Mr. Klausner's
`
`claim
`
`charts
`
`compared
`
`each element
`
`of the asserted
`
`claims
`
`to a corresponding
`
`element
`
`in
`
`the accused
`
`products.
`
`See A2898-2950
`
`(claim 12); A3021-75
`
`(claim 19). With
`
`respect
`
`to infringement
`
`under
`
`the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, Mr. Klausner
`
`provided
`
`analysis
`
`under
`
`the three-part
`
`equivalents
`
`test and the insubstantial
`
`differences
`
`test
`
`in his report. See A2741-2750;
`
`A2778-90.
`
`Uniloc's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`opposition
`
`brief
`
`also cited numerous
`
`additional
`
`evidentiary
`
`exhibits
`
`in support
`
`of its argument.
`
`See, e.g., A2343-72.
`
`Thus,
`
`it is inaccurate
`
`to argue that summary
`
`judgment
`
`was
`
`appropriate
`
`because Uniloc
`
`presented
`
`"no evidence."
`
`The district
`
`court erred by
`
`to allow Uniloc
`
`to present
`
`its evidence
`
`of infringement
`
`to be weighed
`
`by a
`
`failing
`
`jury. Anderson
`
`v. Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)
`
`("weighing
`
`of the
`
`evidence,
`
`and the drawing
`
`of legitimate
`
`inferences
`
`from the facts are jury
`
`functions.").
`
`Microsoft
`
`also erroneously
`
`argues
`
`that Uniloc misunderstood
`
`or
`
`misconstrued
`
`the relative
`
`burden
`
`of the parties
`
`in a summary
`
`judgment
`
`proceeding.
`
`Microsoft
`
`asserts
`
`that Uniloc
`
`believed
`
`that Microsoft
`
`had the burden
`
`of proving
`
`non-infringement.
`
`See MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 15.
`
`In fact, Uniloc
`
`harbored
`
`no such belief
`
`and, moreover,
`
`never argued
`
`to the district
`
`court
`
`that Microsoft
`
`had such burden.
`
`Uniloc
`
`understood
`
`that,
`
`in response
`
`to Microsoft's
`
`motion, Uniloc
`
`had the burden
`
`of presenting
`
`proof
`
`that would
`
`support
`
`a fmding
`
`of infringement.
`
`Uniloc
`
`satisfied
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 10
`
`

`

`its burden by presenting, inter alia,
`
`the declaration
`
`and infringement
`
`claim charts
`
`of its expert
`
`technical witness.
`
`On page 15 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`also asserts
`
`that
`
`Uniloc
`
`believed
`
`that Microsoft
`
`had the burden
`
`of submitting
`
`an expert
`
`declaration.
`
`Uniloc
`
`did not make
`
`this argument.
`
`Uniloc
`
`understood
`
`correctly
`
`the burdens
`
`of
`
`proof
`
`and merely
`
`cited a case wherein
`
`this Court observed
`
`that
`
`the non-moving
`
`party's
`
`burden may be more easily met when the moving
`
`party,
`
`as in this case,
`
`faded to submit
`
`an expert declaration.
`
`See BlueBr.
`
`at 28, 31 n. 9.
`
`As it did in the district
`
`court, Microsoft
`
`attempts
`
`to characterize
`
`the '216
`
`patent
`
`as being directed
`
`to "try before you buy"
`
`software. MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 4, 43.
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the accused
`
`products
`
`are not "try before
`
`Not surprisingly, Microsoft
`
`you buy"
`
`software
`
`products.
`
`As Uniloc
`
`pointed
`
`out (A909-910),
`
`the specification
`
`in the claims
`
`of the '216 patent
`
`nowhere
`
`state that
`
`the disclosed
`
`software
`
`is a "try
`
`before you buy" product.
`
`Certainly,
`
`neither
`
`claim at issue in this appeal
`
`recites
`
`such a marketing
`
`policy.
`
`Microsoft
`
`also complains
`
`that Uniloc
`
`improperly
`
`describes
`
`the technology
`
`embodied
`
`in the '216 patent
`
`in terms of the accused Product Activation
`
`technology. MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 3. This assertion
`
`is incorrect.
`
`Uniloc's
`
`description
`
`of
`
`the '216 patent
`
`is found on pages 11-13 of its opening
`
`brief and cites as support
`
`solely to the '216 patent. Neither
`
`is Microsoft's
`
`repeated
`
`assertion
`
`(MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 27-31, 33)
`
`that Uniloc
`
`did not point
`
`to specific
`
`evidence,
`
`leaving
`
`the district
`
`-3-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 11
`
`

