`
`Filed: June 16, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01620
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,489,868
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art ........................................................... 2
`
`All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted .......................................... 5
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 6
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’868 PATENT ............................................................ 6
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 15
`
`A. Ground 1: Lin Anticipates Claims 1, 76, 78, 81, 84, 85, 90-92,
`95, 104, 113, 137, and 142 .................................................................. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1 and 76 ......................................................................... 15
`
`Claims 78 and 81....................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 84 .................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 85 .................................................................................... 32
`
`Claim 90 .................................................................................... 33
`
`Claim 91 .................................................................................... 33
`
`Claim 92 .................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 95 .................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 104 .................................................................................. 35
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`10. Claims 113 and 137 .................................................................. 35
`
`11. Claim 142 .................................................................................. 36
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Lin and Garst Render Obvious Claims 13, 88, and 98 ...... 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 13 and 88....................................................................... 36
`
`Claim 98 .................................................................................... 39
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Lin and Davis Render Obvious Claims 77, 79, 80,
`and 82 .................................................................................................. 41
`
`1.
`
`Claims 77, 79, 80, and 82 ......................................................... 41
`
`D. Ground 4: Lin and Chang Render Obvious Claim 83 ......................... 44
`
`1.
`
`Claim 83 .................................................................................... 44
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Lin and Sibert Render Obvious Claim 86 .......................... 47
`
`1.
`
`Claim 86 .................................................................................... 47
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Lin and Wong-Insley Render Obvious Claim 89 ............... 50
`
`1.
`
`Claim 89 .................................................................................... 50
`
`G. Ground 7: Lin and Haddock Render Obvious Claim 94 ..................... 52
`
`1.
`
`Claim 94 .................................................................................... 52
`
`H. Ground 8: Lin and Gong Render Obvious Claims 93, 100, 112,
`and 139 ................................................................................................ 54
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 93 .................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 100 .................................................................................. 57
`
`Claim 112 .................................................................................. 59
`
`Claim 139 .................................................................................. 62
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v. Cold Spring Harbor Lab.,
`IPR2016-00014, Paper 7 (Mar. 23, 2016) ............................................................ 4
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 9
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC,
`822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 3
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 25
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1004 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/270,663
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/235,354
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/234,152
`
`Ex. 1008 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, IEEE Std.
`100-2000 (7th ed. 2000)
`
`Ex. 1009 Bruce Schneier, “Applied Cryptography” (2nd ed. 1996)
`
`Ex. 1010 BlackBerry’s First Amended Complaint, BlackBerry LTD. v. Blu
`Products, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,766,353 (“Lin”)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,188,995 (“Garst”)
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,844,986 (“Davis”)
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“Chang”)
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 7,243,236 (“Sibert”)
`
`Ex. 1016 Li Gong, “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography,
`APIs, and Implementation” (1999) (“Gong”)
`
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,131,166 (“Wong-Insley”)
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,657,378 (“Haddock”)
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/146,426
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`Ex. 1020 Gary McGraw et al., “Securing Java” (1999)
`
`Ex. 1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,298,354 (“Saulpaugh”)
`
`Ex. 1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,680,619 (“Gudmundson”)
`
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,421,013 (“Smith”)
