`Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent No. 9,253,239
`____________________
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Unified Failed to Identify All RPIs ................................................................ 2
`A. Unified Relies on an Erroneous Legal Standard .................................. 2
`B.
`Unified Has Not Shown That it is the Only RPI .................................. 4
`1.
`Unified and
`Had a Pre-Existing
`Relationship ............................................................................... 4
` Receive Specific Benefits From the
`Filing of This IPR ...................................................................... 6
`III. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Terminate This
`IPR. ................................................................................................................. 9
`IV. This IPR Is Unconstitutional Under the Appointments Clause .................... 12
`V.
`Petitioner has Not Shown that Reddy Teaches or Suggests
`Claim 20 ........................................................................................................ 12
`A.
`Petitioner’s New Theory is Unsupported and Contradicts
`the Explicit Disclosure of Reddy ....................................................... 13
`Petitioner Mischaracterizes the Patent Owner Response ................... 16
`Reddy Does Not Teach or Suggest Determining Priority
`of a First and a Second Request Based on Different User-
`Controlled Image Viewpoints as Required by Claim 20 ................... 16
`1.
`Claim 20 Requires Determining Priority of a First
`and a Second Request .............................................................. 16
`a)
`Plain Language of the Claim ......................................... 17
`b)
`The Preferred Architecture Supports Patent
`Owner’s Plain-Meaning Claim
`Interpretation .................................................................. 18
`
`2.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Reddy Retrieves Tiles Based on a Single User-
`Controlled Viewpoint ............................................................... 21
`a)
`The Claimed “User-Controlled Image
`Viewpoint” Must be a Viewpoint that is
`Controlled by the User ................................................... 22
`“Prefetching” is Based on a Single User-
`Controlled Viewpoint .................................................... 22
`“Flyover” is Also Based on a Single User-
`Controlled Viewpoint .................................................... 22
`VI. A POSITA Would Not Combine the Asserted Prior Art to
`Achieve the Invention ................................................................................... 23
`A.
`Petitioner’s Combination is Based on Hindsight ............................... 23
`B.
`Petitioner Has Not Shown a Benefit to Combining the
`Asserted Art ........................................................................................ 24
`The State of the Art Would Not Lead a POSITA to
`Combine the Asserted Art to Achieve the Claimed
`Invention ............................................................................................. 25
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc,
`IPR2018-00282 (P.T.A.B June 4, 2019) ................................................................ 8
`Bausch Health Cos. Inc. v. Actavis Labs. Fl. Inc.,
`No. CV 16-9038 (SRC), 2019 WL 3214550 (D.N.J. July 17, 2019) .................. 27
`In re NuVasive, Inc,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 11
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 25
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC,
`IPR2018-00883 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2018) ............................................................. 7
`Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting,
`IPR2019-0062 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019) ................................................................. 9
`
`Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc.,
`IPR2017-00651 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019) ..........................................................3, 4
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 9, 10, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .............................................................................................. 9, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001 USPTO Public PAIR screen capture for Correspondence Address
`
`and Attorney/Agent Information for Application No. 14/547, 148
`
`(’239 Patent)
`
`2002 Notice of Acceptance of Power of Attorney, Date Mailed
`03/11/2016, for A lication No. 14/547,148 ’293 Patent
`
`2003
`
`Declaration of Michael N. Zachary in Support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Transcript of Deposition of
