UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`APPLE INC. and TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00687
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Title: Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Procedural History ........................................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Patenting of the Inventions .................................................................... 3 
`
`Litigation of the Patents ........................................................................ 8 
`
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9 
`
`IV.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10 
`
`A. 
`
`“Pre-processing” .................................................................................. 10 
`
`V. 
`
`Response to Challenged Ground ................................................................... 14 
`
`A.  Overview of Mattes ............................................................................. 14 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Overview of Creamer .......................................................................... 16 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that Claims 13, 14, 19, 21–23, 38, 40–42,
`44, 45, and 49 are obvious of Mattes or that claims 16–18, 20, 35, and
`46 are obvious over Mattes in view of Creamer. ................................ 18 
`
`1.  Mattes does not teach or suggest “receiving an identification of
`digital content” (Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21–23, 40 and
`Ground 2: claims 16–18, 20) or “receiving an identification of
`said digital content for transmission prior to said pre-
`processing” (Ground 1: claim 40). ............................................ 19 
`
`2.  Mattes does not teach or suggest “pre-processing said
`[identified digital content / selected digital content / digital
`content] at said client device in accordance with one or more
`pre-processing parameters” (Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21–
`23, 38, 40–42, 44, 45, 49 and Ground 2: claims 16–18, 20, 35,
`46). ............................................................................................ 23 
`
`3.  Mattes does not teach or suggest “pre-processing parameters
`[controlling / enabling] said client device [in a placement of / to
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`place] said [identified group of one or more items of digital
`content / digital content] into a specified form in preparation for
`publication” (Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21–23, 38, 40–42,
`44, 45, 49 and Ground 2: claims 16–18, 20, 35, 46). ............... 25 
`
`4.  Mattes does not teach or suggest “retrieving information that
`enables identification of a user, said retrieved information being
`available to said client device prior to said received
`identification” (Ground 1: claims 13, 14, 19, 21–23). .............. 30 
`
`5. 
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Mattes or Creamer teaches or
`suggests “displaying a preview image of said selected digital
`content, said preview image having a reduced size relative to
`said selected digital content” or “transmitting a message that
`includes said pre-processed digital content to said server device
`for subsequent publishing to said one or more devices that are
`remote from said server device and said client device” in claim
`(Ground 2: claim 35). ................................................................ 32 
`
`D. 
`
`The Objective Secondary Factors Confirm that the Challenged Claims
`are Not Obvious. .................................................................................. 33 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Long-Felt but Unresolved Need ............................................... 34 
`
`Commercial Success and Licensing ......................................... 37 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Substantial Evidence of Commercial Success and
`Licensing Supports a Finding of Non-Obviousness. ...... 38 
`
`The Commercial Success is Attributable to the
`Technology and Inventions Disclosed in Summit 6’s
`Patented Technology. ..................................................... 41 
`
`3. 
`
`Industry Praise ........................................................................... 43 
`
`VI.  Petitioners Claims are Redundant and Lack Any Meaningful Distinction
`Between Prior Art References. ...................................................................... 46 
`
`VII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 50 
`
`ii
`
`

`
` EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL] RIM–Summit 6
`License and Settlement Agreement (executed October 17,
`2012).
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL] Facebook–Summit 6
`License and Settlement Agreement (February 8, 2013).
`Jury Charge and Verdict Form, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in
`Motion Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00367-O
`(N.D.Tex., April 5, 2013).
`Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Dr. Mark Jones, Summit 6
`LLC v. Research in Motion Corp. et al., Civil Action No.
`3:11-cv-00367-O, N.D.Tex. (April 4, 2013).
`Summit6-1876—Correspondence, T. Anderson to H. Latham
`of Moore Data Management Services (September 15, 1998).
`Summit6-4346—Correspondence, T. Anderson to J. Graff of
`RealSelect, Inc., Proposal to integrate Rimfire system with
`Realtor.com (April 26, 1999).
`Summit6-1606—Press Release, “New Prepare and Post
`Technology from PictureWorks Technology, Inc.
`Revolutionizes Use of Photos in Internet Marketing of Real
`Estate,” (November 7, 1998).