`
`Ex. 1024 Dorothy E. Denning, “Cryptography and Data Security” (1982)
`
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,845,282 (“Alley”)
`
`Ex. 1026 PCT Publication No. WO 97/09813 (“Nguyen”)
`
`Ex. 1027 PCT Publication No. WO 99/41520 (“Huang”)
`
`Ex. 1028 Scott Oaks, “Java Security” (Feb. 1999)
`
`Ex. 1029 U.S. Patent No. 6,721,809 (“Roy”)
`
`Ex. 1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,678,887 (“Hallman”)
`
`Ex. 1031 David Flanagan, “Java in a Nutshell” (Nov. 1999)
`
`Ex. 1032 Bill Venners, “Inside the Java 2 Virtual Machine” (1999)
`
`Ex. 1033 NCSU Libraries Online Catalog: Inside Java 2 Platform Security:
`Architecture, API Design, and Implementation,
`http://catalog.lib.ncsu.edu/record/NCSU1050269
`
`Ex. 1034 MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: 050: Library of Congress
`Call Number, http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html
`
`Ex. 1035 MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: 005: Date and Time of
`Latest Transaction, http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd005.html
`
`Ex. 1036 NCSU Cataloging Policies & Procedures, Symphony Policy tools,
`Sirsi-Batch loading,
`https://staff.lib.ncsu.edu/confluence/display/MNC/Sirsi-Batch+loading
`
`Ex. 1037 Li Gong, “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography,
`APIs, and Implementation” (1999) (Library of Congress excerpts)
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1,
`
`13, 76-86, 88-95, 98, 100, 104, 112, 113, 137, 139, and 142 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868 (“the ’868 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which,
`
`according to PTO records, is assigned to BlackBerry Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“PO”). For the reasons set forth below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Google Inc. as the real party-
`
`in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’868 patent is at issue in BlackBerry Ltd. v. BLU
`
`Products, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-23535 (S.D. Fla.). Petitioner is concurrently
`
`filing another petition for IPR of certain claims of the ’868 patent (IPR2017-
`
`01619).
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Lead counsel: Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224). Backup counsel: (1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Phillip
`
`Citroën (Reg. No. 66,541), and (3) John Holley (Reg. No. 65,683). Service
`
`information is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005,
`
`Tel.:
`
`202.551.1700,
`
`Fax:
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`PH-Google-BB-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’868 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A.
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable based on the
`
`Proposed Grounds and Prior Art
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 76, 78, 81, 84, 85, 90-92, 95, 104, 113, 137, and 142
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent No. 6,766,353 (“Lin”) (Ex.
`
`1011);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 13, 88, and 98 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Lin and U.S. Patent No. 6,188,995 (“Garst”) (Ex. 1012);
`
`Ground 3: Claims 77, 79, 80, and 82 are obvious under § 103(a) in view of
`
`Lin and U.S. Patent No. 5,844,986 (“Davis”) (Ex. 1013);
`
`Ground 4: Claim 83 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Lin and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,724,425 (“Chang”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Ground 5: Claim 86 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Lin and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,243,236 (“Sibert”) (Ex. 1015);
`
`Ground 6: Claim 89 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Lin and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,131,166 (“Wong-Insley”) (Ex. 1017);
`
`Ground 7: Claim 94 is obvious under § 103(a) in view of Lin and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,657,378 (“Haddock”) (Ex. 1018); and
`
`Ground 8: Claims 93, 100, 112, and 139 are obvious under § 103(a) in view
`
`of Lin and Li Gong, “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography,
`
`APIs, and Implementation” (1999) (“Gong”) (Ex. 1016).
`
`For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on any prior art reference
`
`other than those listed in above. Other references discussed herein are provided
`
`merely to show the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g.,
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner assumes the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the ’868 patent is September 21, 2000. Lin was filed on July
`
`11, 2000, and issued on July 20, 2004. Garst was filed on July 28, 1997, and issued
`
`on February 13, 2001. Sibert was filed on July 28, 2000, claiming priority to a
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`provisional application filed on July 29, 1999, and issued on July 10, 2007.1 Wong-
`
`Insley was filed on February 24, 1999, and issued on October 10, 2000. Therefore,
`
`Lin, Garst, Sibert, and Wong-Insley are prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Chang issued on March 3, 1998. Davis issued on December 1, 1998.
`
`Haddock issued on August 12, 1997. Therefore, Chang, Davis, and Haddock are
`
`prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and (e).
`
`Gong was published and publicly available at least as early as June 1999.
`
`(Ex. 1016, iv.) Additionally, Gong was received and catalogued at North Carolina
`
`State University at least as early as July 1999. (Ex. 1033 (e.g., MARC fields 050,
`
`005, 948); Ex. 1034; Ex. 1035; Ex. 1036, 4.) Gong was also received and
`
`catalogued by the Library of Congress at least as early as September 2, 1999. (Ex.