`
`Unified Patents CEO, Kevin Jakel dated September 10, 2018
`
`200
`
`Team, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/team/#
`
`2006
`
`Join, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join/
`
`2007
`
`I
`
`Join, Unified Patents (May 17, 2018),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20l805 1 7015601/https://www.unifiedp
`
`atents.com/join/
`
`2008
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Unified Patents Membership
`
`Agreement
`
`2009
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Exhibit A:
`
`Internet of Things (IoT) Zone
`
`2010 Belcher, Marta, et al-, “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to
`
`2004 I
`
`Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual
`
`Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, dated May 2014
`
`Protected Zones, Excerpt of United Patents (Oct. 27, 2016),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20l61027135832/http://www.unifiedpat
`
`ents.com:80/zones/
`
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239, “Optimized Image Delivery Over
`
`Limited Bandwidth Communication Channels,” issued Feb. 2, 2016
`
`(“’239 Patent”) (Not filed)
`
`2013
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Petitioner’s Voluntary
`
`Interrogatory Response
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Exhibit
`
`2014 Bradium Technologies LLC, Unified Patents (August 3, 2015),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/201 50803044103/http://bradiumtechnol
`
`ogies.com/
`
`2015 Docket Navigator of Unified Patents dated Jun. 17, 2015
`
`2016 Bradium Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint, filed
`
`Jan. 9, 201 5
`
`2017 Bradium Technologies and Microsoft Settle Patent Lawsuit,
`
`Bradium Technologies (Oct. 17, 2017),
`
`http://www.bradiumtechnologies.com/bradium/bradium—
`
`technologies—and-microsoft—settle—patent-lawsuit
`
`2018 Unified Patents, backed by Google, takesfight to patent trolls, Don
`
`Reisinger, CNET (Apr. 8, 2013)
`
`2019 Don Clark, New Venture Enters Patent Fray, Wall Street Journal,
`
`published Apr. 7, 2013
`
`2020
`
`The Gloves are Ofl: Unified Patents Inc. Unveils Its ‘NPE
`
`Deterrent’ Strategy, Unified Patents (September 23, 2013),
`
`http://justdemo. in/unified/2013/09/23/the-gloves—are-off-unified—
`
`patents—inc-unveils-its-npe-deterrent—strategy”
`
`Unified Patents Challenges Clouding IP Patent Seeks to Push Patent
`
`Trolls Out of Cloud Storage, Unified Patents (September 23, 2013),
`
`http://unifiedpatents.com/2013/09/23 unified-patents-challenges-
`
`clouding-ip—patent—seeks-to-push—patent-trolls—out-of-cloud-storage/
`
`Unified has challenged almost all of201 7 ’s most prolific NPEs,
`
`United Patents (Jul. 5, 2017),
`
`
`
`https ://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/20 l 7/7/5/according-to-rpx-
`
`datea-has-challenged-almost-all-of-20 l 7s—most-prolific-npes
`
`2023
`
`Email from Unified Patents to Michael Zachary re “Unified reaches
`
`100 challenges,” dated Nov. 15, 2017
`
`2024 Unified Patents (January 1, 2014),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140101033720/http://unifiedpatents.c
`
`om/
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`vi
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Exhibit
`
`2025
`
`Eric Coe, Unified Patents Adds AIA Reviews to Anti- ‘Troll’ Arsenal,
`
`Law360 (Jun. 23, 2015),
`
`https://www.law360.com/articles/668619/print?section=ip
`
`2026 Declaration of C. Coulson in support of Bradium Technologies
`
`LLC’s Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2027 Bradium Technologies LLC ’5 Disclaimer of Claims 1-19, 21-25
`
`2028 Orthogonality, Wikipedia,
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality
`
`2029
`
`IPRs, Balancing Eflectiveness vs. Cost, RPX (June 17, 2016)
`
`https ://Www.rpxcorp.com/20 1 6/06/ 1 7/iprs-balancing-effectiveness-
`
`vs—cost/
`
`2030 How Much does IPR Cost?, Patent Trademark Blog,
`
`2037
`
`2031 Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 9,253,239), Paper 2 (Petition) (P.T-A.B. Sept. 30, 2016)
`
`2032 Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 9,253,239), Paper 17 (Institution Decision) (P.T.A.B. April 5,
`
`201 7)
`
`2033 NPE Zones: Deter bad NPE conduct, Unified Patents (Sept. 20,
`
`201 8), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/npe/
`
`2034 Bradium Technologies LLC v Iancu, No. 17-2579, USPTO
`
`Director’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File
`
`Supplemental Brief, Dkt No. 74 (Filed Sept. 4, 2018)
`
`2035
`
`Declaration of L. Quan in support of Bradium Technologies LLC ’5
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2036
`
`“Summary of Findings: Search Results Using Unified Patents
`
`Portal,” prepared by L. Quan.
