Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 102 Page ID #:807
`
`
`David C. Marcus (SBN: 158704)
`david.marcus@wilmerhale.com
`Matthew J. Hawkinson (SBN: 248216)
`matthew.hawkinson@wilmerhale.com
`Aaron Thompson (SBN: 272391)
`aaron.thompson@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: +1 213 443 5300
`Facsimile: +1 213 443 5400
`
`William F. Lee (pro hac vice)
`william.lee@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Telephone: +1 617 526 6000
`Facsimile: +1 617 526 5000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
`Hughes Communications Inc.,
`Hughes Network Systems LLC,
`DISH Network Corporation,
`DISH Network L.L.C., and
`dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C.
`
`Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`The CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY,
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS LLC,
`DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., and DISHNET
`SATELLITE BROADBAND L.L.C.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`CALTECH - EXHIBIT 2012
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 102 Page ID #:808
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order [Doc. No. 20], Defendants
`
`Hughes Communications, Inc., Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Dish Network,
`LLC, and Dishnet Satellite Broadband, LLC hereby provide their Invalidity
`Contentions (“Contentions”) with respect to the asserted claims of U.S. Patents
`Nos. 7,116,710 (“’710 Patent”), 7,421,032 (“’032 Patent”), 7,916,781 (“’781
`Patent”), and 8,284,833 (“’833 Patent”), (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”)
`identified by Plaintiff California Institute of Technology in Plaintiff’s Disclosure
`of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served on April 1, 2014
`(“Infringement Contentions”).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 102 Page ID #:809
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS .................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Identification of Prior Art ..................................................................... 3 
`1.  The ’710 Patent ............................................................................... 3 
`2.  The ’032 Patent ............................................................................... 5 
`3.  The ’781 Patent ............................................................................... 7 
`4.  The ’833 Patent ............................................................................... 8 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 ........................................ 10 
`1.  The ’710 Patent ............................................................................. 12 
`2.  The ’032 Patent ............................................................................. 27 
`3.  The ’781 Patent ............................................................................. 44 
`4.  The ’833 Patent ............................................................................. 59 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §112 ........................................................ 81 
`1.  The ’032 Patent ............................................................................. 81 
`2.  The ’833 Patent ............................................................................. 83 
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §101 ........................................................ 85 
`1.  The ’032 Patent ............................................................................. 88 
`2.  The ’781 Patent ............................................................................. 93 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 4 of 102 Page ID #:810
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff has asserted the claims listed below against Defendants in its
`Infringement Contentions.
`Asserted Claims
`Asserted Patent
`1-8, 11-17, 19-22, and 24
`’710 Patent
`1-2, 4, 8, 10-11, 18-19, and 22
`’032 Patent
`1-22
`’781 Patent
`1-14
`’833 Patent
`However, the asserted claims listed in the above table are invalid, as
`demonstrated in these Contentions and accompanying exhibits. Specifically,
`Exhibits A–D contain Defendants’ invalidity charts.1 A table of exhibits
`accompanying these Contentions is shown below.
`Exhibit
`Contents
`A
`Invalidity Chart for ’710 Patent
`B
`Invalidity Chart for ’032 Patent
`C
`Invalidity Chart for ’781 Patent
`D
`Invalidity Chart for ’833 Patent
`The references discussed in the claim charts and modules cited herein and
`attached hereto may disclose the elements of the asserted claims explicitly or
`inherently, or they may be relied upon to show the state of the art in the relevant
`time frame.
`For purposes of these Contentions, Defendants identify prior art references
`and provide element-by-element claim charts based on Defendants’ implicit
`interpretations of the asserted claims that are apparent from its Infringement
`Contentions. To the extent that the Plaintiff or the Court adopt different positions
`during the process of disclosing and briefing claim construction, and during the
`
`
`1 The invalidity charts contained in the exhibits are drafted in omnibus form to
`respond to Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, which were drafted in that form.
`-1-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 5 of 102 Page ID #:811
`
`
`remainder of fact discovery and expert discovery, Defendants accordingly reserve
`the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend their Contentions.
`Plaintiffs have not identified any secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness relating to the patents-in-suit. Defendants reserve the right to
`supplement their Contentions to rebut any secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness that Plaintiff may identify in the future.
`
`Nothing stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that
`Defendants agree with Plaintiff’s implicit or explicit interpretations of the claims.
`Moreover, nothing in these Contentions shall be treated as an admission that any of
`the Accused Products meets any limitations of the claims. Finally, references to
`the preamble of a claim in these Contentions shall not be treated as an admission
`that the preamble limits the claim.
