UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP.,
`VIZIO, INC., HULU, LLC,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and AVAYA INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-001981
`Patent No. 6,009,469 C1
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01400 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., Toshiba Corp., VIZIO, Inc., Hulu, LLC,
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., and Avaya Inc., hereby give notice pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a) that they appeal to the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Board’s Final Written Decision in
`
`IPR2015-00198, entered on May 9, 2016 (Paper No. 57), and from all orders,
`
`decisions, rulings, and opinions underlying the Final Written Decision. A copy of
`
`the Final Written Decision is attached to this Notice.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Petitioners further note that
`
`the issues on appeal will likely include, but are not limited to, the Board’s claim
`
`construction; whether the Board erred when it ruled that claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17,
`
`and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 C1 (“the Instituted Claims”) are not obvious
`
`over the prior art of record; whether the Board erred when it determined that
`
`Petitioners had not met their burden of proving that the Instituted Claims are
`
`unpatentable; any finding or determination supporting or relating to those issues;
`
`and any other issues decided adversely to Petitioners in any orders, decisions,
`
`ruling, or opinions.
`
`Copies of this Notice of Appeal are being filed simultaneously with the
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board. A copy of this Notice of Appeal and the $500.00 fee required by
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1913 and Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(3)(A) are being electronically
`
`filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`A Notice of Appeal is also being filed concurrently in the related inter partes
`
`review proceedings IPR2015-00196 and IPR2015-00209.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Sharif E. Jacob
`LEO LAM (Reg. No. 38,528)
`ASHOK RAMANI
`MATTHIAS KAMBER
`SHARIF E. JACOB
`
`KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-5400
`Fax: (415) 397-7188
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner HULU, LLC
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`/s/ Clint Conner
`CLINT CONNER (Reg. No. 52,764)
`PAUL MEIKLEJOHN (Reg. No. 26,569)
`JENNIFER SPAITH (Reg. No. 51,916)
`
`DORSEY & WHITNEY
`50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Email:
`conner.clint@dorsey.com
`
`meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com
`
`
`spaith.jennifer@dorsey.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner TOSHIBA CORP.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard V. Wells
`KEVIN O’BRIEN (Reg. No. 30,578)
`RICHARD V. WELLS (Reg. No. 53,757)
`
`BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
`815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Email: kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`richard.wells@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner VIZIO, INC.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`/s/ Dorothy P. Whelan
`DOROTHY P. WHELAN (Reg. No.
`33,814)
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Email:
`whelan@fr.com
`
`CHRISTOPHER O. GREEN (Reg. No.
`52,964)
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Email:
`cgreen@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner AVAYA INC.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David L. Cavanaugh
`DAVID L. CAVANAUGH (Reg. No.
`36,476)
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`JASON D. KIPNIS (Reg. No. 40,680)
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Email:
`jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner CISCO SYSTEMS
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`/s/ Rajeev Gupta
`DARREN M. JIRON (Reg. No. 45,777)
`RAJEEV GUPTA (Reg. No. 55,873)
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner LG
`ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
`
`I hereby certify that on May 20, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`this PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL, as well all other papers filed
`
`therewith, to be filed along with the filing fee via CM/ECF with the Clerk’s Office
`
`of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and also filed and
`
`served as set forth below:
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC FILING THROUGH PATENT REVIEW PROCESSING
`
`SYSTEM AND COPIES DELIVERED VIA EMAIL
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Madison Building (East)
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313
`
`Counsel for Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`William A. Meunier (Lead Counsel) (Registration No. 41,193)
`Matthew D. Durell (Backup Counsel) (Registration No. 55, 136)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`Email:
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`Counsel for Hulu, LLC
`Leo Lam (Registration No. 38,528)
`Matthias Kamber
`Ashok Ramani
`Sharif Jacob
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Email:
`llam@kvn.com
`
`mkamber@kvn.com
`
`
`aramani@kvn.com
`
`
`sjacob@kvn.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Counsel for Toshiba Corp.