`
`Declaration of M. Shanahan in support of Bradium Technologies
`
`LLC’s Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`
`2038 Unified ’s Real-Party—in-Interest PTAB Panel Decisions, Unified
`
`Patents (July 5, 2016), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/real-
`
`party-in-interest-panel-decisions
`
`vii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Exhibit
`
`2039 Belcher, Marta, et al., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to
`
`Alternative Patent Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual
`
`Property & Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, updated January
`
`201 6
`
`2040
`
`PDF Copy of https://www.unifiedpatents-com/join/ (downloaded
`
`October 9, 2018)
`
`2041
`
`PDF Copy of https://www.unifiedpatents-com/join- l/ (downloaded
`
`October 9, 2018) (not filed)
`
`2042
`
`Declaration of C. Coulson (not filed)
`
`2043 Declaration of L. Quan (not filed)
`
`2044
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher K. Wilson (March 8, 2019)
`
`2045 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2038: Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based
`
`Services, LLC, IPR2017-01965, Declaration of Christopher K.
`
`Wilson (Excerpted)
`
`2046 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2039: US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2012/0095682
`
`Wilson Deposition Ex. 2040: US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2002/0014979
`
`2048 Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Internet Archive
`
`
`
`2049
`
`Exhibits to Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Exhibit A
`
`(Unified Patents “Join” Webpage) and Exhibit B (Belcher, Marta, et
`
`31., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to Alternative Patent
`
`Licensing for Innovators,” Juelsgaard Intellectual Property &
`
`Innovation Clinic Stanford Law School, updated January 2016)
`
`2050 Dec. 8, 2016 J. Lasker Letter to M. Shanahan
`
`2051
`
`June 17, 1996 FlashPix Format and Architecture White Paper
`
`2052 Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2017 Non-Final Rejection, IDS,
`
`List of References
`
`2053 Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2018 Final Rejection
`
`2054 Declaration of Dr. Agourls 1n Support of Patent Owner Response
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`viii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`2055 Declaration of Dr. Agouris in Support of Contingent Motion to
`
`Amend
`
`2056 Declaration of Jessika Sprague in Support of Patent Owner
`
`Response
`
`2057
`
`“Summary of Findings: Search Results Using Unified Patents
`
`Portal,” prepared by J. Sprague
`
`2058
`
`PDF copy of
`
`
`
`https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent_owners=bradiu
`
`m (downloaded April 1, 2019)
`
`2059
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Agouris in Support of Contingent Motion
`to Amend
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`ix
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner has not shown that Claim 20 is obvious. Petitioner has not shown
`
`I.
`
`that Reddy teaches prioritization of requests for image tiles. Further, Claim 20
`
`requires prioritization of image parcel requests based on both a first and a second
`
`user-controlled viewpoint, but Petitioner has not shown that Reddy, alone or in
`
`combination with other asserted art, suggests this.
`
`Regardless of how the Board interprets Claim 20, Petitioner also has not
`
`shown that a POSITA would have selected and combined Reddy, Hornbacker and
`
`Rosasco to achieve the claimed invention. Petitioner has offered no convincing
`
`reason for the combination, and asserts for the first time in reply that the sorting of
`
`Rosasco was “well known.” But Petitioner ignores other well-known alternatives
`
`to the invention such as progressive transmission algorithms that were praised in
`
`the art of record. Petitioner’s expert Wilson’s opening declaration and appendices
`
`are replete with examples of praise for such alternative algorithms, including praise
`
`for their efficiency in gradually improving the resolution of the transmitted image
`
`without repeating image information—the opposite of the tile-based approach of
`
`Claim 20, in which numerous overlapping copies of an image at varying
`
`resolutions may be transmitted. Petitioner does not convincingly explain why a
`
`POSITA would, in the face of such alternatives, have attempted to combine
`
`references in the manner alleged to achieve Claim 20.
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Unified also has failed to meet its burden to show that it is the sole Real
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Party in Interest (RPI). Further, the Board should exercise its discretion to
`
`terminate this proceeding because it is essentially the same as the prior Microsoft
`
`IPR.
