`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M & K HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 11, 2019
`__________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
`SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`QUADEER A. AHMED, ESQ.
`JOSEPH PALYS, ESQ.
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`875 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 551-1905
`quadeerahmed@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`JOHN BAUER, ESQ.
`KONGSIK KIM, ESQ.
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`Chrysler Center
`666 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`(212) 692-6795 (Bauer)
`jabauer@mintz.com
`kkim@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 11,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`1:34 p.m.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Good afternoon everyone. This is
`Samsung Electronics Company Limited versus M&K Holdings, Inc.
`We have three cases before us, IPR2018-00696, -00697, and -00698.
`I have -- we have Judge Fenick and Judge Haapala on the screen.
`This case involves three patents, 9,113,163 B2, 9,191,673 B2,
`and 9,197,896 B2. We have a couple of preliminary matters to take
`care of. There are some objections to the slides for one.
`But first of all, why don't we get the parties to introduce
`themselves, starting with Petitioner.
`MR. PALYS: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Joseph Palys
`for Petitioner. I'm joined with my colleague, Quadeer Ahmed, who
`will be presenting today.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Great. Welcome gentlemen. How
`about Patent Owner?
`MR. BAUER: Good afternoon. John Bauer, lead counsel
`for M&K. I'm here with my partner Kongsik Kim and my colleague,
`Todd McGrath.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Welcome. Okay, before we start, I
`think Petitioner, or Patent Owner, excuse me, you had objections to I
`think it was slides 41 through 44. And they dealt with the Ibex cases.
`Is that right?
`MR. BAUER: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Do you want to address that?
`MR. BAUER: Sure.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So Mr. Bauer you want to?
`MR. BAUER: So, according to the Scheduling Order, on Friday,
`May 31 the parties exchanged demonstratives. Then the parties agreed --
`and it was a simultaneous exchange, I think, at five o'clock on Friday
`afternoon.
`Then I believe it was either Monday or Tuesday, the parties lodged
`objections. And then I responded to Petitioner's objections and gave them
`a revised set to the best of my ability.
`And then we didn't -- we only had one objection to their
`demonstratives. I believe it's on Thursday afternoon, two hours before they
`were due, Samsung just simply filed four brand new, I think it's slides 40
`through 44, Your Honor, just brand new, out of the blue.
`And the subject matter they are directed to, was the Ibex decisions.
`Now, there was another slide that's already of record where Petitioner cited
`the Ibex decision in support of a finding a working draft to be a publication.
`These slide deal with input documents, which I'm sure we'll hear a
`lot about today. And if you look at those slides, 40 through 44, they're
`highly argumentative, and they cite new law.
`But most importantly, it's Patent Owner's view that it's simply a
`flagrant violation of the rules which state shall serve, I think, it's seven
`business days before.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`And in Patent Owner's view, Samsung simply thumbed their nose at
`those rules, cited those demonstratives in. And that's what we're here today
`to discuss.
`So, the main objection is that it's simply a gross violation of the
`rules. And that if they wanted to put those demonstratives in, they could
`have done so timely.
`But not only did they wait, they waited two hours before they were
`due. That's our position, Your Honor.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. What prejudice is there for that?
`MR. BAUER: Having now gone through the slides, and what
`they've done, I don't believe that Patent Owner will be prejudiced.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. So there's really no reason to -- you
`can respond to them here?
`MR. BAUER: We plan on responding to them here today, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Why don't we just, why don't we just
`proceed then. And do it that way. Because I think we did mention
`discussing the Ibex cases.
`And we'll give you, both sides latitude for that.
`MR. BAUER: Sure.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But just realize, we can sort through the
`record and figure out the relevance of these different cases. So it's up to
`you, whatever you want to spend your time on.
`Petitioner -- oh, thank you very much Mr. Bauer, anything else?
`MR. BAUER: No. No more.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Great. Thank you. Petitioner, did you
`have a slide objection also?
