Ubisoft, Inc. et al.,
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`
`Case [PR2017-01291 (Patent 6,728,766)
`
`Hearing Before Sally C. Medley,
`Mariam L. Quinn(Presiding), and
`Jessica C. Kaiser
`
`August 7, 2018
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`
`Case [PR2017-01291 (Patent 6,728,766)
`
`Hearing Before Sally C. Medley,
`Mariam L. Quinn(Presiding), and
`Jessica C. Kaiser
`
`August 7, 2018
`
`
`
`Claim 1: user perspective of license availability
`
`1. A method for managementoflicense use for a network
`comprisingthestepsof:
`maintaining license managementpolicy information for a
`plurality of application programsat a license management
`server, the license managementpolicy information
`includingat least one of a user identity based policy, an
`administrator policy override definition or a user policy
`override definition;
`
`
`
`determiningthelicenseavailabilityfor the selected oneofthe
`
`
`
`plurality of application programs
`based on the
`
`maintained license managementpolicy information; and
`providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive
`to the selectionif the license availability indicates that a
`licenseis
`or an availability
`indicationif the licensedavailability indicates that a license
`is
`
`
`
`. a request for license As e user’ iKe)tA MUST)mae esl (=) Alar ln (0 mme(=1da00) 011010 em CO)
`.
`‘receiving .
`
`Undisputed claim construction:
`
`Y The claim language explicitly requires that the request for
`license availability must be (1) received from and(2)
`determinedfor(3) auser at a client.
`
`Y This claim languageis distinguishable from a request for
`license availability received from or determinedfor the
`client deviceitself.
`
`Y Theintrinsic evidence indicates the claimed license
`managementis related to usage availability for a user of
`an application program.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's argumentsin litigation
`give rise to estoppel here
`In litigation, Petitioner successfully argued that the intrinsic
`evidence indicates “determining the license availability ... for the
`user’is distinct from determining that the user Is authorized
`for a selected application program.
`EX2002 at pp. 23-27; see also District Court’s Claim Construction Order in
`Uniloc USAInc., et al. v. AVG Tech. USA,Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-00393,
`Dkt. No. 210, at pp. 55-59 (E.D.T.X. Aug. 16, 2017)
`
`
`
`a distinction between authorization and license management. Generally speaking. the intrinsic
`
`evidence indicates that authorization is related to controlling access to an application program.
`
`whereas license management is related to usage of an application program. See, e.g.. 466 Patent
`
`at 10:57-—58 (“User authorization 212 provides control over which applications may be accessed
`
`by a particular user or group.’): 11:35—38 (“The license management component 216 thereby
`
`provides a convenient tool for tracking the usage of specified applications.”).
`
`
`
`give rise to estoppel here
`
`Petitioner's argumentsin litigation
`
`For example. in describing Figures 6 and 7. the specification states that “[a]t block 264.
`
`the server system 22 checks the user's credentials to see 1f the user is authorized to bring up the
`
`user desktop interface application.” and that “[i]fthe user 1s authorized, server system 22 processes
`
`a license request to determineif a license is available for the desktop application (block 268).” Jd.
`
`at 13:50-60. In other words. a user could be authorized to use an application. but the available
`
`license may already be allocated. The patentees argued this distinction during the prosecution of
`
`the “466 Patent. Specifically. the patentee argued the following:
`
`With respect to Claims 9-11, Applicants again can find no discussionofthe ‘license
`availability recitations of these Claims in the cited portions of Oh or in Bladow.
`While Bladow does discuss determining whether a user is authorized to access a
`resource, this is distinct from the recitations of these claims related to verifying
`license availability. For example. a user could be authorized to use an application
`but five stances of the application may already be executing and the server may
`only have a five concurrent user license. Thus, an authorized user could be denied
`an instance of a requested application because no license 1s available.
`(See, e.g..
`Specification. p. 18_ lines 1-9: p. 21, line 31 to p. 22. line 9). Accordingly. these
`claims are also patentable for at least these additional reasons.
`
`
`
`District Court’s Claim
`
`Construction Order in Uniloc
`USAInc., et al. v. AVG Tech.
`USA,Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-
`CV-00393, Dkt. No. 210, at pp.
`55-59 (E.D.T.X. Aug. 16, 2017)
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Reply highlights deficiencies of Olsen
`
`” embodiment:
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner again invokes estoppel by focusing
`on Olsen’s “
`
`To the extent the Board is concerned with whether Olsen teaches that the
`
`license availability request is “associated with” a user, Olsen expressly discloses
`
`
`
`oneembodiment Olsen discloses an embodiment
`
`
`this precise concept in at least
`
`
`where the license availability request is user-specific, being based on the user’s
`
`name:
`
`“To request an application,
`
`the client assembles a request having the
`
`desired license criteria, such as the publisher, product, version, and number
`
`of license units. This
`
`information is provided with other
`
`relevant
`
`information, such as the user's name.”
`
`EX1002. Olsen at 2:38-43 (reproduced in Petition at 14).
