INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,179,005 & 8,542,815
`O R A L A R G U M E N T, J U LY 2 0 , 2 0 1 7
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`Case IPR2016-01198; U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`Case IPR2016-01201; U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,179,005 & 8,542,815
`O R A L A R G U M E N T, J U LY 2 0 , 2 0 1 7
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`Case IPR2016-01198; U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`Case IPR2016-01201; U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2016-01198:
`• Claims 1, 24-26, 49, 50, 73-39, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 94-96, 98, and 99 (“’005 Challenged
`Claims”) over Chu ’684 and Chu ’366
`‘005 Challenged Claims over Chu ’684 and Chen
`
`•
`
`IPR2016-01201:
`• Claims 1, 7, 27, 28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92, 93, and 111 (“’815 Challenged Claims”) over Chu
`’684 and Chu ’366
`‘815 Challenged Claims over Chu ’684 and Chen
`
`•
`
`• PO’s Challenges in Response (Both Proceedings)
`• Challenged Claims are not obvious in view of either combination
`• Chu ’366 and Chen are not prior art because the claimed invention was actually
`reduced to practice on June 6, 2005
`
`IPR2016-01198: Paper 6, Institution Decision at 31; Paper 17, Response at 4, 47, and 48
`IPR2016-01201: Paper 6, Institution Decision at 32; Paper 17, Response at 4, 38, and 39
`
`Petitioner’s DX-2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`‘005 & ‘815 PATENTS
`(“CHALLENGED PATENTS”)
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract
`
`Petitioner’s DX-3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHALLENGED PATENTS – MAIN CONCEPTS
`
`• VoIP-based caller can place calls to destinations on
`either private network (IP-based callee) or public
`network (PSTN-based callee)
`
`• Caller information (“caller attributes,” e.g., country
`code, area code, etc.) is used to reformat dialed digits
`into E.164 compliant number
`
`• Reformatted number is used to determine whether
`routing messages should be generated identifying (1) a
`network address on the private network or (2) a
`gateway to the public network
`
`Ex. 1001 at Abstract, FIGS. 1 and 8B (both proceedings)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PATENT PROSECUTION FOCUSED ON SINGLE
`REFERENCE THAT LACKED REFORMATTING
`
`• ‘005 Prosecution
`• “Alexander is completely silent as to performing any functions related
`to the caller or caller dialing profile and only locates a callee
`telephone number.”
`•
`IPR2016-01198, Ex. 1002, Office Action Response dated May 15, 2015 at
`792-93 (emphasis in original).
`• Examiner agreed that “Alexander fails to teach claimed limitations of
`determingng (sic) if a calling attribute meets (matches) a portion of a
`callee's identifier, and producing a routing message accordingly.”
`•
`Id., Interview Summary dated June 2, 2015 at 768
`
`• ‘815 Prosecution
`• Alexander “simply looks up the callee number [and] fails to disclose or
`suggest any criteria that are used in conjunction with the comparison
`involving calling attributes . . . to classify a call.”
`•
`IPR2016-01201, Ex. 1002, Office Action Response dated April 29, 2013, at
`96-129
`
`Petitioner’s DX-5
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`FIG. 8B PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON CLAIM
`LANGUAGE
`• ‘005 Patent Claim 1
`• “when at least one of said calling attributes and at least a portion
`of a callee identifier associated with the callee meet private
`network classification criteria”
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1, FIG. 8B
`
`Petitioner’s DX-6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`FIG. 8B PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON CLAIM
`LANGUAGE
`
`• ’815 Claim 1
`• “determining a match when at least one of said calling attributes
`matches at least a portion of said callee identifier; classifying the
`call as a public network call when said match meets public
`network “
`
`Ex. 1001 at Claim 1, FIG. 8B
`
`Petitioner’s DX-7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684
`BASE REFERENCE
`
`• VoIP-based caller can place a call to another VoIP-based callee (on
`a private packet network)
`
`Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at FIGS. 2 & 8
`
`Petitioner’s DX-8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684
`BASE REFERENCE
`
`• VoIP-based caller can also place a call to a PSTN-based callee (on
`the public telephone network)
`
`Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at FIG. 13
`
`Petitioner’s DX-9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684
`BASE REFERENCE
`
`• Processes dialed digits to determine whether the call should be
`routed to a destination on the private packet network or through a
`gateway to a destination on the public telephone network.
