`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2017-01934
`
`U.S. Patent 8,799,468
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. ii
`
`I.
`
`Summary ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Legal Standard ................................................................................................. 2
`
`III. Argument .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Nexeon Ltd. v. OneD Material, LLC, IPR2017-00543, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21,
`2017) .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I. SUMMARY
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`Petitioner requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) of the Board’s
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 10, “Decision”) holding
`
`that, for Ground 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 1, “Petition”) did not
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent 8,799,468 (Ex. 1001, “the ’468
`
`patent”).
`
`The Board denied institution of Ground 1 by finding that Petitioner did not
`
`show how the prior art taught a gateway unit receiving controller instructions from
`
`a controller node through a service provider network. (Decision at 7–13.) But the
`
`Petition cited to a prior art passage (i.e., U.S. Patent 5,987,611 to Freund, Ex. 1004,
`
`“Freund”) disclosing exactly that—controller instructions received through a
`
`service provider network. (Petition at 29 and 39–40 (citing Ex. 1004 at 22:22–31).)
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Norman Hutchinson, Ph.D., testified explicitly that the
`
`gateway units receive controller instructions from the controller node through a
`
`service provider network. (Ex. 1003, “Hutchinson Declaration,” at ¶¶ 99 and 117.)
`
`The Board overlooked this evidence and did not reference or discuss this passage in
`
`deciding whether to institute.
`
`The Decision stopped analyzing Freund one line before this passage, though
`
`it was cited by Petitioner. (Compare Decision at 11–12 (citing Freund at 21:57–64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`and 22:7–21), with Petition at 29 and 39–40 (citing Ex. 1004 at 22:22–31).) In
`
`overlooking this explicit disclosure, the Decision also mistakenly concluded that the
`
`Hutchinson Declaration does not address the embodiment of Freund’s Fig. 3B, to
`
`which 22:22–31 relates. (See Decision at 12.) Thus, Ground 1 was improperly
`
`denied. (Decision at 12–13).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its decision and
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1–5, 9, 12, 19, 23–27, and 33 under Ground 1
`
`of the Petition.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A request for rehearing “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.” (37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d).) Here, Petitioner requests rehearing of matters the Board overlooked
`
`from evidence cited in and submitted with its Petition. This request should be granted
`
`because the overlooked evidence is clearly missing from the Board’s analysis and
`
`would have directly addressed an allegedly missing disclosure from the prior art if
`
`it had been properly analyzed. (See Nexeon Ltd. v. OneD Material, LLC, IPR2017-
`
`00543, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017) (granting request for rehearing decision
`
`and overturning denial of institution based on misapprehension of prior art).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Claim 1 of the ’468 patent recites:
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`each of the plurality of gateway units comprising … a
`second network interface coupled to the service provider
`network and configured
`to receive
`the controller
`instructions from the controller node through the service
`provider network.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 18:39–46, emphasis added.) This limitation is designated as claim
`
`“1[f]” in the Petition and is discussed in Ground 1 with respect to at least Fig. 3B of
`
`Freund. (Petition at 38–40.) Fig. 3B of Freund is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`As explained in the Petition, Freund discloses gateway units (clients) with
`
`network interfaces that connect the clients to the service provider network (Internet)
`
`through “Points-of-Presence” (POPs), which may include “a series of modems…, a
`
`server or LAN, and one or more router.” (Petition at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004 at 21:57–
`
`64).) The Petition further clarified that controller instructions are received by the
`
`clients from the supervisor server over the network interfaces:
`
`[O]ver this connection, the network interface will receive
`controller instructions. (EX1004, 22:23-27 (“the monitor
`contacts the central supervisor application 373 on the ISP
`supervisor server 372 in order to receive access rules”)).
`
`(Petition at 39–40; Hutchinson Declaration at ¶ 117.) This explanation elaborated on
`
`an earlier statement introducing Fig. 3B:
`
`With respect to Fig. 3B, Freund discloses that the clients
`(e.g., client 310a) receive access rules (i.e., controller
`instructions) from
`the supervisor before users are
`permitted to use certain network resources. (EX1004,
`22:22-31; EX1003, ¶¶98-99).