`
`1037, v.) Therefore, Gong is prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`1 Sibert is prior art as of the July 29, 1999 filing date of the ’426 provisional
`
`application, as the provisional application sufficiently discloses and enables the
`
`alleged invention recited in claim 1 of Sibert. (See, e.g., Ex. 1019, 11-12, 34-42,
`
`57; Ex. 1002, ¶111.) See, e.g., Benitec Biopharma Ltd. v. Cold Spring Harbor
`
`Lab., IPR2016-00014, Paper 7 at 7 (Mar. 23, 2016).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Lin, Sibert, and a PCT counterpart of Garst (WO99/05600) are listed on the
`
`face of the ’868 patent, but were not discussed or relied upon for any claim
`
`rejection during prosecution of the ’868 patent. (See Ex. 1004.)
`
`B. All Proposed Grounds Should Be Adopted
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another petition for IPR of certain claims of
`
`the ’868 patent. This petition, as discussed below, relies on Lin as a primary
`
`reference. The concurrently-filed petition (IPR2017-01619) relies on Garst as a
`
`primary reference.
`
`The Board should adopt all grounds, as proposed in both petitions, because
`
`they rely on prior art that discloses the claims under different interpretations of the
`
`“determining” phrase recited in claims 1 and 76. For example, the grounds
`
`proposed in each petition discloses the claims in different ways with different
`
`strengths under an interpretation of the “determining” phrase that is consistent with
`
`PO’s allegations in the above-identified litigation involving the ’868 patent. The
`
`grounds proposed in the concurrently-filed petition also discloses the claims under
`
`Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of this phrase. The two concurrently filed
`
`proceedings are in their early stages, and therefore the record for each of these
`
`proceedings has not yet been fully developed with respect to the meaning of this
`
`phrase. Accordingly, the Board should adopt all proposed grounds in both
`
`petitions.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Should the Board be inclined to institute IPR based on only one of the
`
`petitions, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board institute IPR based on the
`
`concurrently-filed petition, as it relies on prior art that discloses the claims under
`
`either interpretation of the “determining” phrase and challenges claims that are not
`
`challenged in this petition.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or the
`
`equivalent and two years of work experience in the relevant field, e.g., secure
`
`systems, including security protocols for software applications. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶19-
`
`20.)2 More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’868 PATENT
`The ’868 patent issued on July 16, 2013, from Application No. 10/381,219
`
`(“the ’219 application”), filed on March 20, 2003. (Ex. 1004.) The ’219 application
`
`purports to be a National Stage Entry of International Application No.
`
`PCT/CA01/01344, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos.
`
`60/270,663 (“the ’663 provisional application”), filed on February 20, 2001,
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits the declaration of Patrick D. McDaniel, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002), an
`
`expert in the field of the ’868 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-14; Ex. 1003.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`60/235,354 (“the ’354 provisional application”), filed on September 26, 2000, and
`
`60/234,152 (“the ’152 provisional application”), filed on September 21, 2000.
`
`The ’868 patent is generally directed to secure systems. (Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`
`1:54-2:15, 2:23-27, 5:18-30, 7:58-61, 8:3-14, 9:35-56, 10:64-11:8, 13:3-8.) For
`
`example, the ’868 patent explains that, in order to interface with an application
`
`platform, a software application “must access one or more APIs.” (Id., 3:9-22.) To
`
`access an API that has been classified as “sensitive,” the application developer is
`
`required to obtain a digital signature from an entity with an interest in protecting
`
`access to the sensitive API. (Id., 3:46-61, 4:24-55, 5:12-34, 5:51-6:66, 7:58-61,
`
`10:11-38, 14:5-24.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶48-68.)