`
`• “At step 608, after receiving all the dialed digits from the phone 101, server 110
`consults its dial plan to determine whether the call is local, to another on-net phone,
`or to a phone that is on the PSTN.”
`• Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at 8:65-9:1
`
`• “From the dialed digits (of a destination phone that is being called, PSTN phone 1301),
`ingress soft-switch 220, determines that this call is for the PSTN. From the same dialed
`digits, the soft-switch also determines the egress PSTN gateway 1302 and its controlling
`soft-switch 1304.”
`•
`Id. at 13:15-20.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`SECONDARY REFERENCES
`CHU ’366 AND CHEN
`
`• Both Chu ‘366 and Chen teach user-specific dialing profiles
`
`• Voip-Pal’s Expert, Dr. Mangione-Smith, agrees both teach user-specific dial plans:
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith
`Deposition Transcript at 159:2-5.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`FIG. 8B COMPARED WITH CHEN
`
`Ex. 1001 at FIG. 8B
`
`Ex. 1005 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1008 (IPR2016-01198), Chen at FIG. 6.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`FIG. 8B COMPARED WITH CHU ’366
`
`Ex. 1001 at FIG. 8B
`
`Ex. 1004 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’366 at FIG. 6.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`103 COMBINATIONS
`
`• Chu ’684 teaches the telephonic infrastructure and call
`processing through which an IP-based caller can place a
`call to either a private network IP-based callee or a
`public network PSTN-based callee.
`• The Secondary References teach user-specific caller
`profiles containing caller attributes (e.g., IDD, NDD, area
`code, etc.).
`• Using these caller attributes, the Secondary References
`teach reformatting dialed digits to form an E.164-
`compliant callee identifier
`• Chu ’684 uses the reformatted callee identifier to
`determine whether the callee is on a private or public
`network and generates appropriate routing messages.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUBSTANTIVE
`CRITICISMS OF 103 COMBINATIONS
`
`• Special dialing conventions
`
`• Enterprise v. User-Specific profiles
`
`• Motivation to combine
`
`Petitioner’s DX-15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS:
`SPECIAL DIALING CONVENTIONS
`
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01201), Response at 48
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01198), Response at 56-57.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684 DOES NOT REQUIRE A PREFIX
`DIGIT TO DIAL OUT TO THE PSTN
`• Dr. Mangione-Smith could point to no teaching in Chu ’684
`suggesting that prefix digits are required
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith
`Deposition Transcript at 143:17-144:8.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684 DOES NOT REQUIRE A PREFIX
`DIGIT TO DIAL OUT TO THE PSTN
`• Dr. Mangione-Smith seeks to
`modify Chu ’684 with a prefix
`digit requirement
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith
`Deposition Transcript at 147:13-22.
`
`• Even assuming such a
`modification could be proper,
`Dr. Mangione-Smith lacks the
`PBX experience to support such
`a modification
`
`Id. at 26:20-25.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684 DOES NOT REQUIRE A PREFIX DIGIT
`TO DIAL OUT TO THE PSTN
`
`• Dr. Mangione-Smith’s prefix digit requirement is at odds with the
`express teachings, which require only the destination phone
`number be dialed to reach the PSTN
`
`Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at 13:12-20.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-19
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684 DOES NOT REQUIRE PRIVATE
`DIALING FOR IP-BASED CALLEES
`
`• Chu ’684 teaches that private IP
`phones can be assigned public
`E.164 numbers
`
`Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at 13:1-9.
`• Chu ‘684 also teaches that calls
`between private IP phones can
`use public E.164 dialing
`
`. . .
`
`Id. at 8:65-9:17.
`Petitioner’s DX-20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS:
`ENTERPRISE V. USER-SPECIFIC DIALING PROFILE
`
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01201), Response at 59
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01198), Response at 66.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-21
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`THE SECONDARY REFERENCES TEACH USER-
`SPECIFIC DIALING PROFILES
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith
`Deposition Transcript at 159:2-5.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-22Petitioner’s DX-22
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`THE 103 COMBINATIONS TEACH USER-
`SPECIFIC CALLER PROFILES
`
`• Chu ‘684 provides the
`infrastructure necessary
`to incorporate caller-
`specific profiles from the
`Secondary References.
`
`. . .
`
`Ex. 2043, Houh Trans. at 21:19-22:12.
