`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., LG
`ELECTRONICS, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01667
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`
`
`In response to the Final Written Decision entered January 16, 2019 (Paper 37)
`
`and pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.71(d), Patent Owner hereby respectfully request a
`
`rehearing and reconsideration by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of its Final
`
`Decision.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE STANDARDS
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without
`
`prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d). “The request must
`
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`
`an opposition, or a reply.” Id. The Board reviews a decision for an abuse of
`
`discretion. 37 C.F.R. §42.71(c).
`
`Claim construction is a question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). In an inter
`
`partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct.
`
`2131, 2142 -46 (2016).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Board misapplied its construction of “instant voice message”.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board misapprehended the proper
`
`application of its construction of “instant voice message”. In its decision, the Board
`
`accepted Patent Owner’s definition, properly construing “instant message” as “data
`
`content including a representation of an audio message.” Paper 37 at 15. The Board
`
`correctly recognized that the “content” of the message refers to “user’s speech . . .
`
`in some digitized form.” Id. at 16 (“These embodiments, thus, paint a picture of the
`
`‘instant voice message’ as first and foremost being the content of the message, or
`
`the user’s speech, in some digitized form.”) (emphasis added); id. at 17 (“In all
`
`embodiments, the ‘instant voice message’ refers, at a minimum, to the digitized
`
`speech, regardless of whether it is contained in an audio file, successive portions
`
`stored in a buffer, or a block of data in an object field.”).
`
`Claim 27 requires that the “instant voice message application includes a
`
`document handler system for attaching one or more files to the instant voice
`
`message.” See Paper 37 at 19. Substituting in the Board’s construction yields
`
`“instant voice message application includes a document handler system for
`
`attaching one or more files to [data content including a representation of an audio
`
`message].”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`Rather than apply this construction, however, the Board held that its claim
`
`construction “does not resolve all the disputes surrounding the term because Patent
`
`Owner also argues that attaching files to an ‘instant voice message’ must be limited
`
`to attachments to the data content itself.” Id. The Board later stated “we determine
`
`that Patent Owner has not shown that the specification supports its narrow position
`
`that the recited attachment to an ‘instant voice message’ involves a direct attachment
`
`to only the data content.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added).
`
`This was error. Having won on claim construction that instant voice message
`
`means “data content,” it was not then Patent Owner’s burden to defend that
`
`construction in application. Rather, it was Petitioner’s burden to show “attaching
`
`one or more files to [data content including a representation of an audio
`
`message].” This Petitioner did not do. It could not do so because it is undisputed
`
`that Zydney does not disclose attaching one or more files to “data content,” which
`
`the Board characterized as “user’s speech . . . in some digitized form.”
`
`B. The Board applied the definition of “instant voice message” in a manner
`never urged by any party.
`
`The Board also erred in suggesting this deficiency is somehow cured by
`
`substituting the term “attaching” with, instead, the word “associating.”1 Even if the
`
`
`1 Patent Owner does not hereby waive its objection to the improper construction of
`“attaching” to mean “associating”. Even accepting this erroneous construction of
`“attaching,” however, the Board’s correct construction of “instant voice message” –
`properly applied – should be dispositive in Patent Owner’s favor.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`Petition had attempted to defend such a claim construction with supportive argument
`
`and evidence, and it does not, Petitioner nevertheless has still failed to prove
`
`“[associating] one or more files to [data content]”—i.e., to the digitized speech.
`
`In applying its construction of “instant voice message,” the Board advanced
`
`an argument on behalf of Petitioner sua sponte. Paper 37 at 22 (“we determine that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown that the specification supports its narrow position that
`
`the recited attachment to an ‘instant voice message’ involves a direct attachment to
`
`only the data content.”). No party argued that “associating” A to B is satisfied by
`
`associating A to C (a distinct and separately-generated container for B).
`
`It was Petitioner’s burden, not Patent Owner’s, to defend such a construction
`
`and to prove invalidity under such a construction. A Board must evaluate the
`
`Petition’s arguments as presented. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`
`1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting an argument that the Board properly
`
`“ma[de] an obviousness argument on behalf of [petitioner]” that “could have been
`
`included in a properly-drafted petition,” because “petitioner . . . bears the burden of
`
`proof” and, thus, the Board “must base its decision on arguments that were advanced
`
`by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond,” and is
`
`not “free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners” (citations omitted)).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`By applying the construction of “instant voice message” in a way never urged
`
`by Petitioner, the Board advanced an argument for Petitioner sua sponte, thereby
`
`misapprehending the proper burden of persuasion and violating In re Mangum.
`
`III.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant a rehearing and reconsider its Final Written Decision.
`
`
`Date: February 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`
`Brett A. Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.co
`m Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served electronically on
`
`February 15, 2019 on the following counsel of record for Petitioner at the below-
`
`listed email address:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01667
`IPR2017-01668
`Patent 8,243,723 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 15, 2019
`
`/Brett A. Mangrum/
`
`Brett A. Mangrum
`brett@etheridgelaw.co
`m Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`