`MR. AHMED: Good afternoon, Your Honor, the objections we
`had are a nonissue in light of what Your Honor just mentioned, that written -
`- we're planning to address the Ibex decision today.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Great. Thank you. Now, we had
`one other issue. The parties raised in their briefings the issue of whether or
`not there was a patentable clause, patentable phrase. Something with
`patentable weight in their wherein clause.
`And the Panel is interested in obtaining briefing for that issue. So, I
`-- the way we're going to do this probably is just to give you up front notice
`of that.
`
`And also, within a week, each party will submit a three-page brief
`that addresses whether or not the wherein clause should be given patentable
`weight under our precedential opinion cited in your briefing.
`And then a week after that, so today is the 11th, that would be the
`18th. A week after the 18th, say on the 25th, you can reply to each other's
`initial briefing. And we'll probably put an order out.
`But we just wanted to give you a heads up and maybe -- I don't think
`it should affect your argument today, because either way you have to address
`that clause with a Motion to Amend.
`But go ahead, yes, Mr. Palys?
`MR. PALYS: Sorry, Your Honor, just a quick question. What's
`the page limit on the replies?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Three pages. Thanks, great question. Let
`me see if my colleagues have -- if my colleagues have any questions, please
`feel free to interject.
`JUDGE FENICK: I don't. Thank you.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. So okay, I guess we're going to start
`with Mr. Ahmed? Is that correct?
`MR. AHMED: Yes.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: I should announce, I guess, we have 90
`minutes to -- for each side total. Now, we probably will try to take a break
`in the middle at some point if the parties want to.
`So, when people start getting antsy, maybe give me a signal if I
`forget. Or maybe my colleagues will. But, we'll be flexible with that.
`So go ahead and proceed, please.
`MR. AHMED: Sure, and before I start, may we approach?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Sure. Oh, thank you, sure.
`MR. AHMED: Can we pop in the demonstrative?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes, please. Thanks.
`MR. PALYS: My apologies for the remote.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh. We have copies.
`MR. AHMED: So, before I begin, we would -- Petitioner would
`like to reserve 30 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay.
`MR. AHMED: May it please the Board. My name is Quadeer
`Ahmed, counsel for Petitioner Samsung. Based on the Petition and
`accompanying evidence, the Board instituted review of all challenged claims
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`based on each proposed ground in the -696, -697, and -698 IPRs, the
`instituted grounds are listed on slide two. Slide two, please.
`The record, as further developed during the trial, including
`Petitioner's supplemental information, expert declarations and cross
`examination testimony of the parties' experts, provides more than sufficient
`evidence for the Board to confirm its preliminary finding, and issue a final
`written decisions, cancelling the challenge claimed in each of the -696
`to -698 IPRs. Let me explain why.
`For today's hearing, Petitioner is planning to primarily focus on two
`issues, the printed publication status of certain JCT-VC documents relied
`upon in their secured grounds. And the unpatentability of the challenged
`claims in view of the prior art.
`As to any other issues not discussed today, Petitioner rests on its
`papers. Of course, if the Board has any questions regarding any of those
`issues, I would be happy to address them.
`With that out Your Honors, let me turn to the printed publication
`status of the JCT-VC documents. Can we go to slide four, please?
`Your Honor, here on slide four we have listed the JCT-VC
`documents at issue in the -696 to -698 IPRs. As I'll explain a little bit later
`today, these involve both JCT-VC output documents, which is the working
`draft 4 version 3, WD4-v3, in the -696 IPR, and working draft 3, version 1,
`WD-3-v1, in the -697 and -698 IPRs.
`And then there's JCT-VC input documents. And those are part of
`Zhou and Sole in the -696 to -698 IPRs. Slide five, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`The Federal Circuit, Your Honors, has endorsed a flexible approach
`in determining whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication. The
`inquiry is based on several factors, including any expectation of
`confidentiality associated with the dissemination or accessibility of the
`documents, the length of time the document was made available, tools to
`locate the document such as search functionality on a website or indexing of
`the documents, and expertise of the intended audience.
`And the inquiry calls for the fact finder to consider these factors as a
`whole to determine whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication.