`Clint Conner (Registration No. 52,764)
`Paul Meiklejohn (Registration No. 26,569)
`Jennifer Spaith (Registration No. 51,916)
`Dorsey & Whitney
`50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Email:
`conner.clint@dorsey.com
`
`meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com
`
`spaith.jennifer@dorsey.com
`
`Counsel for VIZIO, Inc.
`Kevin O’Brien (Registration No. 30,578)
`Richard V. Wells (Registration No. 53,757)
`Baker & McKenzie LLP
`815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Email:
`kevin.obrien@bakermckenzie.com
`
`
`richard.wells@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Counsel for Avaya Inc.
`Dorothy P. Whelan (Registration No. 33,814)
`Fish & Richardson
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Email:
`whelan@fr.com
`
`Christopher O. Green (Registration No. 52,964)
`Fish & Richardson
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Email:
`cgreen@fr.com
`
`Counsel for CISCO Systems
`David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email:
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Jason D. Kipnis (Registration No. 40,680)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Email:
`jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Office of the General Counsel
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313
`
`
`
`Dated: May 20, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Rajeev Gupta
`Darren M. Jiron, Registration No. 45,777
`Rajeev Gupta, Registration No. 55,873
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`
`Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 57
`Entered May 9, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., TOSHIBA CORP., VIZIO, INC.,
`HULU, LLC, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., AVAYA, INC.,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and
`VERIZON BUSNESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2015-001961 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`Case IPR2015-001982 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`Case IPR2015-002093 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01397 and IPR2015-01407 were joined with this proceeding.
`2 IPR2015-01400 was joined with this proceeding.
`3 IPR2015-01398 and IPR2015-01406 were joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), Toshiba Corp.(“Toshiba”), VIZIO, Inc.
`(“VIZIO”), and Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed three Petitions requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,108,704 C1 (209 Ex. 1001,4 “the ’704 patent”), claims 1–3, 5,
`6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 C1 (198 Ex. 1001, “the
`’469 patent”), and claims 3, 4, and 6‒14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 C1
`(196 Ex. 1001, “the ’121 patent”). 209 Paper 1 (“209 Pet.”); 198 Paper 1
`(“198 Pet.”); 196 Paper 1 (“196 Pet.”). Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. 209 Paper 15 (“209 Prelim. Resp.”);
`198 Paper 19 (“198 Prelim. Resp.”); 196 Paper 15 (“196 Prelim. Resp.”).
`On May 15, 2015, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted inter partes
`review in each case as follows:
`
`
`
`
`4 Citations are preceded by “209” to designate IPR2015-00209, “198” to
`designate IPR2015-00198, or “196” to designate IPR2015-00196. Unless
`noted otherwise, all citations are to IPR2015-00209.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR20l5-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 Cl)
`
`Claims Instituted References
`IPR20l5-00209 - §l03(a)
`NetBI(j'§,
`
`WINS5
`
`d
`
`IPR20l5-00209
`
`IPR2015-00198
`IPR2015—00l98
`IPR2015-00196
`
`31
`
`1-3, 9, 10, 14, 17,
`
`3, 4, 6-14
`
`
`
`11,12,14,16,19,
`
`22, 23, 27, 30, and
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`1' IanN§1=11,‘IiI°1'§:{$)S=
`
`WINS, NetBIOS,
`
`andpinard
`N“net?Iffsd
`N“Het1BSIf)“Sd
`
`209 Paper 20 (“209 Dec-”); 198 Paper 24 (“198 Dec.”); 196 Paper 20
`
`(“196 Dec.”).
`
`After institution of interpartes review, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”)
`
`and AVAYA, Inc. (“AVAYA”) filed three Petitions and Motions to Join the
`
`IPR2015-00209, IPR2015-00198, and IPR2014-00196 proceedings.
`
`IPR20l5-01398, Papers 3, 4; IPR2015-01400, Papers 3, 5; IPR20l5-01397,
`
`Papers 2, 3- Verizon Services Corp. and Verizon Business Network
`
`Services Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”) also filed two Petitions and Motions
`
`to Join the IPR20l5-00209 and IPR2015-00196 proceedings. IPR20l5-
`
`0l406, Papers 1, 3; IPR2015—0l407, Papers 1, 3. We granted these motions
`
`and joined Cisco, AVAYA, and Verizon to these inter partes reviews.