`
`“When a license is installed in LSP 110,
`
`the administrator mayassign a
`
`license to an individual, machine, group, container, or other selected users.
`The license certificate is then only available to a user with asecurity
`
`assignment corresponding to the certificate.”
`
`
`
`
`. a requestfor license leop|
`.
`‘receiving .
`from a user at a client’ and “determining.. . for the user’
`The ’766 patent specification provides instructive examples
`of usage-based,license-availability determinations for a
`user, including, for example,in the following disclosure:
`14
`of users to insure, for example, adequate response time, for
`measuring andreacting to usage rates (such as by rebalanc-
`ing server capacity) and so on.
`In addition, a software
`designer may provide an application allowing administrators
`to change license use policies depending upon the requesting
`user. For example, users associated with the headquarters
`operations or network management department could be
`made exempt from license count limits while everyone else
`is subject to license count limits. Accordingly, license policy
`management may be provided by a centralized server system
`22 of the present invention in a manner analogousto that
`previously described for user preferences.
`
`10
`
`5s
`
`for the user preference selection input. User
`itself, but
`preferences obtained through the application launcher pro-
`gram at any individual client station may then be made
`available by on-demand server 22 to that user regardless of
`the particular client station at which the particular user is
`working. Furthermore, while the descriptions above were
`(EX1001, 14:3-8 and 23-28)
`
`
`
`
`. a requestfor license leop|
`.
`‘receiving .
`from a user at a client’ and “determining.. . for the user’
`The ’766 patent specification expressly disparages systems
`that tie license availability determinationsto client devices,
`includingin the following background statements:
`3
`typically
`it
`across applications for a user. Furthermore,
`associates personalized screen information with an Internet
`address which is client device rather than user associated,
`therefore limiting its ability to support roaming by users.
`Each of these “mobility” systems typically do not address
`the full range of complications which may arise in a het-
`erogeneous networkutilizing differing devices and connec-
`
`
`5
`
`(EX1001, 3:1-19)
`
`10
`
`15
`
`
`
`Users would typically have
`to manually define session characteristics at each differing
`workstation they used in the network or maintain local
`characteristic definitions which may be inappropriate for
`particular applications a user is executing and may substan-
`tially reduced the administrative convenience of a centrally
`
`controlled network.
`
`
`
`
`
`‘Teceiving ... a requestforlicense availability . from a userataclient” and '‘determining. .
`
`. fort CaS
`
`During prosecution, Applicants successfully
`distinguishedcertain art as follows:
`
`A method for managementof license use for a network
`19.
`comprising the stepsof:
`maintaining license managementpolicy information for a plurality of
`application programsat a license managementserver, the license
`managementpolicy information including at least one of a useridentity based
`policy, an administrator policy override definition or a userpolicy override
`definition;
`receiving at the license management servera request fora license
`
`providing an unavailabitity indication to the client responsive to the
`
`EX1005, p. 135. managementpolicy omeryr
`selection ifthe licenseavailability indicatesthata license isnota
`
`
`
`from a user at a client’ and “determining.. . for the user’
`. a requestforlicense As
`.
`‘receiving .
`C
`
`(Christiano, Col. 1, lines 24-38, emphasis added). Accordingly,
`a ar ee ae ae
`F
`a
`-
`tala
`"
`.
`mar
`
`or a license from one of the "client computersystems”, determineswhether
`
`
`Pas engkS28 98 ee US os TENa UFBer its em start ie Pia tk?tTht Bey gh aa
`ise Is "available fo [the requesting oneof the] computer systems”.
`
`Duvvoori describes license managementas follows:
`Another configuration option for the 32-bit agent service and the 16-bit agents
`released by the assignee on Jun. 21, 1996 is the ability to choose an
`automatic denial of unregistered applications. In this mode, any application
`_ programsthat the enterprise of which the network is a part does not
`want executed on its computers are automatically denied each time a
`launch requestis received or a launch thereof is detected.
`
`
`(Duvvoori, Col. 13, lines 43-50, emphasis added}. Accordingly, Duvvoori manage:
`2
`L
`4
`
`licensesby determining whether an application ts allowe
`d tora
`| SAK ANntArnnes
`
`A WITHIN ak enterpnse
` Wymandescribesa license server that "checks
`the product use a
`
`
`termineif the particular use requested is permitted, and, if so, returns agrant to
`
`.” (Wyman, Col. 6, lines 55-58, emphasis added).
`2 GChrctiangn Manan
`snd Wyman mananelicences k
`aye
`vu
`vu
`
`S, Unristano, VUuYVvoorTI, and Vymafr
`lanage licenses DY
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1005, p. 136.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Olsen Is deficient and cumulative with the art successfully distinguished during prosecution
`
`selected application program.” Jd. § 19. Olsen states that the “security
`
`
`equivalency check” is performed to “determine whethertherequestingclient
`106 is among those assigned to the license certificate.” Ex. 1002, 12:14—17.