`II. INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`With respect to each asserted claim, and based on its investigation to date,
`Defendants hereby (a) identify each item of prior art that either anticipates or
`renders obvious each asserted claim; (b) specify whether each such item of prior
`art (or combination of several of the same) anticipates each asserted claim or
`renders it obvious; (c) submit charts identifying where specifically in each item of
`prior art each limitation of each claim is disclosed, described, or taught in the prior
`art; (d) identify the grounds for invalidating asserted claims for failing to claim
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101; and (e) identify the grounds for
`invalidating asserted claims based on indefiniteness, lack of written description,
`and/or lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112.
`Defendants’ claim charts and modules cite particular teachings and
`disclosures of the prior art as applied to features of the asserted claims. However,
`persons having ordinary skill in the art generally may view an item of prior art in
`the context of other publications, literature, products, and understanding. As such,
`the cited portions are only illustrative, and Defendants plan to rely on uncited
`-2-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 6 of 102 Page ID #:812
`
`
`portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert testimony
`as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as providing context
`thereto, and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim limitation.
`Defendants further plan to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references, other
`publications, and testimony to establish bases for combinations of certain cited
`references that render the asserted claims obvious.
`A. Identification of Prior Art
`1. The ’710 Patent
`The following table identifies prior art patents and publications that
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’710 Patent, along with
`the subsections of 35 U.S.C. §102 under which each patent/publication qualifies as
`prior art:
`
`Patent/Publication Information
`D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems
`for "turbo-like" codes.” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp. 201-
`210, Sept. 1998 (“Divsalar”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey,
`“Comparison of constructions of irregular Gallager codes.”
`IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-1454, Oct.
`1999 (“MacKay”).
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low density parity
`check codes with semi-random parity check matrix.”
`Electron. Letters, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 7th Jan. 1999
`(“Ping”).
`M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Shokrollah, D. Spielman,
`“Analysis of low density codes and improved designs using
`irregular graphs.” STOC ’98 Proceedings of the thirtieth
`annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 249-
`258, 1998 (“Luby”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,909 (filed Nov. 6, 1997) (the “’909
`patent”).
`
`35 U.S.C. §102
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 7 of 102 Page ID #:813
`
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, “Irregular
`Turbocodes.” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control
`and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, Sep. 1999 (“Frey”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, “Gallager codes — recent results.”
`Proceedings of the International Symposium on
`Communication Theory and Applications, Ambleside, 1999,
`ed. by M. D. B. Honary and P. Farrell. Research Studies
`Press, 1999 (“Ambleside”).
`H. D. Pfister and P. H. Siegel, “The serial concatenation of
`rate-1 codes through uniform random interleavers.” Proc.
`37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing,
`Monticello, Illinois, pp. 260-269, Sep. 1999 (“Pfister”).
`Source code file “RA.c,” written by D. J. C. MacKay at the
`University of California at San Francisco and made available
`on or before Jan. 12, 1999
`R. J. McEliece, “Repeat-Accumulate Codes [A Class of
`Turbo-like Codes that we can analyse].” 1999 Summer
`Program: Codes, Systems, and Graphical Models,
`University of Minnesota, Institute for Mathematics and its
`Applications. Aug. 2-13, 1999 (“IMA Presentation”).
`The asserted claims of the ’710 patent may also be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(f). The claimed subject matter may have been communicated to Robert J.
`McEliece, one of the named inventors of the ’710 patent, at the International
`Symposium on Communication Theory and Applications, held at Ambleside on
`July 11-16, 1999. Fact discovery is required to understand these events. As
`discovery proceeds, Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Contentions
`with further evidence of derivation under 35 U.S.C. §102(f).
`In addition to the foregoing, Defendants also identify all prior art references
`cited or included in the prosecution history of the ’710 Patent, or that of any
`foreign counterpart, as well as any statements regarding the prior art present
`therein. Defendants further identify and reserve the right to rely on all related
`
`§102(a)
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 8 of 102 Page ID #:814
`
`
`applications and foreign counterparts to any reference identified above, and prior
`art cited therein.
`2. The ’032 Patent
`The following table identifies prior art patents and publications that
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’032 Patent, along with
`the subsections of 35 U.S.C. §102 under which each patent/publication qualifies as
`prior art:
`
`Patent/Publication Information
`D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems
`for "turbo-like" codes.” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp. 201-
`210, Sept. 1998 (“Divsalar”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey,
`“Comparison of constructions of irregular Gallager codes.”
`IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-1454, Oct.
`1999 (“MacKay”).
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low density parity
`check codes with semi-random parity check matrix.”
`Electron. Letters, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 7th Jan. 1999
`(“Ping”).
`M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Shokrollah, D. Spielman,
`“Analysis of low density codes and improved designs using
`irregular graphs.” STOC ’98 Proceedings of the thirtieth
`annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 249-
`258, 1998 (“Luby”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,909 (filed Nov. 6, 1997) (the “’909
`patent”).
`Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, “Irregular
`Turbocodes.” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control
`and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, Sep. 1999 (“Frey”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, “Gallager codes — recent results.”
`Proceedings of the International Symposium on
`Communication Theory and Applications, Ambleside, 1999,
`ed. by M. D. B. Honary and P. Farrell. Research Studies
`Press, 1999 (“Ambleside”).
`
`35 U.S.C. §102
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 9 of 102 Page ID #:815
`
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`H. D. Pfister and P. H. Siegel, “The serial concatenation of
`rate-1 codes through uniform random interleavers.” Proc.
`37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing,
`Monticello, Illinois, pp. 260-269, Sep. 1999 (“Pfister”).
`Source code file “RA.c,” written by D. J. C. MacKay at the
`University of California at San Francisco and made available
`on or before Jan. 12, 1999
`T. J. Richardson and R. L. Urbanke, “Encoding of Sparse
`Parity Check Codes.” 1999 Summer Program: Codes,
`Systems, and Graphical Models, University of Minnesota,
`Institute for Mathematics and its Applications. Aug. 2-13,
`1999 (“Richardson”).
`R. J. McEliece, “Repeat-Accumulate Codes [A Class of
`Turbo-like Codes that we can analyse].” 1999 Summer
`Program: Codes, Systems, and Graphical Models,
`University of Minnesota, Institute for Mathematics and its
`Applications. Aug. 2-13, 1999 (“IMA Presentation”).
`The asserted claims of the ’032 patent may also be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(f). The claimed subject matter may have been communicated to Robert J.
`McEliece, one of the named inventors of the ’032 patent, at the International
`Symposium on Communication Theory and Applications, held at Ambleside on
`July 11-16, 1999. Fact discovery is required to understand these events. As
`discovery proceeds, Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Contentions
`with further evidence of derivation under 35 U.S.C. §102(f).
`In addition to the foregoing, Defendants also identify all prior art references
`cited or included in the prosecution history of the ’032 Patent, or that of any
`foreign counterpart, as well as any statements regarding the prior art present
`therein. Defendants further identify and reserve the right to rely on all related
`applications and foreign counterparts to any reference identified above, and prior
`art cited therein.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 10 of 102 Page ID #:816
`
`
`3. The ’781 Patent
`The following table identifies prior art patents and publications that
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’781 Patent, along with
`the subsections of 35 U.S.C. §102 under which each patent/publication qualifies as
`prior art:
`
`Patent/Publication Information
`D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems
`for "turbo-like" codes.” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp. 201-
`210, Sept. 1998 (“Divsalar”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey,
`“Comparison of constructions of irregular Gallager codes.”
`IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-1454, Oct.
`1999 (“MacKay”).
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low density parity
`check codes with semi-random parity check matrix.”
`Electron. Letters, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 7th Jan. 1999
`(“Ping”).
`M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Shokrollah, D. Spielman,
`“Analysis of low density codes and improved designs using
`irregular graphs.” STOC ’98 Proceedings of the thirtieth
`annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 249-
`258, 1998 (“Luby”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,909 (filed Nov. 6, 1997) (the “’909
`patent”).
`Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, “Irregular
`Turbocodes.” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control
`and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, Sep. 1999 (“Frey”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, “Gallager codes — recent results.”
`Proceedings of the International Symposium on
`Communication Theory and Applications, Ambleside, 1999,
`ed. by M. D. B. Honary and P. Farrell. Research Studies
`Press, 1999 (“Ambleside”).
`
`35 U.S.C. §102
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 11 of 102 Page ID #:817
`
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`H. D. Pfister and P. H. Siegel, “The serial concatenation of
`rate-1 codes through uniform random interleavers.” Proc.
`37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing,
`Monticello, Illinois, pp. 260-269, Sep. 1999 (“Pfister”).
