UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221, -00222, -00225
`PATENTS 7,535,890, 8,243,723, PATENT 8,995,433
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`ON CROSS- EXAMINATION OF LEONARD FORYS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00221, -00222, -00225
`PATENTS 7,535,890, 8,243,723, PATENT 8,995,433
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`ON CROSS- EXAMINATION OF LEONARD FORYS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 10 in IPR2017-00221)1 and the
`
`IPR2017-00221, -00222, -00225
`
`parties Notice of Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 4 and 5 (Paper 20 in
`
`IPR2017-00221),2 Patent Owner Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Uniloc”) moves the
`
`Board to observe the following passages in the cross-examination of Dr. Leonard
`
`Forys. Petitioner Apple, Inc, (“Petitioner”) submitted a declaration by Dr. Forys
`
`(Exhibit 1029) with its Reply, and Uniloc cross-examined Dr. Forys on December
`
`9, 2017. The complete transcript of the cross-examination is submitted herewith as
`
`Exhibit 2004.
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2004, on page 14, lines 8 to 20, Dr. Forys testified that a
`
`Local Area Network or “LAN” is a specific type of network at least in that it
`
`“serves a geographically small area --- a building, perhaps a college campus – and
`
`uses certain kinds of protocols that are useful in small geographical areas, such as
`
`things like Ethernet, for example; and uses routers and bridges and different pieces
`
`of technology to make them either wireless or wired, as the case may be.” In
`
`addition, in Exhibit 2004, on page 17, lines 4 to 5, Dr. Forys equated the term
`
`“local network” (as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 or “the ’890 patent”) to
`
`
`1 The Board’s Order re. Oral Hearing (Paper 24 in IPR2017-00221) consolidated the
`following matters for purposes of Oral Argument: IPR2017-00221, IPR2017-00222,
`and IPR2017-00225.
`2 The parties filed identical Joint Stipulations in related matters IPR2017-00222 and
`IPR2017-00225, which have been consolidated with IPR2017-00221 for purposes
`of Oral Argument.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`a LAN having “certain topologies and certain connections and certain protocols
`
`IPR2017-00221, -00222, -00225
`
`….” (See also id. p. 15, lines 4 to 7) Notably, Dr. Forys previously testified that
`
`“[t]he variations among the independent claims [of the ’890 patent] are mostly
`
`related to different types of networks connecting the client, server(s), and
`
`recipient(s).” (Ex. 1003 in IPR2017-00221 at ¶56, emphasis added.) This
`
`testimony is relevant at least to Petitioner’s argument (e.g., at pages 1 through 3
`
`of its Reply in IPR2017-00221) that the qualifier “local” in the claim term “local
`
`network” does not refer to a specific type of network. It is relevant at least because
`
`it undermines Petitioner’s claim interpretation and supports the conclusion that
`
`not all types of networks match Dr. Forys’ description of a LAN.
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2004, on page 40, line 21 to page 42, line 10, Dr. Forys
`
`testified that Figure 5 of the ’890 patent illustrates IP network 204 and IP network
`
`102 as “separate networks” and further testified that IP network 102 is “external”
`
`to IP network 204. This is relevant at least to (1) Petitioner’s claim interpretation
`
`(restated at page 1 of its Reply in IPR2017-00221, Paper 17) that “external
`
`network” means “a network that is outside another network” and to (2) Petitioner’s
`
`argument at page 2 of its same Reply that that the ’890 patent does not describe
`
`an external network with reference to Figure 5, or any other figure. It is relevant
`
`at least because Dr. Forys’ testimony confirms that the ’890 patent (and hence all
`
`the challenged patents) illustrates and describes an “external network” as claimed,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`at least under Petitioner’s claim interpretation.
`
`IPR2017-00221, -00222, -00225
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2004, on page 81, lines 5 to 11, Dr. Forys testified that cited
`
`reference U.S. Patent No. 7,123,695 (“Malik”) describes at col. 4, lines 51 to 53
`
`an embodiment where the VIM server 330 delivers messages between clients. This
`
`is relevant at least to Petitioner’s argument at page 10 of its Reply in IPR2017-
`
`00221 that in that same embodiment of Malik the VIM server 330 is uninvolved
`
`in message delivery. It is relevant at least because Dr. Forys’ testimony
`
`undermines Petitioner’s interpretation of that same passage, as sets forth in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply in IPR2017-00221 at page 10.
`
`Date: January 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`Ryan Loveless; Reg. No. 51,970
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`LEONARD FORYS was served via electronic mail on January 15, 2018 on the
`
`following counsel for Petitioner:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg: jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`Michael D. Specht: mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`Zhu He: zhe-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`Date: January 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`
`
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
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
