Facebook, Inc. et al.
`v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`(Patent 8,995,433)
`
`Hearing Before Jennifer S. Bisk,
`Miram L. Quinn, and
`Charles J. Bourdreau
`
`August 30, 2018
`
`
`v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Case IPR2017-01427
`(Patent 8,995,433)
`
`Hearing Before Jennifer S. Bisk,
`Miram L. Quinn, and
`Charles J. Bourdreau
`
`August 30, 2018
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01427
`Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`Facebook and WhatsApp are estopped as to all
`challenges (in IPR2017-1427) except claim 7:
`
`Facebook and WhatsApp joined in a consolidated
`Reply that again raises the estopped challenges:
`
`Partial Dismissal Order
`(Paper 30) at 5-6
`
`Reply (Paper 33) at 6-7
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01427
`Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`The plain language of claim 7 reveals that it must be
`possible for each “potential recipient” (in the displayed
`“list of one or more potential recipients”) to be currently
`unavailable to receive an instant voice message:
`
`7. The system according to claim 1, wherein the instant
`voice messaging application displays an indicia for
`each of the one or more potential recipients
`indicating whether the potential recipient is
`currently available to receive an instant voice
`message.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01427
`Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`Appleman’s “offline buddies” are not “potential recipients” as claimed
`
`EX2001 (Dr. DiEuliis) at ¶105
`(quoting Appelman [EX1004]
`at 6:1-4)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. et al.
`v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Case IPR2017-01428 (Patent 8,995,433)
`Case IPR2017-01667, -1668 (Patent 8,724,622)
`
`Hearing Before Jennifer S. Bisk,
`Miram L. Quinn, and
`Charles J. Bourdreau
`
`August 30, 2018
`
`
`
`Zydney repeatedly found to be deficient
`
`✓ Zydney has been cited against this same family of patents
`(and indeed these same patents) in 26 separate petitions
`for inter partes review
`
`✓ Most of those Zydney-based petitions were denied at the
`preliminary stage or have been voluntarily terminated by
`the petitioner, for certain reasons that are applicable here.
`
`See, e.g., IPR2017-1257; IPR2017-1365; IPR2017-1523;
`IPR2017-1524; IPR2017-2082; IPR2017-2083;
`IPR2017-2084; IPR2017-2085; IPR2017-2067;
`IPR2017-2080; IPR2017-2081; IPR2017-1804;
`IPR2017-1805; etc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Deficiencies arising from incorrect claim constructions
`
`Example deficiencies (in IPR2017-01448, -1667, and -1668)
`arising, in part, from Petitioner’s incorrect claim constructions:
`
`✓ Petitioner does not identify a single “instant voice messaging
`application” (i.e., a software program) configured with each one
`of the several claimed features (all challenged claims)
`
`✓ Because it is undisputed Zydney distinguishes its “voice
`container” from its “voice message,” Zydney’s disclosure of
`attaching multimedia to the “voice container” does not render
`obvious “attach[ing] one or more files to the instant voice
`message” (IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667,
`’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`✓ No proof of a “message database” of an “instant voice messaging
`application” that stores a “database record” arranged as claimed
`(IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., dependent claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01428
`Independent Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433
`
`9. A system, comprising:
`
`an instant voice messaging application comprising:
`
`a client platform system for generating an instant
`voice message;
`
`a messaging system for transmitting the instant voice
`message over a packet-switched network, and
`
`wherein the instant voice message application
`attaches one or more files to the instant voice
`message.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`Independent Claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`27. A system comprising:
`
`a client device;
`
`a network interface coupled to the client device and
`connecting the client device to a packet-switched
`network; and
`
`an instant voice messaging application installed on
`the client device, wherein the instant voice
`messaging application includes a client platform
`system for generating an instant voice message
`and a messaging system for transmitting the
`instant voice message over the packet-switched
`network via the network interface,
`
`wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a document handler system for attaching
`one or more files to the instant voice message.
`
`9
`
`
`
`“instant voice messaging application” (all claims)
`
`Petitioner’s
`EX1002 ¶ 53
`
`Uniloc’s
`EX2001 ¶ 26
`
`10
`
`
`
`“ . . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`Petition erroneously maps Zydney’s “voice container” (which is
`admittedly distinct from any voice data it may contain) onto the
`claimed “instant voice message”
`
`11
`
`
`
`“. . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`IPR2017-01257, Paper 8,
`Decision Denying
`Institution, at 18
`
`IPR2017-01524, Paper 7,
`Decision Denying
`Institution, at 17
`
`12
`
`
`
`“. . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`IPR2017-02085, Paper 11,
`Decision Denying
`Institution, at 19
`
`13
`
`
`
`“. . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`
`Both testifying declarants agree Zydney distinguishes its “voice
`container” from its “voice message” (i.e., from the data content)
`
`Dr. DiEuliis Dec.