`As you can see here on slide five, in GoPro, the Federal Circuit citing to
`Jazz Pharmaceuticals, both recent Federal Circuit cases dealing with printed
`publication case law, noted that the Section 10 -- that Section 102 has been
`interpreted broadly such that even relatively obscure documents qualify as
`prior art, so long as the relevant public has a means of accessing them.
`Today Petitioner will explain how it has shown that each of the JCT-
`VC documents at issue in these IPRs constitutes a printed publication. And
`each of these documents resulted from international video coding
`standardization efforts of an entirely public nature to replace the dominant
`video coding standard during that relevant time frame.
`As I'll explain, Your Honors, four main points, one, each JCT-VC
`document was made available to the public on the JCT-VC site prior to the
`earlier perfecting filing date of the subject patents. Each JCT-VC
`document was made available on the MPEG site to at least 750 interested
`persons, if not thousands of such persons, prior to the earliest effective date
`of the subject patents.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`The JCT-VC output documents that I just mentioned, WD4-v3 and
`WD3-v1, were distributed via email to at least 225 people who showed an
`interest in the video coding field without any expectation of confidentiality.
`And four, the JCT-VC input documents, Park, Zhou and Sole were presented
`that the JCT-VC meetings with again, with at least 225 or more people
`present, and there being no expectation of confidentiality.
`After the third point, Your Honor, with the email distribution of the
`working draft, I do want to note that if you go to slide six, the Ib -- you
`know, as Patent Owner's counsel mentioned, we'll be talking today about the
`Ibex IPRs.
`One thing Petitioner wants to note is that all the challenged claims in
`the Ibex IPRs were cancelled based on the output document, the JCT-VC’s
`WD4 reference, it was a different working draft version. It was working
`draft five.
`But as you can see here, there the panel found that the output
`document was a printed publication under Section 102 due to its email
`distribution to over 200 people, again, without any expectation of
`confidentiality.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Just to be clear, you're talking about the
`listserv, is that correct?
`MR. AHMED: That's the listserv, the JCT-VC listserv.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So, that's really just a link, even though it's --
`people refer to it as dissemination. But it's a link to a document. Is that
`what we're talking about?
`I just want to be clear.
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`MR. AHMED: It's in -- I would say, Your Honor, it's a little bit
`more than a link. It's an announcement to the JCT-VC community that the
`document is available on the JCT-VC site.
`And it's, you know, it constitutes as an advertisement that it's there.
`That you can go locate it. It's a research aid for someone looking for the
`document.
`But yes, so all of the above, including as you mentioned, a link to the
`document. And the only reason I bring this up is because the evidence
`regarding dissemination of the working draft, WD4-v3 and WD3-v1 in these
`cases, in the cases we're discussing today, is substantially similar.
`We also have evidence of the email being sent to 200 or more
`people. And I'll -- I'll get to that when we get to our evidence.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: And also, so we're on the same page, those
`links were sent after the meetings. I think your friends on the other side
`pointed that out.
`MR. AHMED: And that's -- that -- there's no dispute in our view,
`Your Honor. Because we are not -- Petitioner's position is that the
`document, the working drafts at issue were prepared and were uploaded on
`the dates that either the emails were distributed, or when they were up on the
`website.
`Not that the documents were created at the JCT-VC meeting. I
`think part of that's -- that part of what the flavor that they want to add with
`respect to the output documents, because the input documents, they were --
`they were ready. They were discussed in the JCT-VC meetings. Again, I
`will get to that evidence, our evidence.
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`Those were in existence at the time of the meetings. The output
`documents were a result of the discussions at the meetings. The only point
`that Petitioner made through testimony from Mr. Bross, its fact witness and
`expert witness, is that the discussions as to what was being incorporated into
`the working drafts, what were, you know, of public nature at the meetings.
`Not that the working draft existed at the meetings.
`Does that answer your question?
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Yes. I think so. Thanks.
`MR. AHMED: All right. So, continue to slide seven, please. So
`Your Honors, before I -- we get to the specific evidence regarding the
`printed publication status of each of the JCT-VC references at issue, I think
`it's important to understand the context in which these documents were
`being developed.
