Apple Inc.
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`Case IPR2017-01993
`(Patent 9,414,199)
`
`Hearing Before Miriam L. Quinn,
`Kerry Begley, and
`Charles J. Boudreau
`
`December 4, 2018
`
`
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`Case IPR2017-01993
`(Patent 9,414,199)
`
`Hearing Before Miriam L. Quinn,
`Kerry Begley, and
`Charles J. Boudreau
`
`December 4, 2018
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`1. A method for delivering information to two or more user devices, the
`method comprising:
`retrieving the information from one or more data records that
`associate the information with one or more predetermined
`locations, a predetermined maximum amount of time, a
`predetermined likelihood, and one or more predetermined actions;
`and
`for each of the two or more user devices:
`predicting whether the user device will be at any of the one or more
`predetermined locations within the predetermined maximum
`amount of time with at least the predetermined likelihood; and
`in response to the predicting that the user device will be at any of the
`one or more predetermined locations within the predetermined
`maximum amount of time with at least the predetermined
`likelihood, performing the one or more predetermined actions;
`wherein at least one of the actions includes delivering the
`information to the user device.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 2−5
`
`2. The method of claim 1 wherein predicting comprises:
`analyzing a location history of the user device.
`3. The method of claim 1 wherein predicting comprises:
`analyzing a location history of the user device for
`day-and time-based patterns related to a current
`time and a current day.
`4. The method of claim 1 wherein predicting comprises:
`analyzing a location history of the user device for
`movement patterns related to a current location of
`the user device.
`5. The method of claim 1 further comprising: analyzing
`a location history of the user device for patterns that
`involve day-and time-based and movement related
`to a current time, a current day, and a current
`location of the user device.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Dispute
`
`The onlyclaim construction proposed and defended in the
`briefing for “within the predetermined maximum
`amount of time” (claim 1) is the following:
`
`a predetermined maximum quantity of time starting
`from when the “predicting” calculation is executed
`
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 6−14; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`4
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`Ex. 1001, ’199 patent, col. 1 lines 47−64
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 6−14; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`5
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`Ex. 1001, ’199 patent, col. 2 lines 17−27
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 6−14; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`6
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`Ex. 1001, ’199 patent, col. 5 lines 25−28.
`
`Id., col. 5 lines 34−39.
`Id., col. 4 lines 48−50.
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 6−14; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`7
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`“predicting whether the user device will be at any of the one or more
`predetermined locations within the predetermined maximum amount
`of time with at least the predetermined likelihood”
`
`Current Time
`Current Day
`Current Location
`
`Current Context
`
`(Within) Maximum Quantity of Time
`
`Predicting Calculation Executed
`
`(predicting … will be at any of the one or more predetermined locations ...)
`
`TIME
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 6−14; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`future times
`(relevant to present time)
`
`present time
`
`8
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof, including for its alternative arguments
`based on a construction of “within the predetermined maximum amount of
`time” to mean “a maximum time period calculated from the current
`time to the predicted time of arrival at a predetermined location”
`Pet. 68
`
`IPR2017-01993, Resp. (Paper 14) at p. 11.
`
`Pet. 70
`
`9
`
`
`
`The “current context” of the ’199 patent
`
`One problem with Petitioner’s undefended construction is
`that the claim language does not define the “predetermined
`maximum amount time” as expiring based on a predicated
`time of arrivalat a predicated location.
`
`Current Time
`Current Day
`Current Location
`
`Current Context
`
`Predicting Calculation Executed
`
`(Within) Maximum Quantity of Time
`
`(predicting … will be at any of the one or more predetermined locations)
`
`Petitioner excludes this time
`TIME
`IPR2017-01993, Resp. (Paper 14) at p. 11 n.9.
`
`Predicted time of arrival …
`
`10
`
`
`
`No Proof of Prosecution History Disclaimer
`
`Petitioner has not met its exacting burden to prove the prosecution
`history gives rise to any disclaimer that allegedly defeats the only
`proposed and defended construction.
`Petitioner presents the following new argument in its Reply:
`(Reply 8.)
`The quoted pros. history does not disclaim the “current context”
`description Petitioner admitsis encompassed by claim 1:
`(’199 patent,
`1:47−19.)
`
`IPR2017-01993, Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at p. 5-7.
`
`11
`
`
`
`No Proof of Prosecution History Disclaimer
`
`During prosecution, the PTAB summarized Applicant’sarguments
`successfully raised on appeal as follows:
`
`Pros. History, EX1002, pp. 22 of 234.
