IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`RACKSPACE US, INC.; NETAPP, INC.;
`and SOLIDFIRE, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.; QUANTUM
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-961
`LEAD CASE
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-1035
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO
`LOCAL PATENT RULES 3-3 AND 3-4
`ON BEHALF OF RACKSPACE US, INC.; NETAPP, INC.; SOLIDFIRE, LLC;
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.; AND QUANTUM CORPORATION
`
`Realtime Ex. 2006
`NetApp v. Realtime
`IPR2017-01660
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 1
`
`A. The Asserted Patents ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. The Asserted Claims ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Reservations of Rights ................................................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`III. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID BASED ON THE PRIOR ART [P.R. 3-3(A),
`(B) AND (C)] ......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. The Prior Art ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,991,515 (“Fall”) ...................................................................... 11
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 (“Franaszek”) ............................................................ 11
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,247,646 (“Osterlund”) ............................................................ 11
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 5,479,638 (“Assar”) ................................................................... 12
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 5,771,354 (“Crawford”) ............................................................. 12
`
`6. Automatic Synthesis of Compression Techniques for Heterogeneous Files
`(“Hsu”) ................................................................................................................ 12
`
`7. U.S. Patent No. 6,198,850 (“Banton”) ................................................................. 13
`
`8. U.S. Patent No. 5,237,675 (“Hannon”) ............................................................... 13
`
`9. U.S. Patent No. 6,215,904 (“Lavallee”) .............................................................. 13
`
`10. U.S. Patent No. 6,253,264 (“Sebastian”) ............................................................. 14
`
`11. XML Xpress ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`12. XpressFiles .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`13. U.S. Patent No. 6,285,458 (“Yada”) .................................................................... 16
`
`14. U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 (“Aakre”) .................................................................. 17
`
`15. U.S. Patent No. 6,092,071 (“Bolan”) ................................................................... 17
`
`16. U.S. Patent No. 5,408,542 (“Callahan”) .............................................................. 17
`
`dn-188576
`
`i
`
`

`

`17. U.S. Patent No. 5,630,092 (“Carreiro”) ............................................................... 18
`
`18. U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789 (“Diaz”) ..................................................................... 18
`
`19. U.S. Patent No. 7,190,284 (“Dye ’284”) ............................................................. 18
`
`20. U.S. Patent No. 6,370,631 (“Dye ’631”) ............................................................. 19
`
`21. U.S. Patent No. 5,079,630 (“Golin”) ................................................................... 19
`
`22. Hi/fn 9711 Data Compression Coprocessor Preliminary Data Sheet (“Hi/fn”) .. 19
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 5,046,119 (“Hoffert”) ................................................................ 20
`
`24. Data Compression in Digital Systems (“Hoffman”) ........................................... 20
`
`25. HP7980XC ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`IBM 3494 Tape Library ....................................................................................... 21
`
`IBM 3494 Tape Library with 3590 Tape Subsystem .......................................... 22
`
`28. The Bay Area Research Wireless Access Network (BARWAN) (“Katz”) ......... 23
`
`29. U.S. Patent No. 5,805,932 (“Kawashima”) ......................................................... 24
`
`30. U.S. Patent No. 5,673,370 (“Laney”) .................................................................. 24
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 5,333,212 (“Ligtenberg”) ........................................................... 24
`
`32.
`
`International PCT Application Pub. No. WO 1998/019450 (“MacKormack”) ... 25
`
`33. U.S. Patent No. 4,593,324 (“Ohkubo”) ............................................................... 25
`
`34. U.S. Patent No. 5,280,600 (“Van Maren”) .......................................................... 25
`
`35. U.S. Patent No. 5,619,995 (“Lobodzinski”) ........................................................ 26
`
`36. U.S. Patent No. 5,671,389 (“Saliba”) .................................................................. 26
`
`37. U.S. Patent No. 6,505,239 (“Kobata”) ................................................................. 26
`
`38. U.S. Patent No. 6,075,470 (“Little”) ................................................................... 26
`
`39. U.S. Patent No. 5,838,821 (“Matsubara”) ........................................................... 27
`
`40. U.S. Patent No. 5,467,087 (“Chu”) ..................................................................... 27
`
`41. DirecPC ................................................................................................................ 27
`
`dn-188576
`
`ii
`
`