`And that brings me to what the JCT-VC was, right. The -- each of
`these documents here was developed by the Joint Collaborative Team on
`Video Coding. That's the JCT-VC.
`And the JCT-VC was created in 2010 to develop a new generation,
`high efficiency video coding standard. That's the HEVC standard, to
`replace the then current H.264 standard.
`And the snapshot you see here is from our factual testimony
`provided by Mr. Benjamin Bross. And here this is in Exhibit 1002 in the -
`696 IPR, paragraph 184.
`I'll try my best here today to refer to the specific evidence and cite to
`it. But to the extent I don't, you can certainly find the pin cites in our
`slides.
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`And I mention Mr. Bross, Your Honor, and before I move onto the
`next slide, I just want to take a minute to introduce Mr. Benjamin Bross, and
`who he is for this panel. You know, he provided testimony in these
`proceedings as a fact witness that I mentioned, with respect to the printed
`publication procedures of the JCT-VC, and the general purpose of the JCT-
`VC.
`
`And Mr. Bross isn't just someone who was tangentially related or
`involved with the JCT-VC during this relevant time frame, the 2010/2011
`time frame we're dealing with. As explained for example, in paragraphs 12
`to 14 and 186 to 188 of Mr. Bross's opening declaration, that's in the -696
`IPR Exhibit 1002, Mr. Bross has been intimately involved with the JCT-VC
`since its inception in 2010.
`He has served on several significant roles in the JCT-VC, including
`as chair of the JCT-VC ad hoc group responsible for developing and testing
`the HEVC standard. This included his role as the lead author of the HEVC
`standard specification text, including the working draft at issue today.
`And in that particular role, as a lead author, his responsibilities
`included uploading the working draft on the JCT-VC site and distributing
`the working drafts on the JCT-VC listserv to hundreds of video coding
`professionals. He also had to regularly download JCT-VC input documents
`from the JCT-VC site where, as I'll explain later, the input documents for
`proposals is being considered to be incorporated into the working draft,
`right.
`
`He also, in another role at the JCT-VC, served as a technical
`contributor and coordinator of core experiments during the HEVC
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`standardization process where here his responsibilities included chairing
`breakout groups within the JCT-VC, drafting experiment descriptions and
`planning future experiments.
`So, Your Honor, he was intimately involved with the JCT-VC and its
`operations. In fact, due to his significant contributions to the JCT-VC and
`its development of the HEVC standards, which has been hugely successful
`in the industry, he was part of the JCT-VC team that was awarded an
`Engineering Emmy Award in L.A. He walked the red carpet for his work
`with the JCT-VC honor in L.A.
`And again, this is in the evidence, in the paragraphs I cited before.
`Your Honors, I only bring up Mr. Bross's credentials and background,
`because in our view, if Samsung put forth perhaps the best possible witness
`it could have to provide testimony on the relevant printed publication issues
`that we are discussing today.
`And it's hard to imagine anyone better suited for this purpose. So,
`with that background, Your Honor, could you go to slide eight?
`So, here Mr. Bross testifies again, citing to corroborating
`documentary evidence that the JCT-VC included a group of video coding
`personnel from two parent organizations, VCEG and MPEG, all right.
`You can go to slide eight? Nine. That's fine. And these two
`parent organizations Your Honor, were both -- had international worldwide
`prominence. The VCEG was under the aegis of the United Nations
`Specialized Agency for Information and Communication Technologies.
`And MPEG was under the umbrella of the International Organization
`for Standardization. And as I'll explain in the next few slides, these were
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`the leading video coding standardization groups at the time. Can we go to
`slide ten, please?
`So here, Mr. Bross is referencing an influential IEEE technical
`journal in the video coding field in the relevant time frame. That's Exhibit
`1080 in the -696 IPR, and Exhibit 1070 in the -697 and -698 IPR.
`And in the next slide, if you go to slide 11, here's what this journal,
`which issued a special section for a joint call for proposals for the HEVC
`standardization process. It referred to these two parent organizations of the
`JCT-VC, as the premier video coding standardization organizations at that
`time.