`IPR2017-01993, Sur-Reply (Paper 21) at p. 5-7.
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`Interpreting the claims as reflecting the thematic “current context” of
`the ’199 patent is entirely fatal to the Petition:
`It is undisputed that the Blegenmodel relies on a “specified time
`period” defined by fixed start and stop times that both occur in the
`future, such as an afternoon on a future date. (Resp. at 15; Pet. 17.)
`It is undisputed that the “offer period” in Monteverde requires
`calculation in advance of a period that starts at a future time. (Id. 17.)
`The Petition argues that the proposed combination of Charlebois
`with Gillies would require modification (allegedly based on Froloff)
`at least to the extent the “predicting” limitations require a maximum
`time period calculated from the current time. (Resp. 20; Pet. 68, 70.)
`The Board has already found the Petition does not meet even the
`lower threshold burden for institution based on the proposed
`combination with Froloff . (Resp. 27, citing Paper 10 at 42.)
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 14−28; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`It is undisputed that the Blegenmodel relies on a “specified time
`period” defined by fixed start and stop times that bothoccur in the
`future, such as an afternoon on a future date. (Resp. at 15; Pet. 17.)
`Ex. 1004 (Blegen) ¶61.
`
`DI (Paper 10) at 18−19.
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 14−28; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`It is undisputed that the “offer period” in Monteverde requires
`calculation in advance of a period that starts at a future time. (Id. 17.)
`
`DI (Paper 10) at 22.
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 14−28; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`15
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`The Petition argues that the proposed combination of Charlebois
`with Gillies would require modification (allegedly based on Froloff)
`at least to the extent the “predicting” limitations require a maximum
`time period calculated from the current time. (Resp. 20; Pet. 68, 70.)
`Pet. 68
`
`Pet. 70
`
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 14−28; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`The Board has already found the Petition does not meet even the
`lower threshold burden for institution based on the proposed
`combination with Froloff . (Resp. 27, citing Paper 10 at 42.)
`
`IPR2017-01993, Response (Paper 14) at 14−28; Sur-Reply (Paper 21).
`
`17
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`
`The new and inconsistent arguments Petitioner attempts to
`introduce in its Reply do not cure the conceded deficiencies of
`Gillies. (Compare Pet. 68 and 70 with Reply 14−15.)
`
`In the Petition, the curt application of Gillies against the
`“predicting” limitations relies exclusively on a specific iteration
`(LTCC) of what Gillies refers to as equation (5), where the time
`period (D1) is defined to start at a future time on an upcoming
`Saturday as follows:
`“D1 = the Saturday of the sale event, e.g., 9:00 am start time
`and 6:00 pm end time.”
`EX1008 ¶¶ 53, 62–63; Pet. 60–61 (citing same); Ex. 1003 ¶¶
`182 (copying the Petition).
`In addressing what Petitioner refers to as Element [1c], the
`Froloff) if claim 1 is construed to require a current context.
`(Pet. 68, 70; see also Slide 15, supra.)
`IPR2017-01993, Resp. 22-23 (citingEX1008 ¶¶ 53, 62–63; Pet. 60–61; EX1003 (Robins Dec.) ¶¶ 182.
`
`Petition argues a Gillies must be modified (allegedly by
`
`18
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`The new and inconsistent arguments Petitioner attempts to
`Gillies describes its “location criterion” as “a target areain
`introduce in its Reply do not cure the conceded deficiencies of
`which a potential recipient terminal should be within(or
`Gillies. (Compare Pet. 68 and 70 with Reply 14−15.)
`outside of) in order for the broadcast information to be
`pertinent.” (EX1008 ¶32.) This is distinguishable from the
`recitation “predicting whether the user device will be atany
`of the one or more predetermined locations.” (Resp. 25.)
`Gillies equation or “Eq” (1) is distinguishable because it
`applies a “set” of multiple “time periods” and corresponding
`“target area” criterion, where each one of the multiple time
`periods is defined in part by its own respective start time and
`stop time. (Resp. 26, citing EX1008 ¶33.) Consistent with that
`description, equation (1) specifically identifies the set as
`including at least three distinct time periods (D1, D2, and D3):
`IPR2017-01993, Resp. 24-27.
`
`19
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to prove any
`theory that applies the “current context”
`The new and inconsistent arguments Petitioner attempts to
`introduce in its Reply do not cure the conceded deficiencies of
`Gillies. (Compare Pet. 68 and 70 with Reply 14−15.)
`
`IPR2017-01993, Resp. 26-27.
`
`20
`
`
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