`Summit6-1962—Press Release, “Moore Data Management
`Services and PictureWorks Technology, Inc., Announce
`Partnership to Revolutionize Use of Real Estate Photos on the
`Internet,” (Business Wire, November 6, 1998).
`Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Lisa Wood, Summit 6 LLC v.
`Research in Motion Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-
`00367-O, N.D.Tex. (March 29, 2013).
`Rimfire Functional Specification Version 1.0 Core Feature
`Set, revision 4 (April 12, 1999).
`Summit6-4341—Press Release, “PictureWorks Technology’s
`PictureBay Solves #1 Frustration of eBay Members, Adding
`Pictures to Auctions,” (April 12, 1999).
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Summit6-2415—pbay Marketing Plan (PictureWorks
`Technology, Inc., March 24, 1999).
`Summit6-5246—Press Release “PictureWorks Technology's
`Auction Photo Service, Picturebay, Serves Over Two Million
`Images to eBay, Amazon.com and Auction Universe,”
`(August 3, 1999).
`White Paper, “Rimfire: The End-to-End Imaging Solution for
`Content Capture and Delivery,” (Internet Pictures
`Corporation, 2000).
`Market Study, “Image Servers - Early Adopter Case Studies,”
`(Tony Henning and Future Image, Inc., 2001).
`Summit6-5178—Excerpts of Woerner et al., “eBay for
`Dummies,” (IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 1999).
`Press Release, “iPIX Acquisition Locks up Internet Picture
`Market,” (March 9, 2000).
`Press Release, “iPIX to Acquire PictureWorks Technology,
`Inc. to form End-to-End Internet Imaging Solutions
`Company,” (PictureWorks Technology, Inc., March 8, 2000
`[Exhibit 99.1 to 8-k filing]).
`iPIX Presentation, “Enhancing Classified Advertising with
`Visual Data,” (Don Strickland and Sarah Pate, October 2,
`2003).
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL] Confidential
`Information Memorandum, “AdMission” (Swiftsure Capital
`LLC, December 13, 2004).
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL] Amendment No. 3 to
`the Visual Content Services Agreement Between eBay and
`iPIX (June 27, 2003).
`Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Scott Lewis, Summit 6 LLC v.
`Research in Motion Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-
`00367-O, N.D.Tex. (April 1, 2013).
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`
`
`Summit6-4732—Press Release, “PictureWorks Technology
`Streamlines Posting of Photos to Internet,” (Business Wire,
`November 6, 1998).
`Summit6-4770—“Product Picks” at realtor.org web site
`(February 1, 1999).
`PX-0937—Excerpts of Collier et al., “eBay for Dummies”
`(Hungry Minds, Inc., 2nd Edition 2001).
`Press Release, “Admission Corp. Granted Web-Based Media
`Submission Patent,” (Admission Corporation, June 2, 2005).
`Press Release, “AdMission Directories Wins Gold at Yellow
`Pages Association Annual Industry Excellence Awards;
`Enhanced, Interactive Ads for IYP Recognized as Marketing
`Innovation,” (Business Wire, March 14, 2005).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482,
`titled “Web-Based Media
`Submission Tool,” to Wood et al. (“the ’482 patent” or “’482
`pat.”).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,612,515, titled “System, Method and
`Apparatus for Media Submission,” to Wood et al. (“the ’515
`patent” or “’515 pat.”).
`Claim Construction Order, Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`Civil Action No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D.Tex., May 21, 2015).
`Excerpts of the prosecution file history of U.S. Patent No.
`6,895,557.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,035,323, titled “Methods and Apparatuses
`for Distributing a Collection of Digital Media Over a Network
`with Automatic Generation of Presentable Media,”
`to
`Narayen et al. (“Narayen”).
`[PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL] Visual Content
`Services Agreement Between eBay and iPIX (April 19, 2000).
`Summit6-1686—Overview of Enterprise Solutions, Executive
`Summary (PictureWorks, August 18, 1998).