`(EX2001) at ¶ 68
`
`Patent Owner Resp.
`(Paper 21) at 19
`(quoting EX1102 ¶ 54)
`
`14
`
`
`
`“. . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`Zydney (EX1103) at p. 11
`
`15
`
`
`
`“. . . [attaches/attaching] one or more files
`to the instant voice message”
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`Zydney (EX1103)
`at 19:6-12
`
`Institution Decision
`(Paper 8) at 14
`
`16
`
`
`
`“instant voice message”
`
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`('433 patent, 12:42-46)
`
`(8:13-14)
`
`(8:21)
`
`(10:1)
`
`17
`
`
`
`“instant voice message”
`
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`'433 patent, 10:42-43
`
`(10:50)
`
`(16:24)
`
`(17:25-26)
`
`(18:8-9)
`
`(18:60)
`
`(19:49)
`
`(19:54)
`
`18
`
`
`
`“instant voice message”
`
`(IPR2017-01428, ’443 pat., claim 9; IPR2017-01667, ’622 pat., claim 27)
`
`'433 patent at claim 11,
`col. 25:5
`
`claim 13, col. 25:9-14
`
`claim 16, col. 25:23-24
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667, -01668
`Independent Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`3. A system comprising:
`
`a network interface connected to a packet-switched network;
`
`a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant
`voice message client systems via the network interface;
`and
`
`a communication platform system maintaining connection
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems indicating whether there is a
`current connection to each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems,
`
`wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice
`message from one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems, and
`
`wherein the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file.
`
`20
`
`
`
`“ . . . the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file” (’622 pat., claim 3)
`
`It is undisputed that Zydney does not describe any of the “structural components”
`of its voice container as fields, let alone as the specifically-claimed “object field.”
`
`-1667 Pet. 32; -1668 Pet. 35.
`
`EX1103 3:19
`
`IPR2017-02080, Decision Denying
`Institution (Paper 10) at 17.
`
`21
`
`
`
`“ . . . the instant voice message includes an action field . . .”
`(’622 pat., IPR2017-1668, dependent claims 4 and 5)
`
`Zydney teaches away from a voice message that includes an “action field” as claimed
`
`Zydney (EX1103) at 12:6-7
`
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`(Dr. DiEuliis Dec.) ¶¶ 53-54
`
`22
`
`
`
`“message database” and its “database record”
`(-1667, ’622 pat., claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`Dependent claims 14-17 and 28-31 further recite
`“wherein the instant voice messaging application includes
`a message database storing the instant voice message,
`wherein the instant voice message is represented by a
`database record including a unique identifier”
`
`✓ Zydney and Clark both lack the specific arrangement of
`a “database record” in a “message database” that must
`be included as part of a client-side “instant voice
`messaging application”
`POR (Paper 17) at 30; Dr. DiEuliis Dec. (EX2001) ¶¶ 81-86
`
`✓ It is undisputed that the terms “message database” and
`“database record” are interrelated and that the qualifier
`“database record” unambiguously refers to a record of
`the claimed “message database” recited in the same
`limitation.
`
`23
`
`
`
`“message database” and its “database record”
`(-1667, ’622 pat., claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`IPR2017-01667
`POR (Paper 17) at
`30-31 (quoting
`EX2003 88:6-89:6)
`
`24
`
`
`
`“message database” and its “database record”
`(-1667, ’622 pat., claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`IPR2017-01667 POR
`(Paper 17) at 31-32
`(quoting EX1001
`12:34-38)
`
`25
`
`
`
`“message database” and its “database record”
`(-1667, ’622 pat., claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`IPR2017-01667
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`(Dr. DiEuliis Dec.) ¶82
`
`26
`
`
`
`“message database” and its “database record”
`(-1667, ’622 pat., claims 14-17 and 28-31)
`
`IPR2017-01667
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`(Dr. DiEuliis Dec.) ¶91
`
`27
`
`
`
`“connection object messages”
`(-1668, ’622 pat., claims 24-26)
`
`Zydney teaches away from using HTTP as a transport mechanism
`
`IPR2017-01668
`Uniloc’s Exhibit 2001
`(Dr. DiEuliis Dec.) ¶56
`
`28
`
`
`
`“connection object messages”
`(-1668, ’622 pat., claims 24-26)
`
`IPR2017-01668 Uniloc’s
`Exhibit 2001 (Dr. DiEuliis
`Dec.) ¶¶61-62
`
`29
`
`
`
`“connection object messages”
`(-1668, ’622 pat., claims 24-26)
`
`Zydney teaches away from using HTTP as a transport mechanism
`
`IPR2017-01668, POR
`(Paper 16) at 23 (citing,
`inter alia, Uniloc’s Exhibit
`2001 ¶¶51, 64)
`
`30
`
`
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
