Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 51 PageID #: 2286
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendant
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DECLARATION OF ALFRED C. WEAVER, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PMC'S OPPOSITION TO APPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`I, Alfred C. Weaver, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Personalized Media Communications, LLC
`
`("PMC") as an expert witness to document the state of the art of data communication networks,
`
`data encryption/decryption and streaming media in the 1980s, and, in particular, 1981 and 1987.
`
`I have also been asked to consider whether the inventions claimed in the asserted claims of the
`
`Patents-In-Suit are directed to abstract ideas or whether they amount to significantly more than
`
`the purported abstract ideas posited by Defendant in its pending Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Additionally, I have been asked to analyze whether, assuming the claims to be directed to some
`
`abstract idea, they nevertheless include inventive concepts beyond what was conventional at the
`
`relevant times.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my review of materials in this case and the
`
`preparation of this declaration at the rate of $400 per hour (plus expenses). My compensation is
`
`not determined by, contingent on or otherwise affected by the outcome of this case.
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 51 PageID #: 2287
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this declaration are
`
`summarized here and further detailed in my curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1. Also included in Exhibit 1 is a list of my publications.
`
`4.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Science in 1971 from the
`
`University of Tennessee. I also earned a Master of Science in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1973. Thereafter, I earned a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1976.
`
`5.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science and the Associate Chair of the
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of Virginia ("UV a"). I have been employed at
`
`UVa continuously since 1977. Over the period of my employment at UV a, I have taught 28
`
`different courses, including electronic commerce, operating systems, computer networks, and
`
`various programming courses. Moreover, I have been the graduate advisor for 69 Ph.D. and
`
`master's students, all in Computer Science.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to my teaching duties, I am also the Founding Director of UV a' s
`
`Applied Research Institute, a group of faculty engaged in research areas related to national
`
`security and funded by both government and industry. To date, I have published 16 books and
`
`book chapters, 30 refereed journal articles, 139 refereed conference publications, and 80
`
`technical reports. I currently serve on the Advisory Council of the Editorial Board of IEEE
`
`Computer magazine.
`
`7.
`
`As a researcher, I have served as Principal Investigator or co-Principal
`
`Investigator of 130+ research projects funded by the federal government and private industry.
`
`Recent research projects include 3D printing, automated analysis of published scientific
`
`literature, secure mobile computing, crowdsourcing, data integrity, and trustworthy computing.
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 3 of 51 PageID #: 2288
`
`8.
`
`I have founded five companies. One of these, Network Xpress, Inc., was a spin-
`
`off from research work in computer networks funded by the U.S. Navy at UVa. At its peak,
`
`another company, Reliacast, lnc., employed 90 people and developed software for secure
`
`streaming of multimedia. Reliacast was ultimately sold to Comcast.
`
`9.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in 20+ patent infringement cases since 1988.
`
`Six of those cases have gone to trial. In the past four years I have testified in court in two cases:
`
`• VS Technologies v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2: 11-cv-00043-HCM-TEM in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk). In that
`
`case, I testified on behalf of Twitter.
`
`•
`
`eP!us, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-00620-REP in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond). In that
`
`case, I testified on behalf of ePlus.
`
`A complete list of cases in which I have testified at deposition, hearing or trial in the past 4 years
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND RELIED UPON
`
`10.
`
`In preparing my opinions detailed in this declaration, I have reviewed and
`
`considered the claims and specification of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,191,091 (the '"091 Patent");
`
`8,559,635 (the "'635 Patent"); 7,752,649 (the '"649 Patent") and 8,752,088 (the "'088 Patent")
`
`that PMC has asserted in this litigation (collectively, the "Asserted Patents"). I have also
`
`reviewed Apple's Motion to Dismiss and the exhibits thereto.
`
`11.
`
`I have also relied on my personal experience. I was born in 1949 and grew up in
`
`an era when radio, television, and telephones were already deployed and in widespread
`
`commercial use. The ARP Anet, the precursor to today's Internet, was developed in 1969 when I
`
`was an undergraduate at the University of Tennessee. While cryptography is an ancient topic,
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 4 of 51 PageID #: 2289
`
`commercial-grade computer-based encryption (e.g., the Data Encryption Standard) was first
`
`certified by the National Bureau of Standards in 1975 while I was a Ph.D. student at the
`
`University of Illinois.