`

`42. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0030575 (“Frachtenberg”) ............................... 29
`
`43. U.S. Patent No. 5,396,228 (“Garahi”) ................................................................. 29
`
`44. U.S. Patent No. 6,404,919 (“Nishigaki”) ............................................................. 29
`
`45. U.S. Patent No. 5,684,478 (“Panaoussis”) ........................................................... 29
`
`46. U.S. Patent No. 5,227,878 (“Puri”) ..................................................................... 30
`
`47.
`
`International PCT Application Pub. No. WO 00/46688 (“Wang”) ..................... 30
`
`48. U.S. Patent No. 6,731,814 (“Zeck”) .................................................................... 30
`
`49. U.S. Patent No. 5,884,269 (“Cellier”) ................................................................. 31
`
`50. U.S. Patent No. 5,649,196 (“Woodhill”) ............................................................. 31
`
`51. U.S. Patent No. 5,990,810 (“Williams”) ............................................................. 31
`
`52. U.S. Patent No. 5,794,254 (“McClain”) .............................................................. 32
`
`53. U.S. Patent No. 5,689,255 (“Frazier”) ................................................................. 32
`
`54. U.S. Patent No. 5,990,810 (“Farber”) .................................................................. 32
`
`55. U.S. Patent No. 5,999,272 (“Dow”) .................................................................... 33
`
`56. U.S. Patent No. 5,765,173 (“Cane”) .................................................................... 33
`
`57. U.S. Patent No. 5,479,587 (“Campbell”) ............................................................. 33
`
`B. Combinations of the Prior Art ...................................................................................... 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The ’506 Patent .................................................................................................... 34
`
`The ’992 Patent .................................................................................................... 37
`
`The ’728 Patent .................................................................................................... 40
`
`The ’513 Patent .................................................................................................... 44
`
`The ’530 Patent .................................................................................................... 49
`
`The ’908 Patent .................................................................................................... 52
`
`The ’867 Patent .................................................................................................... 54
`
`IV. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 [P.R. 3-3(D)] ...... 57
`
`dn-188576
`
`iii
`
`

`

`A. The ’506 Patent ............................................................................................................ 57
`
`B. The ’992 Patent ............................................................................................................ 58
`
`C. The ’513 Patent ............................................................................................................ 59
`
`D. The ’728 Patent ............................................................................................................ 62
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The ’530 Patent ............................................................................................................ 65
`
`The ’908 Patent ............................................................................................................ 66
`
`G. The ’867 Patent ............................................................................................................ 67
`
`V. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101. ............................ 68
`
`A. The ’506 Patent ............................................................................................................ 68
`
`B. The ’992 Patent ............................................................................................................ 68
`
`C. The ’513 Patent ............................................................................................................ 69
`
`D. The ’728 Patent ............................................................................................................ 69
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The ’530 Patent ............................................................................................................ 69
`
`The ’908 Patent ............................................................................................................ 70
`
`G. The ’867 Patent ............................................................................................................ 70
`
`dn-188576
`
`iv
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`In its June 29, 2016 Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) Plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC (“Realtime”)
`
`asserted six patents against NetApp, Inc. (“NetApp”) and SolidFire, LLC (“SolidFire”).
`
`Realtime also asserted the same six patents plus an additional patent against Rackspace US, Inc.
`
`(“Rackspace”). The Court consolidated that case with Case No. 6-16-cv-01035 for pretrial
`
`issues. In that case, Realtime filed a complaint on July 21, 2016 against Fujitsu America, Inc.
`
`(“FAI”) and Quantum Corporation (“Quantum”) asserting the same six patents as asserted
`
`against NetApp and SolidFire.
`
`NetApp, SolidFire, Rackspace, FAI, and Quantum (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby
`
`serve these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on Realtime for the respective asserted claims of
`
`the asserted patents against each of the Defendants. These Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are
`
`based on Defendants’ current knowledge of the patents-in-suit, the prior art, and Realtime’s
`
`Patent Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions.
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`Realtime has asserted the following six patents against Defendants:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,161,506, entitled “Systems And Methods For Data
`Compression Such As Content Dependent Data Compression” (the “’506 patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,378,992, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression
`Method And System” (the “’992 patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,643,513, entitled “Data Compression Systems And Methods”
`(the “’513 patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, entitled “Data Compression Systems And Methods”
`(the “’728 patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530, entitled “System And Methods For Accelerated Data
`Storage And Retrieval” (the “’530 patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, entitled “System And Methods For Accelerated Data
`Storage And Retrieval” (the “’908 patent”)
`
`dn-188576
`
`1
`
`

