Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., WHATSAPP INC.,.
`Petitioners
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.,. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,.
`Patent OwnersOwner
`
`
`
`U.S.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00580
`Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`APL1120
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT NO. 8,724,622BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board(PETITION 2 OF 2 – CLAIMS 4, 5, 12, 24-26)
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PatentPat. No. 8,724,622
`
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ....................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 6
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................... 7
`E.
`Power of Attorney .............................................................................. 8
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................... 8
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 .......................................................................................................... 8
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 8
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................... 8
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art............................................................. 10
`V.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................. 10
`A.
`“connection object messages” .......................................................... 10
`B.
`“communication platform system” ................................................... 12
`VI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................. 13
`1.
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ................... 13
`2.
`
`Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103)............................................. 13
`3.
`
`Overview of Shinder (Ex. 1114) ............................................ 16
`4.
`
`Overview of Hethmon (Ex. 1109) .......................................... 17
`
`Overview of Microsoft (1991) (Ex. 1118) and Moghe
`(Ex. 1119) .............................................................................. 20
`1.
`B. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, and 24-26 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Shinder + Hethmon .......................................................................... 23
`
`Claim 3 (From Which Challenged Claims 4 and 5
`Depend), Obviousness Over Zydney in view of Shinder ........ 24
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`(b)
`
`“A system comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 3) .............. 24
`“a network interface connected to a packet-
`switched network;” (Claim 3[a]) .................................. 24
`(i)
`“a network interface” ......................................... 24
`(ii)
`“…connected to a packet-switched
`network;” ........................................................... 29
`“a messaging system communicating with a
`plurality of instant voice message client systems
`via the network interface; and” (Claim 3[b]) ................ 30
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 3[c]) ................................................................. 34
`“wherein the messaging system receives an instant
`voice message from one of the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems, and” (Claim 3[d]) ......... 36
`“wherein the instant voice message includes an
`object field including a digitized audio file.”
`(Claim 3[e]) ................................................................. 37
`(i)
`“object field” ..................................................... 37
`(ii)
`“digitized audio file” .......................................... 39
`Claim 4 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes an action
`field identifying one of a predetermined set of permitted
`actions requested by the user.” ............................................... 40
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Claim 5 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 4,
`wherein the predetermined set of permitted actions
`includes at least one of a connection request, a
`disconnection request, a subscription request, an
`unsubscription request, a message transmission request,
`and a set status request.” ........................................................ 48
`Claim 24 (Independent) ......................................................... 49
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Claim 24, Preamble) ............ 49
`“a network interface connected to a packet-switched
`network;” (Claim 24[a]) ............................................... 49
`“a messaging system communicating with a plurality of
`instant voice message client systems via the
`network interface; and” (Claim 24[b]) ......................... 49
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 24[c]) ............................................................... 49
`“wherein the messaging system receives
`connection object messages from the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems,” (Claim
`24[d]) ........................................................................... 49
`“wherein each of the connection object messages
`includes data representing a state of a logical
`connection with a given one of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems.” (Claim
`24[d1]) ......................................................................... 56
`Claim 25 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the connection object messages identifies at
`least one of a socket, a size of data to be transferred and a
`priority of the data.” ............................................................... 57
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 26 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the communication platform system
`populates a connection list for the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems with the data in the
`connection object messages received from each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems.” ................. 57
`C. Ground 2: Claim 12 Is Obvious Over Zydney + Shinder +
`Microsoft (1991) + Moghe ............................................................... 60
`
`Claim 12 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`3, wherein the communication platform system updates
`the connection information for each of the instant voice
`message client systems by periodically transmitting a
`connection status request to the given one of the plurality
`of instant voice message client systems.” ............................... 60
`VII. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 69
`I. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ....................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 6
`D.
`Service Information ........................................................................... 7
`E.
`Power of Attorney .............................................................................. 8
`Fee Payment - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................... 8
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 and
`42.108 .......................................................................................................... 8
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 8
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................... 8
`IV. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art............................................................. 10
`V.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................. 10
`A.