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTORITIES
`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`CASES
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 40
`Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`IPR2014-00484, Paper 11 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2014) ....................................... 47, 50
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ................................................ 48
`
`EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2013) .......................................... 47, 49
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................ 41
`Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 43
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB Jun. 11, 2013) ............................................... 47
`
`In re Application of Gershon,
`372 F.2d 535 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ............................................................................. 34
`Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01027, Paper 16, (PTAB December 22, 2014) .................................... 11
`Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83, (PTAB March 23, 2014) ................................... 33, 40
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
` CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ....................................... 46, 48
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 33
`Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988).............................................................................. 34
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, a Division of Varco, L.P.,
`IPR2013-00265, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) ............................ 37, 40, 41, 42
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................ 37
`Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 33
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................ 34
`ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00180, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2013) .............................................. 47
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................ 37
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)............................................................................ 33
`Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00527, Paper 48 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) ........................................ 34, 37
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................... 33, 46
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
` No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir.) .................................................................................... 10
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 41
`Zimmer Holdings Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`
`IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) ............................................... 47
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 13, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 16
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 14
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ........................................................................................... 46, 50
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 2
`LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
`Hearing on H.R. 1249 Before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, (April 14, 2011)
`(statement of Judiciary Comm. Chair Lamar Smith) ............................................. 3
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, p. 48 (2011), reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, p. 78 ...... 3
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Patent Owner Summit 6 LLC files this Preliminary Patent Owner response
`
`to one of ten separate, yet coordinated, petitions1 for inter partes review that co-
`
`defendants in the underlying litigation have filed against Summit 6’s three, related
`
`patents. The patents were granted over a plethora of prior art references including
`
`Creamer and Mayle. Summit 6 obtained a $15M verdict affirming the validity of
`
`one of the patents over Mattes, and Summit 6 and its predecessors enjoyed
`
`overwhelming commercial success and industry recognition. Petitioner nonetheless
`
`contends that Summit 6’s inventions are obvious on numerous, redundant grounds.
`
`
`1 On February 4, 2015, Twitter filed two petitions (IPR2015-00680, Paper 1;
`
`IPR2015-00681, Paper 1) seeking inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,895,557;
`
`Apple and Twitter filed two petitions (IPR2015-00683, Paper 3; IPR2015-00684,
`
`Paper 3) seeking inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,515; and Apple and
`
`Twitter filed four petitions (IPR2015-00685, Paper 1; IPR2015-00686, Paper 1;
`
`IPR2015-00687, Paper 3; IPR2015-00688, Paper 1) seeking inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482. Google and HTC filed two petitions, the first seeking
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482 (IPR2015-00806, Paper 1) and the
`
`second seeking inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,515 (IPR2015-00807,
`
`Paper 1).
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Petitioner’s “scorched-earth” attack on Summit 6’s inventions should be rejected
`
`by the Board as substantively deficient and procedurally improper.
`
`As discussed in detail below, none of the prior art, either alone or in
`
`combination, renders the challenged claims unpatentable because the prior art does
`
`not teach or suggest one or more the claimed limitations. As a result, Petitioner
`
`fails to assemble the claimed inventions, even with an expert declaration and the
`
`considerable benefit of hindsight. Tellingly, Petitioner bases many of its
`
`obviousness arguments solely on conclusory litigation-inspired expert witness
`
`statements wholly devoid of any supporting evidence. Besides showing that the
`
`prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest all claim limitations of
`
`each challenged claim, Summit 6 has identified considerable, objective evidence of
`
`non-obviousness—including proof tying this evidence to the claimed inventions—
`
`that conclusively demonstrates that Summit 6’s claimed inventions are not obvious
`
`in light of Petitioner’s hindsight-based, prior art combinations. In short, the Board
`
`should deny this Petition because Petitioner fails to carry its burden of proving that
`
`one or more of the challenged claims are unpatentable. (See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).)
`
`Procedurally, Petitioner’s multi-pronged attack on Summit 6’s inventions
`
`overturns the “carefully written” balance drawn in the America Invents Act
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`between “encourag[ing] its use while at the same time preventing the serial
`
`harassment of patent holders.” (Meeting of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Transcript
`
`of Markup of H.R. 1249, p. 72 (April 14, 2011) (statement of Judiciary Comm.
`
`Chair. Lamar Smith).) Instead, Petitioner is using this proceeding as a “tool[] for
`
`harassment” by filing multiple, redundant petitions, subjecting Summit 6 to a war
`
`of attrition. (H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, p. 48 (reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N., p. 78).)