`
`II. Unified Failed to Identify All RPIs
`A. Unified Relies on an Erroneous Legal Standard
`In its Reply, Unified persists in arguing for adoption of an erroneous legal
`
`standard, under which “funding, direction, and control are central to the question of
`
`whether a third party is an RPI.” (Reply, 2.) The citations that follow this
`
`quotation from Unified’s brief, however, do not support any such legal standard.
`
`(Id.) At most, the existence of control might serve as additional evidence that
`
`under AIT, the third party stands to benefit from an IPR and has a pre-existing
`
`relationship with petitioner. But the absence of direct control, etc., does not
`
`somehow negate other evidence showing both benefit and relationship. And
`
`certainly “funding” and “direction” for IPRs may be direct or indirect, explicit or
`
`implicit. Here,
`
` indisputably,
`
`
`
`Unified’s efforts to file IPRs. Their only motivation can be that they
`
`perceive a benefit (patents invalidated or held up in PTAB proceedings, and
`
`weakening patent owners’ finances and ability to negotiate licenses) from doing so.
`
`Even if they do not direct the strategy for a specific IPR, the fact that they provide
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`indicates
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`, whose principal business is filing IPRs, logically
`
`
`
`. Unified, which has the burden, has not shown otherwise.
`
`Unified’s criticism that Patent Owner’s interpretation of AIT “contradicts
`
`binding authority” (Reply, 3) is certainly wrong. The precedential PTAB decision
`
`cited by Unified in fact confirms the opposite. In Ventex v. Columbia Sportswear,
`
`IPR2017-00651 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019), Paper 152, 10, the Board stated that “the
`
`Court in AIT invites a ‘flexible approach’ in the real party in interest query that
`
`focuses on whether a ‘non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting,
`
`established relationship with the petitioner.’” This is precisely the standard that
`
`Patent Owner has advanced here. Although Ventex noted some caution about
`
`extending AIT to a circumstance where an unnamed party receives only “general”
`
`benefits, that caution must also be weighed in the context of AIT’s repeated
`
`pronouncement that the term RPI should be interpreted “expansively,” 897 F.3d at
`
`1350, 1351, 1363, and in the context of Unified’s burden of proof to show that it is
`
`the only RPI.1
`
`
`1 To the extent Unified relies on past findings in other IPRs regarding
`
`whether Unified had named all RPIs (Reply, fn.1), that reliance is misplaced.
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Unified’s efforts to limit AIT to its facts are largely irrelevant. The
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`facts in this case are highly similar to those in AIT as set forth in the POR (Paper
`
`No. 19, pp. 4-14), but even to the extent they are different, AIT announced the
`
`governing principles that apply. The Court in AIT gave no indication that its
`
`holding was limited to the facts there.
`
`B. Unified Has Not Shown That it is the Only RPI
`Most of Unified’s Reply is devoted to showing that
`
` did
`
`not directly fund or control this IPR, and did not specifically ask Unified to initiate
`
`this IPR. Since these are not the correct focus of inquiries under the AIT test, as
`
`confirmed in Ventex, most of Unified’s arguments are beside the point. Further, to
`
`the extent Unified does address its pre-existing relationship with
`
`,
`
`and the benefits received and to be received by them as a result of Unified’s filing
`
`of the IPR, Unified has failed to meet its burden to prove that it is the only RPI.
`
`1.
` Had a Pre-Existing Relationship
`Unified and
`Unified does not deny that it is a “for-profit” entity, that it has had
`
`
`
`
`None of those other IPRs involved Bradium or the patent at issue here. This IPR
`
`also raises specific questions about Unified’s relationship with, and the benefits
`
`received by, the two RPIs who most stand to benefit from this IPR.
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`, that Unified is one of
`
`the most prolific IPR filers, and that Unified markets its filing of IPRs,
`
`
`
`, and its “avoidance” of RPI issues in order to attract
`
`members.
`
`184:12-14.
