Paper No. ___
`
`Filed on behalf of: Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., and Novatel
`Wireless, Inc.
`
`By: Christopher W. Kennerly (chriskennerly@paulhastings.com)
`
`Naveen Modi (naveenmodi@paulhastings.com)
`
`Timothy P. Cremen (timothycremen@paulhastings.com)
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ENFORA, INC., NOVATEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, INC., and NOVATEL
`WIRELESS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,648,717
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 1
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Related Matters Involving the ’717 Patent ................................. 1
`
`Related Matters Involving the ’717 Patent’s Ancestors ............. 2
`
`Related Petitions for Inter Partes Review .................................. 2
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 2
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 3
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103 ................. 3
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3
`
`B.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............ 3
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`The ’717 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background / Admitted Prior Art ............................................... 4
`
`Object of the Purported Invention .............................................. 5
`
`Description of Embodiments ...................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’717 Patent and Related Patents ................. 7
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`Filings Informative to the BRI of the Challenged Claims .................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Claim Construction Rulings Regarding the ‘717 Patent’s
`Ancestors ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Proposed Constructions and Infringement Contentions in the
`Related Actions Involving the ’717 Patent ................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`Claim Terms To Be Construed ............................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“A Programmable Interface” .................................................... 10
`
`“Coded Number”....................................................................... 11
`
`“Unique Identifier” ................................................................... 12
`
`“Transmission” .......................................................................... 12
`
`The Number and Content of “Transmissions” Falling Within
`the Claim Scope ........................................................................ 13
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNPATENTABILITY .......................... 16
`
`A. WO 99/49680 (Whitley) ...................................................................... 16
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,900,737 (Ardalan) .................................................. 19
`
`C. WO 95/05609 (Eldredge) .................................................................... 22
`
`D. WO 00/17021 (Van Bergen) ............................................................... 23
`
`E.
`
`Reasons to Combine the References ................................................... 24
`
`Ground 1 - A Combination of Whitley and Ardalan Render Obvious
`F.
`Claims 1-7, 10-14, 18, 22, 24-30 ................................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 26
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 40
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Claims 5 and 12 ......................................................................... 42
`
`Claims 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14 ....................................................... 43
`
`ii
`
`

`
`7.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................. ..46
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................. ..47
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................. ..48
`
`10. Claim 24 .................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................. ..49
`
`10.
`
`11. Claim 25 .................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 25 .................................................................................. ..51
`
`1 1.
`
`12. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 26 .................................................................................. ..51
`
`12.
`
`13. Claim 27 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 27 .................................................................................. ..52
`
`13.
`
`14. Claim 28 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 28 .................................................................................. ..52
`
`14.
`
`15. Claim 29 .................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 29 .................................................................................. ..53
`
`15.
`
`16. Claim 30 .................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 30 .................................................................................. ..56
`
`16.
`
`G. Ground 2 - A Combination of Whitley, Ardalan and Eldredge Render
`G.
`Ground 2 — A Combination of Whitley, Ardalan and Eldredge Render
`Obvious Claim 21 .......................................................................................... 56
`Obvious Claim 21 ........................................................................................ ..56
`
`H. Ground 3 - A Combination of Whitley, Ardalan and Van Bergen
`H.
`Ground 3 — A Combination of Whitley, Ardalan and Van Bergen
`Render Obvious Claim 23 ............................................................................. 57
`Render Obvious Claim 23 ........................................................................... ..57
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 58
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... ..5 8
`
`IX. STATEMENT REGARDING OTHER PETITION ..................................... 58
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING OTHER PETITION ................................... ..5 8
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..59
`
`APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................... 60
`
`APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ ..60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............. 24
`
`In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 48 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................. 9
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................... 9
`
`In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................ 8
`
`KSR Int’l, Inc. v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................... 24
`
`Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............. 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................... 9
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,764 .......................................... 9
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 .......................................... 9
`
`iv
`
`