`
`And, if you go to slide 12, as you may recall Your Honor, the HEVC
`standard H.265 was replacing the then current H.264 standard. And this
`journal refers to the H.264 standard as the primary format in use for
`essentially all video coding applications.
`So it's a -- so the H.265 standard was replacing something that was
`extremely prominent in the video coding field at the time. Go to slide 13,
`please.
`
`And in terms of how the JCT-VC operated, as Mr. Bross testified
`here in paragraph 185 of his opening declaration in the -696 IPR, video
`coding personnel met quarterly for the development of the new HEVC
`standard. In those meetings they considered proposals, so they’re input
`documents submitted prior to the meeting.
`And proposals that were agreed upon by the JCT-VC group would
`be incorporated into a working draft of the HEVC standard specification
`after the meeting. That's an example of an output document.
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`And at the meeting reports that he cites to here, say Exhibit 1032 for
`example, is one of the JCT-VC meeting reports, that the working draft that
`resulted from the JCT-VC meeting, was one of the three most important
`output documents from the meeting. Slide 14, please.
`And I mentioned earlier, Your Honor, the Federal Circuit considers
`is whether there's any expectation of confidentiality associated with the
`accessibility or dissemination of the documents at issue.
`Here, the JCT-VC in its terms of reference, had an explicit policy to
`make all of its input and output documents public. Including drafts of the
`coding specification.
`And that's Exhibit 1021 in the -696 IPR and Exhibit 1016 in the -697
`and -698 IPRs. And these are the terms of the reference of the JCT-VC as
`it was created in 2010. Slide 15, please.
`So with that backdrop, Your Honor, where the JCT-VC is a
`worldwide international prominent organization with anyone interest -- who
`is remotely, I would say, interested in the video coding field with their
`products and services would have certainly known about the JCT-VC and its
`work, given that it was replacing the then-current dominant video coding
`standard at the time.
`With that backdrop we want to turn to our evidence regarding the
`public accessibility and public availability of each of the documents.
`So first, we'll discuss the evidence of dissemination of the working
`draft at issue here in these IPRs. Can you go to slide 16, please?
`Mr. Bross testified, Your Honor, that all communications that we
`members related to the development of the HEVC were to be conducted via
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`the JCT-VC reflector, this was the policy of the JCT-VC as he cites to in one
`of the meeting reports here, Exhibit 1037 in the -696 IPR.
`And again, we have similar testimony in the -697 and -698 IPRs.
`And similar accompanying evidence as cited on these papers.
`So every -- all the communications for the JCT-VC were done on
`this listserv. Can you go to slide 17?
`This is just a snapshot from one of the meeting reports again, Your
`Honor. Exhibit 1037, stating that policy, that the reflector is to be used for
`all the discussions of the JCT-VC and its ad hoc groups and lists the listserv.
`Can we go to slide 18?
`And the evidence shows that during the relevant time frame, at least
`250 people were subscribed to the reflector when these working drafts were
`disseminated to the JCT-VC community.
`As Mr. Bross testified, that number is based on the number of
`attendees of the JCT-VC meetings at the time. But, in actuality, he
`believes that the number of subscribers to the JCT-VC was much higher than
`that. Go to slide 19.
`So, here Mr. Bross himself, this is him, based on his own personal
`knowledge testifying that he announced completion of WD4-v3 at issue in
`the -693 or -696 IPR to the JCT-VC members via the JCT-VC listserv on
`September 12, 2011.
`And he -- and we provided evidence of the email, which is shown on
`the next slide, side 20. And that's Exhibit 1057 in the -696 IPR.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`As you can see, the email is sent to the JCT-VC listserv from Mr.
`Benjamin Bross. And it includes the announcement of the new working
`draft four, version three, being available on the JCT-VC site.
`Similarly, if you go to slide 21, for the -697 and -698 IPRs where
`WD3-v1 is at issue, Mr. Bross again himself announced completion of that
`version to the JCT-VC community via the reflector on March 30, 2011.