`

`Realtime has also asserted the following patent against Rackspace only:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,358,867, entitled “Content Independent Data Compression
`Method And System” (the “’867 patent”)
`
`The ’506 patent, the ’992 patent, the ’513 patent, the ’728 patent, and the ’867 patent are related
`
`and share a common specification. The ’530 patent and the ’908 patent are related and share a
`
`common specification.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`In its infringements contentions for each of the Defendants, Realtime asserted the
`
`following claims. Although these Infringement Contentions cover the super set of asserted
`
`claims list below, these Infringement Contentions are only served by each defendant with respect
`
`to the asserted claims of the asserted patents against each respective defendant.
`
`Patent No. Asserted Claims Against
`NetApp and SolidFire
`’992 patent 48, 49
`’530 patent 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 18, 19, 20
`’513 patent 1, 2, 6, 14, 15, 16, 22
`
`’908 patent 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, 25
`’728 patent 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20, 24
`’506 patent 104, 105
`-
`’867 patent
`
`Asserted Claims Against
`Rackspace
`48, 49
`1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19, 20
`1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 22
`
`Asserted Claims Against FAI
`and Quantum
`48
`1, 2, 18, 19
`1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
`18, 19, 20, 22
`1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 21, 22, 25,
`1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 21, 22, 25
`1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20, 24 1, 3, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24
`104, 105
`104, 105
`-
`16, 17
`
`C.
`
`Reservations of Rights
`
`To the extent that these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions rely on or otherwise embody
`
`particular constructions of terms or phrases in the Asserted Claims, Defendants are not proposing
`
`any such constructions as proper constructions of those terms or phrases at this time. The
`
`dn-188576
`
`2
`
`

`

`Docket Control Order sets later deadlines for the parties’ proposed claim constructions, and
`
`Defendants will disclose its proposed constructions according to those deadlines.
`
`For purposes of these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Defendants may adopt
`
`alternative claim construction positions. In particular, certain of these Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions, including the charts attached hereto as exhibits, may be based on claim
`
`constructions that appear to underlie Realtime’s Infringement Contentions.1 Defendants,
`
`however, do not concede that Realtime’s apparent constructions are proper, and reserve the right
`
`to contest any such constructions during the Markman process in this case. Pursuant to Patent
`
`Rule 3-6, Defendants reserve the right to supplement, modify, or otherwise amend these
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions based on the Court’s claim construction ruling and/or
`
`arguments or positions taken during the claim construction process.
`
`Throughout the attached Exhibits, Defendants provide examples of where references
`
`disclose subject matter recited in preambles, without regard to whether the preambles are
`
`properly considered to be limitations of the Asserted Claims. Defendants reserve the right to
`
`argue that the preambles are or are not limitations during the Markman process in this case.
`
`Moreover, Defendants reserve the right to argue that any claim elements or limitations of the
`
`Asserted Claims do not in fact limit the scope of the Asserted Claims.
`
`II.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`
`At the time of the alleged inventions of the Asserted Claims, the elements of the Asserted
`
`1 Realtime’s Infringement Contentions appear to be based on improperly broad interpretations of certain
`terms and limitations of the Asserted Claims. Thus, certain of these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`may likewise be based on Realtime’s overbroad interpretations. Defendants reserve the right to
`supplement and/or modify these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions should Realtime modify its positions
`regarding the purported scope of the Asserted Claims. Moreover, nothing herein admits in any way that
`any Accused Instrumentality, or any of Defendants’ other products or services, infringes any of the
`Asserted Claims.
`
`dn-188576
`
`3
`
`