`
`No-
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`W0 99/ 13629 (“WO ‘629”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/934,763 (“the ‘763 Application”)
`
`Declaration of Randall A. Snyder
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Randall A. Snyder
`
`U.S. Application No. 10/296,571 (“the ‘571 Application”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 11/329,212 (“the ‘2l2 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,583,197 (“the ‘ 197 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 12/538,603 (“the ‘603 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,094,010 (“the ‘010 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/328,095 (“the ‘095 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,633,802 (“the ‘802 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/801,773 (“the ‘773 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,542,111 (“the ‘ 1 11 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/159,849 “the (‘849 Application”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/169,603 (“the ‘603 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,866,589 (“the ‘589 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/175,171 (“the ‘ 171 Application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,624 (“the ‘624 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/455,073 (“the ‘073 Application”)
`
`U.S. Application No. 14/455,190 (“the ‘ 190 Application”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Brief in C.A. Nos. 12—030—RGA,
`
`l2—03l—RGA, 12—032—RGA, 12—033—RGA, and 12—034—RGA
`
`1023
`
`Claim Construction Order in C .A_ Nos. 12-030-RGA, 12-
`
`031—RGA, 12—032—RGA, 12—033—RGA, and 12—034—RGA
`
`1024
`
`Proposed Terms and Constructions in 14-1101-RGA, 14-
`1 102-RGA, and 14-1 103-RGA
`
`1025
`
`M2M’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions as to
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s products in 14-1101-RGA, 14-1102-RGA, and
`14-1103-RGA
`WO 99/49680 (“Whitley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,900,737 (“Ardalan”)
`WO 95/05609 (“Eldredge”)
`WO 00/17021 (“Van Bergen”)
`Excerpt from “The GSM System for Mobile
`Communications,” Michael Mouly, Marie-Bernadette Pautet
`(1992)
`Excerpt from “Principles & Applications of GSM,” Vijay K.
`Garg, Joseph E. Wilkes (1999)
`Excerpt from “Wireless and Mobile Network Architectures,”
`Yi-Bing Lin, Imrich Chlamtac (2001)
`Specification of the Bluetooth System, v1.0B (December 1st
`1999) (“Bluetooth Specification”)
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., and Novatel Wireless, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”) request inter partes review of Claims 1-7, 10-14, 18,
`
`and 21-30 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717 (“the ’717 Patent;”
`
`Ex. 1001), assigned to M2M Solutions LLC (“M2M” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims, and thus a trial for
`
`inter partes review should be instituted. This Petition also establishes by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Enfora, Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Inc., and Novatel Wireless, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “the Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners identify the matters below.
`
`Related Matters Involving the ’717 Patent
`
`1.
`M2M has initiated several pending civil actions against Petitioners and
`
`others for infringement of the ’717 Patent in the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Delaware, including: (i) M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora Inc. et al.
`
`(C.A. No. 1:2014-cv-1101-RGA); (ii) M2M Solutions LLC v. Telit
`
`1
`
`