`

`court to search an extensive record, accurate. Uniloc pointed the district court to
`
`Mr. Klausner's expert declaration and claim charts that clearly map each element
`
`of the asserted claims against the accusedproducts.
`
`In its summary judgment
`
`opposition brief (A2342; A2345; A2349-50),
`
`and at the summary
`
`judgment
`
`hearing
`
`(A207-08; A212; A216; A222), Uniloc
`
`repeatedly
`
`directed
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`to Mr. Klausner's
`
`evidence.
`
`As a result,
`
`there can be no dispute
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court was specifically
`
`directed
`
`to this evidence.
`
`The district
`
`court erred by failing
`
`to credit
`
`this evidence. Cruz-Queipo
`
`v. Hospital Espanol AuxiIio Mutuo
`
`de Puerto
`
`Rico. 417 F.3d 67, 68 (lst Cir. 2005)
`
`(district
`
`court
`
`"must
`
`credit"
`
`non-movant's
`
`assertions
`
`in assessing
`
`summary
`
`judgment motion);
`
`Stepanischen
`
`v. Merchants
`
`Despatch
`
`Transp. Corp., 722 F.2d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1983)
`
`(court must consider
`
`the record
`
`"in the light most
`
`favorable
`
`to the party opposing
`
`the motion
`
`and must
`
`indulge
`
`all inferences
`
`favorable
`
`to that party"); Wanlass
`
`v. Fedders Corp.,
`
`145
`
`F.3d 1461, 1466-67
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(error,
`
`in the context
`
`of a summary
`
`judgment
`
`proceeding,
`
`to disbelieve
`
`the non-movant's
`
`evidence).
`
`Rather
`
`than crediting
`
`the
`
`non-movant's
`
`evidence,
`
`it is apparent
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court credited
`
`the judgment
`
`of its own intern.
`
`-4-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 12
`
`

`

`I CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`I
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Uniloc Submitted
`
`Evidence
`
`of the "Same Algorithm"
`
`On pages 26-36 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that Uniloc
`
`failed to submit
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`that Microsoft
`
`infringes
`
`claims
`
`12 and 19. Microsoft's
`
`argument
`
`is incorrect
`
`because
`
`"summary
`
`judgment will not
`
`lie..,
`
`if the evidence
`
`is such that a reasonable
`
`jury could return a verdict
`
`for the nonmoving
`
`party."
`
`Anderson,
`
`477 U.S. at 248. Moreover,
`
`the court must consider
`
`the record
`
`"in the
`
`light most
`
`favorable
`
`to the party opposing
`
`the motion
`
`and must indulge
`
`all
`
`inferences
`
`favorable
`
`to that party."
`
`Stepanischen,
`
`722 F.2d at 928.
`
`On page 27, Microsoft
`
`states
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`"implicitly
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`serving
`
`as licensee
`
`unique
`
`IDs." Uniloc
`
`notion of the asserted
`
`hashing
`
`results
`
`disagrees.
`
`The district
`
`court explicitly
`
`stated that
`
`the outputs
`
`from the hashing
`
`algorithms
`
`in Product Activation
`
`"might
`
`qualify as licensee
`
`unique IDs." A116.
`
`The district
`
`court mistakenly
`
`believed
`
`that
`
`the algorithm on the user
`
`side was
`
`different
`
`from the algorithm on the Microsoft
`
`server
`
`side.
`
`Id.
`
`In fact,
`
`there is no
`
`dispute
`
`that,
`
`in the Office products,
`
`the
`
`algorithm is used on both sides and,
`
`in the Windows
`
`products,
`
`the
`
`algorithm is used on both sides. See A1057,
`
`q[q[15-20 (Microsoft'
`
`s Statement
`
`of Undisputed
`
`Facts)
`
`and A4133,
`
`q[q[15-20
`
`(Uniloc's
`
`responses
`
`not disputing
`
`such facts).
`
`Thus,
`
`contrary
`
`to Microsoft's
`
`argument,
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court erroneously
`
`accepted
`
`(A102),
`
`the security
`
`in the
`
`-5-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 13
`
`