`“connection object messages” .......................................................... 10
`
`6.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“communication platform system” ................................................... 12
`B.
`VI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................. 13
`A.
`Brief Summary and Date Qualification of the Prior Art ................... 13
`
`Overview of Zydney (Ex. 1103)............................................. 13
`
`Overview of Shinder (Ex. 1114) ............................................ 16
`1.
`
`Overview of Hethmon (Ex. 1109) .......................................... 17
`2.
`
`Overview of Microsoft (1991) (Ex. 1118) and Moghe
`3.
`(Ex. 1119) .............................................................................. 20
`4.
`B. Ground 1: Claims 4, 5, and 24-26 Are Obvious Over Zydney +
`Shinder + Hethmon .......................................................................... 23
`
`Claim 3 (From Which Challenged Claims 4 and 5
`Depend), Obviousness Over Zydney in view of Shinder ........ 24
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Preamble, Claim 3) .............. 24
`(b)
`“a network interface connected to a packet-
`switched network;” (Claim 3[a]) .................................. 24
`(i)
`“a network interface” ......................................... 24
`(ii)
`“…connected to a packet-switched
`network;” ........................................................... 29
`“a messaging system communicating with a
`plurality of instant voice message client systems
`via the network interface; and” (Claim 3[b]) ................ 30
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 3[c]) ................................................................. 34
`“wherein the messaging system receives an instant
`voice message from one of the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems, and” (Claim 3[d]) ......... 36
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(f)
`
`“wherein the instant voice message includes an
`object field including a digitized audio file.”
`(Claim 3[e]) ................................................................. 37
`(i)
`“object field” ..................................................... 37
`(ii)
`“digitized audio file” .......................................... 39
`Claim 4 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 3,
`wherein the instant voice message includes an action
`field identifying one of a predetermined set of permitted
`actions requested by the user.” ............................................... 40
`Claim 5 (Dependent): “The system according to claim 4,
`wherein the predetermined set of permitted actions
`includes at least one of a connection request, a
`disconnection request, a subscription request, an
`unsubscription request, a message transmission request,
`and a set status request.” ........................................................ 48
`Claim 24 (Independent) ......................................................... 49
`(a)
`“A system comprising:” (Claim 24, Preamble) ............ 49
`“a network interface connected to a packet-switched
`network;” (Claim 24[a]) ............................................... 49
`“a messaging system communicating with a plurality of
`instant voice message client systems via the
`network interface; and” (Claim 24[b]) ......................... 49
`“a communication platform system maintaining
`connection information for each of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems indicating
`whether there is a current connection to each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems,”
`(Claim 24[c]) ............................................................... 49
`“wherein the messaging system receives
`connection object messages from the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems,” (Claim
`24[d]) ........................................................................... 49
`
`(b)
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`“wherein each of the connection object messages
`includes data representing a state of a logical
`connection with a given one of the plurality of
`instant voice message client systems.” (Claim
`24[d1]) ......................................................................... 56
`Claim 25 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the connection object messages identifies at
`least one of a socket, a size of data to be transferred and a
`priority of the data.” ............................................................... 57
`Claim 26 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`24, wherein the communication platform system
`populates a connection list for the plurality of instant
`voice message client systems with the data in the
`connection object messages received from each of the
`plurality of instant voice message client systems.” ................. 57
`C. Ground 2: Claim 12 Is Obvious Over Zydney + Shinder +
`Microsoft (1991) + Moghe ............................................................... 60
`
`Claim 12 (Dependent): “The system according to claim
`3, wherein the communication platform system updates
`the connection information for each of the instant voice
`message client systems by periodically transmitting a
`connection status request to the given one of the plurality
`of instant voice message client systems.” ............................... 60
`VII. This Petition is substantively identical to ’1668 and ’1805 ........................ 68
`VIII. The Board should institute in view of Blue Coat Systems........................... 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`NoExhibit
`
`Exhibits
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 to Michael J. Rojas (filed July 11, 2012,
`issued May 13, 2014)
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”) (with line numbers added)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman (filed February 24,
`1997, issued June 15, 2004) (“Appelman”)
`
`Excerpts from MARGARET LEVINE YOUNG, INTERNET: THE
`COMPLETE REFERENCE (McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2d ed. 2002)
`
`N. Borenstein et al., Request for Comments (RFC) 1521: MIME
`(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for
`Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies,
`September 1993 (“RFC 1521”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October 16,
`2000, issued June 29, 2004)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,725,228 to David Morley Clark et al. (filed Oct.