`
`(Petition at 29; Hutchinson Declaration at ¶¶ 98–99.)
`
`The cited section of Freund recites, in its entirety:
`
`The Client Monitor on the client PC (e.g., monitor 311a)
`monitors the log-in process. Once the limited access to the
`Internet is established, the monitor contacts the central
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`supervisor application 373 on the ISP supervisor server
`372 in order to receive access rules and other required
`components. Once the central supervisor application 373
`is satisfied that the Client Monitor has received the
`appropriate access rules and is working satisfactory, it
`contacts the POP server 320a to signal that the user now
`has full Internet access.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at 22:23–27, emphases added.)
`
`Therefore, the Petition showed that Freund discloses “gateway units . . .
`
`configured to receive the controller instructions from the controller node through the
`
`service provider network,” as recited by limitation 1[f] of the ’468 patent. This is
`
`because Freund explicitly discloses the client monitor receiving access rules from
`
`the supervisor through the service provider network.
`
`The Board overlooked these disclosures in Freund, as well as their
`
`explanations in the Petition and Hutchinson Declaration, when it concluded that
`
`“Freund … does not disclose client 310 (the ‘gateway unit’) receiving rules from the
`
`supervisor node over Internet 340 in [the embodiment of Fig. 3B].” (Decision at 11–
`
`12.) Instead, the Board analyzed an incomplete portion of Petitioner’s Freund
`
`citations.
`
`First, the Board acknowledged that Freund’s Fig. 3B shows an “ISP-based
`
`embodiment” including a supervisor node (supervisor 373) located remotely from a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`client 310 and connected to the client 310 through POPs 320a. (Decision at 11.) It
`
`then stated that “client 310 does not receive rules from supervisor 373 over Internet
`
`340,” but that “[i]nstead, POP 320a receives rules from supervisor 373 over Internet
`
`340.” (Decision at 11.)
`
`For support, the Decision only cites to Freund at 21:57–64 and 22:7–21.
`
`(Decision at 11–12.) This overlooks Petitioner’s citation of Freund at 22:22–31
`
`(Petition at 29), which directly contradicts the Board’s finding that the Freund
`
`clients do not receive rules from the supervisor. This oversight of Freund’s
`
`description, concurrent Petition explanation, and supporting direct testimony
`
`(Hutchinson Declaration) should be reconsidered.
`
`Additionally, the Decision alleges that “Dr. Hutchinson does not address this
`
`alternate embodiment,” referring to Fig. 3B, and thus accords his testimony little
`
`weight. (Decision at 12.) This statement misapprehends his testimony, and overlooks
`
`that the embodiment of Fig. 3B was discussed several times by Dr. Hutchinson:
`
`With respect to Fig. 3B, Freund discloses that the clients
`(e.g., client 310a) receive access rules (i.e., controller
`instructions) from
`the supervisor before users are
`permitted to use certain network resources. (EX1004,
`22:22-31).
`
`(Hutchinson Declaration at ¶ 99; see also Hutchinson Declaration at ¶¶ 98, 117, 132,
`
`172–174, and 177–180.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Thus, the Board overlooked evidence that directly refutes its assertion that
`
`“client 310 does not receive rules from supervisor 373 over Internet 340” (Decision
`
`at 11). This oversight directly led to the improper denial of institution of Ground 1
`
`of the Petition. (Id. at 9 and 11-12.)
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner requests that the Board institute a
`
`rehearing to grant institution of inter partes review for claims 1–5, 9, 12, 19, 23–27,
`
`and 33 of the ’468 patent pursuant to Ground 1 of the Petition.
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`By: /Scott A. McKeown/
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, Unified Patents
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01934
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S REQUEST
`
`FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) was served by filing this
`
`document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) as
`
`well as providing a courtesy copy via electronic mail to the following attorneys of
`
`record for the Patent Owner listed below:
`
`
`Jeffrey G. Toler (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 38,342
`Toler Law Group, PC
`8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite A201
`Austin, TX 78759
`jtoler@tlgiplaw.com
`
`Aakash Parekh (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 63,536
`Toler Law Group, PC
`8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite A201
`Austin, TX 78759
`aparekh@tlgiplaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`