`
`Communications PLC et al. (1:2014-cv-01103-RGA); and (iii) M2M Solutions
`
`LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al, (1:2014-cv-01102-RGA). These
`
`actions were filed on August 26, 2014 and are in their relatively early stages.
`
`Related Matters Involving the ’717 Patent’s Ancestors
`
`2.
`On January 13, 2012, M2M also initiated a number of other infringement
`
`lawsuits in the same court based on two of the ’717 Patent’s ancestor patents, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,583,197 (“’197 Patent”) (Ex. 1008) and 8,094,010 (“’010 Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1010), including: (i) M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora, Inc., et al. (1:2012-
`
`00032-RGA); (ii) M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc. et al,
`
`(1:2012-00030-RGA); (iii) M2M Solutions LLC v. Cinterion Wireless Modules
`
`GMBH et al (1:2012-00031-RGA) (closed); (iv) M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola
`
`Solutions, Inc., et al (1:2012-00033-RGA); and (v) M2M Solutions LLC v. Simcom
`
`Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd., et al (1:2012-00034-RGA) (closed). Unless
`
`otherwise indicated above, these actions remain pending and have progressed
`
`through the claim construction and expert report phases.
`
`3.
`Related Petitions for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners are concurrently filing a second Petition for inter partes review
`
`challenging Claims 1-7, 10-20 and 23-30.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners designate lead and backup counsel as noted below. A power of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompanies this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Lead Counsel: Christopher W. Kennerly (Reg. No. 40, 675),
`
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com. Address: Paul Hastings LLP, 1117 S. California
`
`Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304. Tel: 1.650.320.1800. Fax: 1.650.320.1900.
`
`Backup Counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224),
`
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com. Timothy P. Cremen (Reg. No. 50,855),
`
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com. Address: Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street,
`
`N.W., Washington, DC 20005. Tel: 1.202.551.1700. Fax: 1.202.551.1705.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Service information is above, and Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15 AND 42.103
`Petitioners submit the required fees herewith. Please charge any additional
`
`fees required for this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that: (i) the ’717 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review; and (ii) they are not barred or estopped from requesting such review on the
`
`grounds identified.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`Petitioners request an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the
`
`following grounds, and request that each Challenged Claim be found unpatentable:
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 10-14, 18, 22, 24-30 are each obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of WO 99/49680 to Whitley
`
`(“Whitley”) (Ex. 1026) and U.S. Patent No. 6,900,737 to Ardalan et al.
`
`(“Ardalan”) (Ex. 1027).
`
`Ground 2: Claim 21is obvious based on the combined teachings of Whitley,
`
`Ardalan, and WO 95/05609 (“Eldredge”) (Ex. 1028).
`
`Ground 3: Claim 23 is obvious based on the combined teachings of
`
`Whitley, Ardalan, and WO 00/17021 (“Van Bergen”) (Ex.1029).
`
`A detailed explanation of: (i) the disclosures and teachings of the identified
`
`prior art references; and (ii) the support for Grounds 1-3 is provided in Section
`
`VII. Petitioners also submit the Declaration of Randall A. Snyder (Ex. 1004);
`
`(“Snyder Declaration”) as additional support for Grounds 1-3.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’717 Patent
`1.
`Background / Admitted Prior Art
`The ’717 Patent is purportedly directed to a “programmable wireless
`
`communication apparatus” which can, among other things, “convey information
`
`from remotely located devices such as vending machines.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:30-
`
`31; 36-41; see also Ex. 1004 at ¶ 35.
`
`The specification concedes that many of the features of the ’717 Patent can
`
`be found in a prior art application, PCT/GB98/02715 (published as WO 99/13629)
`
`4
`
`

`
`(“WO ’629”) (Ex. 1002); Ex. 1004 at ¶ 36. The
`
`specification states that WO ’629 discloses the same
`
`“Hotlink Communicator” of the ’717 Patent (see FIG. 1 of
`
`WO ’629 reproduced here), that the communicator has “a
`
`programmable identity module such as a SIM card” and uses “the GSM
`
`telecommunications standard,” and that the communicator is programmable by
`
`another mobile phone to be able to dial to “the number of any mobile or fixed
`
`telephone to which the Hotlink communicator … is to be linked.” Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`1:45-52; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 36. The ’717 Patent describes that the prior art utilized
`
`“known methods of communication between the mobile phone and Hotlink
`
`communicator for the purpose of programming,” including “the obvious choice of
`
`data calls such as the Short Message Service in the GSM telecommunications
`
`standard.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1:52-56 (emphasis added); Ex. 1004 at ¶ 37.
`
`2. Object of the Purported Invention
`In its “Objects of the Invention,” the ’717 Patent states that it seeks to
`
`provide a communicator that “can be remotely programmed by any mobile phone
`
`or IP device[,]” for example, “via a terminal-to-terminal network based data call
`
`such as SMS or GPRS packet data communication” to which it is linked. Ex. 1001
`
`at col. 4:13-23. This is functionality it admits is found in the prior art WO ’629
`
`application. Ex. 1001 at col. 1:46-56; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 38. The ’717 Patent lists as
`
`5
`
`