`
`12.
`
`I have also relied on years of education, teaching, and research experience
`
`concerning software, programming, encryption, streaming media, circuit design, computer
`
`architecture, digital logic design, embedded systems, distributed computing, consumer
`
`electronics and networks as a basis for forming my opinions. Of particular relevance is my
`
`teaching experience. I taught the first microcomputer course at UV a when I joined the
`
`Department of Computer Science as an Assistant Professor in 1977. In my microcomputer lab, I
`
`employed self-developed telephone transmission networks as well as the Ethernet local area
`
`network. Additionally, I taught UVa's first computer networks course in 1980.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL ST AND ARDS
`
`13.
`
`I am informed and understand that under the Patent Act an inventor may patent
`
`any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
`
`14.
`
`I am further informed and understand that there are certain exclusions from
`
`patentable subject matter for laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas.
`
`15.
`
`I am informed and understand, however, that an invention is not rendered
`
`ineligible for a patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. That is because, at some
`
`level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena
`
`or abstract ideas. Therefore, I am informed and understand that for abstractness to invalidate a
`
`patent claim it must exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of
`
`eligible subject matter. I am informed and understand that the rationale is one of preemption,
`
`namely, a concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by tying up the future use of the
`
`building blocks of human ingenuity.
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 5 of 51 PageID #: 2290
`
`16.
`
`I am informed and understand that the U.S. Supreme Court has set forth a
`
`framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
`
`ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Thus, I am informed
`
`and understand that the application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
`
`structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. Therefore, I am informed and
`
`understand that in a first step in the patent eligibility analysis, one must determine whether the
`
`claim is directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If not, the claim is patent-eligible.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed and understand that even if a patent claim is directed to one of the
`
`patent-ineligible concepts, then, in a second step, one must consider the elements of the claim
`
`both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements
`
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible one. This step of the inquiry asks whether
`
`the elements of the claim add an "inventive concept" that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in
`
`practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. This
`
`inquiry includes evaluating the other claim limitations to determine whether they are merely
`
`conventional or routine in the relevant field at the time of the invention. If not conventional and
`
`routine, the other limitations ensure that the claim is something more than an attempt to patent
`
`the abstract idea itself. My understanding is that we do not employ hindsight from today in
`
`evaluating whether claim limitations are routine or conventional; rather, we conduct that inquiry
`
`as of the priority date of the claimed inventions, which in this case is 1981 or 1987.
`
`18.
`
`I am further informed and understand that technological solutions to problems
`
`arising out of new technologies can be patent-eligible. By contrast, some business practice
`
`known from the pre-Internet world does not become patentable with the routine instruction to
`
`"perform it on the Internet" or implement it on a generic computer.
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 6 of 51 PageID #: 2291
`
`19.
`
`However, I am informed and understand that an invention is patent-eligible where
`
`the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
`
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`20.
`
`I am informed and understand that the claims of the patent are judged from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical construct involving a "person of ordinary skill in the art." The
`
`"art" is the field of technology to which the patent is related. I understand that the purpose of
`
`using the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art is for objectivity and to avoid
`
`hindsight bias.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion the asserted claims of the Patents-In-Suit are directed to a person
`
`with at least a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) in digital electronics, electrical engineering or
`
`computer engineering having two to five years of post-degree experience in system
`
`implementation.
`
`22.
`
`I am qualified as a person of at least ordinary skill in the art and my qualifications
`
`enable me to provide opinions regarding the claims of the Patents-In-Suit from the perspective of
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V.
`
`DATA COMMUNICATIONS IN THE 1980'S
`
`A.
`
`Electronic Transmission of Information
`
`23.
`
`The electronic transmission of information can be accomplished in multiple ways
`
`depending upon the type of information (analog or digital) and the type of transmission
`
`technology (analog or digital).
`
`24.