`
`Id. at 19:23-20:10.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-23Petitioner’s DX-23
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS:
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01201), Response at 64
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01198), Response at 69.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-24
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`THE SECONDARY REFERENCES PROVIDE EXPRESS
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`. . .
`
`Ex. 1004 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1007
`(IPR2016-01198), Chu ’366 at 1:18-58.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-25Petitioner’s DX-25
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`THE SECONDARY REFERENCES PROVIDE
`EXPRESS MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`Ex. 1005 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1008 (IPR2016-01198), Chen at [0015-0016].
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-26Petitioner’s DX-26
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL’S SWEAR BEHIND EFFORTS
`FAIL
`
`• Voip-Pal attempts to prove a nearly 17-month swear
`behind based on an actual reduction to practice
`• “In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the
`inventor must prove that: (1) he constructed an
`embodiment or performed a process that met all the
`limitations of the interference count; and (2) he determined
`that the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`(emphasis added).
`
`• Voip-Pal’s biased testimony and documentation are
`insufficient and its swear behind efforts FAIL
`
`Petitioner’s DX-27
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`TESTIMONY MUST BE CORROBORATED
`TO PROVE REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• “It has long been the case that an inventor's
`allegations of earlier invention alone are insufficient
`—an alleged date of invention must be
`corroborated.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added)
`
`• “It is equally well established that every limitation of
`the [claim] must exist in the embodiment and be
`shown to have performed as intended.” Newkirk v.
`Lulejian, 825 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`(emphasis added)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-28
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• Clay Perreault
`• Founder of Digifonica and Inventor on Challenged Patents
`• Ex. 2013 (both proceedings), Perreault Declaration at ¶¶ 1 & 3.
`• 700,000 Shares of Voip-Pal Stock
`• Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198), Perreault Trans.
`at 37:14-21.
`• No source code knowledge
`• Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198), Perreault Trans.
`at 81:22-23.
`• Used Challenged Patents to understand operation of
`Digifonica system in 2005
`• Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198), Perreault Trans.
`at 81:15-21.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-29
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell
`• Inventor on Challenged Patents
`• Ex. 2012 (both proceedings), Bjorsell Declaration at ¶ 2.
`• 1,000,000 Shares of Voip-Pal Stock
`• Ex. 1012 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1015 (IPR2016-01198), Bjorsell Trans. at
`28:4-6.
`• Did not execute code to confirm functionality
`• Ex. 1012 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1015 (IPR2016-01198), Bjorsell Trans. at
`72:7-73:4.
`
`Petitioner’s DX-30
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• David Terry
`• Did not write source code
`• Ex. 1009 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1012 (IPR2016-01198), Terry Trans. at
`24:23-25:10.
`• Did not define system features
`•
`Id. at 15:10-16.
`• Understanding of 2005 system operation was indirect
`•
`Id. at 73:23-74:8 (understanding came from “work experience there,
`you know, doing meetings and talking to people, overhearing other
`stuff going on around me.”).
`
`Petitioner’s DX-31
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• John Rutter and Stuart Gare
`• Both Smart421 Employees
`• Ex. 2008 & Ex. 2009 (both proceedings)
`• Did not identify or know what version of source code was
`on Digifonica system
`• Ex. 2008 & Ex. 2009 (both proceedings); Ex. 1008 (IPR2016-01201) &
`Ex. 1011 (IPR2016-00198), Rutter Trans., at 16:17-24
`• Did not confirm any specific features existed in code
`• Ex. 1008 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1011 (IPR2016-00198), Rutter Trans., at
`16:14-21:2
`• Merely watched a phone call being made and did not
`view details of how the call was processed or what number
`was dialed
`• Ex. 1008 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1011 (IPR2016-00198), Rutter Trans., at
`32:2-4 and 32:25-33:11
`
`Petitioner’s DX-32
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• Pentti Kalevi Huttunen
`• Did not test or operate source code
`• Ex. 2010 (both proceedings)
`• Did not testify on any details of Digifonica system in 2005
`• Ex. 2010 (both proceedings)
`
`• Ryan Purita
`• Did not test or operate source code
`• Ex. 2011 (both proceedings)
`• Did not testify on any details of Digifonica system in 2005
`• Ex. 2011 (both proceedings)
`• Forensic expert but did not forensic analysis of source code
`• Ex. 2011 (both proceedings)
`
`Petitioner’s DX-33
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`WITNESSES RELEVANT TO ALLEGED
`REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`
`• Fuad Arafa
`• Inventor on Challenged Patents
`• Ex. 1001 (both proceedings)
`• Original author of RBR source code
`• Ex. 2014 (both proceedings), RBR Code, at 1:23; and Ex. 1010
`(IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198), Perreault Trans., at
`66:23-67:13
`• Represented by Patent Owner, but no declaration or
`testimony submitted by Patent Owner
`
`• Steve Nicholson
`• Inventor but no testimony or declaration provided
`
`• Rod Thomson
`• Inventor but no testimony or declaration provided Petitioner’s DX-34
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`ACTUAL REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`EVIDENCE OF GENERAL OPERATION IS INSUFFICIENT
`
`Ex. 1015 (IPR2016-01198) & Ex. 1012
`(IPR2016-01201), Bjorsell trans. at
`85:24-86:5.