`

`I CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`}
`
`accused
`
`products
`
`is not "asymmetric."
`
`Microsoft
`
`asserts
`
`that "the whole basis of
`
`the court's
`
`grant of summary
`
`judgment
`
`is its conclusion
`
`that
`
`the 'same
`
`algorithm'
`
`requirement
`
`of the '216 patent
`
`claims
`
`is absent
`
`from Microsoft's
`
`Product
`
`Activation." MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 34. As that basis was wrong,
`
`reversal
`
`is warranted.
`
`Microsoft
`
`does not dispute
`
`the point
`
`raised by Uniloc
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`failed to address
`
`the evidence
`
`specifically
`
`cited by Uniloc
`
`in support
`
`of its
`
`argument
`
`that claim 12 is infringed.
`
`See BlueBr.
`
`at 25-28.
`
`Instead, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the court addressed
`
`this issue in its analysis
`
`of claim 1. MicrosoftBr.
`
`at
`
`26-27.
`
`This argument,
`
`however,
`
`undermines Microsoft's
`
`assertion
`
`that Uniloc
`
`the same algorithm is used on the server
`
`side
`
`submitted
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`and the user
`
`side.
`
`In discussing
`
`claim 1, the district
`
`court
`
`specifically
`
`stated that
`
`Uniloc's
`
`position was that
`
`the
`
`hashing
`
`algorithms
`
`are present
`
`on
`
`both sides of the accused
`
`products. Al15.
`
`The problem the district
`
`court believed
`
`to exist with Uniloc's
`
`argument was that
`
`it had not shown that
`
`the algorithms
`
`are
`
`used on both sides. See A116 ("... Uniloc misses
`
`the point:
`
`the '216 Patent
`
`calls
`
`for the same algorithm to be used. on both sides...")
`
`(emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`The district
`
`court was wrong. As noted in Uniloc's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`opposition
`
`brief
`
`(A2349), Microsoft
`
`admitted
`
`(1005-06)
`
`that
`
`the
`
`algorithms
`
`are used on the server
`
`and user
`
`sides. Microsoft
`
`stated that "in the
`
`Office
`
`context
`
`for internet
`
`activation,
`
`the license
`
`is hashed
`
`using an operation
`
`-6-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 14
`
`

`

`I CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`I
`
`known
`
`as an
`
`hash,"
`
`i.e. on the server
`
`side. A1005. Microsoft
`
`also stated that,
`
`on the user
`
`side, "It]he
`
`software
`
`also runs
`
`the license
`
`data through
`
`an
`
`hash."
`
`Id. Microsoft
`
`explained
`
`that
`
`the
`
`algorithm is used in a similar way in
`
`activations
`
`by telephone. A1006.
`
`In addition,
`
`as explained
`
`above, Microsoft
`
`statements
`
`of undisputed
`
`facts 15-20 expressly
`
`asserted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`algorithms
`
`are used on both sides. A1057.
`
`These
`
`assertions
`
`of fact were not
`
`disputed
`
`by Uniloc.
`
`See A4133. Accordingly,
`
`as stated in Uniloc's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`opposition
`
`brief,
`
`these facts were admitted
`
`by Microsoft.
`
`Thus,
`
`if the
`
`evidence with respect
`
`to claim 1 is to be considered,
`
`as Microsoft
`
`states,
`
`such
`
`and, contrary
`
`to the district
`
`evidence
`
`conftrms
`
`that
`
`the same algorithms
`
`are present
`
`court's
`
`belief,
`
`used on both sides.
`
`On page 27 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that Uniloc's
`
`opposition
`
`regarding
`
`claim 12 consisted
`
`of "two conclusory
`
`sentences,"
`
`which Microsoft
`
`quotes.
`
`This
`
`argument
`
`is incorrect
`
`because Microsoft
`
`crops
`
`from the end of the quote Uniloc's
`
`explicit
`
`citation
`
`to its experts
`
`claim charts. Compare MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 27 with
`
`A2367.
`
`As explained
`
`in pages 25-29 of Uniloc's
`
`opening
`
`brief,
`
`these are the claim
`
`charts
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court overlooked
`
`and failed to credit.
`
`Thus,
`
`contrary
`
`to
`
`Microsoft's
`
`argument,
`
`the claim chart was not merely
`
`"sixteen
`
`pages of source
`
`code" or "a conclusory
`
`expert declaration." MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 28. The claim chart
`
`for claim 12 contains
`
`a detailed
`
`explanation
`
`by Uniloc's
`
`expert of how each
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 15
`
`