`
`An analog signal is any continuous signal for which the time varying feature
`
`(variable) of the signal is a representation of some other time varying quantity, i.e., analogous to
`
`another time varying signal. Three examples of analog (continuous-value) data are: a) the
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 7 of 51 PageID #: 2292
`
`changing rotational speed of a motor, b) the varying current output by a microphone circuit in a
`
`telephone handset, and c) the variable brightness of the horizontal scan line of a cathode ray
`
`television tube. Analog transmission media are exemplified by radio and television distribution
`
`over (i) wired (e.g., coax cable television) and (ii) wireless (e.g., broadcast) networks.
`
`25.
`
`On the other hand, a digital signal is not continuous and is instead restricted to
`
`some number of discrete values. Three examples of digital (discrete-value) data are: a) the
`
`seconds field of a digital clock that can display the 60 integers from 0 to 59 (and no others), b) a
`
`value indicating whether a two-position switch is open (0) or closed (1 ), and c) a computer
`
`transmission of a single printable character using an n-bit code in which any single combination
`
`of then bits represents exactly one of the 2n possible printable characters. Digital transmission
`
`media are exemplified by (i) an electrical circuit in which, at any point in time, a voltage level is
`
`high (a logic 1) or low (a logic 0), or (ii) by a fiber optic cable in which, at any point in time, a
`
`signal level is high (logic 1) or low (logic 0).
`
`26.
`
`The terminology surrounding information transmission can sometimes be
`
`confusing. Analog and digital data refer to the type of information being transmitted
`
`(continuous or discrete, respectively). Analog and digital transmission refer to the underlying
`
`electronics of the transmission network (i.e., the way the electronics work). Analog data can be
`
`transmitted over an analog transmission channel directly (without conversion), or over a digital
`
`transmission channel by using an analog-to-digital converter. Digital data can be transmitted
`
`over a digital transmission channel directly (without conversion), or over an analog transmission
`
`channel by using a digital-to-analog converter. Analog and digital media refer to the way
`
`content is represented. As such, it may affect how the content is transmitted, but not always. A
`
`JPEG file on my computer is digital media, but it may not have been stored on my computer due
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 8 of 51 PageID #: 2293
`
`to a transmission. I could have inserted a USB memory stick containing the file into a disk drive,
`
`for example. Thus, media should not be confused with transmission.
`
`B.
`
`Conventionai Broadcast Systems to Distribute Programming
`
`27.
`
`In the early 1980s, information from a transmitter to a receiver occurred in
`
`predominantly one of two ways: (i) one-to-many distribution (e.g., radio and television), or (ii)
`
`one-to-one distribution (e.g., telephones and local area networks). It should be noted that in
`
`special cases, radio and television could support one-to-one communication and telephones and
`
`local area networks could support one-to-many communications.
`
`28.
`
`An example of one-to-many distribution in the 1980s was the popular television
`
`show "Magnum, P.I." For example, when the broadcast originator (in this case the Columbia
`
`Broadcasting System or CBS) started distributing the programming at 8:00 pm on Saturdays, all
`
`local CBS affiliate stations received the programming (via over-the-air broadcast, satellite,
`
`microwave, cable, or other means), and, in turn, transmitted the programming to their local
`
`audiences.
`
`29.
`
`The local CBS affiliate television station would typically rebroadcast the show
`
`immediately on its local channel, with perhaps some editing such as the selection of local
`
`advertisements to insert at the commercial breaks. Radio distribution was handled similarly.
`
`While the comments which follow are written to describe television programming, they are
`
`equally applicable to radio.
`
`30.
`
`The one-to-many nature ofradio and TV meant that all viewers were watching
`
`and/or listening to essentially the same programming (with the exception oflocal ads). A viewer
`
`had no way of interacting with the broadcast television program in any way that would allow the
`
`viewer to customize or personalize what was being shown. In other words, the broadcasted
`
`programming content of any received channel was fixed and unalterable. Each channel's
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 9 of 51 PageID #: 2294
`
`transmission to a given locale was received identically by all receiver stations in that locale.
`
`Whatever was received by user X on channel Y was identical to the programming received by
`
`user Z on channel Y. Thus, radio and television programming were deemed to be mass-market
`
`experiences.
`
`31.