`
`5 Microsoft Windows NT 3.5, TCPHP User Guide (1994) (Ex. 1003,
`‘‘WINS’’).
`
`5 The Open Group, Technical Standard, Protocols For X/Open Pc
`Interworking: SMB, Version 2.0 (1992) (Ex. 1004, “NetBIOS”).
`
`7 U.S. Patent No- 5,533,110, issued July 2, 1996 (Ex. 1020, “Pinard”).
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`209 Papers 36, 39; 198 Paper 40; 196 Papers 38, 41. We refer to LG,
`Toshiba, VIZIO, Hulu, Cisco, AVAYA, and Verizon collectively as
`“Petitioner.”
`Patent Owner filed a Response in each case (209 Paper 30, “209 PO
`Resp.”; 198 Paper 34, “198 PO Resp.”; 196 Paper 32, “196 PO Resp.”), and
`Petitioner filed a Reply (209 Paper 37, “209 Pet. Reply”; 198 Paper 41,
`“198 Pet. Reply”; 196 Paper 39, “196 Pet. Reply”). Subsequent to Patent
`Owner’s Response and Petitioner’s Reply, the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Straight Path IP Grp.,
`Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Straight Path”).
`See Ex. 2042. Petitioner filed additional briefing in light of Straight Path
`(209 Paper 47, “209 Addʼl Br.”; 198 Paper 50, “198 Addʼl Br.”;
`196 Paper 49, “196 Addʼl Br.”) and Patent Owner filed a response to
`Petitioner’s additional briefing (209 Paper 50, “209 PO Add’l Resp.”;
`198 Paper 53, “198 PO Add’l Resp.”; 196 Paper 52, “196 PO Add’l Resp.”).
`Oral hearing was held on February 9, 2016, and the hearing transcript was
`entered in the record. 209 Paper 53; 198 Paper 56; 196 Paper 55 (“Tr.”).8
`Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (209 Paper 45, “209
`Mot.”; 198 Paper 48, “198 Mot.”; 196 Paper 47, “196 Mot.”), Patent Owner
`filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (209 Paper
`49, “209 Opp. Mot.”; 198 Paper 52, “198 Opp. Mot.”; 196 Paper 51,
`“196 Opp. Mot.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition
`
`
`8 The hearing transcript is the same for all three cases.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C 1)
`IPR2015—00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (209 Paper 52, “209 Reply
`
`Mot.”; 198 Paper 55, “198 Reply Mot.”; 196 Paper 54, “196 Reply Mot.”).
`
`The following table summarizes the papers filed by the parties:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`IPR2015—00209
`(“209 Pet.”)
`Paper 1
`
`IPR2015—00198
`(“l98 Pet.”)
`Paper 1
`
`IPR2015—00196
`(“196 Pet.”)
`Paper 1
`
`Preliminary
`Res 3 onse
`
`Paper 15 (“209
`PO Res u
`
`Paper 20
`
`(“209 Dec.”)
`Paper 30 (“209
`
`Pet. Rel ”
`
`Paper 37 (“209
`Paper 47 (“66
`Add’l 13:7’)
`
`Institute
`
`Rel
`
`:’$§‘t’i“°”:
`Brig“
`
`Patent
`
`Paper 19 (“198
`PO Res o
`
`Paper 24
`
`(“198 Pet_”)
`Paper 34 (“198
`
`Pet. Rel ”
`
`Paper 41 (“l98
`Paper 50 (“198
`Add’l Br_”)
`
`Paper 15 (“196
`PO Res o
`
`Paper 20
`
`(“196 Pet.”)
`Paper 32 (“196
`
`Pet. Rel ”
`
`Paper 39 (“196
`Paper 49 (“196
`Add’l 13:3’)
`
`Paper 52 (“196
`Paper 53 (“198
`Paper 50 (“209
`PO Add’l Resp.”) PO Add’l Resp.”) PO Add’l Resp.”)
`
` Owner’s
`
`Response to
`Additional
`
`Briefin ;
`
`Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to
`
`Exclude
`
`Opposition to
`Motion to
`Exclude
`
`Reply to
`Opposition to
`Motion to
`Exclude
`
`Paper 45
`(“209 Mot.”)
