`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT T. CRUZEN, ESQ.
`TODD M. SIEGEL, ESQ.
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`(503) 595-5300 (Cruzen)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`EAGLE ROBINSON, ESQ.
`ERIC C. GREEN, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 474-5201
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October
`
`19, 2018, commencing at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
` (3:21 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing for
`IPR2017-01131 and IPR2017-01133, Twitter v. Vidstream. We would like
`parties to please introduce counsel at this time beginning with Petitioner.
`MR. SIEGEL: Todd Siegel from Klarquist Sparkman for
`Petitioner, and with me is Rob Cruzen from Klarquist Sparkman as well.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Could you please step up to the
`microphone? We can't hear you.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh. Sorry, yes, you have to step up to the --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Todd Siegel from Klarquist Sparkman for Petitioner,
`Twitter.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: And Robert Cruzen from Klarquist Sparkman also
`for Petitioner, Twitter.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And who will be representing or speaking
`
`today?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: I, Robert Cruzen, will be speaking as to the 1131
`petition, and Mr. Siegel as to the 1133 petition.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. ROBINSON: Eagle Robinson here for Patent Owner, Your
`Honor. With me is Mr. Eric Green. I will be presenting.
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Your Honor, excuse me. As a preliminary, we --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You need to go to the microphone, I'm sorry,
`you have to go back to the podium
`MR. SIEGEL: I'm sorry.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- because the other two can' t hear you if
`you're not at the podium.
`MR. SIEGEL: It seems as though we haven't had a chance to get
`this working, our slide deck. I'm not sure what the -- the last time I was
`here, it worked fine. So, I'm not sure if we have any --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, we have copies of your demonstratives.
`MR. SIEGEL: Okay.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, if everyone is okay with that, we can just --
`you can just go through your slide deck and just let us know which slide
`you're on and we can follow along with you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Sure. Sorry about that.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. No problems.
`All right. Each party has 60 minutes total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner, you'll proceed first to present your case with respect
`to the challenged claims and grounds, for which we instituted, and you may
`reserve some of your argument time to respond to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner.
`Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's presentation
`and reserve argument time for sur-rebuttal.
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`Are there any questions as to the order of presentations?
`MR. CRUZEN: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. No?
`MR. ROBINSON: Not for Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Petitioner, do you want to reserve
`time for rebuttal, and how much?
`MR. CRUZEN: Yes, Your Honor. 20 minutes, please.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And Patent Owner, Mr. Robinson?
`MR. ROBINSON: Ten minutes, please.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Ten minutes. Okay. We'd like to remind
`the parties that the hearing is open to the public and the transcript will be
`entered into public record and these proceedings.
`And also, as we spoke earlier in a previous hearing, we did not
`receive Patent Owner's demonstratives uploaded into the record; so, we
`understand that by Tuesday you will file those?
`MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, you may
`proceed.
`MR. CRUZEN: Thank you, Your Honor. And it does appear that
`the HDMI is now working, so slides are on the screen.
`So, I'm Robert Cruzen presenting for Petitioner, and I will be
`speaking as to the 304 patent in the 1131 petition; and Mr. Siegel will be
`speaking as to the 1133 petition.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`So, on Slide 2, which is now on the screen, we list the single
`limitation that is at issue in this Petition. It's the server-specified constraint.
`And in Slide 3, I've listed all the grounds on which the petition was
`instituted and the various combinations. And notwithstanding the various
`combinations and grounds, the only issue that we intend to address today,
`and that's been disputed by Patent Owner, is a single limitation as to the
`Lahti primary reference.
`So, again, on Slide 4, various limitations are listed here, which are
`not in dispute. These limitations are the dependent claim limitations or the
`combinations as a whole. So, I'm happy to address any questions the Board
`may have, but don't intend to address those otherwise.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You've proposed a claim interpretation for
`predetermined constraints and we adopted that. They've proposed a
`somewhat modified version of your predetermined constraints proposal.
`Do you agree with it or have any issues with their modification?
`MR. CRUZEN: For purposes of this Petition we have no issues
`with their modification. I think their only suggestion was that -- to specify
`that not all of the constraints listed were required.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Correct.
`MR. CRUZEN: And we don't dispute that for purposes of our
`Petition.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: On the screen now, Slide 5, is Figure 18 from the
`304 patent, and it's an overview that roughly tracks the claims at issue.
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`First, there's a user-installed application that can be opened on a
`mobile device, a user makes selections, including selection to record video.
`And then, ultimately, that video is uploaded to a server at which it's
`transcoded and then processed in various ways for distribution.