`

`Claims were already well-known and widely disclosed in prior art patent publications, journal
`
`publications, and systems that implemented the compression techniques described in the
`
`Asserted Patents, as described in Exhibits 992-01 to 992-21, 506-01 to 506-21, 728-01 to 728-21,
`
`513-01 to 513-21, 530-01 to 530-34, 908-01 to 908-34, and 867-01 to 867-14.
`
`For example, the concept of using compression algorithms specific to certain types of
`
`data was widely known in prior art references and implemented in prior art systems, such as
`
`described in, for example, Franaszek, Wang, Sebastian, Matsubara, Frachtenberg, Chu, Zeck,
`
`XpressFiles, and Lavallee (see below). When a specific compression algorithm was not
`
`available for a data type or a data type was unknown, it was also widely known and used in prior
`
`art systems to use a default compression algorithm, as described by, for example, Franaszek,
`
`Wang, Sebastian, Matsubara, Frachtenberg, Chu, Zeck, Matsubara, XpressFiles, and Lavallee
`
`(see below).
`
`As another example, to determine specific types of data in order to identify an
`
`appropriate compression algorithm, it was widely known in prior art references and implemented
`
`in prior art systems to analyze not just a descriptor of the data. The prior art described below
`
`shows that many other techniques were widely known and implemented, including analyzing the
`
`data bits and patterns of the data itself, as described by, for example, Hsu, Sebastian,
`
`Frachtenberg, Chu, Yada, Panaoussis, Fall, Zeck, Matsubara, and Lavallee (see below).
`
`As yet another example, it was widely known in prior art references and implemented in
`
`prior art systems to associate certain compression algorithms with certain types of data, as
`
`described by, for example, Franaszek, Wang, Sebastian, Matsubara, Frachtenberg, Chu, Zeck,
`
`Matsubara, XpressFiles, and Lavallee (see below). In some cases, this allowed a particular
`
`compression algorithm to be applied to a specific type of data so as to optimize the compression
`
`dn-188576
`
`4
`
`

`

`of the specific type of data. After compressing data with various compression algorithms (e.g.,
`
`the compression algorithm specific to a certain data type or a default compression algorithm, it
`
`was widely known and implemented to include a descriptor or data token to identify what
`
`compression algorithm was used to compress the data, as described by, for example, Franaszek,
`
`Wang, Hsu, and Chu (see below).
`
`As yet another example, it was widely known in prior art references and implemented in
`
`prior art systems to compress data from external and internal data sources on a block-by-block
`
`basis, as described by, for example, Frachtenberg, Zeck, Chu, Panaoussis, Sebastian, Wang,
`
`Matsubara, Fall, Panaoussis (see below). The benefits, including reduced storage requirements
`
`and faster handling of data, of using compression to store data was known and discussed in the
`
`prior references below and/or implemented in the prior systems.
`
`As yet another example, it was widely known in prior art references and implemented in
`
`prior art systems to only store compressed data if the compressed data was not larger than the
`
`uncompressed data as described by, for example, Franaszek, Hsu, and DirecPC.
`
`As yet another example, it was widely known prior art references and implemented in
`
`prior art systems to compress data so that the storage of the data occurred faster than storing it
`
`uncompressed as described by, for example, Osterlund, Kawashima, Dye 631, Dye 284, Kobata,
`
`Saliba, HP7980XC, the IBM 3494 Systems, and Lobodzinski.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID BASED ON THE PRIOR ART
`[P.R. 3-3(A), (B) AND (C)]
`
`Pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Patent Rule 3-3, Defendants contend that each
`
`Asserted Claim is invalid as anticipated by the prior art under various subsections of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 and/or as obvious in view of one or more prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
`
`charts attached as exhibits to these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions provide examples of
`
`dn-188576
`
`5
`
`