`
`
`
`. EX2004, 127:14-19, 183:12-14,
`
`
`
`. Paper No. 19, p. 6 and n.1.
`
`By contrast, Unified, which has the burden, provides no evidence that its
`
`non-IPR activities,
`
`
`
`
`
` Unified’s citation (Reply, 11)
`
`to a Board statement in another case that Unified performs certain non-IPR
`
`services has no bearing on whether those services are material in any way to
`
`.
`
`The evidence shows, and Unified has not proven anything to the contrary,
`
`. The nature of the relationship thus
`
`satisfies the AIT standard.
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
` Receive Specific Benefits From the Filing of
`
`This IPR
`In its Reply, Unified admits the very fact that demonstrates one of the key
`
`benefits to
`
`: Unified believed that “Bradium could assert this patent
`
`again.” (Reply, 6.) Keeping in mind that Unified (by its admission) files IPRs to
`
`protect the members of the relevant zone, who amongst its members in the
`
`“Content Zone” might the patent be asserted against? The ’239 patent is directed
`
`to mapping technology. Unified already knew prior to filing the IPR that
`
`Microsoft had previously been sued with respect to Bing Maps. EX2037, ¶¶ 7, 10;
`
`ID, p. 45.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` POR, pp. 17-19; EX2035, ¶¶ 8-9.
`
`Unified contends that it “was not driven by the desires of a specific member”
`
`(Reply, 6), but identifies no support for that statement. Unified also contends that
`
`Bradium “presents no evidence contradicting these factors” (id.), but this misplaces
`
`the burden on Bradium. Unified also states that it was unaware of
`
`
`
`, but even if true that does not undermine the
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`common-sense conclusion that following the Microsoft suit,
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`.2
`
`Unified also argues that the absence of a time bar applicable to
`
` shows they would not receive a benefit from this IPR. Regardless
`
`of time bar, however,
`
`
`
`
`
` Unified misleadingly suggests that in AIT, the Federal Circuit
`
`held that the existence of a “time bar” was a “crucial” fact. (Reply, p. 8.) The
`
`Federal Circuit said no such thing in AIT, and indeed stated that RPI was to be
`
`interpreted “expansively.” In Unified Patents Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-00883 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2018), also cited by Unified (id.), the
`
`Board stated at p.163 that AIT found the existence of a time-bar to be “crucial,” but
`
`the cited portion of AIT made no such statement, expressly or impliedly.
`
`
`2 Unified states (Reply, fn.6) that non-members HERE and Michelin might
`
`also have been at risk, but as non-members,
`
`
`
` whether they were or were not at risk would have
`
`been of no concern to Unified. Unified admits that it protects its zones (id., 10),
`
`and apparently HERE and Michelin were not zone members.
`
`3 Unified mistakenly cited p. 15.
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Unified argues that the benefits to
`
`“general” benefits available to all zone members.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
` are only
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In sum, Unified has not identified any particular benefits that other Content
`
`Zone members would receive.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` they will have significantly greater freedom to file their own IPRs on
`
`the ’239 patent if they are sued on that patent, and to use Unified’s IPR, and the
`
`Board’s decisions, as a roadmap, giving them multiple bites at the patent. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Uniloc, IPR2018-00282 (P.T.A.B June 4, 2019) Paper 30, 27 (concurrence).
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Unified contends (Reply, p. 10) that the “benefits+relationship” test would
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`sweep in parties to joint defense agreements. This is a strawman argument.
`
`Parties to joint defense agreements do not typically pay anyone to file IPRs,
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Terminate This IPR.
`Unified argues that the Board previously considered whether institution
`
`should be declined under § 325(d). However, as pointed out in the POR (Paper 38,
`
`15-17), in the Institution Decision the Board merely stated that § 325(d) did not
`
`apply because “the ground and the Petitioner are different than in the Microsoft
`
`IPR.” Paper 31, p. 16. Respectfully, the Board did not cite any authority for this
`
`statement, and § 325(d) does not by its terms require that the ground and the
`
`Petitioner be the same. In its Reply, Unified does not state any disagreement with
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that nothing in § 325(d) requires the petitioner and the
`
`grounds to be the same. Nor does Unified provide any argument rebutting the
`
`merits of Patent Owner’s § 325(d) argument, in effect conceding the validity of
`
`Patent Owner’s argument. For the reasons stated in the POR, the Board should
`
`terminate this IPR on the basis of § 325(d), as well as for the separate reasons
`
`stated in the POR regarding § 314(a).
`
`The Board’s recent decision in Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting,
`
`IPR2019-0062 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019), Paper 13, decided after Bradium’s POR
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`was filed and designated as precedential a month later, is further instructive
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`regarding § 314(a).4 There, the petitioner waited until the PTAB denied institution
`
`of another party’s IPR petition, then filed its own petition. The Board held that
`
`“application of the General Plastic factors is not limited solely to instances where
`
`multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Id. at 9. Further, weighing the
`
`factors, the Board found that petitioner’s access to the patent owner’s POPR and
`
`the Board’s non-institution decision favored denial of institution. Id. 12-13.
`
`Similarly, here Unified had access to these documents and admittedly largely
`
`copied Microsoft’s IPR, while using the Microsoft ID as a roadmap to supplement
`
`one aspect of its argument regarding claim 20, the only claim at issue in this IPR.
`
`The Board in Valve also found that the petitioner’s 5-month delay in filing its IPR
`
`following denial of the earlier IPR weighed against institution. Id. 13-14. Here, as
`
`Judge Chung pointed out in the ID, Unified waited over one year after the ID in the
`
`Microsoft IPR, and even longer after Patent Owner’s POPR was filed, to file its
`
`own IPR. Id., p. 47. Further weighing of the factors in light of Valve favors
`
`termination of this IPR.
`
`
`4 Unified could have addressed this decision in its Reply dated July 1, 2019,
`
`but did not.
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Unified also makes a procedural argument that Patent Owner should have
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`requested a rehearing of the institution decision, or that Patent Owner should have
`
`filed a motion to terminate. But nothing in the rules requires a Patent Owner to file
`
`a rehearing request if it disagrees with a Board’s institution decision. If that were
`
`the case, the Board would be besieged with rehearing requests in virtually every
`
`case—from Patent Owners anywhere review is instituted and Petitioners anywhere
`
`it is not—and does not comport with the requirements for rehearing. By the same
`
`token, nothing in the rules precludes a Patent Owner from raising—or adding to, or
`
`addressing the Board’s ID—an argument in its POR that was previously raised in
`
`some form in its POPR. Also, filing a rehearing request might not preserve
`
`Bradium’s position for purposes of an appeal if the rehearing request were
`
`denied—the argument arguably should be made in the POR. In re NuVasive, Inc,
`
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Unified’s second procedural argument also fails. The TPG does not require
`
`Bradium to file a motion to terminate. In responding to comments on the original,
`
`draft TPG, the USPTO stated that a standing issue “may” be raised post-institution
`
`by motion upon the Board’s authorization. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48695 (Response to
`
`Comment 8). Furthermore, this comment does not state that raising the standing
`
`issue post-institution requires new evidence. Finally, though a motion is not
`
`required, the Board may treat Patent Owner’s argument under § 325(d) or § 314(a)
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`as though it were a motion, as both parties have had notice and a fair opportunity to
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`brief the issue.
`
`IV. This IPR Is Unconstitutional Under the Appointments Clause
`Bradium does not disagree with Unified that the Board has no authority to
`
`determine whether the appointment of the Board members is constitutional.
`
`(Reply, 13-14.) Neither the PTAB nor the Board can remedy the issue absent
`
`legislation or presidential appointment. However, the Solicitor General’s office
`
`has taken the position that the Appointments Clause issue is waived if not raised
`
`before the PTAB. While Bradium disagrees with the SG’s position, Bradium
`
`raises the issue out of caution.