`
`Paper 48
`(“198 Mot.”)
`
`Paper 49 (“209
`,,
`Opp. Mot. )
`
`Paper 52 (“198
`,,
`Opp. Mot. )
`
`Paper 52 (“209
`Reply Mot.”)
`
`Paper 55 (“198
`Reply Mot.”)
`
`Paper 47
`(“l96 Mot.”)
`
`Paper 51 (“196
`,,
`Opp. Mot- )
`
`Paper 54 (“196
`Reply Mot.”)
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U_S_C. § 6(c)_ This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U_S_C. § 318(a) and 37 C _F.R. § 42.73-
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19,
`22, 23, 27, 30, and 31 of the ʼ704 patent, claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of
`the ʼ469 patent, and claims 4 and 6‒14 of the ʼ121 patent are unpatentable.
`For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ʼ469 patent
`and claim 3 of the ’121 patent are unpatentable.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents are the
`subject of the proceedings in Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Vizio et. al,
`No. 1:13-cv-00934 (E.D. VA.). Pet. 4. Petitioner further indicates that the
`ʼ704 patent was the subject of a final written decision in Sipnet EU S.R.O. v.
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., IPR2013-00246 (PTAB), which was
`subsequently reversed and remanded in Straight Path. Pet. 2. The
`remanded case in IPR2013-00246 is still pending before the Board as of the
`entry of this Decision.
`
`C. The ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 Patents
`The ’704 patent is titled “Point-to-Point Internet Protocol” and
`generally relates to establishing a point-to-point communication link.
`209 Ex. 1001, 2:53–57. The ’469 patent is titled “Graphic User Interface for
`Internet Telephony Application” and generally relates to facilitating audio
`communications over computer networks. 198 Ex. 1001, 1:54–57. The
`’121 patent is titled “Point-to-Point Computer Network Communication
`Utility Utilizing Dynamically Assigned Network Protocol Addresses” and,
`similar to the ’409 patent, relates to facilitating audio communications over
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`computer networks. 196 Ex. 1001, 1:55–57. The ’469 and ’121 patents are
`continuations-in-part of the ’704 patent. 198 Ex. 1001 at [63]; 196 Ex. 1001
`at [63]. The specifications for the three challenged patents are very similar
`and, in some instances, duplicative.
`Each patent explains that a first processing unit automatically
`transmits its associated e-mail address, and its IP address, to a connection
`server. 209 Ex. 1001, 5:25–38; 198 Ex. 1001, 6:66–7:9; 196 Ex. 1001,
`6:60–7:3. The connection server stores the addresses in a database and, thus,
`the first processing unit is established as an active on-line party available for
`communication. Id. The first processing unit sends a query to the
`connection server, which searches the database to determine whether a
`second processing unit is active and on-line. 209 Ex. 1001, 5:55–60;
`198 Ex. 1001, 7:31–36; 196 Ex. 1001, 7:24–29. If the callee is active and
`on-line, the connection server sends the IP address of the callee from the
`database to the first processing unit, i.e., performs a point-to-point Internet
`protocol communication. 209 Ex. 1001, 5:60–64; 198 Ex. 1001, 7:37–40;
`196 Ex. 1001, 7:30–34. The first processing unit then directly establishes
`the point-to-point Internet communication with the callee using the retrieved
`IP address. 209 Ex. 1001, 5:64–67; 198 Ex. 1001, 7:40–43; 196 Ex. 1001,
`7:33–36.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 above illustrates the architecture between first processing unit 12,
`second processing unit 22, and connection server 26. 209 Ex. 1001, 5:15–
`29, 198 Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:3; 196 Ex. 1001, 6:50–64.
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, and
`31 of the ’704 patent, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 18 of the
`’469 patent, and claims 3, 4, and 6‒14 of the ’121 patent. 209 Pet. 36–60;
`198 Pet. 37–60; 196 Pet. 29–59. Claim 1 of the ’704 patent is illustrative of
`the claims at issue in that patent and is reproduced below.
`1.