`

`where pieces of prior art identified by Defendants disclose either expressly or inherently, and/or
`
`render obvious, each element of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Defendants have endeavored to cite to the most relevant portions of the identified prior
`
`art. However, other portions of the identified prior art may additionally disclose, either expressly
`
`or inherently, and/or render obvious one or more elements or limitations of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Although Defendants have identified at least one citation per element for each reference, each
`
`and every disclosure of the same element in the prior art references is not necessarily identified.
`
`The lack of a citation for an element should not be deemed an admission that the element is not
`
`disclosed or is not inherent in the reference. In an effort to focus the issues, Defendants are
`
`identifying only exemplary portions of cited references. Defendants reserve the right to rely on
`
`uncited portions of the identified prior art to establish the invalidity of the Asserted Claims
`
`(reiterating that Realtime has asserted an unreasonable number of claims, many of which are
`
`incredibly long). Moreover, Defendants reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the
`
`identified prior art, other prior art, references that show the state of the art (irrespective of
`
`whether such references themselves qualify as prior art to the Asserted Patents), and/or expert
`
`testimony to provide context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of the identified prior
`
`art.
`
`Where Defendants cite to a particular drawing or figure in the accompanying charts, the
`
`citation encompasses the description of the drawing or figure, as well as any text associated with
`
`the drawing or figure. Similarly, where Defendants cite to particular text concerning a drawing
`
`or figure, the citation encompasses that drawing or figure as well.
`
`Although certain prior art references are listed as evidence for particular prior art
`
`solutions, certain of those prior art references describe, relate to, and are evidence of multiple
`
`dn-188576
`
`6
`
`

`

`prior art solutions that render the Asserted Claims invalid. Defendants reserve the right to rely
`
`on any identified piece of prior art as evidence supporting any of those prior art solutions.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on any identified piece of prior art individually to
`
`anticipate the Asserted Claims and/or to render obvious the Asserted Claims in view of the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or in combination with other references identified
`
`herein.
`
`To the extent these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions identify any prior art patents
`
`and/or printed publications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or (b), Defendants may also rely on those
`
`patents and/or printed publications as evidence that the described invention was known or used
`
`by others under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (g)(2), or in public use or on sale under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Certain identified prior art references inherently disclose features of the Asserted Claims;
`
`moreover, certain prior art references and solutions may inherently disclose certain features of
`
`the Asserted Claims as the claim terms are being construed by Realtime. Defendants reserve the
`
`right to rely on inherency to demonstrate the invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Defendants may
`
`rely on cited or uncited portions of the prior art, other documents, and/or expert testimony to
`
`establish the inherency of certain features of the prior art to invalidate the Asserted Claims.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely on any reference identified in these Preliminary
`
`Invalidity Contentions or any other reference to establish that the prior art solutions and
`
`references are enabled or to explain the meaning of a term used in the solutions or any reference.
`
`To the extent that Realtime should contend that a piece of prior art does not disclose an
`
`element or limitation, Defendants reserve the right to rely on any combination of the prior art
`
`disclosed in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, including the charts attached as exhibits
`
`dn-188576
`
`7
`
`

`

`hereto, the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or other prior art to show that it would have
`
`been obvious to include the allegedly missing element or limitation. The reasons or motivation
`
`to combine the prior art would include, for example, the fact that the prior art is all in the field of
`
`compression technology, and one of ordinary skill in the art implementing compression
`
`technologies would would have been motivated to investigate the various then-existing solutions,
`
`systems, publications, and/or patents describing compression technology identified herein to
`
`address his or her particular needs. The combinations and modifications of the prior art to
`
`invalidate the Asserted Claims would have arisen from ordinary innovation, ordinary skill, or
`
`common sense, or would have been obvious to try or otherwise predictable.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the identified prior art
`
`based on the nature of the problem to be solved, the teachings of the prior art, and the knowledge
`
`of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Design incentives and other market forces would have
`
`prompted those combinations and modifications as well. For example, in the prior art, there
`
`were well-recognized design needs and market pressures to increase the speed, accuracy, and
`
`reliability of compression technology. Moreover, some pieces of prior art refer to or discuss
`
`other pieces of prior art, illustrating the close technical relationship among the prior art. To the
`
`extent any piece of prior art refers to or discusses other pieces of prior art, either expressly or
`
`inherently, it would have been obvious to combine those pieces of prior art for that reason.
`
`Defendants generally contend that the Asserted Claims are obvious because they merely
`
`arrange old elements, with each performing the same function that had been known, to perform
`
`and yield no more than what one of ordinary skill would expect from such an arrangement.
`
`Because there were a finite number of predictable solutions in the art of determining the location
`
`of mobile stations using more than one location determining technology, it would have been
`
`dn-188576
`
`8
`
`