`Source code file “RA.c,” written by D. J. C. MacKay at the
`University of California at San Francisco and made available
`on or before Jan. 12, 1999
`R. J. McEliece, “Repeat-Accumulate Codes [A Class of
`Turbo-like Codes that we can analyse].” 1999 Summer
`Program: Codes, Systems, and Graphical Models,
`University of Minnesota, Institute for Mathematics and its
`Applications. Aug. 2-13, 1999 (“IMA Presentation”).
`The asserted claims of the ’781 patent may also be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(f). The claimed subject matter may have been communicated to Robert J.
`McEliece, one of the named inventors of the ’781 patent, at the International
`Symposium on Communication Theory and Applications, held at Ambleside on
`July 11-16, 1999. Fact discovery is required to understand these events. As
`discovery proceeds, Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Contentions
`with further evidence of derivation under 35 U.S.C. §102(f).
`In addition to the foregoing, Defendants also identify all prior art references
`cited or included in the prosecution history of the ’781 Patent, or that of any
`foreign counterpart, as well as any statements regarding the prior art present
`therein. Defendants further identify and reserve the right to rely on all related
`applications and foreign counterparts to any reference identified above, and prior
`art cited therein.
`4. The ’833 Patent
`The following table identifies prior art patents and publications that
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’833 Patent, along with
`the subsections of 35 U.S.C. §102 under which each patent/publication qualifies as
`prior art:
`
`§102(a)
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 12 of 102 Page ID #:818
`
`
`Patent/Publication Information
`D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece, “Coding theorems for
`"turbo-like" codes.” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf. on Comm.,
`Control and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp. 201-210, Sept.
`1998 (“Divsalar”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey,
`“Comparison of constructions of irregular Gallager codes.”
`IEEE Trans. Commun., Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-1454, Oct.
`1999 (“MacKay”).
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low density parity check
`codes with semi-random parity check matrix.” Electron.
`Letters, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 7th Jan. 1999 (“Ping”).
`M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Shokrollah, D. Spielman,
`“Analysis of low density codes and improved designs using
`irregular graphs.” STOC ’98 Proceedings of the thirtieth
`annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 249-
`258, 1998 (“Luby”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,909 (filed Nov. 6, 1997) (the “’909
`patent”).
`Brendan J. Frey and David J.C. MacKay, “Irregular
`Turbocodes.” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control
`and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, Sep. 1999 (“Frey”).
`D. J. C. MacKay, “Gallager codes — recent results.”
`Proceedings of the International Symposium on
`Communication Theory and Applications, Ambleside, 1999,
`ed. by M. D. B. Honary and P. Farrell. Research Studies
`Press, 1999 (“Ambleside”).
`H. D. Pfister and P. H. Siegel, “The serial concatenation of
`rate-1 codes through uniform random interleavers.” Proc.
`37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing,
`Monticello, Illinois, pp. 260-269, Sep. 1999 (“Pfister”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,234 (filed July 22, 1999) (the “’234
`patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,623,999 (filed June 4, 1984) (the “’999
`patent”)
`
`35 U.S.C. §102
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(e)
`
`§102(a), (b), (e)
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 13 of 102 Page ID #:819
`
`
`§102(a)
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`Source code file “RA.c,” written by D. J. C. MacKay at the
`University of California at San Francisco and made available
`on or before Jan. 12, 1999
`R. J. McEliece, “Repeat-Accumulate Codes [A Class of
`Turbo-like Codes that we can analyse].” 1999 Summer
`Program: Codes, Systems, and Graphical Models, University
`of Minnesota, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications.
`Aug. 2-13, 1999 (“IMA Presentation”).
`The asserted claims of the ’833 patent may also be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§102(f). The claimed subject matter may have been communicated to Robert J.
`McEliece, one of the named inventors of the ’833 patent, at the International
`Symposium on Communication Theory and Applications, held at Ambleside on
`July 11-16, 1999. Fact discovery is required to understand these events. As
`discovery proceeds, Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Contentions
`with further evidence of derivation under 35 U.S.C. §102(f).
`In addition to the foregoing, Defendants also identify all prior art references
`cited or included in the prosecution history of the ’833 Patent, or that of any
`foreign counterpart, as well as any statements regarding the prior art present
`therein. Defendants further identify and reserve the right to rely on all related
`applications and foreign counterparts to any reference identified above, and prior
`art cited therein.