`31, 2000, issued April 20, 2004) (“Clark”)
`
`Excerpts from PAUL S. HETHMON, ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP
`(Manning Publications Co., 1997) (“Hethmon”)
`
`Excerpts from CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK ADMINISTRATION
`(O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998) (“Hunt”)
`
`HTTP Working Group, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,
`Nov. 22, 1995 (draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt)
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`DATED: 6/17/13
`DRAFT
`Cooley LLP
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex.
`NoExhibit
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`Description of Document
`
`Excerpts from MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft Press,
`3d ed. 1997)
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney et
`al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line numbers)
`
`Excerpts from DEBRA LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER
`NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2002) (“Shinder”)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of PAUL S. HETHMON,
`ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO HTTP (Manning Publications Co., 1997)
`
`Library date stamped copy of CRAIG HUNT, TCP/IP NETWORK
`ADMINISTRATION (O’Reilly, 2d Ed. 1998)
`
`Library of Congress stamped/dated copy of DEBRA LITTLEJOHN
`SHINDER, COMPUTER NETWORKING ESSENTIALS (Cisco Press, 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (1991)
`(“Microsoft (1991)”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,323 to Pratyush Moghe (filed Dec. 24, 1997,
`issued Jan. 9, 2001) (“Moghe”)
`
`Compare copy of the current Petition showing differences between
`the current Petition and the petition filed in IPR2017-01668
`
`Compare copy of the Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Exhibit
`1102), showing the differences between Exhibit 1102 and the
`Declaration as filed in IPR2017-01668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`This is a petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 4, 5, 12, and 24-26 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (Ex. 1101) (“’622 patent”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`FacebookApple, Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. (“Petitioners(“Petitioner”) are the
`
`real partiesparty-in-interest to this inter partes review petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’622 patent was the subject of two requests for inter partes review
`
`(IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224) filed by Apple Inc. on November 14, 2016,
`
`which were denied by the Board on May 25, 2017. The Petitioners herein were not
`
`parties to and did not participate in the preparation of those petitions.
`
`Eleven inter partes review petitions have been filed against the ’622 patent:
`
`Petitioner
`IPR Number
`IPR2017-00223 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-00224 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01804 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01805 Apple Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01667 Facebook, Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`Status
`
`Denied
`
`Denied
`
`Joinder Petition denied without
`prejudice – Board requested Apple to
`file joinder Petition IPR2018-00579
`
`Joinder Petition denied without
`prejudice – Board requested Apple to
`file joinder Petition IPR2018-00580
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Instituted, Original Petition
`
`Joinder Petition, Pending
`
`Original Petition, Pending
`
`Original Petition, Pending
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`IPR2017-01668 Facebook, Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01797 Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01798 Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-02090 Hauwei Device Co.,
`Ltd and LG
`Electronics, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-02080 Google, Inc.;
`Motorola Mobility
`LLC; Hauwei
`Investment & Holding
`Co., Ltd.; Hauwei
`Device Co., Ltd.;
`Hauwei Device USA,
`Inc.; and Huawei
`Device (Dongguan)
`Co., Ltd.
`
`IPR2017-02081 Google, Inc.;
`Motorola Mobility
`LLC; Hauwei
`Investment & Holding
`Co., Ltd.; Hauwei
`Device Co., Ltd.;
`Hauwei Device USA,
`Inc.; and Huawei
`Device (Dongguan)
`Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`On July 20, 2017, Apple filed the ’1804 and ’1805 petitions. As noted
`
`above, the Board denied institution “without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`a new petition accompanied by a request for joinder pursuant to and within the
`
`time period permitted by 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).” Accordingly, Petitioner files the
`
`instant petition and an accompanied request for joinder pursuant to §42.122(b).
