`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00131
`U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s “Transport Layer Header” Requirements Are
`Inconsistent With Its Positions in Prior and Current Litigations .......... 2
`
`Patent Owner’s “Transport Layer Header” Requirements Conflict
`With the Plain and Ordinary Meaning of the Claims ............................ 3
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Exhibit List .................................................................................................................. i
`
`Certificate Of Service............................................................................................... iii
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for “aggregated message,” “payload
`
`portion,” and “aggregated payload” are far narrower than past litigation
`
`constructions it successfully urged various courts to adopt. Paper 6 (“POPR”), 5-
`
`13; see II.A below. Those constructions are shown below, with its newly added
`
`requirements underlined:
`
`“aggregated message” — One or more messages containing a single
`transport layer message header, destination data, and data items from an
`aggregated payload.
`
`“payload portion” — A portion of the original network message (that
`contains data item(s) conveying information) sent to the group messaging
`server remaining after the transport layer header is removed.
`
`“aggregated payload” — A collection of two or more data items that does
`not include transport layer headers.
`
`Patent Owner seeks to import these “transport layer header” requirements in
`
`an obvious attempt to sidestep Petitioner’s challenge. But Patent Owner cannot
`
`amend its expired patent through claim construction, nor can it twist its claims like
`
`“a nose of wax ... by merely referring to the specification.” White v. Dunbar, 119
`
`U.S. 47, 51 (1886). Patent Owner’s proposed “transport layer header” requirements
`
`have no support in the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims. The Board should
`
`reject Patent Owner’s constructions for these reasons and those explained below.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s “Transport Layer Header” Requirements Are
`Inconsistent With Its Positions in Prior and Current Litigations
`
`Patent Owner’s “transport layer header” requirements are found nowhere in
`
`its prior constructions of these terms. For example, in PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., No. 2:09-cv-274 (E.D. Tex.), Patent
`
`Owner agreed to a construction of “payload portion,” Ex. 1032, 2, and proposed
`
`constructions that were adopted by the court for “aggregated payload” and
`
`“aggregated message.” Id., Ex. A at 14-15, 17-18. None of these constructions
`
`contained the “transport layer header” requirements highlighted above or, indeed,
`
`any “header” requirement at all. Patent Owner also asserted these prior
`
`constructions when it initiated litigation against Petitioner. See Ex. 1016, 93
`
`(quoting “aggregated message” from Sony litigation); id., 121-122 (quoting
`
`construction of “aggregating said payload portions” without any variation of the
`
`“transport layer header” requirements). Those prior positions eviscerate Patent
`
`Owner’s claim that its new, overly narrow constructions are the “ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See POPR,
`
`2. Only after it had reviewed the patentability challenge in the present Petition did
`
`Patent Owner discover this new “ordinary and accustomed meaning.”
`
`Further, Patent Owner should be judicially estopped “from deliberately
`
`changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” U.S. v. McCaskey,
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`9. F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 1993). By its own admission, Patent Owner has
`
`advanced clearly inconsistent positions, Ex. 1036, 10:19-11:13, and has persuaded
`
`a court to accept those positions, PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entm't
`
`Am., Inc., No. 2:09-CV-274, 2011 WL 1326963, at *15 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2011)
`
`(adopting construction for “aggregated message”); PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., No. 2:06-CV-367, 2008 WL 4830571, at *8 (E.D. Tex. July 29,
`
`2008) (same for “payload portion”); id., *9-13 (adopting, in effect, construction for
`
`“aggregated payload”). Patent Owner also seeks to derive an unfair advantage: to
`
`preserve the patentability of its patent via a narrower construction than it accused
`
`defendants of infringing for decades. Such actions present a clear case for judicial
`
`estoppel. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s “Transport Layer Header” Requirements
`Conflict With the Plain and Ordinary Meaning of the Claims
`
`Even putting aside Patent Owner’s inconsistent positions, it would be
`
`improper to incorporate the extra “transport layer header” limitations into these
`
`claim terms. Patent Owner proposes, in effect, that the “payload portion” exclude
`
`all “transport layer headers,” the “aggregated payload” likewise exclude them, and
`
`the “aggregated message” include at most a single “transport layer message
`
`header.” POPR, 5-13. But there is no basis for importing such limitations.