`
`Petitioner’s harassing tactics should not be endorsed or condoned by the Board. As
`
`a result, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`Patenting of the Inventions
`
`The three Summit 6 patents at issue in these coordinated proceedings—U.S.
`
`Pat. Nos. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 Patent”), 7,765,482 (“the ’482 Patent”), 8,612,515
`
`(“the ’515 Patent”)—all stem from a common specification filed on July 21, 1999.
`
`(Ex. 1001.) The original application issued nearly six years later as the ’557 Patent
`
`on May 17, 2005 (Ex. 1024.) On October 4, 2004, the inventors filed a
`
`continuation of the ’557 patent application. As with the earlier application, that
`
`application went through nearly six years of prosecution before ultimately issuing
`
`as the ’482 Patent on July 27, 2010. (Ex. 1001.) Finally, on April 29, 2011,
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Summit 6 filed for a third patent, which issued on December 17, 2013 as the ’515
`
`Patent. (Ex. 1009.)
`
`Until the Summit 6 inventions, uploading a digital image to a web site was a
`
`very cumbersome process. “For example, transferring a digital image may require
`
`first downloading a FTP program, then installing it, then running it and connecting
`
`to an FTP server by typing the server name in the connection dialog, then
`
`navigating to the proper subdirectory, selecting the files to be uploaded, making
`
`sure that the program is in binary transfer mode, then sending the files.” (’557 pat.
`
`at 1:23–30; ’482 pat. at 1:26–32; ’515 pat. at 1:31–37.) Summit 6’s inventions
`
`provided an elegant solution to this problem by allowing users with minimal
`
`technical sophistication to select and submit “media objects” (which include, for
`
`example, images, videos, graphics, sound clips) to a third-party website. (’557 pat.
`
`at 2:46–47; ’482 pat. at 2:56–57; ’515 pat. at 2:62–63.) The so-called Prepare and
`
`Post tools are browser-side components that prepare and submit media objects
`
`from inside a standard browser to a web site or server. (’557 pat. at 2:44–47; ’482
`
`pat. at 2:44–48; ’515 pat. at 2:50–54.) Each of the Summit 6’s patents claims
`
`different embodiments of the “Prepare and Post Media Submission Tool”
`
`described in the common specification of the ’557, ’482, and ’515 patents.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`A diagram of an exemplary web page providing the media object acquisition
`
`functionality of the Prepare and Post tools is shown in Fig. 1 of the ’557 patent:
`
`
`
`A user of the Prepare and Post tools selects a media object (e.g., a digital
`
`image) to upload either through a “drag and drop” functionality (’557 pat. at 3:18–
`
`22; ’482 pat. at 3:20–24; ’515 pat. at 3:26–30.) or a file browse functionality. (’557
`
`pat. at 3:29–33; ’482 pat. at 3:31–34; ’515 pat. at 3:37–40.) During the selection
`
`process, a user can add identification information such as a MLS listing number to
`
`the image in the context of a real estate application. (’557 pat. at 3:60–66; ’482
`
`pat. at 3:60–62; ’515 pat. at 3:66–4:1.) After image selection, the user can simply
`
`upload the selected images to another location such as web site using the media
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`sender functionality of the Prepare and Post tools. (’557 pat. at 3:14–16; ’482 pat.
`
`at 3:17–19; ’515 pat. at 3:23–25.)
`
`The user of Summit 6’s inventions need not understand (or even be aware
`
`of) the underlying technology of the image selection and upload process because
`
`the Prepare and Post tools transparently ensure that any media object selected by
`
`the user will be submitted in a form acceptable to the receiving location such as a
`
`web site. To do so, the Prepare and Post tools running on the user’s browser
`
`receive configuration parameters. (’557 pat. at 5:42–50; ’482 pat. at 5:26–33; ’515
`
`pat. at 5:32–39.) Before transmitting images to the second location, the Prepare
`
`and Post tools preprocess the images according to requirements of the second
`
`location, as specified by the parameters. (’557 pat. at 4:67–5:2; ’482 pat. at 5:1–4;
`
`’515 pat. at 5:7–10.) This client side intelligence of the Summit 6 inventions
`
`allows a user to “submit media objects to web pages ‘as is’ without making
`
`modifications to the media objects prior to sending.” (’557 pat. at 2:62–64; ’482
`
`pat. at 2:65–67; ’515 pat. at 3:4–6.) Accordingly, these tools provide a user access
`
`to an intuitive platform for facilitating image selection and uploading.