`
`Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01201), Perreault
`trans. at 75:6-22.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-35Petitioner’s DX-35
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`DR. MANGIONE-SMITH’S TESTIMONY RE TESTING
`IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD
`
`Cited by Patent Owner
`(Paper 41, Sur-Reply at 4):
`
`Test code was not produced or
`discussed in expert’s declaration:
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010
`(IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith Trans. at 58:7-16.
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010
`(IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith Trans. at
`60:12-21.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-36Petitioner’s DX-36
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`TEST CODE OR CALL LOGS COULD CONFIRM OPERATION:
`NEITHER WAS PRODUCED NOR DISCUSSED
`
`…
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith Trans.
`at 59:22-60:8.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-37Petitioner’s DX-37
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`TEST CODE OR CALL LOGS COULD CONFIRM OPERATION:
`NEITHER WAS PRODUCED NOR DISCUSSED
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198), Mangione-Smith
`Trans. at 63:1-16.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-38Petitioner’s DX-38
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`TEST CODE OR CALL LOGS COULD CONFIRM OPERATION:
`NEITHER WAS PRODUCED NOR DISCUSSED
`
`Ex. 1013 (IPR2016-01198) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01201), Perreault trans. at 57:11-58:22.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-39Petitioner’s DX-39
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`MR. BJORSELL DID NOT EXECUTE
`V361 OF THE RBR CODE
`
`Cited by Patent Owner
`(Paper 41, Sur-Reply at 4):
`
`Witness immediately corrected
`Testimony:
`
`Ex. 1015 (IPR2016-01198) & Ex. 1012
`(IPR2016-01201), Bjorsell trans. at 72:2-15.
`
`Id. at 72:16-73:4.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-40Petitioner’s DX-40
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`CHU ’684
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGE
`
`“producing a private network routing message for receipt by a call
`controller, said private network routing message identifying an address, on
`the private network, associated with the callee” (’815 Patent Claim 1)
`
`Ex. 1003 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1006 (IPR2016-01198), Chu ’684 at FIGS. 2 & 8
`Paper 1 (IPR2016-01201), Petition at 23-24
`Paper 2 (IPR2016-01198), Petition at 18-20
`
`Petitioner’s DX-41
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGES
`’815 PATENT LIMITATION [1E]
`
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01201), Response at 16-17.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-42Petitioner’s DX-42
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGES
`’005 PATENT LIMITATION [1C]
`
`Paper 17 (IPR2016-01198), Response at 15-16.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-43Petitioner’s DX-43
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGES
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198),
`Mangione-Smith Trans. at 174:8-20.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-44Petitioner’s DX-44
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGES
`
`Ex. 1007 (IPR2016-01201) & Ex. 1010 (IPR2016-01198),
`Mangione-Smith Trans. at 84:18-22.
`
`. . .
`
`Id. at 114:5-115:2.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s DX-45Petitioner’s DX-45
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
`
`DIGIFONICA SYSTEM OPERATION
`PRIVATE NETWORK ROUTING MESSAGE
`
`“producing a private network routing message for receipt by a call
`controller, said private network routing message identifying an address, on
`the private network, associated with the callee” (’815 Patent Claim 1)
`
`Paper 1 (IPR2016-01201), ’815 Patent at FIG. 1
`Paper 1 (IPR2016-01198), ’005 Patent at FIG. 1
`
`Petitioner’s DX-46
`
`IPR2016-01198 & IPR2016-01201
`Apple EX1018
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