`Again, notwithstanding the complexity of this figure, I only intend to
`address the user-recorded video step at 506 for purposes of this argument.
`That's the only aspect of the claim that's in dispute for purposes of this
`Petition.
`And here is a particular limitation that Patent Owner contends is not
`met by Lahti. It's -- this is in Claim 1, but similar language appears in each
`independent claim, and it's the limitation that instructions are provided to the
`client computing device by the server system and cause the video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints, and the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Just before you get going even more, how are
`you planning on splitting up your time? Because, to me, the issues sort of
`overlap.
`So, are you going to let Mr. Robinson speak -- I'm sorry -- Mr.
`Siegel speak after so many minutes that you speak? Like, if I have
`questions about the 1133 case, should I wait until he -- it's a little confusing
`for me how it's all going to work.
`MR. CRUZEN: I apologize for that, Your Honor. Yes, that
`would be my suggestion. I only intend to address this particular limitation
`and whether that's met by Lahti.
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`All of the issues in the 1133 Petition will be addressed by Mr. Siegel.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: So, I plan to speak for roughly 20 minutes, and
`Mr. Siegel will also speak for roughly 20 minutes. We'll reserve 20
`minutes for rebuttal.
`Does that clarify?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Yes, thank you. So, can we go back
`to that claim language and could you unpack exactly what all of that
`requires?
`MR. CRUZEN: Sure.
`So, the claim language requires that instructions are provided to a
`client computing device by a server system and to cause video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints -- so constraints that
`are determined in advance -- and the predetermined constraints include the
`frame rate.
`So, there must be a server system that provides instructions to a
`client device, and the instructions must include a frame rate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Defined by the instructions.
`MR. CRUZEN: That's right.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: The instructions that are downloaded to your
`mobile phone, for example, must include a predetermined constraint, which
`also includes a frame rate?
`MR. CRUZEN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: And here, in Slide 7, is an overview of the primary
`reference on which we rely Lahti, and Lahti discloses a video application --
`video capture application that is downloaded from a server to mobile devices
`and it's called MobiCon.
`And we contend Lahti's description of MobiCon discloses that the
`application constitutes server provided instructions that specify a frame rate.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that MobiCon discloses server
`provided instructions, and I don't believe Patent Owner disputes that Lahti
`discloses a frame rate parameter.
`And, indeed, here on Slide 8 is an excerpt from Lahti and the final
`underlined portion there describes how video is captured, including a series
`of parameters. And one of those parameters includes a frame rate of 15
`frames per second, and so we contend that this language meets the limitation
`of the independent claims of the 304 patent.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: The dispute centers on -- if you go back to
`that, please, the dispute centers on where that is specified, where is the 15
`frames per second coming from?
`Is that coming from the mobile user's phone or is it coming from the
`instructions that were downloaded to the phone; is that correct?
`MR. CRUZEN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: Yes. Exactly.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Sorry, that passage doesn't tell us.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: This passage -- there's nothing in this passage that
`suggests that parameter comes from a mobile device. This is a description
`of how MobiCon is an application that records videos and it describes a
`series of things about the MobiCon application.
`And it describes that via MobiCon that videos record with a series of
`parameters, one of which includes 15 frames per second.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is there anything in Lahti that specifically says
`that the 15 frames per second, that is part of the instructions on MobiCon?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we think this is --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I know you think this does, but other than this.
`MR. CRUZEN: Other than this, there's nothing that specifies that
`that particular limitation comes from MobiCon, but MobiCon is an
`application that is used with multiple mobile phones and the video aspects of
`that are facilitated via vendor software developing kits.
`And we will get into it soon, but mobile phones, at that time,
`provided a range of parameters, a range of frames per second that could be
`captured.
`And so, by specifying a particular parameter here, we strongly feel
`that that suggests MobiCon is providing that that is a parameter and the
`frame rate parameter that is utilized when the application is run.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, is it your position that the evidence that
`you have in connection to your reply, that you need that to -- in order to
`make your case?
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: No, Your Honor. Our contention is that this
`description in MobiCon makes clear that video is captured via 15 -- with the
`parameter of 15 frames per second.
`This is a description of the MobiCon application and how it operates.
`There's nothing in here mentioned about any particular mobile phone, and so
`our contention is this application, in its plain -- this particular passage in this
`disclosure specifies that the "15 frames per second parameter" comes from
`MobiCon.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: And, indeed, here's a depiction of the user
`interface that MobiCon provides, and it shows that a user can select to
`capture a video clip.
`And then in the Window 4, shows the mobile device recording using
`the MobiCon application to capture the video in question.