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because the ’868 patent will not expire before issuance of a final written
`
`decision, the claims of the ’868 patent should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”).3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Below, Petitioner provides the
`
`BRI for one claim term. The remaining terms should be interpreted in accordance
`
`with their plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI standard.
`
`
`3 Any claim interpretations herein are not binding upon Petitioner in any litigation
`
`involving the ’868 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`Claims 1 and 76 recite the phrase “determining, at the mobile device,
`
`whether the software application is signed, wherein a signed software application
`
`includes a digital signature generated using a private key of a private key-public
`
`key pair.” As discussed below, the BRI of this phrase is “determining, at the
`
`mobile device, whether the software application includes a digital signature
`
`generated using a private key of a private key-public key pair corresponding to an
`
`entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API, such as a mobile
`
`device manufacturer or other entity that classified the API as sensitive, or from a
`
`code signing authority acting on behalf of the manufacturer.”
`
`This construction
`
`is consistent with
`
`the claim
`
`language and
`
`the
`
`specification.4 For example, claims 1 and 76 recite a scheme that allows access to a
`
`“sensitive API” based upon the verification of a “digital signature.” In the context
`
`of the specification, the claimed digital signature is one generated using a private
`
`
`4 Any argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction ignores the doctrine of
`
`claim differentiation should be rejected because “claim differentiation does not
`
`serve to broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the patent as a whole, and
`
`it cannot override clear statements of claim scope found in the specification and
`
`prosecution history.” Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1137
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`key corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive
`
`API. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶48-68.) See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,
`
`2142 (2016) (a claim must be given its BRI “in light of the specification”).
`
`From the outset, the specification disparages known software code signing
`
`schemes where “a digital signature is attached to a software application that
`
`identifies the software developer” (i.e., a digital signature generated using the
`
`developer’s private key), stating that such authentication schemes require a user to
`
`“use his or her judgment to determine whether or not the software application is
`
`reliable, based solely on his or her knowledge of the software developer’s
`
`reputation.” (Ex. 1001, 1:30-36.) With these types of code signing schemes, the
`
`specification alleges, there is no guarantee that an application “will properly
`
`interact with the device[]” and there is a “serious risk” that the application is
`
`“destructive.” (Id., 1:36-43.) In addition, according to the specification, these types
`
`of schemes do not address the need to control which applications are installed on
`
`devices. (Id., 1:44-50.)
`
`Against this backdrop, the specification disavows these known schemes
`
`when describing the alleged invention. In particular, as explained in the
`
`specification, in “contrast[] with known code signing schemes, in which API
`
`access is granted to any software applications arriving from trusted application
`
`developers or authors,” with “the code signing systems and methods described
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`herein, API access is granted on an application-by-application basis and thus can
`
`be more strictly controlled or regulated.” (Id., 11:3-8.)
`
`As consistently described in every embodiment of the specification related
`
`to restricting access to a sensitive API, this authorization scheme involves
`
`generating a digital signature using a private key corresponding to an entity with an
`
`interest in protecting access to the sensitive API. For example, with reference to
`
`Figure 1, “[t]o protect against unauthorized access to…sensitive APIs,” the
`
`specification explains that “the application developer 12 is required to obtain one
`
`or more digital signatures from the mobile device manufacturer or other entity that
`
`classified any APIs as sensitive, or from a code signing authority 16 acting on
`
`behalf of the manufacturer or other entity with an interest in protecting access to
`
`sensitive device APIs, and append the signature(s) to the software application Y
`
`14.” (Id., 3:46-61, 4:24-55.)
`
`The specification explains that each digital signature is “generated using a
`
`private signature key 18 maintained solely by code signing authority 16.” (Id.,
`
`4:43-45.) Authority 16 is an entity with an interest in protecting access to the
`
`sensitive API, as authority 16 “is preferably one or more representatives from the
`
`mobile device manufacturer, the authors of any sensitive APIs, or possibly others
`
`that have knowledge of the operation of the sensitive APIs to which the software
`
`application needs access.” (Id., 4:31-35.) Once an application is downloaded, “each
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`digital signature is preferably verified with a public signature key 20 before the
`
`software application Y 14 is granted access to a sensitive API.” (Id., 4:66-5:3; see
`
`also id., 5:9-30.) “The public signature key 20 corresponds to the private signature
`
`key 18 maintained by the code signing authority 16.” (Id., 5:12-15.) Thus, key 18
`
`corresponds to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API.