`And Petitioner again provided the corroborating evidence which is
`the email shown on the next slide, slide 22. It's an excerpt from the email
`where he announces the initial draft, which is the first draft of working draft
`three, being uploaded to the document management site.
`Now, and that's Exhibit 1049 in the -697 and -698 IPRs. Can you
`go to the next slide, please?
`So, with that Your Honor, before I turn to the -- to the public
`accessibility on the websites, as I mentioned, this evidence that I -- we just
`highlighted, it's substantially similar to the evidence based on which the Ibex
`panels found a working draft five, another working draft of JCT-VC, to be a
`printed publication.
`So with that, let me turn to the printed publication -- the public
`accessibility of each of the documents at issue here, the working drafts as
`well as the input documents on the JCT-VC and MPEG sites. Can we go to
`slide 24, please?
`Your Honor, it was the general practice of the JCT-VC to upload all
`of its documents, input and output documents onto this JCT-VC document
`management site. It was a specialized repository for all the documents
`related to the video coding standardization going on at the time.
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`And again, this is corroborated in --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But is the reflector just a subset of that JCT-
`VC website? Is this a file there or something?
`I was just trying to figure out, or is it another server? Or --
`MR. AHMED: I -- the reflector is synonymous with the listserv
`reflector, I think in Europe, as a listserv that is reported as a reflector.
`The reflector is just when you send an email to a reflector, it bounces
`to 200 and something people that are part of the --part of the reflector.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Oh, I see. Okay.
`MR. AHMED: Or that.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So it's referring them to the JCT-VC website
`basically.
`MR. AHMED: It -- it --
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Announcing that this thing's been put on -- or
`output to the website?
`MR. AHMED: I'm going to take a moment here to make sure,
`yeah, the reflector is just a listserv. So, it's a listserv.
`So, if you send an email to a listserv, that's the same thing as sending
`an email to the reflector. Does that -- does that help?
`It doesn't reflect -- it doesn't send you to the JCT-VC site. It's an
`email. You're subscribed to the reflector just as you would be subscribed to
`a listserv.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Right. I think I get it. It's just sending an
`email announcing that this -- these output documents are what? Why don't
`you finish my sentence.
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`MR. AHMED: Are available on the JCT-VC site. Sometimes the
`emails have it attached. Sometimes they have a link to the JCT-VC site.
`But, people in the JCT-VC community would know at that time.
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.
`MR. AHMED: Sure. So yeah, now turning to the -- to the JCT-
`VC document management site where that document would be located for
`someone to download, Your Honor, each one, each input and output
`document was uploaded onto the JCT-VC document management site such
`that it was available for download.
`And now consistent with the JCT-VC's explicit policy to make all of
`its work public from the terms of reference I mentioned earlier, that was
`Exhibit 1016 in the -696 IPR, there were no restrictions for downloading the
`documents uploaded on the JCT-VC site in that relevant time frame.
`So there was no user name and passwords required to go onto the
`JCT-VC site and download the documents. Can you go to slide 25, please?
`And in terms of its organization, Your Honor, as Mr. Bross testified,
`the JCT-VC site was, and continues to be organized in a hierarchical manner
`characterized by the JCT-VC meeting numbers. And then once you
`navigated to a certain meeting, you would have a document repository
`listing the documents along with, you know, with their titles and authors and
`so on.
`
`And from there, the user could either click on a particular document
`to download it, or use the search functionality on the website to look.
`Excuse me, was there a question?
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Yes, there is.
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2018-00696 (Patent 9,113,163 B2)
`IPR2018-00697 (Patent 9,191,673 B2)
`IPR2018-00698 (Patent 9,197,896 B2)
`
`
`MR. AHMED: Yes?
`JUDGE HAAPALA: Are you relying on the ability to search on
`the website for -- search on the site for the document orr the email
`dissemination for the public dissemination of the document?
`MR. AHMED: So, we have put forth evidence regarding both
`items, Your Honor. So we have evidence regarding the dissemination of
`the output documents, the working draft, which is in the form of the email
`and the membership of the reflector, the subscribers to the reflector. Right.
`And we also have evidence that the same document, the work
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