`
`another object a communicator that will “permit only transmissions comprising a
`
`coded number, which determines the authenticity of the message” to program the
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at col. 4:45-50; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 39.
`
`Description of Embodiments
`
`3.
`Turning to its “preferred embodiment,” FIG. 1
`
`shows telephone circuit 10 and SMS processing
`
`means 60 “[f]or the purposes of programming the IP
`
`address or telephone number of the fixed or mobile
`
`telephone to which the communicator is linked.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 8:42-56. SMS processing means 60
`
`“communicates with an authentication means 90, which in turn is able to store
`
`numbers into a permitted callers list 110.” Ex. 1001 at col. 8:56-58; Ex. 1004 at ¶
`
`40. FIG. 1 is the entirety of the hardware disclosed. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 40.
`
`The ’717 Patent states that the communicator may be pre-programmed “with
`
`the number it can call which comprises a unique code” (Ex. 1001 at col. 9:22-25) –
`
`which informs the meaning of “code” in the ’717 Patent as any alphanumeric
`
`series. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 41. The ’717 Patent further states that “only authenticated
`
`callers [may] change the telephone number or IP address of a fixed or mobile
`
`telephone or network device to which the programmable communicator is to be
`
`linked.” Ex. 1001 at col. 9:35-37; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 42. In the disclosed embodiment,
`
`6
`
`

`
`this is done “in GSM using an SMS message” (Ex. 1001 at col. 9:37-43), where a
`
`“remote transmitting device includes the PUK code of the receiving programmable
`
`communicator in its SMS transmission as well as a telephone number to which the
`
`programmable communicator is to be linked.” Ex. 1001 at col. 9:46-51; Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ 43. Examples of such a message are shown in the Table reproduced here (Ex.
`
`1001 at col. 10:15-22). The processing means of the communicator then
`
`determines whether the PUK code is correct
`
`and, if so, stores the transmitted number. Ex.
`
`1001 at col. 9:52-54; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 44.
`
`In its purported monitoring role, the ’717 Patent states that its programmable
`
`interface “may be attached to all manner of sensor devices for the purpose of
`
`relaying data … either automatically or in response to a request for information
`
`from a remote device.” Ex. 1001 at col. 9:2-6; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 45.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’717 Patent and Related Patents
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims arise from Claims 1-26 of Application No.
`
`13/934,763 (Ex. 1003; “the ’763 Application”), which was filed on July 3, 2013 as
`
`a continuation of five previous applications, as graphically shown in Appendix A.
`
`On July 12, 2013, Applicant filed terminal disclaimers in view of four
`
`ancestors (the ’197 and ’010 Patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,542,111 (Ex. 1014) and
`
`Application No. 13/328,095 (Ex. 1011)). Ex. 1003 at 186-89; see also App. A.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Applicant subsequently amended claims on: (i) October 9, 2013, in response
`
`to the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection (Ex. 1003 at 124-25); (ii) November 8,
`
`2013, changing “configured to send” to “configured to and permitted to send” (Ex.
`
`1003 at 74); and (iii) November 20, 2013, removing “wireless communications
`
`circuit” (Ex. 1003 at 49) in view of the construction of an identical element in the
`
`related matters identified in Section II(B)(2) (Ex. 1023 at 15-17; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 50).
`
`On December 16, 2013, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance (Ex.
`
`1003 at 18), and the ’717 Patent issued on February 11, 2014. Applicant also filed
`
`five continuation applications from the ’763 Application (see Appendix A) to keep
`
`the family alive during its pending infringement suits.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In inter partes review, the Board applies the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard to construe claim terms.1 Under the BRI standard,
`
`claim terms are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
`
`specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Office
`
`1 Because the standards applied in litigation differ from PTO proceedings, any
`
`interpretation of claim terms herein is not binding upon Petitioners in any related
`
`litigation. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioners
`
`reserve their rights to make all arguments in the district court with respect to claim
`
`construction and on other grounds (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 112).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim
`
`terms are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`Filings Informative to the BRI of the Challenged Claims
`
`A.
`Before considering the proper BRI of certain terms, Petitioners identify two
`
`sets of documents that, in whole or in part, may inform the BRI analysis.
`
`1.
`
`Prior Claim Construction Rulings Regarding the ‘717
`Patent’s Ancestors
`
`As discussed above in Section II(B)(2), M2M has filed lawsuits against
`
`several parties asserting infringement of two of the ’717 Patent’s ancestors – the
`
`’010 and ’197 Patents. The Parties’ Joint Claim Construction Brief and the Court’s
`
`Claim Construction Opinion in these matters are attached as Exhibits 1022 and
`
`1023 respectively. These prior positions and constructions may be relevant to a
`
`BRI analysis because similar terms used within the same patent family should be
`
`similarly construed. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 48 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(citing Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`2.
`
`Proposed Constructions and Infringement Contentions in
`the Related Actions Involving the ’717 Patent
`
`The Parties in the related matters involving the ’717 Patent identified in
`
`Section II(B)(1) have identified terms for construction and exchanged proposed
`
`9
`
`