`
`(Id., 3:46-61, 4:31-35, 4:43-45.)
`
`Figure 2 is a flow diagram of the code signing protocol described with
`
`reference to Figure 1 (id., 5:35-36), and refers to the same “private signature key
`
`18” of Figure 1 maintained by authority 16 for generating the digital signature (id.,
`
`6:2-4). (See also id., 5:35-6:15, 4:25-31, 6:41-48.) Similarly, Figures 3 and 3A
`
`depict devices having signed applications that require access to sensitive APIs (id.,
`
`7:1-4, 7:23-27, 8:19-20) and public key 20, which “corresponds to the private
`
`signature key 18 maintained by the code signing authority (id., 7:52-54, 7:58-61,
`
`FIGS. 3, 3A). Figure 4, which is a flow diagram of the code signing protocol
`
`described with reference to Figures 3 and 3A (id., 9:5-8), also shows that the
`
`device uses “key 20 to verify the authenticity of the digital signature 96” (id., 9:36-
`
`40). Figure 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the code signing protocol from the
`
`perspective of the code signing authority described with reference to Figure 3A
`
`(id., 9:57-10:38), which, as discussed above, is an entity with an interest in
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`protecting access to sensitive APIs (id., 4:31-35).5 (See also id., 9:67-10:4, 10:16-
`
`10:35.)
`
`In short, in each and every instance, to access a sensitive API, the
`
`specification describes generating a digital signature using a private key
`
`corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive
`
`API.6 (Ex. 1002, ¶¶53-64.) In contrast, there is not a single reference to a digital
`
`
`5 Figure 6 is a generic block diagram of a mobile device. (Id., 11:9-11.)
`
`6 The ’868 patent also describes a “global” digital signature, which differs from the
`
`signature recited in claims 1 and 76. (Ex. 1002, ¶64.) As explained in the
`
`specification, a global signature is used to restrict execution of an application on a
`
`target device, such that “all APIs are restricted and locked until a ‘global’ signature
`
`is verified for a software application.” (Ex. 1001, 4:1-3; see also id., 3:62-4:1, 4:3-
`
`10, 8:55-61, 9:67-10:4.) Access to sensitive APIs is then further restricted
`
`“depending upon verification of respective corresponding digital signatures.” (Id.,
`
`4:10-12; see also id., 8:55-61, 9:67-10:4.) This distinction between these two types
`
`of signatures is captured by dependent claims 8 and 83, which recite “a global
`
`signature…associated with each of the plurality of APIs” in addition to the
`
`signature corresponding to the sensitive API recited in independent claims 1 and
`
`76.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`signature generated using a private key corresponding to an application developer,
`
`other than when disparaging such schemes. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶50-52.)
`
`The same is true with respect to each of the provisional applications from
`
`which the ’868 patent claims priority. (See Ex. 1001, 1:7-13; Ex. 1002, ¶¶65-68.)
`
`For example, the ’152 and ’354 provisional applications, which are substantially
`
`the same, each consistently describes the alleged “invention” as including a digital
`
`signature generated using a private key corresponding to the author of the sensitive
`
`API—an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API. (Ex.
`
`1006, 5-6, 8; Ex. 1007, 5-6, 8.) The ’663 provisional application, like the ’868
`
`patent, disparages “conventional code signing schemes” (Ex. 1005, 4-5), and
`
`explains that, “[i]n the present invention,” access is provided “to only those
`
`applications that have been digitally signed by the author of a sensitive API” (id.,
`
`5-6). (See also id., 6-12, 15-16.)