`Olsen’s description of the security equivalency check seems to concern the
` a Client. This portion of Olsen,
`
`Paper9 (Original
`Institution Decision)at 19.
`
`e “receiving requests from clients 106”(Pet. at 12-14., citing
`
`EX1002, 3:54-61):
`
`e
`
`“client 106 may request licenses for access to applications”
`
`(id., citing EX1002, 3:54-61):
`
`e
`
`“LSP 110 receives the request for a numberoflicense units
`
`Paper13 at 8 (citing Pet).
`
`from client 106” (id., citing EX1002, 3:54-61):
`
`e
`
`“To request an application. the client assembles a request
`
`having the desired license criteria. (step 810)” (id.. citing
`
`EX1002, 2:3-47).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Olsen Is deficient and cumulative with the art successfully distinguished during prosecution
`
`
`
`
`EX1002, 6:10-11.
`
`60 send the request to LSP 110 (step 808%). The request is
`generated using the license acquisition API and suitably
`specifies particular information relating to the application.
`such as the publisher. product. and version for which license
`units are requested. In addition. the API suitably indicates
`65 the number oflicense units requested, so that the number of
`units consumed is specified by the APL. Client 106 transmits
`the request to LSP 110 and waits for a response.
`EX1002, 10:60-67.
`
`Thecertificate database object checks each license record
`in the database until sufficient records are accumulated. If 50
`compatible license records are found in the present database.
`LSP 110 constructs license certificate objects from the
`buffers matching the publisher, product. and version fields
`(step 826). The license certificate objects are queried to
`determine whether enough units have been accumulated to 55
`fulfill the request (step 818). If the request cannot be fulfilled
`EX1002, 11:49-56.
`
`
`
`CREATE CERTIFICATE
`DATABASE OBJECT
`
`816
`
`SEARCH LOCAL LICENSE
`CERTIFICATE DATABASE
`
`CREATE LICENSE
`CERTIFICATE OBJECTS
`
`SELECT NEXT
`LSP & SEARCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Olsen Is deficient and cumulative with the art successfully distinguished during prosecution
`
`
`
`using the informationin the buffer. The license certificate 40
`object suitably determines whetheathelicens=unitseyques ting
`spondin ptfotthelicennsereco ra areaAViailabletothetherequ
`
`
`
`
`client by reviewing. for example.the policy attributesof the
`
`license, the user information associated with the request, any
`existing license assignments, and the raw number of units 45
`originally installed, This is performed before actually
`obtaining the license to determine whether all of the required
`license units are available.
`§=£X 1002, 11:40-48.
`
`Ifan assignment exists on the licensecentificate, it performs
`
`rd
`
` 834
`
`certificate object returns an error tothe
`
` HANDLE
`(step 830).
`EX1002, 12:14-19.
`JENT
`
`TRANSMIT
`TO Gl
`
`
`
`
`
`Whenclient106nolongerrequiresthelicenseunits, the
`65 application transmits a release notification to LSP 110.
`
`EX1002, 12:64.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition is facially deficient re. means+function limitations
`
`Board’s original Institution Decision (Paper 10 at 17):
`
`a. Claims 15. 16, 22. 23, 35. and 36
`
`For independent claims 15 and 16, we determined above that
`
`Petitioner had not identified sufficient correspondingstructure for “means
`
`for installing a plurality of application programs at the server.” Inits
`
`asserted ground, Petitioner addresses the limitations of claims 1. 15. and 16
`
`together. Pet. 28-52. Forthis limitation, although Petitioner contends
`
`Kasso has application programsstored at a server’s storage device,
`
`Petitioner does not address whetherthis teaching meets the corresponding
`
`structure discussed above(i.e., steps 112—116 of Figure 8 and the associated
`
`description (Ex. 1001, 17:55—67) (and thei equivalents)). Pet. 30-31.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition is facially deficient re. means+function limitations
`
`Board Denied Petitioner’s Requestfor
`Rehearing focusing on claim construction:
`
`Weare also not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the
`“database”is the only structure that is clearly linked such that the claims are
`not indefinite. Req. Reh’g 12. Our reviewing court has madeclear that we
`
`Nowweturn to Petitioner’s argument against our construction of the
`
`term “means for maintaining.” This argument centers on the contention that
`
`the Specification of the *766 patent does not disclose an “algorithm.” Req.
`
`Reh’g 3-11. This argumentis not persuasive for two reasons. First, the
`
`Petition did not proffer any contentions, argument, or evidence regarding
`whetherthe ’766 patent disclosed a sufficient (or any) algorithm, and,
`therefore, we could not have misapprehendedor overlooked the matter. It is
`
`Petitioner’s burden to show that the matter was presented previously, and
`
`that we overlooked or misapprehendedthe matter. Absent such a showing,
`
`the Rehearing Request presents new arguments akin to an unauthorized
`
`reply to the preliminary response, whichis not the role of a Request for
`
`Rehearing underour rules.
`
`(Paper 12 p. 3)
`
`(Paper12 p. 4)
`
`15
`
`
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