`
`constructions. The proposals are Exhibit 1024. Claim construction briefing in
`
`these matters is set for August-October 2015. M2M also served Preliminary
`
`Infringement Contentions (“M2M’s Contentions”), setting forth it’s assertions as to
`
`the scope of the ’717 Patent’s claims. M2M’s Contentions are Exhibit 1025.
`
`B. Claim Terms To Be Construed
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose BRI constructions
`
`for the following terms. All remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`“A Programmable Interface”
`
`1.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “an interface that is able to be programmed.”
`
`This phrase appears in the first element of each challenged independent
`
`Claim 1, 24, and 29. Petitioners’ proposed BRI is similar to the District Court’s
`
`construction of the same phrase in the ’010 Patent (Ex. 1023 at 10-12), but
`
`eliminates the “direct” programming requirement, which neither side sought (Ex.
`
`1024 at 42-55). Ex. 1004 at ¶ 64. The “programmable interface” is only discussed
`
`in cols. 8:65-9:6 of the ’717 Patent, which states that the programmable interface
`
`means “may be attached to all manner of sensor devices” to relay data to a remote
`
`device. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 65. There is no disclosure that the interface be “directly”
`
`programmed. Instead, the only “direct” connection identified in the ’717 Patent is
`
`between the communicator and technical monitoring devices. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`col. 11:50-58; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 66.
`
`10
`
`

`
`“Coded Number”
`
`2.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “a designated, unique sequence of characters,
`
`where unique means unique within the system the communicator device is used.”
`
`This phrase appears in the “processing module” element of each challenged
`
`independent Claim 1, 24, and 29. Petitioners’ proposed BRI has an identical first
`
`part (“a designated, unique sequence of characters”) to the District Court’s
`
`construction of the same phrase in the ’010 Patent (Ex. 1023 at 8-9). But, how to
`
`analyze “unique” is unaddressed by that definition. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 71. Petitioners’
`
`proposed BRI therefore adds “unique means unique within the system the
`
`communicator device is used.”
`
`Without this additional definition, “unique” could be read (if improperly
`
`divorced from the intrinsic record) as “unique” within the hardware components of
`
`a single communicator (e.g., different components have different serial numbers),
`
`or universally unique such that the number would never be used again in any
`
`capacity. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 72. Neither extreme is supported. Rather, the examples of
`
`“unique code” in the ‘717 Patent are the PUK code of a SIM in a GSM context
`
`(Ex. 1001 at col. 9:35-45), or “any similar unique coding” (Ex. 1001 at col. 9:43-
`
`45). Ex. 1004 at ¶ 73. The ’717 Patent also states that a telephone number may be
`
`a “unique code.” Ex. 1001 at col. 9:24-25; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 74. Each of these
`
`examples is unique within the system it is used, as its purpose is to identify the
`
`11
`
`