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, the Petitioners arePetitioner is
`
`filing another petition for inter partes review to address claims not covered by the
`
`present Petition. More specifically, the present Petition addresses claims 4, 5, 12,
`
`and 24-26, whereas the other petition addresses claims 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14-23,
`
`27-35, 38, and 39. The PetitionersPetitioner filed theirits challenges against these
`
`claims in two separate petitions to provide a more complete and thorough
`
`treatment of each claim.
`
`The ’622 patent is also the subject of twoone pending litigationslitigation
`
`involving the PetitionersPetitioner: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Facebook,Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-0072800638-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed July 5, 2016 and served July
`
`11, 2016) and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex. filed June 14, 2016 and served July 21, 2016), which havehas been
`
`consolidated for pretrial purposes with Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG (E.D. Tex.). These
`
`petitions are timely under the one year statute of limitations in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Currently, these litigations arethis litigation is stayed pending the outcome of other
`
`IPR petitions filed by third party Apple IncPetitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`The Petitioners arePetitioner is also aware of the following additional
`
`pending litigations involving the ’622 patent: Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Blackberry
`
`Corporation et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00639-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`
`al. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00696-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.
`
`v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`Green Tomato Limited, Case No. 2:16-cv-00731-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00732-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00892-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. HTC America, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:16-cv-00989-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kyocera America, Inc.
`
`et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00990-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00993-JRG
`
`(E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`2:16-cv-00994-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-00214-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:17-cv-00224-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, Inc., Case
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`No. 2:17-cv-00231-JRG (E.D. Tex.); and Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. KIK
`
`Interactive, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00347-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`
`al. v. Hike Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00349-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et al.
`
`v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00645-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Uniloc USA, Inc. et
`
`al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. .).2:16-cv-00728-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Although the
`
`Petitioners arePetitioner is not partiesa party to those other litigations, because they
`
`involve allegations of infringement of the ’622 patent, they may be impacted by a
`
`decision by the Board in this IPR proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioners providePetitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Heidi L. KeefeJason D. Eisenberg (Reg.
`No. 40,673)43,447)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`FB_Uniloc2_622_PTAB_IPR@cooley.co
`m
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 PennsylvaniaSterne, Kessler,
`Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`, N.W. Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8645
`Fax: (650) 849-7400 202.371.2540
`Email: jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Phillip E. MortonMichael D. Specht
`(Reg. No. 57,835)54,463)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`FB_Uniloc2_622_PTAB_IPR@cool
`ey.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 PennsylvaniaSterne, Kessler,
`Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`, N.W. Washington D.C. 20004, DC
`20005
`Tel: (703) 456-8668
`Phone: 202.772.8756
`Fax: (703) 456-8100202.371.2540
`Email: mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`Trent W. Merrell (Reg. No. Mark R.
`Weinstein (Admission pro hac vice
`pending)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`73,771)
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202.772.8519
`Fax: (650) 849-7400202.371.2540
`Email: tmerrell-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`Service Information
`D.
`This Petition is being served to the current correspondence address for the
`
`’622 patent, Legacy Town Center, 7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380, Plano, Texas
`
`75024. The Petitioners consentPetitioner consents to electronic service at the
`
`addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel with a courtesy copy to
`
`ptab@skgf.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`Power of Attorney
`E.
`Filed concurrently in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of six claims and addresses one unchallenged
`
`independent claim (claim 3) from which three challenged claims depend. A
`
`payment of $23,00030,500 is submitted herewith, based on a $9,00015,500 request
`
`fee (for up to 20 claims), and a $1415,000 post-institution fee (for up to 15 claims).
`
`This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). If additional
`
`fees are due at any time during this proceeding, the Director is hereby authorized to
`
`charge such fees to Cooley LLP’s deposit account number 50-1283.19-0036
`
`(Customer ID No. 45324).