`

`element
`
`of the claim is met
`
`in the accused Microsoft
`
`products.
`
`See A2898-2950.
`
`a
`
`This is sufficient
`
`to support
`
`a finding of infringement,
`
`z
`
`On pages 34-36 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that Uniloc
`
`failed to submit
`
`proof
`
`of infringement
`
`under
`
`the doctrine
`
`of equivalents.
`
`Microsoft
`
`is incorrect.
`
`In
`
`his report
`
`submitted
`
`in opposition
`
`to Microsoft's
`
`motion
`
`for summary
`
`judgment,
`
`Mr. Klausner
`
`explains
`
`how the Product Activation
`
`technology
`
`infringes,
`
`inter alia,
`
`claims
`
`12 and 19 under
`
`the doctrine
`
`of equivalents.
`
`See A2741-50
`
`(claim 12);
`
`A2778-90
`
`(claim 19). Microsoft
`
`does not dispute Uniloc's
`
`assertion
`
`(BlueBr.
`
`at
`
`40)
`
`that
`
`the district
`
`court erred by not providing Uniloc
`
`the opportunity
`
`to brief
`
`the
`
`issue of the scope of equivalents
`
`for alleged
`
`non-pioneering
`
`patents.
`
`Thus,
`
`this
`
`point
`
`is conceded.
`
`From the district
`
`court' s decision,
`
`it is not apparent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`district
`
`court gave the asserted
`
`claims
`
`any scope of equivalents
`
`or that
`
`the district
`
`counsel
`court asking
`to the district
`refers
`i On page 29 of its brief, Microsoft
`Uniloc why a revised
`expert
`report was not prepared
`after claim construction.
`Microsoft
`does not provide Uniloc's
`response, which was
`that, given the claim
`construction
`largely
`in its favor
`and now not appealed,
`the expert
`report was
`sufficient
`to prove
`infringement.
`See A227.
`
`for
`
`claims
`of pursuing more
`accuses Uniloc
`2On pages 32-33 of its brief, Microsoft
`pursued
`the district
`court
`than it does on appeal. According
`to Microsoft, Uniloc
`shifted
`"hide-the-ball
`strategy"
`in the district
`court and has now "fundamentally
`tactics
`and narrowed
`its case to one theory and two claims..."
`MicrosoftBr.
`at 33.
`Microsoft's
`criticism is misplaced.
`There
`is nothing
`untoward
`about a party such
`as Uniloc
`narrowing
`the number
`of issues on appeal.
`
`in
`a
`
`-8-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 16
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`I
`
`court conducted
`
`any equivalence
`
`analysis.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the case should be
`
`remanded
`
`for resolution
`
`of this issue.
`
`B.
`
`Evidence
`Uniloe Submitted
`Mierosoft's
`Hashing
`Values
`
`that
`are "Unique"
`
`On pages 36-37 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that summary
`
`judgment
`
`should
`
`be afftrmed
`
`because Uniloc
`
`did not present
`
`evidence
`
`that
`
`the output of the hashing
`
`algorithm is "unique"
`
`as that
`
`term is used in "licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID." Microsoft
`
`is
`
`mistaken.
`
`Uuiloc
`
`expressly
`
`pointed
`
`out
`
`to the district
`
`court
`
`that "It]he
`
`evidence
`
`shows
`
`that
`
`these algorithms
`
`create unique
`
`outputs." A2349.
`
`Quoting
`
`from the
`
`report of Microsoft's
`
`own expert, Dr. Wallach, Uniloc
`
`presented
`
`evidence
`
`that "it
`
`is computationally
`
`infeasible
`
`to fred a message which
`
`corresponds
`
`to a given
`
`digest, or to find two different messages which produce
`
`the same digest."
`
`message
`
`Id. Uniloc
`
`also cited (A2349)
`
`to Wallach
`
`exhibit B entitled
`
`"The
`
`Message-
`
`Digest Algorithm."
`
`A1089. As set forth in Uniloc's
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`opposition
`
`brief
`
`(A2349),
`
`this document
`
`states
`
`that
`
`the
`
`output
`
`is like a "fingerprint"
`
`and
`
`that
`
`it is "computationally
`
`infeasible
`
`to produce
`
`two messages
`
`having
`
`the same
`
`message
`
`digest."
`
`See A1089. Unfloc
`
`also cited (A2350)
`
`to the district
`
`court:
`
`(1) an
`
`excerpt
`
`from Microsoft's
`
`website
`
`stating that hashes
`
`are "unique"
`
`like fmgerprints
`
`and
`
`are two common
`
`hashing
`
`algorithms
`
`(A2516);
`
`(2) another
`
`Microsoft website
`
`excerpt
`
`stating that "It]he
`
`hash is globally
`
`unique"
`
`(A2519);
`
`(3) a third Microsoft website
`
`excerpt
`
`stating that
`
`the
`
`hash digest
`
`-9-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 17
`
`

