`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2016-00754 and IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY BRIEF ON REMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00754, IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`Petitioner’s Reply misconstrues the two key aspects of the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in PMC ’091: (1) the applicant’s prosecution statements on which the
`
`Federal Circuit relied and (2) the reason the Federal Circuit upheld the invalidity of
`
`claims 26, 27 and 30. Under a correct reading of PMC ’091, the Board’s prior
`
`invalidity determination as to at least claim 3 must be reversed.1
`
`1.
`
` The Federal Circuit held that the phrase “an encrypted digital
`
`information transmission” requires an all-digital transmission for one specific
`
`reason: The “applicant’s repeated and consistent remarks during prosecution”
`
`defined the phrase to have that meaning. 952 F.3d at 1345. And the “repeated and
`
`consistent remarks” on which the Federal Circuit relied all focused on the word
`
`“encrypted.” As the Federal Circuit put it: “During prosecution, the applicant
`
`repeatedly and consistently voiced its position that encryption and decryption
`
`require a digital process in the context of the ’091 patent.” Id. at 1345 (emphasis
`
`added). And the purpose of the claim amendment was “to clarify [the applicant’s]
`
`position that ‘encryption requires a digital signal.’” Id. at 1345-46.
`
`Petitioner insists that the Federal Circuit was merely describing the
`
`applicant’s position and did not “adopt[] this position as its own.” Paper 55 at 2.
`
`That makes no sense. The point of the Federal Circuit’s opinion was to harmonize
`
`its construction with the “applicant’s repeated and consistent remarks during
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all record citations are to IPR2016-00754.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00754, IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`prosecution.” 952 F.3d at 1345. So when the court described the applicant’s
`
`“remarks” as establishing the meaning of encryption and decryption, the court was
`
`adopting the applicant’s interpretation of encryption and decryption as the basis for
`
`the court’s construction of the full phrase.
`
`Petitioner also argues that the key word was “digital,” not “encrypted.” Paper
`
`55 at 1. But the repeated remarks on which the Federal Circuit relied did not discuss
`
`the word “digital”—they focused on “encrypted.” The claim amendment, too, did
`
`not change the claim meaning based on the word “digital,” it simply clarified that
`
`“encryption requires a digital signal.” 925 F.3d at 1345-46. The Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision thus turned on its conclusion that encryption and decryption must be digital.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the Federal Circuit’s decision to uphold the
`
`Board’s invalidity determination as to claims 26, 27, and 30 also ignores the Federal
`
`Circuit’s actual reasoning. The Federal Circuit held that the claims that recited “an
`
`encrypted digital information transmission” were limited “to all-digital signals,” and
`
`hence were not invalid over “prior art that uses mixed analog and digital signals.”
`
`952 F.3d at 1346. Claims 26, 27, and 30, however, recite “an information
`
`transmission including encrypted information.” As PMC acknowledged in PMC
`
`’091, that claim term does “include mixed digital and analog signals within [its]
`
`scope.” Id. The “information transmission” need not be all digital, it must merely
`
`“includ[e]” encrypted (and hence digital) information. The Frezza prior art reference
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00754, IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`asserted against these claims both discloses mixed analog and digital information
`
`and incorporates by reference two patents (4,982,430 and 4,533,948) that disclose
`
`“encrypted communication” of digital information. See IPR2016-00755, Exhibit
`
`1006. The Federal Circuit thus upheld the Board’s invalidity determination as to
`
`claims 26, 27 and 30 because they did not require an all-digital transmission—not,
`
`as Petitioner suggests, because they did not require any digital information at all.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that, if encryption and decryption require a
`
`digital process in the context of the ’091 patent, then they require a digital process
`
`in the context of the ’635 patent, too. That is no surprise, as practically verbatim
`
`remarks about the meaning of encryption and decryption appear in the prosecution
`
`history of both patents. See Paper 53 at 3-8. Nor does Petitioner dispute that, if
`
`“decrypt” requires a digital process, then the Board’s invalidity determination as to
`
`at least claim 3 must be reversed. Again, that is no surprise: The only reference
`
`Petitioner asserted against claim 3 was Campbell, which is completely silent as to
`
`any type of encryption/decryption, and at best discloses scrambled analog video.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner admits that no claim other than claim 3 is
`
`affected by PMC ’091. Paper 55 at 1. That is wrong: As Patent Owner explained
`
`in detail, PMC ’091 requires revisiting other claim constructions that failed to
`
`account for “repeated and consistent remarks” during prosecution. Paper 53 at 9-19.
`
`Petitioner offers no response to any of these arguments.
`
`3
`
`
`
`June 10, 2022
`
`
`IPR2016-00754, IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`
`/Douglas J. Kline/
`Douglas J. Kline (Reg. No. 35,574)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210-1980
`Tel.: (617) 570-1000
`Fax: (617) 523-1231
`dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PAGE LIMITS
`
`I hereby certify that Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Brief on Remand on June 10,
`
`2022 complies with the page-count limitation because it does not exceed three pages,
`
`excluding the cover page, signature block, and the parts of the document exempted
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`
`
`June 10, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`
`/Douglas J. Kline/
`Douglas J. Kline (Reg. No. 35,574)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01520
`U.S. Patent No. 8,559,635 B1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served
`
`electronically via e-mail on this June 10, 2022, as follows:
`
`Marcus Sernel
`Joel Merkin
`Eugene Goryunov
`Gregory Arovas
`Alan Rabinowitz
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`msernel@kirkland.com
`jmerkin@kirkland.com
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`garovas@kirkland.com
`arabinowitz@kirkland.com
`Apple-PMC-PTAB@kirkland.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`/Douglas J. Kline/
`Douglas J. Kline (Reg. No. 35,574)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`
`
`