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`The Petitioners certifyPetitioner certifies that the ’622 patent is available for
`
`inter partes review and that the Petitioners arePetitioner is not barred or otherwise
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`The PetitionersPetitioner respectfully requestrequests that the Board initiate
`
`inter partes review on the following grounds (bold underlining showing the
`
`independent claim):
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`Claims
`4, 5, 24,
`25, 26
`12
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Shinder
`(Ex. 1114) and Hethmon (Ex. 1109) under § 103(a)
`Unpatentable over Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Shinder
`(Ex. 1114), Microsoft (1991) (Ex. 1118), and Moghe
`(Ex. 1119), under § 103(a)
`Grounds 1 and 2 challenge dependent claims 4, 5 and 12, which depend
`
`from independent claim 3. As explained in Part I.B, the Petitioners arePetitioner
`
`is concurrently filing a separate petition that addresses other claims of the ’622
`
`patent. That Petition challenges independent claim 3 as being obvious over
`
`Zydney (Ex. 1103) in view of Shinder (Ex. 1109), and as such, the present Petition
`
`does not directly challenge that claim. Nevertheless, because claims 4, 5, and 12
`
`depend from – and thus incorporate the limitations of – claim 3, this Petition will
`
`also set forth the invalidity analysis of claim 3 from the other Petition to provide a
`
`foundation for Grounds 1 and 2 as to claims 4, 5, and 12.
`
`Part VI below explains why the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`
`on the grounds identified above. The references cited above were not cited during
`
`the original prosecution of the ’622 patent, and were not cited in the separate IPR
`
`petitions filed by Apple Inc.Petitioner (IPR2017-00223 and IPR2017-00224) that
`
`were denied by the Board on May 25, 2017. Submitted with the Petition is the
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D. (Ex. 1102) (“Lavian”), a technical expert with
`
`decades of relevant technical experience. (Lavian, Ex. 1102, ¶¶1-10, Ex. A.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As explained by Dr. Lavian, a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes
`
`of the ’622 patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of
`
`experience in development and programming relating to network communication
`
`systems (or equivalent degree or experience). (Lavian, ¶¶13-15.)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`The constructions below provide the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“connection object messages”
`
`A.
`The PetitionersPetitioner respectfully requestrequests
`
`that
`
`the Board
`
`interpret “connection object messages” in the context of claim 24 of the ’622
`
`patent as “messages containing data representing the state of the connection
`
`and code (one or more methods) for establishing and maintaining the logical
`
`connections between an instant voice messaging server and instant voice
`
`messaging clients.” This is the construction to which the Petitioners and the
`
`Patent Owner have stipulated in the concurrent litigation, and is also consistent
`
`with the meaning of “connection object messages” based on the specification.
`
`(Lavian, ¶¶66-68.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
`
`The proposed construction comes almost directly from the specification of
`
`the ’622 patent, which provides the following description of connection objects:
`
`Connection objects maintain the logical connections between the IVM
`server 202 and IVM clients 206, 208 connected to the IVM server
`202. More specifically, a connection object comprises data
`representing the state of the connection and code (one or more
`methods) for establishing and maintaining the logical connections
`between the IVM server 202 and the IVM clients 206, 208 within the
`IVM system 200 of FIG. 2. The connection object can contain both
`data and/or commands, including information that describes the
`socket, the size of the data to be transferred, and the priority of the
`transfer (e.g., high, normal, low, unknown). On start up the local
`IVM server 202 generates and maintains a list for each IVM
`client 206, 208. The local IVM server 202 then waits to receive
`connection objects from the IVM clients 206, 208 that are stored in
`the respective lists, decodes the received connection objects to obtain
`specific requests, and then services the specific requests from the IVM
`clients 206, 208.
`
`(’622, 14:47-63.)1 The Board should therefore construe “connection object
`
`messages” as “messages containing data representing the state of the
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all underlining or boldface type in quotations
`
`appearing in this Petition has been added for emphasis.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Parte