`So, again, I think Your Honor has already captured this whole
`dispute. It's whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`Lahti to teach device specified parameters only versus MobiCon specified
`parameters. In particular, whether the MobiCon application specifies a
`particular frame rate or not.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What about Patent Owner's argument that it's
`equivocal, that you just don't know? Because those parameters certainly
`could have been used by the mobile -- a mobile device using MobiCon.
`And so, how does that get you to the preponderance of the evidence,
`over the hurdle of 50.0000 whatever --
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, a couple things, Your Honor. So, one, we
`do know -- and this is on page 3 of Lahti, which is Exhibit 1006 -- that
`MobiCon is intended to be used with a variety of mobile devices.
`And the way to interface with MobiCon in those differing mobile
`devices works through the use of vendor software development kits. That's
`explicitly disclosed in Lahti.
`And if MobiCon is intended to be used with a variety of devices
`having varying parameters, it's simply not possible, we'd argue, that every
`single mobile device on the market, at that time, would capture video in a
`native frame rate of 15 frames per second.
`And so, because Lahti's intended to have broad application across a
`broad range of devices, specifying 15 frames per second in its description of
`how MobiCon captures video strongly suggests that MobiCon is specifying
`that as the parameter to be used.
`So, in response to our argument, Patent Owner relies primarily on
`two arguments. One of which is that Patent Owner relies upon three Nokia
`devices, which it contends has a parameter similar to what Lahti discusses,
`and -- but Patent Owner ignored all other devices on the market in 2006 at
`the time of Lahti.
`And then Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would be dissuaded from reading Lahti as specifying a frame rate
`because it would require complex code modules in order to specify the
`parameter across different kinds of mobile devices; and we just disagree
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`factually with both of those contentions and we think, therefore, Patent
`Owner's arguments fail.
`And here is Patent Owner's expert's testimony. Dr. Olivier testified
`that, based on two exhibits that indicated that the camera phones available in
`2006 captured video data with the parameters listed in Lahti -- and here,
`there's a resolution and a frame rate mentioned -- Dr. Olivier said this
`strongly -- this alone strongly suggests that the parameters listed --
`JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, which demonstrative number are you
`
`on?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: I apologize, Your Honor.
` I'm on Slide 12.
`JUDGE KAISER: And just so you know, Judge Boudreau and I
`can't see the screen from here. So, if you could let us know which number
`you're on, that would greatly help us follow along.
`MR. CRUZEN: I will endeavor to do so. I apologize.
`JUDGE KAISER: Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: So, Patent Owner is relying on two exhibits,
`essentially, in support of the argument -- and this is displayed in Slide 12 --
`that Lahti is simply adopting the native parameters in mobile devices, and
`we just contend that the underlying assumption that relying on two cherry-
`picked exhibits, or three cherry-picked Nokia phones, establishes that all
`phones, at that time, used the parameters disclosed in Lahti.
`I'm now looking at Slide 13. Mobile phones, at that time, did have
`a range of parameters, including a variety of selectable frame rates. And
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`we have submitted exhibits establishing that in rebuttal to Patent Owner's
`argument. The final four exhibit numbers listed there pertain to Samsung
`phones that have frame rates in the 15 to 30 frames per second range.
`The first exhibit there, the 1033 exhibit, is a phone that Patent Owner
`relied upon, but 1033 shows that the Nokia phone at issue in that exhibit
`actually had a range of possible resolutions.
`And that suggests that Lahti was not merely relying upon a disclosed
`-- a single native resolution; it would have had to select between two
`resolutions.
`And so, we think that that -- that Patent Owner's reliance upon that
`particular phone does not support its argument that Lahti was merely
`adopting native parameters of the mobile phones in question.
`Additionally, Patent Owner submitted an exhibit, which is Exhibit
`2005, which pertained to the Nokia 6330 phone, which also displayed that
`two different resolutions were available on that phone.
`And so, it's not merely the case that those phones could capture a
`single native resolution. A choice would have to have been made. And
`by Lahti specifying a particular resolution, we contend that Lahti is
`specifying that particular parameter.
`And that would be true, as well, for the Samsung phones. If their
`frame rates are 15 to 30 frames per second, and Lahti is disclosing a frame
`rate of 15 frames per second and use of MobiCon and saying that MobiCon
`captures video at 15 frames per second, a choice is being made. And that
`choice is being made by the MobiCon application.
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`And there's no dispute that Lahti is intended to be broadly applicable
`across all mobile phones in 2006. And Dr. Olivier admitted that,
`essentially, and that's in his deposition, which is Exhibit 1051 at page 66,
`lines 11 through 15.