`

`functions "uniquely"
`
`(A2523), and (4) Mr. Klausner's declaration stating that a
`
`unique hash is generated (A212). Thus, Uniloc submitted sufficient evidence
`
`under the district court's claim construction for ajury to determine that the output
`
`of the hashes is unique.
`
`C.
`
`Microsoft's
`
`Other Non-Infringement
`
`Arguments
`
`On pages 37-45 of its brief, Microsoft makes
`
`three
`
`additional
`
`non-
`
`infringement
`
`arguments.
`
`Uniloc
`
`submits
`
`that
`
`these factual
`
`issues
`
`should
`
`not be
`
`resolved
`
`in this Court. Rather,
`
`they should be resolved
`
`by the district
`
`court on
`
`remand.
`
`See, e.g., CCS Fitness,
`
`Inc. v. Brunswick
`
`Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`In any event,
`
`as set forth below, Microsoft's
`
`arguments
`
`should be
`
`rejected.
`
`1.
`
`that Product
`Evidence
`Uniloc Presented
`Replicated
`Registration
`System
`
`Activation
`
`Uses a
`
`Claim 12 includes
`
`the limitation "wherein
`
`said registration
`
`system is
`
`replicated
`
`at a registration authority." See A389. Microsoft
`
`argues that the district
`
`court's
`
`final construction
`
`of this term was overly broad. See A39-40. Microsoft's
`
`claim construction
`
`argument
`
`is contrary
`
`to the claim language
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`should be rejected.
`
`Microsoft's
`
`historical
`
`recitation (A39) of the construction
`
`of this term is
`
`inaccurate. Uniloc
`
`asked the district
`
`court
`
`to construe
`
`this term to mean "wherffm
`
`the registration
`
`authority also has a system that generates
`
`a security key." See A56;
`
`-10-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 18
`
`

`

`A481-82.
`
`In contrast, Microsoft asked that this term be construed to require
`
`replication of the registration system "and all of its features and capabilities..."
`
`Id. As set forth in Uniloc's
`
`reply Markman
`
`brief, claim 12 specifically
`
`recites
`
`that
`
`the registration
`
`system claimed
`
`therein
`
`is for "generating
`
`a security
`
`key from
`
`information
`
`input
`
`to said software..."
`
`A389[14:41-42].
`
`Microsoft
`
`ignores
`
`this
`
`claim language.
`
`In contrast,
`
`the district
`
`court's
`
`construction
`
`stays
`
`true to the
`
`language
`
`of the claim and should be affirmed. Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`("construction
`
`that stays
`
`true to the claim language
`
`and most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent's
`
`description
`
`of the invention will be,
`
`in
`
`the end,
`
`the correct
`
`construction")
`
`(quoting Renishaw
`
`PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa'
`
`per
`
`Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`2.
`
`Uniloc Presented
`Has a "Licensee
`
`Evidence
`Unique
`
`that Product
`ID Generating
`
`Activation
`Means"
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, q[6, the district
`
`court construed
`
`this limitation
`
`as follows:
`
`function
`
`- "to generate
`
`a local or remote
`
`licensee
`
`unique D/registration
`
`key,"
`
`structure
`
`- "a summation
`
`algorithm or a summer
`
`and equivalents
`
`thereof."
`
`A29. Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that "Uniloc's
`
`only alleged
`
`support"
`
`for its assertion
`
`that
`
`the algorithm in the accused
`
`products
`
`are equivalent
`
`to the summation
`
`algorithm
`
`"was a blanket
`
`cite to 65 pages of Mr. Klausner's
`
`declaration..."
`
`MicrosoftBr.
`
`at
`
`41. As before, Microsoft
`
`is incorrect.
`
`-11-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 19
`
`