`
`The fixed and unalterable nature of broadcast programming in the 1980s was due
`
`to several factors. On the transmitter side, conventional transmitters lacked the following
`
`capabilities:
`
`•
`
`to know directly which receivers, if any, were actually receiving the
`
`transmitted program;
`
`•
`
`to selectively send one program stream to one receiver and another
`
`programming stream to a different receiver on the same channel;
`
`•
`
`to know which viewers were watching which programs or which channels
`
`(which spurred the growth of polling companies to provide that information
`
`which was critical to advertisers);
`
`•
`
`to protect pay-per-view content using encryption at the transmitter and
`
`decryption at the receiver;
`
`•
`
`to securely transmit decryption keys, or the location of keys, or a method of
`
`calculating a key, or a reference to a method of calculating a key, or other
`
`method of remotely controlling access to decryption keys; or
`
`•
`
`to control any peripheral device at any receiver station (e.g., videotape
`
`recorder/player, printer, HV AC controller), including the TV itself.
`
`On the receiver side, conventional receivers lacked the following capabilities:
`
`•
`
`to know whether its attached TV was turned on or off;
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 10 of 51 PageID #:
` 2295
`
`•
`
`to control automatically the channel to which a TV was tuned, or when to tune
`
`it to any particular channel based on received control signals;
`
`•
`
`to aiter the content of the received program to embellish it with local, user-
`
`specific information;
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`to use its incoming programming to control an attached peripheral device;
`
`to receive executable computer programs to accomplish particular functions;
`
`to process information relevant to only this one receiver to enable the
`
`personalization of content;
`
`•
`
`to make local decisions based upon a combination of incoming information
`
`(e.g., closing stock prices) and local information (e.g., my stock portfolio) to
`
`produce local, value-added information (e.g., the value of my stock portfolio).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`to select and pay for any personally desired programming;
`
`to decrypt encrypted programming;
`
`to detect and decrypt encrypted decryption keys embedded within
`
`programming that are subsequently used to decrypt the programming itself or
`
`to otherwise locate secure decryption keys needed to decrypt the
`
`programming; or
`
`•
`
`to track functions it carries out (such as decryption) and report those functions
`
`back to a remote source.
`
`C.
`
`Conventional Methods of Conditional Access in 1981
`
`32.
`
`In 1981, the ability to transmit digital television and other types of digital content
`
`had been demonstrated; however, the conventional practice was to transmit television and other
`
`types of programming (e.g., radio) in its analog form (e.g., in compliance with the NTSC
`
`standard for television). How television was transmitted to users in 1981 is illustrative for other
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 11 of 51 PageID #:
` 2296
`
`types of electronically transmitted programming. For example, television was transmitted via
`
`cable or over-the-air (e.g., via satellite or from local transmission towers). A viewer could
`
`simpiy connect a compatible television receiver to the signal using a coax cable or an antenna,
`
`and the TV would then display the transmitted programming on its screen. Unrestricted access to
`
`television programming was problematic because many service providers were dependent on
`
`users paying for access to content. Hence, there was a need to restrict access to television
`
`programming to only authorized recipients. This access was termed "conditional access" in the
`
`industry.
`
`33.
`
`The conventional practice in 1981 to restrict access to transmitted content was to
`
`scramble the analog television signal before it was broadcast and then to descramble the analog
`
`signal received in scrambled form at a receiver so that the original programming could be
`
`displayed to users. Scrambling is a process that manipulates an analog television signal in a
`
`predetermined fashion such as reordering the 525 horizontal lines in a standard TV frame or by
`
`moving the standard video synchronization signal to a non-standard frequency so that the
`
`resulting image is distorted. Descrambling an analog signal applies the same process in reverse
`
`to remove the intentionally introduced distortion so that the television programming can be
`
`displayed to users. Descrambling is an analog process that is applicable to analog signals but
`
`cannot meaningfully be applied to digital signals such as digital television transmissions.
`
`34.