`B. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103
`Based on Defendants’ understanding of Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions,
`Defendants believe that the references discussed in Exhibits A–D anticipate one or
`more of the asserted claims. As described below and in Exhibits A–D, the
`references listed in Part II.A also render the asserted claims obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103. As these Contentions show, each of the asserted claims is a
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yields
`predictable results. Specifically, Defendants contend that the references listed in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-10-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 14 of 102 Page ID #:820
`
`
`Part II.A, taken individually or together, combined with the knowledge and skill of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have
`rendered all the asserted claims obvious.
`The Supreme Court has held that the combination of familiar elements
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739
`(2007). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and
`other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`different one. Id. at 1740. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to
`improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
`would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`To determine whether there is an apparent reason to combine the known
`elements as set forth in the asserted claims, a court can look to interrelated
`teachings of multiple references; the effects of demands known to the design
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1740–41. For
`example, obviousness can be demonstrated by showing there existed at the time of
`invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed
`by the patent’s claims. Id. at 1743. Any need or problem known in the field of
`endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
`for combining the elements in the manner claimed. Id. Common sense also
`teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes,
`and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
`multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Id.
`Thus, the motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art is found in the
`references disclosed in Exhibits A–D, and those described herein, and in: (1) the
`nature of the problem being solved; (2) the express, implied and inherent teachings
`-11-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 15 of 102 Page ID #:821
`
`
`of the prior art; (3) the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art; (4) the fact
`that the prior art is generally directed towards optimizing efficiency within
`multiple access communications systems; and (5) the predictable results obtained
`in combining the different elements of the prior art. The combination of familiar
`elements with known methods is obvious when it provides no functionality except
`for yielding predictable results. Id. at 1739. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill
`would have been motivated to make the combinations and/or modifications due to
`the recognition at the time of the alleged invention of a need for more efficient use
`of wireless bandwidth and/or power reduction in wireless communications systems.
`Further, the Supreme Court has held that a showing of a motivation to combine is
`not required to prove obviousness. Id. at 1741.
`Exemplary reasons to combine any of a number of prior art references,
`including any combination of those identified in Exhibits A–D, to meet the claim
`limitations of the Asserted Patents are described above and below. Note that
`reasons to combine set forth with respect to one element are also applicable to the
`other elements of the same patent, and have only been set forth once in the interest
`of being concise. Additional reasons are set forth in Exhibits A–D.
`1. The ’710 Patent
`As these Contentions show, each of the elements of claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-
`22, and 24 of the ’710 patent was well-known, disclosed, and taught in the prior art.
`Specific examples of certain features are provided below, but additional instances
`and the reasons to combine the teachings of the prior art are set forth in Exhibit A.
`Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19-22, and 24 of the ’710 Patent are therefore invalid due to
`obviousness based on any combination of references listed herein that collectively
`disclose and/or teach each of the featured elements. Reasons to combine the
`references include the nature of the problem being solved, the express, implied and
`inherent teachings of the prior art, the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the
`art, that such combinations would have yielded predictable results, and that such
`-12-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 55 Filed 05/15/14 Page 16 of 102 Page ID #:822
`
`
`combinations would have represented known alternatives to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`To the extent any reference listed in section II.A.1 above is not found to
`anticipate a claim of the ’710 patent, that reference, in combination with one or
`more additional references listed in section II.A.1, renders the claim obvious, as set
`forth in the chart attached as Exhibit A. Below, Defendants identify additional
`motivation and reasons to combine the art cited above. Multiple teachings,
`suggestions, motivations, and/or reasons to modify any of the references and/or to
`combine any two or more of the references in Exhibit A come from many sources,
`including the prior art (specific and as a whole), common knowledge, common
`sense, predictability, expectations, industry trends, design incentives or need,
`market demand or pressure, market forces, obviousness to try, the nature of the
`problem faced, and/or knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill.
`
`a) Combinations of two or more of Divsalar, Ping, Luby,
`MacKay, Frey, Ambleside, Pfister, the IMA Presentation,
`RA.c, and the ’909 Patent, in General
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`teachings of any combination of two or more of Divsalar, Ping, Luby, MacKay,
`Frey, Ambleside, Pfister, the IMA Presentation, RA.c, and the ’909 Patent.
`As set forth in Exhibit A, Divsalar discloses various methods and systems
`for encoding signals, including repeat-accumulate codes. Encoding signals using
`these repeat-accumulate codes involves receiving a block of information bits,
`repeating each of these information bits using a linear transform operation, and
`accumulating various exclusive-OR or modulo-2 sums of these information bits to
`generate parity bits that are output in a codeword.
`As set forth in Exhibit A, Ping discloses a method for encodin