`A computer program product for use with a computer
`system, the computer system executing a first process and
`operatively connectable to a second process and a server over a
`computer network, the computer program product comprising:
`a computer usable medium having program code
`embodied in the medium, the program code comprising:
`program code for transmitting to the server a
`network protocol address received by the first process
`following connection to the computer network;
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`program code for transmitting, to the server, a
`query as to whether the second process is connected to
`the computer network;
`program code for receiving a network protocol
`address of the second process from the server, when the
`second process is connected to the computer network;
`and
`
`program code, responsive to the network protocol
`address of the second process, for establishing a point-to-
`point communication link between the first process and
`the second process over the computer network.
`Claim 1 of the ’469 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue in
`that patent and is reproduced below.9
`1.
`A computer program product for use with a computer
`system having a display, the computer system capable of
`executing a first process and connecting to other processes and
`a server process over a computer network, the computer
`program product comprising a computer usable medium having
`computer readable code means embodied in the medium
`comprising:
`program code for generating a user-interface
`a.
`enabling control of a first process executing on the computer
`system;
`program code for determining the currently
`b.
`assigned network protocol address of the first process upon
`connection to the computer network;
`c.
`program code responsive to the currently assigned
`network protocol address of the first process, for establishing a
`communication connection with the server process and for
`forwarding the assigned network protocol address of the first
`process and a unique identifier of the first process to the server
`
`9 Italicized terms and limitations represent amendments to the claims as
`issued in the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. See 198 Ex. 1001.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`process upon establishing a communication connection with the
`server process; and
`d.
`program code, responsive to user input commands,
`for establishing a point-to-point communications with another
`process over the computer network.
`Claim 6 of the ’121 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue in
`that patent and is reproduced below.10
`6.
`A computer program product for use with a computer
`system capable of executing a first process and connecting to
`other processes and a server process over a computer network,
`the computer program product comprising a computer usable
`medium having computer readable code means embodied in the
`medium comprising:
`A.
`program code configured to, following connection
`of the first process to the computer network, forward to the
`server process a dynamically assigned network protocol address
`at which the first process is connected to the computer network;
`B.
`program code configured to query the address
`server as to whether the second process is connected to the
`computer network;
`program code configured to receive a dynamically
`C.
`assigned network protocol address of the second process from
`the address server, when the second process is connected to the
`computer network; and
`D.
`program code configured to respond to the
`network protocol address of the second process, establish a
`point-to-point communication link with the second process over
`the computer network.
`
`
`10 Italicized terms and limitations represent amendments to the claims as
`issued in the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate. See 196 Ex. 1001.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`E. Claim Construction
`We construe expired patent claims according to the standard applied
`by the district courts. See In re Rambus, 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Specifically, we apply the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In determining the
`meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
`evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, and that is the meaning the term would have to a person of
`ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent
`including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Claims are
`not interpreted in a vacuum but are a part of and read in light of the
`specification. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113,
`1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the
`specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993), the claims still must be read in view of the specification of
`which they are a part. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d
`1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We construe the
`following claim terms.
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`1. “is connected to the computer network” / “on-line status” /
`“is accessible”
`Independent claim 1 of the ʼ704 patent recites, “transmitting, to the
`server, a query as to whether the second process is connected to the
`computer network.” Dependent claims 3 and 6 of the ʼ469 patent,
`independent claims 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 of the ʼ121 patent, and dependent
`claim 4 of the ’121 patent recite the similar limitations of a query as to
`whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” (emphasis
`added). Independent claims 11 and 22, and dependent claims 12, 14, 16, 19,
`23, 27, 30, and 31 of the ʼ704 patent recite “querying the server as to the on-
`line status of the first callee process” (emphasis added). Independent
`claim 9 and dependent claims 14, 17, and 18 of the ʼ469 patent recite similar
`limitations as to a query whether the first callee process “is accessible,” and
`independent claims 9, 10, and 11 of the ʼ121 patent recite a similar limitation
`as to the processes “having [an] on-line status” (emphasis added).
`In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is
`connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the
`query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is
`connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.”
`Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360.11 The Federal Circuit held that the query
`
`
`11 Petitioner argues that the relevant specifications do not include an
`embodiment that “guarantee[s]” that an entry in its database is online, and,
`therefore, Patent Owner’s argument does not distinguish the ’704, ’469, and
`’121 patents over the prior art. Addʼl Br. 6‒7. However, such an argument
`goes towards whether there is written description and enablement support
`for the claims. In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit did not offer a view as
`to the sufficiency of the written description or enablement based on the
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or
`whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration
`information is no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further
`explained that “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language
`. . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration
`information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit
`explained, “[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the
`language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive
`questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the
`specification reasonably supports a different meaning. The specification
`plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms
`are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the
`Federal Circuit construed the limitation “is connected to the computer
`network” as “is connected to the computer network at the time that the query
`is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 1363.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that the limitations “on-line status”
`and “is accessible” have the same meaning as “is connected to the computer
`network.” See 209 Pet. 35–36; 209 PO Resp. 36‒48; 198 Pet. 35–36;
`198 PO Resp. 35‒46; 196 Pet. 29; 196 PO Resp. 38‒51. Similar to “is
`connected to a computer network,” the “on-line status” and “is accessible”
`of the second process are recited in the present tense, and therefore must be
`
`claim construction provided by the Federal Circuit because “written-
`description and enablement challenges were not, and could not have been,
`part of the inter partes review.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1363. We
`similarly do not determine whether this claim limitation is supported by the
`specifications of the ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`determined at the time of the querying whether the second process “is
`accessible” or selecting of the process having an “on-line status.” Therefore,
`we construe “on-line status” and “is accessible” as having the same meaning
`as “is connected to the computer network.”
`Petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit relied on two disclosures in
`the ʼ704 patent in construing “is connected to the computer network” and
`“on-line status.” Addʼl Br. 2. Petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit
`explained that the use of “timestamps” and the server’s maintenance of the
`database upon the user’s logging off are descriptions of “is connected to a
`computer network” and “on-line status.” Id. However, Petitioner did not
`raise these positions in its Petition. Nonetheless, we disagree with
`Petitioner. The Federal Circuit held that “[w]hen claim language has a plain
`meaning . . . leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions . . .
`[t]he specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation
`where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Straight
`Path, 806 F.3d at 1361. Although the Federal Circuit highlighted the same
`disclosures from the ʼ704 patent specification argued by Petitioner, the
`Federal Circuit did not rely on the ʼ704 patent specification in narrowing “is
`connected to the computer network” and “on-line status,” but rather held that
`the ʼ704 patent specification did not contradict its claim construction of
`these terms. See id.
`2. “process”
`The claims recite a “query . . . as to whether the second process is
`connected to the computer network” (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “process” is “a
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`running instance of a computer program or application.” PO Resp. 26‒31.
`Petitioner accepts Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 6;
`Tr. 20:1–4. Petitioner and Patent Owner, however, disagree as to whether a
`computer with an operating system is a computer program, and, therefore, a
`“process.” PO Resp. 26–36; Pet. Reply 7–10.
`In Ancora Technologies, the Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he
`ordinary meaning of the word ‘program’ in the computer context
`encompasses both operating systems and the applications that run on them
`(as well as other types of computer programs)” and “‘to a computer
`programmer’ a program is merely a ‘set of instructions’ for a computer.”
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 734 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Applying this guidance to the case before us, we agree with Petitioner and
`construe the term “process” to mean “a running instance of a computer
`program or application,” where a “computer program” is a set of instructions
`for a computer that encompasses both operating systems and the applications
`that run on them.
`We further note that the ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patent specifications
`interchange the terms “process” and “processing unit.” For example, the
`specifications explain that a first “processing unit” is “established in the
`database [] as an active on-line party.” Ex. 1001, 5:29–34. The claims
`recite the term “process.” Accordingly, our construction is also consistent
`with the specifications, such that a “process” includes a “processing unit”
`that is running a program (operating system) or application.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00196 (Patent 6,131,121 C1)
`IPR2015-00198 (Patent 6,009,469 C1)
`IPR2015-00209 (Patent 6,108,704 C1)
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 315 Statutor