`
`Media objects can be preprocessed in numerous ways before transmission to
`
`the second location, including resizing the image, compressing the file, changing
`
`the image file format, changing the image quality, cropping or changing the aspect
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`ratio of the image, adding text or annotations, encoding or combining media
`
`objects, or enhancing image values such as contrast or saturation of the media
`
`object. (’557 pat. at 4:65–5:12; ’482 pat. at 4:52–67; ’515 pat. at 4:58–5:6.)
`
`In addition to facilitating the user’s experience, the Prepare and Post tools
`
`also benefit the receiving web site. This functionality gives the web site partner
`
`access to media objects that “meet[] their imaging specifications every time
`
`without human intervention.” (’557 pat. at 3:1–3; ’482 pat. at 3:4–6; ’515 pat. at
`
`3:10–12.) The client-side, transparent preprocessing functionality allows a user to
`
`submit images “as is” because the tool automatically prepares the images to meet
`
`requirements for the second location. (’557 pat. at 4:58–5:2; ’482 pat. at 4:46–5:4;
`
`’515 pat. at 4:52–5:10.)
`
`In short, the Summit 6 Prepare and Post tools transparently handle for the
`
`user the technical tasks of image selection and uploading. (’557 pat. at 2:53–58;
`
`’482 pat. at 2:56–60; ’515 pat. at 2:62–66.) And as discussed later, Summit 6’s
`
`inventions quickly proliferated into wide spread use across many platforms,
`
`including eBay because Summit 6’s technology benefitted both users who
`
`submitted images to web sites, as well as receiving web sites.
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`Litigation of the Patents
`
`  
`
`B.
`
`On February 23, 2011, Summit 6 filed a Complaint against Samsung, RIM,
`
`Facebook, and others for infringing the ’557 and ’482 Patents. On October 17,
`
`2012, RIM took a license to the ’557 and ʼ482 Patents. (Ex. 2001.) On February
`
`8, 2013, just two months before trial, Facebook also took a license to the ’557 and
`
`ʼ482 Patents. (Ex. 2002.) Samsung was the only defendant that proceeded to trial
`
`for infringing the ’482 patent.
`
`
`
`During the week-long trial, Samsung vigorously contested both infringement
`
`and validity of the ’482 patent. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of
`
`Summit 6 finding that Samsung infringed claims 40, 44–46, and 49 of the ’482
`
`patent. (Ex. 2003, pp. 46, 47.) The jury also found that Samsung did not prove
`
`that these claims were invalid over the prior art including Mattes now relied on by
`
`Petitioner. (Id.) The jury also awarded Summit 6 a $15M judgment as a
`
`reasonable royalty for Samsung’s infringement. (Id.) That judgment is currently
`
`on appeal. See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., No. 2013-1648,
`
`1651 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`On February 18, 2014, Summit 6 filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against co-
`
`defendants HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Electronics USA, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc., Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC, Apple Inc., and Twitter Inc., asserting claims of infringing all three of
`
`Summit 6’s patents. See Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O
`
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) (Dkt. 1). Each of the co-defendants has answered and
`
`asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims of invalidity. ((Id. (Dkts. 49, 51,
`
`53, 64, 66, 80, and 81).) That case is proceeding apace.2
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`with respect to the teachings in the Summit 6 patents would be a person having at
`
`least (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in a field such as computer science (or
`
`similar field, e.g., electrical engineering), or (b) at least 3 to 5 years of industry
`
`experience in the general field of software engineering and web design. (Pet. at 4.)
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Patent Owner acknowledges the similarity between the technical fields of
`
`computer science and electrical engineering, but requiring 3 to 5 years of industry
`
`experience in “web design” by July 1999, at a time still considered to be the
`
`infancy of the Internet, is erroneous. Patent Owner proposes that the teachings in
`
`
`2 One of the defendants originally named in the lawsuit, LG Electronics, Inc., has
`
`settled with Summit 6 and has taken a license to the ’557, ’482, and ’515 Patents.