`
`communicator within that system. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 75. This usage of “unique” was
`
`well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention
`
`of the ’717 Patent. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 76.
`
` “Unique Identifier”
`
`3.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “an identifier unique within the system the
`
`communicator device is used.”
`
`This phrase appears in each challenged independent Claim 1, 24, and 29. It
`
`has not been previously construed. Petitioner submits that “unique” should have a
`
`BRI similar to that of “unique” in the definition of “coded number,” for at least the
`
`reasons discussed above with regard to that term. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 80-81 .
`
`“Transmission”
`
`4.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “a portion of a message.”
`
`“Transmission” was not utilized in the ’717 Patent’s first ancestor – the
`
`abandoned ’571 Application (Ex. 1006) – it focused on whether “message” had a
`
`“coded number.” Ex. 1006 at 124; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 85. This concept is disclosed by
`
`the specifications of the ’717 Patent’s family, which use “message” throughout,
`
`including the actions relating to a singular incoming or outgoing “message” in
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1001 at col. 8:25-31) and the “five SMS messages” in the
`
`included table (Ex. 1001 at col. 10:13-22), each of which have both a PUK code
`
`and a telephone number. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 86.
`
`12
`
`

`
`“Transmission” replaced “message” in the subsequently filed ’212
`
`Application (Ex. 1007), and was used thereafter. The ’717 Patent’s specification
`
`does not explicitly set forth the relationship between a “transmission” and
`
`“message,” and uses “transmission” only a few times. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 87. Three are
`
`in passing, related to: (i) a “BlueTooth radio transmission” (Ex. 1001 at col. 3:32);
`
`(ii) a “packet data transmission” (Ex. 1001 at col. 11:43); and (iii) a “SMS
`
`transmission” (Ex. 1001 at col. 9:49). Ex. 1004 at ¶ 88. The fourth specifies the
`
`use of “a processing means to process coded transmissions and permit only
`
`transmissions comprising a coded number, which determines the authenticity of
`
`the message, to be allowed to program the number to which the said apparatus be
`
`linked.” Ex. 1001 at col. 4:45-50; see also Ex. 1004 at ¶ 88. This relation of plural
`
`“transmissions” to a singular “message” leads to the conclusion that multiple
`
`“transmissions” can make up a “message.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 89. This also comports
`
`with Claim 1’s recitation that the “one or more wireless transmissions …
`
`comprises a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or other wireless packet
`
`switched data message” (emphasis added). Ex. 1004 at ¶ 90.
`
`5.
`
`The Number and Content of “Transmissions” Falling
`Within the Claim Scope
`
`Proposed BRI Construction: The ’717 Patent claims read on a series of
`
`transmissions where, inter alia, a first transmission includes a “coded number” and
`
`a second transmission includes a “telephone number or IP address.”
`
`13
`
`

`
`Independent Claims 1, 24, and 29 recite the contents of “transmissions” in
`
`four different elements. The interrelationship between, and cumulative impact of,
`
`these limitations has not been previously construed. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 92.
`
`First, the claims recite “a processing module for authenticating one or more
`
`wireless transmissions … by determining if at least one transmission contains a
`
`coded number” (“element (1)”). This requires authentication based only on a
`
`transmission with a coded number. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 95-96.
`
`Second, the claims recite “wherein the programmable communicator device
`
`is configured to use a memory to store at least one telephone number or IP
`
`address included within at least one of the transmissions …” “(element (2)”).
`
`“The transmissions” at the end of this phrase refers back to the “one or more
`
`wireless transmissions” of element (1), not the “at least one transmission”
`
`containing the coded number. Thus, this element includes within its scope a
`
`transmission containing a phone number that is different from the transmission
`
`containing the coded number of element (1). Ex. 1004 at ¶ 97.
`
`Third, the claims recite “if the processing module authenticates the at least
`
`one of the transmissions including the at least one telephone number or IP
`
`address and the coded number” (“element (3)”). This element specifies “the at
`
`least one of the transmissions including” the telephone number and coded number,
`
`but no such “transmission” was previously recited. Thus, element (3) must be
`
`14
`
`

`
`referring to both of the separate transmissions from elements (1) and (2) in the
`
`aggregate – not as a combined single transmission. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 98.
`
`Finally, the claims recite “determining that the at least one of the
`
`transmissions includes the coded number” (“element (4)”). This element repeats
`
`that the authentication is based on “the at least one” transmission including the
`
`coded number,