`
`In 1981, encryption and decryption algorithms that could be used to encrypt and
`
`decrypt digital data were also known (e.g., the Data Encryption Standard (DES) certified by the
`
`National Bureau of Standards and published as a Federal Information Processing Standard in
`
`1977). Encryption is a process that renders the encrypted data unintelligible unless it is first
`
`decrypted and returned to its original form. Encryption and decryption are only applicable to
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 12 of 51 PageID #:
` 2297
`
`digital information - not analog signals. Two common types of encryption algorithms that were
`
`known in 1981 include symmetric key and public key encryption algorithms. Symmetric key
`
`encryption aigorithms use the same key to encrypt and decrypt data. Public key encryption
`
`algorithms use two related keys - a public key and a private key - to encrypt and decrypt data.
`
`For example, data encrypted with a public key may be decrypted using the related private key.
`
`Employing encryption to protect data from unauthorized access depends upon preventing
`
`unauthorized access to the encryption key (same value as decryption key) for symmetric
`
`encryption algorithms or to the private key for public key encryption algorithms. This presents a
`
`challenge when the transmitter that encrypts data and the receiver that decrypts that data are
`
`located at different physical locations: how could the key be moved safely from the encryptor
`
`(transmitter) to the decryptor (receiver)? If the decryption key were to become known to others
`
`rather than the intended recipient, anyone who could intercept the encrypted programming could
`
`use the no-longer-secret key to decrypt it and therefore avoid paying for it. While algorithms
`
`such as DES provided methods of encryption, they did not solve the problem of secure key
`
`distribution in networked systems.
`
`35.
`
`Even though both encryption and digital transmission of programming (e.g.,
`
`television) were known in 1981, it was certainly not routine or conventional to encrypt digital
`
`television or other digital programming before it was transmitted to restrict access only to
`
`authorized users.
`
`D.
`
`Conventional Systems of Distributing Programming Were Not
`Interactive in 1981
`
`36.
`
`In the early l 980's, conventional content distribution systems to distribute
`
`electronic programming (e.g., radio, television) generally broadcast content (for example,
`
`different television or radio programs) on different channels or frequencies. User interactivity
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 13 of 51 PageID #:
` 2298
`
`was limited to switching between channels that broadcast different programming at a television
`
`or radio receiver. These systems simply broadcast programming and users could simply choose
`
`to watch it or not without any interaction with components that broadcast the programming.
`
`37.
`
`Pay-per-view systems were also known in the early 1980s, where a user could pay
`
`for access to a particular program transmitted on a particular channel at a particular time. The
`
`conventional practice for ordering pay-per-view events (e.g., a boxing match) required viewers
`
`who desired to watch the content to telephone the cable provider in advance and request access
`
`to the program by providing their account details and method of payment.
`
`E.
`
`Packet Switched Networks Like the Internet Were Known in 1981
`
`3 8.
`
`In 1981, radio and TV distribution were examples of one-to-many programming
`
`distribution. In the conventional operation of these types of networks in 1981, the same content
`
`was received by all or multiple users. There was no ability to personalize content for individual
`
`users. This content could be received at the same time by all users or recorded and then broadcast
`
`from an intermediate location in the distribution network to selected groups of users at a later
`
`time. One-to-one communication networks were also in common use in 1981. For example, a
`
`regular telephone call placed between users over the Public Switched Telephone Network
`
`(PSTN) establishes a one-to-one connection. Telephone networks generally used persistent
`
`connections to transfer data between locations with all data between the source and destination
`
`travelling over the same path.
`
`39.
`
`Packet switched networks (e.g., the Internet) also existed in 1981. Packet
`
`switched networks use digital control signaling and operate differently from connection-oriented
`
`networks, such as television broadcast and the PSTN. Packet switched networks segment the
`
`transmission of data into pieces termed "packets" and transmit each packet separately. These
`
`packets are then reassembled in order at the destination to reconstruct the information that was
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 14 of 51 PageID #:
` 2299
`
`transmitted. Packet switched networks do not use persistent connections to transmit data but
`
`instead each individual packet may be routed from its source to its destination over any number
`
`of different paths. For example, a first data packet could be routed between New York and San
`
`Francisco via Denver and a second packet of the same transmission stream could be routed via
`
`Kansas City.
`
`40.
`
`In 1969, an early packet switched network commissioned by the U.S. Department
`
`of Defense, called the ARP Anet because it was a network funded by the U.S. Government's
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency, was demonstrated. The design of this system has matured
`
`over time to become today's Internet. Indeed, early versions of protocols that remain the
`
`workhorses of the modern Internet, such as the Internet Protocol (IP), Transmission Control
`
`Protocol (TCP), and User Datagram Protocol (UDP) were published before 1981. See, for
`
`example, RFC 760 (attached hereto as Exhibit 3).