`

`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of alleged invention to pursue the
`
`known options. A person skilled in the art of compression technology would have been familiar
`
`with all of the claim elements that the Applicants used to try to distinguish the prior art during
`
`prosecution of the Asserted Patents. The identified prior art references merely use those familiar
`
`elements for their primary or well-known purposes and in a manner well within the ordinary
`
`level of skill in the art. Accordingly, common sense and the knowledge of the prior art render
`
`the Asserted Claims invalid as well.
`
`As discussed above in Section II with respect to the state of the art, integrating multiple
`
`compression technologies was well-known to those of skill in the art at the time of alleged
`
`invention of the Asserted Claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`combine and/or modify prior art involving multiple compression technologies with concepts
`
`from other prior art in the field of location determining technology.
`
`To the extent prior art references cite other prior art references, either on the face of the
`
`prior art or in the specification, it shows that the references cover similar subject matter. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try the teaching of other prior art references by
`
`combining with or modifying the teachings of another prior art reference that cites the other prior
`
`art references.
`
`Various additional exemplary combinations and modifications, and reasons or motivation
`
`to implement those combinations and modifications, are provided below. In addition to the prior
`
`art identified below and in the accompanying invalidity claim charts, Defendants also rely on the
`
`“Background of the Invention” and other relevant portions of the Asserted Patents and their
`
`related patents; the file histories of the Asserted Patents and their related patents, including the
`
`references cited during prosecution; and other evidence, including fact and expert testimony
`
`dn-188576
`
`9
`
`

`

`about that evidence, to prove that the Asserted Claims are anticipated and/or rendered obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to supplement or amend these Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions with additional positions on anticipation or obviousness in response to any
`
`allegation by Realtime that any of the prior art, or any combination of prior art, does not disclose
`
`one or more elements of the Asserted Claims. In addition, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions with additional prior art and/or arguments
`
`should Realtime allege that the Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date prior to
`
`December 11, 1998.2
`
`Finally, on the day before these invalidity contentions were due, Realtime served
`
`interrogatory responses purporting to identify secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`applying to the asserted claims. Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, based on these new allegations as well as further
`
`investigation, discovery, and evaluation of the scope and content of the prior art, any changes in
`
`Realtime’s Infringement Contentions, and any additional positions taken by Realtime, including
`
`with respect to secondary consideration of non-obviousness.
`
`
`2 On page 3 of its Infringement Contentions cover document, Realtime alleged that “[t]he Asserted
`Claims of the ’506, ’728, ’992, and ’513 Patents are entitled to priority dates at least as early as December
`11, 1998.” Initially, Realtime’s use of the qualifier “at least” in its priority date claim is inappropriate and
`should be stricken. See Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01647, Dkt. 57 at 12-13
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015). Moreover, Defendants contends that the asserted claims of the ’506, ’992,
`’513, and ’728 patents are not entitled to Realtime’s alleged December 11, 1998 priority date because
`they are not supported by the first application to which the these patents claim priority. Defendants
`contend that the asserted claims of these patents are only entitled to a priority date of October 29, 2001.
`
`dn-188576
`
`10
`
`

`

`A.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,515 (“Fall”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,515 to Fall et al., entitled “Method And Apparatus For
`
`Compressing And Decompressing Data Prior To Display,” issued November 23, 1999 (“Fall”).
`
`Fall is entitled to a priority date at least as early as July 15, 1997. Fall qualifies as prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). The charts attached hereto as Exhibits 991-01, 506-01,
`
`513-01, 728-01, 530-01, 908-01, and 867-01 provide examples of where Fall discloses, either
`
`expressly or inherently, elements of the Asserted Claims, thereby anticipating and/or rendering
`
`obvious those claims.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 (“Franaszek”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,036 to Franaszek et al., entitled “Adaptive Multiple Dictionary
`
`Data Compression,” issued February 9, 1999 (“Franaszek”). F