`So, if everyone agrees that Lahti has broad application across all
`mobile devices and mobile devices had a range of frame rates and a range of
`resolutions, Lahti's specification of particular frame rates and particular
`resolutions establishes that MobiCon is specifying the particular parameters
`utilized when it records video.
`And in Slide 14, there's a quotation from Dr. Olivier's declaration
`where he says, "The fact that devices generally have an inherent format, a
`resolution and a frame rate, that suggests that Lahti is merely relying on the
`native capabilities of phones."
`We just disagree with that as we don't really follow the logic
`involved, the fact that phones have an inherent frame rate and an inherent
`resolution, but differing resolutions and differing frame rates does not
`suggest that Lahti is not specifying a particular frame rate or a particular
`resolution when it's listing 15 frames per second in a 176-by-144 resolution.
`And just the second thing I would note about this is Dr. Olivier's
`statement there that -- in the final sentence, that he thinks this supports the
`position that it's equally consistent with natively capturing video. So, I
`guess his -- even, you know, Patent Owner's expert is saying it's subject to
`both interpretations.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`Now, Dr. Houh, Petitioner's expert, has taken a far different position
`and strongly supports the position that the use of specifying a particular
`frame rate in Lahti when there are multiple frame rates available on phones
`at the market, strongly supports the contention that MobiCon was specifying
`a particular frame rate at that time.
`So, in Slide 15, this is the disclosure in Lahti that video recording is
`accomplished and relatively straightforward to implement with vendor
`provided SDKs.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: That was explained in your Reply, but not
`your Petition, correct?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: It may have been explained in our Reply in
`response to the argument that creating -- that setting parameters across
`different mobile devices was a complex procedure and required complex
`code modules.
`And so, we pointed to the fact that vendor provided SDKs, that
`disclosure in Lahti, supports the idea that that does not involve a complex
`code procedure, and I'll get to that in just a moment.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: And here is Dr. Olivier's declaration regarding this
`idea that specifying particular parameters across varying devices would be a
`complex procedure and would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art
`of understanding Lahti as specifying particular parameters.
`And here's what he says, on Slide 16, creating additional code
`modules to govern whether or not the video capture parameter code models,
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`you know, was a complex procedure, would require a lot of work and that
`anyone reading Lahti would be dissuaded from interpreting it as specifying.
`And so, this is the second proposition that Patent Owner relies on that we
`disagree with.
`There's no evidence that Patent Owner has cited in support of that
`other than Dr. Olivier's statement. He doesn't say that he looked at any
`particular operating system or a software developer kit or API to determine
`whether or not -- it really would be difficult to specify that.
`In fact, Dr. Olivier, in Slide 17, included this quote during his
`deposition, "A person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't even be familiar
`with a Symbian operating system."
`And this is the operating system that the Nokia phones that Patent
`Owner relies on utilized, and it had a leading market share at the time of
`Lahti.
`
`And so, Dr. Houh contends that any person of ordinary skill in the
`art would be familiar with the leading operating systems of mobile devices
`in 2006, and familiar with the software development kits that the leading
`vendors provided and APIs as well.
`And, in fact, this is a quote, on Slide 18, from Dr. Houh's declaration
`stating that, really, it's trivial to specify a particular frame rate using the
`SDKs and APIs that the Symbian operating system provided. It's simply a
`matter of determining, through simple functions, what possible frame rates
`are available and then specifying one.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`That is not a complex endeavor and does not require elaborate code
`modules or anything of the like. And so, therefore, the argument that
`having to specify frame rates across mobile devices would dissuade a person
`of ordinary skill in the art from reading Lahti that way, we think, has little
`support.
`And Dr. Houh, on Slide 19, goes on to explain that, really,
`specifying a parameter using SDKs, which Lahti explicitly states it uses, to
`coordinate video capture across devices would be easily implemented.
`And then, finally, Patent Owner criticizes Lahti as not disclosing
`these elaborate code procedures for specifying particular parameters, and we
`quoted cases here that stand for the proposition that you can look to the
`specification of the patent at issue to determine whether something is really
`complex or would be understood by anyone, any person of ordinary skill in
`the art.
`
`And here, the sur-reply -- and when we said there's no elaborate
`disclosure of how parameters are specified in the 304 patent, and Patent
`Owner pointed to these passages from the patent, and the first describes
`applying predetermined constraints on the captured video.
`So, after video is already captured, applying predetermined
`constraints, at that point, that's not relevant to the claim language which
`describes video data to be captured in accordance with predetermined
`constraints. I'm looking at Slide 21 now.