`
`Claim 1, for example, recites “messages contain[ing] a payload portion,” and
`
`the specification uses “payload” in a conventional sense. Ex. 1002, 3:64-66.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`Nothing in either the claim or specification suggests that a payload cannot contain
`
`a header. Indeed, the ’686 patent explains that the Internet Protocol (IP) and
`
`conventional networking use the OSI reference model for layers of network
`
`protocols. Id., 3:29-54 (citing RFC 791). Yet, OSI network layers are hierarchical:
`
`an IP packet payload may be an entire TCP packet including a TCP header and
`
`payload. E.g., Ex. 1011 (RFC 791), 1 (“[T]he [IP] module [could] take a TCP
`
`segment (including the TCP header and user data) as the data portion of an [IP]
`
`datagram.”). A “payload portion” could thus comprise a TCP header, and an
`
`“aggregated payload”/“aggregated message” could have multiple TCP headers.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response concedes these terms can
`
`comprise encapsulated headers. Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 9 from the
`
`patent, for example, shows an “aggregated message” (top row) and “aggregated
`
`payload” (green). The aggregated payload includes payload elements (red) that
`
`comprise the “actual data” of
`
`the payload (119 & 122) and
`
`header information (117, 118,
`
`120, 121), such as a source
`
`address and length of data in
`
`the payload. See POPR, 8; Ex. 1002, Fig. 9, 14:38-51.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`Because it cannot credibly argue, consistent with the specification, that the
`
`claimed payloads and messages exclude headers, Patent Owner proposes excluding
`
`“transport layer headers,” citing portions of the specification where “Transport
`
`Layer Protocol (TLP)” headers are removed. POPR, 5-13.1 But that is merely a
`
`naked request to read limitations in from the specification that are not reflected in
`
`the words of the claims. Indeed, claim 1 does not require the claimed
`
`“aggregating” functionality occur at any particular layer, “transport” or otherwise,
`
`cf claim 21 (said “messaging protocol is performed at a session layer”), and Patent
`
`Owner’s justification and expert testimony relate mostly to “headers” generally,
`
`see POPR, 5-6 (discussing “single message header”); Ex. 2001, ¶¶30-31, 36
`
`(same). Patent Owner cannot therefore justify excluding a specific type of header.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board should reject Patent Owner’s proposed “transport header layer”
`
`requirements, or at least allow the parties to explore the issues during trial.
`
`Dated: March 30, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`1 The ’686 patent explains that a “Transport Layer Protocol (TLP)” can be IP (Ex.
`
`1002, 9:10-11), TCP/IP (id., 26:28-29), or not “based on IP” at all (id., 27:38-43).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,822,523
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686
`1003 Prosecution File History (523 Patent)
`1004 Prosecution File History (686 Patent)
`1005 Reexamination File History (523 Patent)
`1006 Reexamination File History (686 Patent)
`1007 Declaration of Dr. Steve R. White
`1008 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Steve R. White
`1009
`International Publication No. WO 94/11814 (Aldred)
`1010 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux), RFC 1692 (Aug. 1994)
`1011
`Internet Protocol, RFC 791 (Sept. 1981)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,466,200 (Ulrich)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5206,934 (Naef)
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,413 (Denzer)
`1015
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (1994)
`1016 Complaint, PalTalk Holdings, Inc. v. Riot Games, Inc., C.A. No. 1:16-
`cv-01240-SLR (Dec. 16, 2016)
`John D. Day et al., The OSI Reference Model, 71-12 Proceedings of the
`IEEE 1334 (1983)
`1018 Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport:
`Concepts and Methods, RFC 1001 (Mar. 1987)
`1019 Martin W. Sachs et al., LAN and I/O Convergence: A Survey of the
`Issues, IEEE Computer (1994)
`1020 Enrico Y. P. Hsu et al., Management Gaming on a Computer Mediated
`Conferencing System: A Case of Collaborative Learning through
`Computer Conference, IEEE (1991)
`1021 The Internet Standards Process – Revision 2, RFC 1602 (Mar. 1994)
`
`1017
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`Exhibit Description
`No.
`Internet Official Protocol Standards, RFC 1720 (Nov. 1994)
`1022
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,502,726 (Fischer)
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337 (Szymanski)
`1025
`Internet Relay Chat Protocol, RFC 1459 (May 1993)
`1026 Declaration of Dave Crocker
`1027 CV of Dave Crocker
`1028 The Internet Standards Process, RFC 1310 (Mar. 1992)
`1029 The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3, RFC 2026 (Oct. 1996)
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,558,339 (Perlman)
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 5,041,963 (Ebersole)
`1032 PR 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement, PalTalk Holdings, Inc., v.
`Sony Comp. Entertainment Am. Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-274-DF, Dkt. No.
`209 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2010)
`1033 Claim Construction Order, PalTalk Holdings, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 2:06-cv-367-DF (E.D. Tex.)
`1034 Song et al., A Distributed Simulation System for Team Decisionmaking,
`IEEE (1994)
`1035 Weaver et al., Networked Simulations: New Paradigms for Team
`Performance Research, 27(1), BEHAV. RES. METHODS, INSTRUMENTS, &
`COMPUTERS, 12-24 (1995)
`Transcript of Board Teleconference Regarding Petitioner’s Request for a
`Preliminary Reply (March 26, 2018)
`
`
`1036
`NEW
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686)
`
`Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 30th day of
`
`March, 2018, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing and
`
`any accompanying exhibits by electronic mail on the following counsel:
`
`Gregory M. Howison, ghowison@munckwilson.com
`Keith D. Harden, kharden@munckwilson.com
`Brian D. Walker, bwalker@munckwilson.com
`
`
`
`Dated: March 30, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`iii
`
`