`

`I CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`]
`
`At the summary
`
`judgment
`
`hearing, Uniloc
`
`specifically
`
`directed
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`to the part of Mr. Klausner's
`
`declaration
`
`discussing
`
`summation
`
`and the
`
`additional
`
`evidence
`
`characterizing
`
`the
`
`hashing
`
`algorithms
`
`as
`
`summation
`
`algorithms.
`
`A216-17.
`
`In addition, Uniloc
`
`cited in its brief
`
`to a
`
`LimeWire.com
`
`techmcal
`
`article
`
`(A2560-61)
`
`stating
`
`that
`
`hash is a
`
`"mathematical
`
`summation
`
`that uniquely
`
`identifies
`
`a file and cannot
`
`be faked."
`
`See
`
`A2353.
`
`Thus, Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`evidence,
`
`in addition
`
`to Mr. Klausner's
`
`declaration,
`
`supporting Uniloc's
`
`argument
`
`that hashes
`
`are equivalent
`
`to a
`
`that a hash is equivalent
`
`summation
`
`algorithm.
`
`From this, a jury could determine
`
`to a summation
`
`algorithm and,
`
`therefore,
`
`that
`
`the accused Product Activation
`
`technology
`
`uses a "licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID generating means."
`
`Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that Mr. Cooper
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`the
`
`hash is not
`
`equivalent
`
`to a summing
`
`operation. MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 42.
`
`In fact, Mr. Cooper, who
`
`was not asked if the
`
`does or does not perform a summing
`
`operation,
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`the
`
`algorithm is more sophisticated
`
`than a summing
`
`operation.
`
`See
`
`A2077.
`
`This is consistent with the district
`
`court's
`
`construction
`
`rejecting
`
`Microsoft's
`
`argument
`
`that summation means only a simple
`
`arithmetic
`
`addition.
`
`A99 n. 3.
`
`It was for a jury to weigh this evidence. Anderson,
`
`477 U.S. at 255
`
`("weighing
`
`of the evidence,
`
`and the drawing
`
`of legitimate
`
`inferences
`
`from the facts
`
`are jury functions.")
`
`-12-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 20
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Evidence
`Uniloc Presented
`Employs
`Information
`that
`User"
`
`that Product Activation
`Identifies
`an Intended
`"Uniquely
`
`On page 43 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that a user is licensed
`
`in Product
`
`Activation
`
`before
`
`activation
`
`takes place)
`
`In response
`
`to this argument, Uniloc
`
`submitted more than sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`in the district
`
`court
`
`to support
`
`a finding
`
`that,
`
`in Product Activation,
`
`a user
`
`is not
`
`licensed
`
`before
`
`activation.
`
`See A2367-69.
`
`Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`a document
`
`stating that, "[a]U Microsoft Office XP products
`
`contain
`
`software-based
`
`product
`
`activation
`
`technology, meaning
`
`users need to
`
`activate
`
`their Microsoft Office XP products
`
`in order
`
`to use them."
`
`See A2620.
`
`Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`a Microsoft
`
`document
`
`stating that, "PA requires
`
`all customer
`
`[sic]
`
`to interact with MSFT via websites
`
`or call centers
`
`to use their product."
`
`See
`
`A2621. Uniloc
`
`also submitted
`
`a Microsoft
`
`document
`
`stating that customers
`
`"have
`
`to activate" when they "acquire
`
`a retail version
`
`of the product."
`
`See A2622.
`
`This
`
`evidence
`
`supports
`
`a finding
`
`that a customer
`
`is an intending
`
`licensee when he/she
`
`acquires
`
`a product
`
`that uses Product Activation.
`
`As a result,
`
`this evidence
`
`creates
`
`a
`
`factual dispute
`
`regarding Microsoft's
`
`claim that a user is licensed
`
`in Product
`
`Activation
`
`before
`
`activation
`
`takes place.
`
`3Microsoft
`The district
`products.
`brief.
`
`this point on appeal.
`does not dispute
`that Uniloc
`asserts
`erroneously
`court did not
`find this claim element
`lacking
`from the accused
`Accordingly,
`Uniloc was not required
`to raise this issue
`in its opening
`
`-13-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 21
`
`