`
`F.
`
`Streaming Media Was Not Conventional in 1987
`
`41.
`
`Streaming media is digital media content that is continuously received by and
`
`presented to an end-user while being continuously delivered by a provider over a computer
`
`network. Streaming media is an alternative to downloading a particular media file.
`
`42.
`
`From the late 1980s through the 1990s, consumer-grade personal computers
`
`became powerful enough to play various media. However, there were several technical issues
`
`related to streaming that prevented adoption of streaming. For example, computers required
`
`sufficient CPU power and bus bandwidth to support the required data rates and, additionally,
`
`low-latency interrupt paths were needed in the operating system to prevent buffer overrun. Thus,
`
`during the late 1980s and early 1990s, media were typically delivered to end users over non(cid:173)
`
`streaming channels, such as by downloading a digital file from a remote server and then saving it
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 15 of 51 PageID #:
` 2300
`
`to a local drive on the end user's computer, or storing it as a digital file on a CD-ROM and
`
`playing it back at a later time.
`
`43.
`
`Early streaming media was based on a variety of proprietary protocols with
`
`limited adoption.
`
`44.
`
`The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) working group was established in
`
`January 1988. Development of the MPEG-1 standard for compression of digital video and audio
`
`began in May 1988. After many meetings, and four-and-a-half years of development and testing,
`
`the final standard (for parts 1-3) was approved in November 1992 and published a few years
`
`later. In July 1990, before the first draft of the MPEG-1 standard had been written, work began
`
`on a second standard, MPEG-2, intended to extend MPEG-1 technology to provide full
`
`broadcast-quality digital video.
`
`45.
`
`During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Internet users saw greater network
`
`bandwidth, the use of standard protocols and formats for the delivery of digital multimedia and
`
`the commercialization of the Internet, which was opened to commercial traffic in 1995. These
`
`developments facilitated the adoption of streaming media.
`
`46.
`
`On June 24, 1993, the band "Severe Tire Damage" was playing at Xerox PARC.
`
`Scientists at Xerox PARC were working on technology for broadcasting on the Internet using
`
`multi casting. As proof of their technology, the band's performance was broadcast and could be
`
`seen live in Australia, for example. This event is believed to be the first demonstration of live
`
`streaming of multimedia.
`
`47.
`
`On September 5, 1995, ESPN SportsZone streamed a live radio broadcast of a
`
`baseball game between the Seattle Mariners and the New York Yankees to thousands of its
`
`subscribers worldwide using technology developed by a Seattle-based startup company named
`
`15
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00754
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP Document 83-4 Filed 01/27/16 Page 16 of 51 PageID #:
` 2301
`
`Progressive Networks (later known as RealNetworks).
`
`48.
`
`In 2007, a company named Move Networks introduced HTTP-based adaptive
`
`streaming that uses the dominant HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) to deliver media in
`
`small file chunks while using a player application on a user's device to monitor download speeds
`
`and/or fullness of the buffer and request chunks of varying size in response to changing network
`
`conditions. The technology allowed widespread use of streaming media, while at the same time
`
`eliminating annoying buffering and connectivity issues for users. Standardization work for this
`
`technology began in 2009 with the 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project) and shifted to
`
`the MPEG working groups in 2010. In April, 2012, a new standard was released known as
`
`Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP, or MPEG-DASH.
`
`49.
`
`The above history of streaming digital media illustrates that streaming digital
`
`media was not conventional practice in 1987. Indeed, there were various technological hurdles
`
`to overcome at that time, and it would be several years after 1987 before streaming digital media
`
`would come into widespread use. Moreover, network communications to control how to receive
`
`and process media received in messages were also not conventional in 1987. Nor could
`
`conventional receivers in 1987 externally communicate information relating to the usage of
`
`identified inputted multimedia signals, such as by, for example, recording how or where signals
`
`were passed during the consumption of multimedia content.
`
`VI.
`
`THE ASSERTED PA