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`the ’482 patent would have been directed to a person with at least a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in computer science or electrical engineering, combined with 2 to 3
`
`years of experience in software engineering.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In this Section, Patent Owner addresses the subject limitations according to
`
`the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard (“BRI”). Patent Owner
`
`recognizes, however, that the question of whether the PTAB should employ the
`
`BRI standard to claim construction in post-grant proceedings is currently pending
`
`before the Federal Circuit, e.g. Versata v. SAP, Fed. Cir. Case No. 2014-1194. If
`
`the Court should rule that application of BRI is improper, Patent Owner urges that
`
`the Board construe disputed claim terms according to the standard articulated by
`
`the Court.
`
`A.
`
`“Pre-processing”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the broadest reasonable construction for this
`
`term is “modifying the media object [data/digital content data/one or more image
`
`files, video files, or audio files], at the client or local device prior to transmission to
`
`a remote device.”
`
`Petitioner proposes that “pre-processing” should be construed to mean
`
`“modifying before further processing.” (Pet. at 6.) But Petitioner has not provided
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`adequate explanation, indeed any explanation, of intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to
`
`support its proposed construction; instead Petitioner merely cites to its expert
`
`witness declaration. For that reason, Petitioner’s proposed claim construction is
`
`inadequately supported and should be disregarded. Integrated Global Concepts,
`
`Inc. v. Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-01027, Paper 16, p. 8
`
`(PTAB December 22, 2014) (expert’s conclusory testimony was not persuasive
`
`evidence).
`
`In any case, Petitioner’s construction is erroneous, as it ignores the
`
`specification’s teaching that pre-processing is performed at the client device.
`
`Petitioner’s construction further
`
`ignores
`
`the specification’s
`
`teaching
`
`that
`
`modification to a media object/digital content is done prior to transmission of the
`
`media object elsewhere.
`
`Although Petitioner’s proposed construction correctly recognizes that
`
`modification gives meaning to the term “processing,” Petitioner construes the
`
`prefix “pre” in the phrase “pre-processing.” A POSA would understand the prefix
`
`“pre-” serves as a temporal signal, indicating processing prior in time to the
`
`transmission event. As Petitioner acknowledged in its IPR2015-00680 and -681
`
`Petitions, the ’557 patent “consistently describes ‘preprocessing’ as a step that
`
`occurs ‘prior to upload’ or ‘prior to transporting to a second location.’” (IPR2015-
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`00680, Pet. at 7, citing (’557 pat., Abstract, 2:11–13, 4:65–5:2, 5:43–46).) Patent
`
`Owner agrees. The specification supports including the phrase “prior to
`
`transmission” in the construction of this term.
`
`Petitioner also argues in IPR2015-00680 and -681 that the reexamination file
`
`history of the ’482 patent supports that pre-processing is not limited to preparation
`
`for transmission, but could also include preparation for publication. (IPR2015-
`
`00681, Pet. at 8.) Yet, the reexamination file history merely shows that the pre-
`
`processing must be performed prior to transmission. Patent Owner stated during re-
`
`examination that “the act of pre-processing modifies the digital content to meet
`
`certain specifications for publication to one or more devices. . . .” Because
`
`publication to one or more different devices necessarily includes transmission to
`
`the different device, a POSA would understand that the pre-processing was
`
`performed prior to such transmission.
`
`Petitioner suggests that dependent claim 9 of the ’557 patent supports its
`
`“modifying before further processing” interpretation, because claim 9 includes an
`
`added limitation that the media object identifier “allows display of the media
`
`object in context on the web page.” In fact, the presence of this additional
`
`limitation in claim 9 supports Patent Owner’s construction, providing that the “pre-
`
`processing” must occur before transmission. Claim 9 depends from independent
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00687
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`claim 1, which requires that the pre-processing is done “for the requirements of the
`
`third-party web site”; in other words, pre-processing is done for the requirements
`
`of a third-party web site, and is done prior to transmission. The added limitation of
`
`claim 9 simply claims a media object identifier that is able to display the media
`
`obj