`

`Microsoft argues that it is "beyond
`
`factual
`
`dispute"
`
`that Product Activation
`
`does not employ
`
`"any information"
`
`uniquely
`
`associated with the person
`
`activating
`
`the software. MicrosoftBr.
`
`at 44. Uniloc,
`
`however,
`
`submitted
`
`to the district
`
`court
`
`an abundance
`
`of evidence
`
`of the uniqueness
`
`used in Product Activation.
`
`See
`
`A2370-71.
`
`For example, Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`an email
`
`from a Microsoft
`
`employee
`
`characterizing
`
`the 25 alphanumeric
`
`Product Key used in Product Activation
`
`as
`
`"information
`
`about
`
`this customer."
`
`See A2634. Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`a Microsoft
`
`document
`
`describing
`
`the 25 character Product Key as a "fingerprint
`
`of each
`
`customer
`
`license"
`
`and for "assigning
`
`a unique
`
`identification
`
`number
`
`to each
`
`customer
`
`license."
`
`See A2637
`
`(italics
`
`in original).
`
`Uniloc
`
`submitted
`
`another
`
`stating that
`
`the Product Key used in Product Activation
`
`is "a
`
`Microsoft
`
`document
`
`way to help Microsoft
`
`identify
`
`its customers."
`
`See A2638.
`
`Uniloc
`
`provided
`
`the
`
`district
`
`court with a Microsoft
`
`document
`
`stating that
`
`the Product
`
`ID used in
`
`Product Activation
`
`"uniquely
`
`identifies
`
`a Microsoft
`
`license"
`
`and that "groups
`
`within Microsoft
`
`use the Product
`
`ID to track the special
`
`privileges
`
`and services
`
`that
`
`a customer
`
`receives with a license
`
`(such as a certain
`
`number
`
`of free support
`
`incidents
`
`or free downloads
`
`from the Web)."
`
`See A2639. Uniloc
`
`also provided
`
`an
`
`email by a Microsoft
`
`employee
`
`stating that, via the Product
`
`ID ("PID")
`
`used in
`
`Product Activation,
`
`"there
`
`is the ability to determine
`
`the customer."
`
`See A2640.
`
`In
`
`its summary
`
`opposition
`
`brief, Uniloc
`
`specifically
`
`directed
`
`the district
`
`court
`
`to this
`
`-14-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1047 Page 22
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`J
`
`evidence.
`
`See A2370-71.
`
`This evidence was consistent with the district
`
`court's
`
`claim construction
`
`and was more than sufficient
`
`to permit
`
`a jury to determine
`
`that
`
`this element
`
`of claim 12 is found in the accused Product Activation
`
`products.
`
`4.
`
`is Allowed
`Uniloc
`'q__,ieensee Unique
`q[ 6 and the Doctrine
`
`the Full Range
`ID Generating
`of Equivalents
`
`of Equivalents
`Means"
`Pursuant
`
`of
`
`to § 112,
`
`On page 42 of its brief, Microsoft
`
`argues
`
`that, because
`
`the
`
`hashing
`
`algorithms
`
`were known
`
`in the art prior
`
`to issuance
`
`of the '216 patent,
`
`Uniloc
`
`is precluded
`
`from relying
`
`on the doctrine
`
`of equivalents
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`they
`
`are equivalent
`
`to the licensee
`
`unique
`
`ID generating means
`
`of claim 19. Microsoft's
`
`argument misconstrues
`
`both the law and the facts of this case. With respect
`
`to the
`
`are not precluded
`
`from relianc

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket