UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`Title: Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`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 ........................................................................ 7 
`
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 8 
`
`IV.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`“an amount of media data” and “an amount of digital content” ........... 9 
`
`“publication / publishing” and “distributing / distribution” ................ 10 
`
`“said identification” ............................................................................. 12 
`
`“digital content” .................................................................................. 12 
`
`“local device / client device” ............................................................... 12 
`
`“electronic publishing / distribution” .................................................. 12 
`
`“encoding or otherwise converting” .................................................... 13 
`
`V. 
`
`Response to Grounds of Challenge ............................................................... 13 
`
`A.  Overview Of Asserted Prior Art .......................................................... 13 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Overview of Creamer ................................................................ 13 
`
`Aihara ........................................................................................ 15 
`
`3.  Mayle......................................................................................... 15 
`
`4. 
`
`Narayen ..................................................................................... 16 
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown Motivation To Combine Asserted
`References. .......................................................................................... 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`There Is No Motivation To Combine Creamer With Aihara. ... 17 
`
`There is No Motivation to Combine Mayle with Narayen. ...... 19 
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–
`38, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 are obvious in view of Creamer and Aihara.
` ............................................................................................................. 22 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 12 is Not Obvious in View of Creamer and Aihara. ...... 23 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “receiving an identification of a
`group of one or more media objects for transmission.” . 23 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “pre-processing parameters including
`a specification of an amount of media data.” ................. 25 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “pre-processing said identified group
`of one or more media objects using said received pre-
`processing parameters.” .................................................. 27 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims 13, 24, and 25 Are Not Obvious in View of Creamer
`and Aihara. ................................................................................ 30 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “receiving an identification of digital
`content” (claim 13) or “receiving an identification of a
`media object for transmission.” (claims 24, 25) ............. 30 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “pre-processing said identified
`[digital content / media object] at said [client / local]
`device in accordance with one or more pre-processing
`parameters.” (claims 13, 24, 25) ..................................... 30 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`c. 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “pre-processing parameters
`controlling said client device in a placement of said
`digital content into a specified form in preparation for
`publication.” (claim 13) .................................................. 31 
`
`3. 
`
`Claims 35 and 38 Are Not Obvious Over Creamer and Aihara.
` ................................................................................................... 34 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “pre-processing said selected digital
`content [at said client device] in accordance with one or
`more pre-processing parameters.” (claims 35, 38) ......... 34 
`
`Neither Creamer nor Aihara nor their combination
`teaches or suggests “said one or more pre-processing
`parameters enabling said client device in a placement of
`said digital content into a specified form in preparation
`for publication.” (claims 35, 38) ..................................... 34 
`
`4. 
`
`Dependent Claims 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 Are
`Not Obvious Over Creamer and Aihara. .................................. 35 
`
`D. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–
`38, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 are obvious in view of Mayle and Narayen.
` ............................................................................................................. 35 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 12 is Not Obvious in View of Mayle and Narayen. ....... 35 
`
`a.  Mayle does not teach or suggest “receiving pre-
`processing parameters from a remote device…including
`a specification of an amount of media data.” (claim 12)
` ........................................................................................ 35 
`
`b.  Mayle does not disclose “pre-processing . . . media
`objects using . . . pre-processing parameters.” (claim 12)
` ........................................................................................ 38 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`c.  Mayle does not disclose “transmitting said pre-processed
`group of one or more media objects to the remote
`device.” (claim 12).......................................................... 38 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims 13, 24, and 25 are Not Obvious in View of Mayle and
`Narayen. .................................................................................... 39 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Neither Mayle nor Narayen nor their combination teaches
`or suggests “pre-processing said identified content/media
`object with [or in accordance with] one or more pre-
`processing parameters that are received from a device
`separate from said client device.” (claims 13, 24, and 25)
` ........................................................................................ 40 
`
`Neither Mayle nor Narayen nor their combination teaches
`or suggests “placement of said digital content into a
`specified form in preparation for publication,” or
`“changing the file format of said media object,” or
`“encoding or otherwise converting said media object.”
`(claims 13, 24, and 25) ................................................... 40 
`
`Neither Mayle nor Narayen nor their combination teaches
`or suggests “said transmitted message including said pre-
`processed digital content/media object and said retrieved
`information.” (claims 13, 24, and 25) ............................. 41 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Claims 35 and 38 are Not Obvious in View of Mayle and
`Narayen. .................................................................................... 41 
`
`Claims 36 and 37 are Not Obvious in View of Mayle and
`Narayen. .................................................................................... 42 
`
`Dependent Claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46
`and 49 are Not Obvious in View of Mayle and Narayen. ........ 42 
`
`E. 
`
`The Objective Secondary Factors Confirm that the Challenged Claims
`are Not Obvious. .................................................................................. 44 
`
`1. 
`
`Long-Felt but Unresolved Need ............................................... 45 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`2. 
`
`Commercial Success and Licensing ......................................... 48 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Substantial Evidence of Commercial Success and
`Licensing Supports a Finding of Non-Obviousness. ...... 49 
`
`The Commercial Success is Attributable to the
`Technology and Inventions Disclosed in Summit 6’s
`Patented Technology. ..................................................... 52 
`
`3. 
`
`Industry Praise ........................................................................... 54 
`
`VI.  Petitioner’s grounds are Redundant and Lack Any Meaningful Distinction
`Between Prior Art References. ...................................................................... 57 
`
`VII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`IPR2015-00806
`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).
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`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).
`Summit6-4732—Press Release, “PictureWorks Technology
`Streamlines Posting of Photos to Internet,” (Business Wire,
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`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).
`Claim Construction Order, Summit 6 LLC v. Research in
`Motion Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00367-O
`(N.D.Tex., May 21, 2012).
`
`viii
`
`  
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 51
`Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00484, Paper 11 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2014) .............................................. 59
`Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
` 632 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................ 11
`EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper 25 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2013) .......................................... 58, 59
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................ 52
`Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 54
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB Jun. 11, 2013) ............................................... 57
`
`In re Application of Gershon,
` 372 F.2d 535 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ............................................................................. 45
`Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83, (PTAB March 23, 2014) ................................... 45, 51
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
` CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ....................................... 57, 58
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 44
`Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988).............................................................................. 45
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, a Division of Varco, L.P.,
`IPR2013-00265, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) ............................ 48, 51, 52, 53
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................ 49
`Pressure Products Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
`599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 44
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................ 45
`ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00180, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2013) .............................................. 58
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp.,
`225 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................ 49
`
`ix
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)............................................................................ 44
`Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00527, Paper 48 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) ........................................ 45, 48
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................... 44, 57
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.,
` No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir.) ...................................................................................... 9
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 52
`
` 
`STATUTES 
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
` 
`REGULATIONS 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 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) ............................................. 2
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, p. 48 (2011), reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, p. 78 ...... 2
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Patent Owner Summit 6 LLC files this Preliminary Patent Owner response
`
`to one of two separate, yet coordinated, petitions1 for inter partes review that
`
`Google has filed against two of Summit 6’s related patents. The patents were
`
`granted over a plethora of prior art references including Creamer, Mayle and
`
`Narayen. Summit 6 obtained a $15M verdict affirming the validity of one of the
`
`patents in view of asserted prior art, and Summit 6 and its predecessors enjoyed
`
`overwhelming commercial success and industry recognition. Petitioner nonetheless
`
`contends that Summit 6’s inventions are obvious on two redundant grounds.
`
`Petitioner’s 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
`
`
`1 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). HTC Corporation
`
`and HTC America, Inc. have been dismissed as parties from the -806 Action
`
`(IPR2015-00806, Paper 11) and from the -807 Action (IPR2015-00807, Paper 10).
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`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. Additionally, 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
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`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 two Summit 6 patents at issue in these coordinated proceedings—U.S.
`
`Pat. Nos. 7,765,482 (“the ’482 Patent”) and 8,612,515 (“the ’515 Patent”)—along
`
`with a third patent not challenged, No. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 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, 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
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`sure that the program is in binary transfer mode, then sending the files.” (’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. (’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. (’482 pat. at 2:44–48; ’515 pat. at 2:50–54.) Each of Summit 6’s patents
`
`claim different embodiments of the “Prepare and Post Media Submission Tool”
`
`described in the common specification of the’482 and ’515 patents.
`
`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 ’482 patent:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`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 (’482 pat. at 3:20–
`
`24; ’515 pat. at 3:26–30) or a file browse functionality. (’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. (’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 sender functionality of the Prepare and Post tools.
`
`(’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. (’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. (’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
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`to web pages ‘as is’ without making modifications to the media objects prior to
`
`sending.” (’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
`
`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. (’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.” (’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. (’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. (’482 pat. at 2:56–60;
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`’515 pat. at 2:62–66.) And as discussed later, Summit 6’s inventions quickly
`
`proliferated into wide spread use because Summit 6’s technology benefitted both
`
`users who submitted images to web sites, as well as receiving web sites.
`
`B.
`
`Litigation of the Patents
`
`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. (Id.) The jury
`
`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.).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`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
`
`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. at 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 (“POSITA”)
`
`with respect to the teachings in the Summit 6 patents would be a person having (a)
`
`an undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degree in computer science (or similar field,
`
`e.g., electrical engineering), or (b) 3 to 5 years of industry experience in the
`
`general field of software engineering and web implementation. (Pet. at 17.)
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Patent Owner acknowledges the similarity between the technical fields of
`
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`computer science and electrical engineering, but requiring 3 to 5 years of industry
`
`experience in “web implementation” by July 1999, at a time still considered to be
`
`the infancy of the Internet, is erroneous. Moreover, it is unreasonable to suggest
`
`that a POSITA would require an advanced or doctoral degree in computer science.
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the teachings in 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 district court standard.
`
`A.
`
`“an amount of media data” and “an amount of digital content”
`
`Patent Owner does not believe these terms require interpretation because
`
`they are commonly understood terms. To the extent construction is required,
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,765,482
`
`  
`
`Patent Owner agrees in part with Petitioner’s construction, namely that this term
`
`should be construed to mean a “quantity or size of digital content.” Petitioner’s
`
`construction is incorrect to the extent that it includes a further limitation, namely,
`
`“as defined by one or more of physical dimensions, pixel count, or kilobytes;”
`
`Petitioner does not identify any text in the ’482 patent