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner has Not Shown that Reddy Teaches or Suggests Claim 20
`In Reply, Petitioner continues to argue that Reddy discloses prioritization of
`
`requests for image tiles, but, as the Board correctly concluded in IPR2016-01897,
`
`it does not. POPR, 40; POR, 1. Petitioner’s new “twelve tile” theory was
`
`advanced for the first time in Reply (and also contradicts the explicit disclosure of
`
`Reddy and Wilson’s prior testimony) and should be disregarded. See TRIAL
`
`PRACTICE GUIDE UPDATE (July 2019) Section I (p.40) (examples of improper reply
`
`argument include evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing; and
`
`new rationale for combining the prior art).
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner further attempts to show that the asserted Reddy reference
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`discloses determining priority based on two user-controlled image viewpoints, but
`
`the “Prefetching” and “Flyover” features of Reddy retrieve image tiles based on a
`
`single viewpoint—the user’s current viewpoint—and therefore Reddy does not
`
`teach or suggest Claim 20, even in combination with the other asserted art.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s New Theory is Unsupported and Contradicts the
`Explicit Disclosure of Reddy
`It is beyond dispute that Reddy touts as an advantage that the distance-based
`
`LOD feature requires downloading and rendering only ten tiles. EX1004, ¶16.
`
`For the example of 128x128 tiles, Reddy explains: “[a]ssuming a tile size of
`
`128x128 pixels, this example requires downloading and rendering only 491 Kbytes
`
`(10 tiles) instead of the entire 3.1 Mbyte high-resolution image.” Id.
`
`In his opening declaration, Wilson confirmed that distance-based LOD
`
`downloads only ten tiles for a scene, going so far as to calculate exactly how ten
`
`tiles at 24 bits per pixel equate to the 491 Kbyte download recited in Reddy.
`
`EX1005, 113 n.4. Wilson’s declaration included a graphical representation
`
`showing these ten non-overlapping image tiles for the scene–three yellow (lower
`
`resolution), three green (medium resolution), and four blue (higher resolution)
`
`image tiles, as shown in the following diagram:
`
`13
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`EX1005, ¶¶114-115; EX2044, 11:1-12:6; EX2054, ¶¶71-72.
`
`At deposition, Wilson confirmed this understanding of distance-based LOD.
`
`EX2044, 96:16-20.
`
`Wilson also confirmed that his report did not allege a fourth yellow tile is
`
`downloaded, and that he had no opinion on this point: EX2044, 33:16-35:6.
`
`Wilson repeatedly confirmed that he had not opined on this issue in his
`
`declaration. EX2044, 37:17-19, 40:14-16; 43:1. He explained that “didn’t opine”
`
`on a specific coarse-to-file algorithm other than the QuadLOD algorithm.
`
`EX2044, 71:8-19, 72:12-20.
`
`Wilson explained that, other than the user viewpoint being far away such
`
`that all tiles would essentially be “equidistant,” he was only aware of general
`
`concepts, not specific ways in which Reddy would operate other than the “ten tile”
`
`distance-based LOD. EX2044, 62:22-63:12 (general concepts).
`
`14
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Yet, in Reply, Wilson offers the new opinion that “it would have been
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`obvious” for Reddy to download four yellow, four green, and four blue tiles—in
`
`that order. EX1027, ¶72. This new opinion should be disregarded by the Board
`
`for two reasons. First, it contradicts Wilson’s original declaration. Second, it is
`
`conclusory and unsupported. Wilson does not rely on a specific disclosure of
`
`Reddy beyond mention of generalized concepts such as “efficiency.” EX1027,
`
`¶72.
`
`Further, Wilson’s opinion is contradicted by the evidence of record. Wilson
`
`alleges that this an undisclosed “progressive download” algorithm would allow the
`
`user to see low-resolution tiles quickly, but he ignores the teaching of Reddy that a
`
`low-resolution image tile set resides in memory on the client so that if some high-
`
`resolution tiles have yet to arrive over the network,” Reddy always has a low-
`
`resolution tile available for display. EX2044, 64:19-68:8; EX2054, ¶86. There is
`
`no need for Wilson’s “progressive download” algorithm, nor does Wilson explain
`
`why the locally-available low-resolution tiles would not be sufficient for this
`
`purpose.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has not show