`And on Slide 22, there are two more quotations. The first discusses
`specifying a particular video length, which is not at issue in the 304 patent.
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`And then in the second, there is a citation to Column 21, lines 58
`through 66 of the 304 patent, and that describes that scripts provided in the
`retrieved web page encode in an FLV format in accordance with quality
`parameters.
`The use of the word "scripts" there is the most elaborate description
`of how a particular parameter is specified to a device and there's no
`particular code module, no complex set of code parameters that are used to
`specify a parameter that are disclosed in the 304 patent.
`And so, we think that a criticism of Lahti is, therefore, undue on
`those grounds because the 304 has no more fulsome disclosure of how
`parameters are specified to a device than does Lahti.
`And then, finally, I'll just note that --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Mr. Cruzen, if I could just interrupt for a
`second, why isn't the frame rate just constrained by the hardware?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, if the frame rate -- if multiple frame rates are
`selectable on a particular piece of hardware, and Lahti suggests that you're
`using 15 frames per second, that reflects a choice.
`So, there may be upper limits of what hardware frame rate could be
`captured; but if Lahti is suggesting you use 15 frames per second when, in
`fact, frame rates of 15 to 30 frames per second are available, Lahti is
`specifying a particular frame rate to be used.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Why would a person of ordinary skill in the
`art want to use a lower frame rate than what the hardware permits?
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: Yeah, that's a good question and that is addressed
`in paragraph 18 of Dr. Houh's supplemental declaration. And he describes
`that Lahti emphasizes that things like the phone's battery power, computer
`processing and memory are all things you'd want to conserve.
`And so, by utilizing a higher frame rate, you would be exhausting
`those resources more quickly.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Is there any evidence of record other than
`just his saying that? The problem that I have with this is that -- I think the
`Patent Owner argues that this is really a hindsight argument. How do you
`address that?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we would argue it's not. Lahti is specifying
`a particular frame rate to be used with mobile devices. And if multiple
`frame rates are available at the time, identifying one to be used is specifying
`a frame rate. So, we just think it's an expressed disclosure in the Lahti
`reference.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Does it say that it's specifying a particular
`frame rate to be used? It just gives an example and says, "A new video
`clip" -- I'm reading from Lahti, page 6, the one place that you cite to in your
`Petition.
`It says, "A new video clip is captured in Capture Screen using
`Mobile Media API and it is recorded," so we don't know why it's being
`recorded, but it's being recorded according to 3GPP specification using
`AMR coding for audio and H.263 and the pixel size and 15 frames per
`second.
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`So, it's not really saying that it's using, you know, parameters
`specified by MobiCon, we just don't -- I have a hard time figuring out where
`those specs are coming from whether it's the phone itself or the application
`that's on the phone.
`MR. CRUZEN: We would submit that it would be a very
`straightforward thing for Lahti to have said in one example, using a
`particular mobile device, these are the parameters utilized, but that's not
`what it says.
`And, again, it's undisputed that it's intended as an application --
`MobiCon is intended as an application usable across all mobile devices.
`And so, we think it's specification of a particular frame rate
`parameter strongly suggests that it is specifying that as a parameter to be
`used.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I understand. So, you're saying that
`because it's used on any number of devices, but because it mentions this, that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would know that it had to be coming from
`MobiCon and not from the phone.
`MR. CRUZEN: Precisely. Because why else would it mention
`any frame rate whatsoever? I mean, that section of Lahti's description is
`not about a field trial or anything like that. There's no mention of any
`particular model of device up through that portion of Lahti. That's page 6
`of Lahti.
`So, we contend that that strongly suggests its specifying a parameter
`used across mobile devices.
`
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But you didn't say that in your Petition --
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we said that Lahti expressly discloses a
`frame rate parameter, yes. I mean, we said this is a portion of Lahti that
`discloses the parameter.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. You're 25 minutes into
`your presentation.
`MR. CRUZEN: Okay. I'll reserve the remaining time for rebuttal
`and turn the presentation over to Mr. Siegel.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'll just keep the clock running and just let you
`know when you have about 20 minutes, approximately.
`MR. SIEGEL: That's all right. I think we should go ahead and
`jump to Slide 31.
`And so, the 506 patent is a lot like the 304 patent, same specification
`and the claims are quite similar, but the one limitation that's at issue in this
`proceeding I have highlighted there.
`And instead of a frame rate, the -- excuse me -- the limitation is
`"constraints include a video length defined by the instructions with the video
`length predefined at the server system in accordance with a time slot in a
`linear television programming broadcast."
`And so, here, we have two grounds instituted; one