`
`This intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the BRI of the “determining”
`
`phrase is “determining, at the mobile device, whether the software application
`
`includes a digital signature generated using a private key of a private key-public
`
`key pair corresponding to an entity with an interest in protecting access to the
`
`sensitive API, such as a mobile device manufacturer or other entity that classified
`
`the API as sensitive, or from a code signing authority acting on behalf of the
`
`manufacturer.” See, e.g., In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, even if the repeated and consistent disclosures are not
`
`themselves sufficient, they, when taken together with the above-discussed
`
`statements disparaging and distinguishing the prior art and the statements
`
`describing the “invention,” provide clear and unequivocal evidence that the
`
`inventors intended to disavow any claim scope encompassing digital signatures
`
`generated using a private key of an application developer. See, e.g., Man Mach.,
`
`822 F.3d at 1285-86; Abbott, 696 F.3d at 1148-50. Accordingly, any construction
`
`of the “determining” phrase should, at a minimum, exclude digital signatures
`
`generated using a private key of an application developer.
`
`PO, in litigation involving the ’868 patent, alleged that the “determining”
`
`phrase is met by an application that includes a digital signature generated using a
`
`private key of a software application developer. (Ex. 1010, 20-21; see also Part II.)
`
`For the reasons discussed above, PO’s interpretation is inconsistent with the
`
`specification of the ’868 patent. Nevertheless, in the event the Board adopts PO’s
`
`interpretation, this petition demonstrates how the prior art discloses all of the
`
`limitations of the challenged claims under PO’s interpretation. Petitioner is
`
`concurrently filing another petition that demonstrates how the prior art discloses all
`
`of the limitations of the challenged claims under both Petitioner’s and PO’s
`
`proposed constructions.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed below, under PO’s interpretation, the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable in view of the prior art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-2, 15-18, 21-47, 69-269.)
`
`Claims 1 and 76
`a)
`
`A. Ground 1: Lin Anticipates Claims 1, 76, 78, 81, 84, 85, 90-92, 95,
`104, 113, 137, and 142
`1.
`
`“[A mobile device containing software instructions
`which when executed on the mobile device cause the
`mobile device to perform operations / A method] for
`controlling access to an application platform of [the / a]
`mobile
`device,
`[the
`operations
`comprising
`/
`comprising]:”7
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, Lin discloses these features. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶133-41, 72-89.) For example, Lin describes “security and authentication of
`
`portable code for use by wireless or mobile devices” (Ex. 1011, 1:6-11), including
`
`“Internet capable mobile or cellular radio telephones” (id., 2:51-59, FIGS. 1, 2).
`
`(See also id., 1:41-58, 2:43-46, 4:38-42.)
`
`Lin’s mobile device includes an application platform. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶135-37.)
`
`To a POSA at the time of the alleged invention, the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`the term “application platform” is a set of resources, such as hardware and/or
`
`
`7 Bracketed claim language identifies the differences between claims in the
`
`following format: [Claim A Text / Claim B Text].
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,489,868
`software, that support the services on which application software will run. (Id.,
`
`¶135; Ex. 1008, 46.) This is consistent with the use of this term in the ’868 patent,
`
`which explains that the “application platform 80 preferably includes all of the
`
`resources on the mobile device 62 that may be accessed by the software
`
`applications” (Ex. 1001, 7:4-10), such as “device hardware, operating system and
`
`core software and data models” (id., 3:14-18). (See also id., claims 14-19.)
`
`Lin explains that its mobile device includes “resources 212 the application
`
`will be allowed to access when running” (Ex. 1011, 3:7-10), such as “application
`
`libraries” (id., 2:38-41), “processes, classes, and methods, as well as certain
`
`hardware components such as volatile and non-volatile memory space” (id., 3:12-
`
`16). (See also id., 3:5-7, 3:29-31, 3:35-39, 5:26-30, 5:37-40, 5:48-52, FIG. 2.) Lin
`
`also explains that its mobile device includes a virtual machine (“VM”)
`
`envir