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 RESPONSE PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §42.120
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Unified Has Not Identified All Real-Parties-in-Interest ................................. 3
`A. Under the AIT Decision, Unified is Not the Only Real-
`Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 4
`The Board’s Institution Decision Does Not Comport with
`AIT or the Trial Practice Guide .......................................................... 12
`III. The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Terminate the IPR ................. 15
`A.
`The Board Should Terminate Review Under § 325(d) and
`§ 318(a) ............................................................................................... 17
`The Board Should Terminate Review Under § 314(a) and
`§ 318(a) ............................................................................................... 18
`IV. The Board Lacks Constitutional Power to Decide this IPR
`Proceeding .................................................................................................... 29
`A.
`PTAB Judges Are “Officers” Who Must Meet the
`Requirements of the Appointments Clause ........................................ 30
`PTAB Judges Do Not Satisfy Appointments Clause
`Requirements ...................................................................................... 30
`The Board Should Terminate this Proceeding ................................... 31
`C.
`The ’239 Patent ............................................................................................. 32
`A.
`The ’239 Patent .................................................................................. 32
`B.
`Claim 20 ............................................................................................. 37
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................... 38
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 38
`1.
`“Data Parcel” (Claim 1) ........................................................... 39
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`b)
`c)
`
`“User-Controlled Image Viewpoint” (Claim 1) ...................... 39
`2.
`VI. Claim 20 is Not Unpatentable as Obvious Over the Asserted
`Combination of Reddy, Hornbacker and Rosasco ....................................... 40
`A.
`The Asserted Prior Art ....................................................................... 43
`1.
`Reddy ....................................................................................... 43
`a)
`TerraVision II’s “GeoTile” Node Links to
`Image and Terrain Tiles ................................................. 46
`Distance-Based Level of Detail (LOD) ......................... 46
`QuadLOD: Loading and Display of Image
`Data ................................................................................ 50
`Additional “Coarse to Fine” Algorithm
`Asserted by Petitioner .................................................... 51
`“Flying” Mode ............................................................... 52
`e)
`Pre-Fetching ................................................................... 54
`f)
`Locally-stored Image Tile Set ....................................... 55
`g)
`Hornbacker ............................................................................... 56 
`2. 
`Rosasco .................................................................................... 56 
`3. 
`The Asserted Prior Art Combination Does Not Teach or
`Suggest the Elements of Claim 20 ..................................................... 60 
`1. 
`Reddy Does Not Teach or Suggest the Required
`Prioritization of Requests Based on a First and
`Second User-Controlled Image Viewpoint .............................. 61 
`Rosasco Also Does Not Teach or Suggest the
`Required Prioritization of Requests Based on a
`First and Second User-Controlled Image
`Viewpoint ................................................................................. 67 
`
`d)
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`The Combination of Reddy and Rosasco Does Not
`Teach or Suggest the Elements of Claim 20 ............................ 68 
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Rosasco with Reddy
`and Rosasco to Achieve Claim 20 ..................................................... 71 
`VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 73 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC,
`IPR2016-01738, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018) .......................................... 29
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 4, 9, 11
`Becton, Dickinson & Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`Case IPR2017-01586 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8) ...................................... 16
`
`Cf. General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`No. IPR2016-01357 (Paper 19) (P.T.A.B., Sept. 6, 2017) .................................. 15
`Collins v. United States,
`14 Ct. Cl. 568 (1878) ........................................................................................... 31
`Edmond v. United States,
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) ............................................................................................. 30
`Freytag v. Commissioner,
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) ............................................................................................. 31
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`Case IPR2017-00739 (PTAB July 27, 2017) (Paper 16) ..................................... 16
`Hulu v. Sound View Innovations,
`IPR2018-00017, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2018) ........................................... 29
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 41
`In re Smith Int’l, Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 38
`Lucia v. S.E.C.,
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ............................................................................ 29, 30, 31
`
`v
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 17
`Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices,
`61 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 29
`Ryder v. United States,
`515 U.S. 177 (1995) ............................................................................................. 32
`Sophos Ltd. v. Iancu,
`727 F. App’x 656 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 39
`St. Jude Med., LLC v. Synders Heart Valve LLC,
`IPR2018-00107, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B May 3, 2018) .............................................. 29
`Unified Patents Inc. v. American Vehicular Sciences, LLC,
`IPR2016-00364, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. June 27, 2016) ........................................... 11
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01940, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016) ............................................. 11
`Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 3
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 15
`35 U.S.C. §103 ......................................................................................................... 40
`35 U.S.C. §316 ......................................................................................................... 30
`35 U.S.C. §318(a) ............................................................................................. 15, 30
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ....................................................................................... 15, 16, 17
`35 U.S.C. §328(a) .................................................................................................... 30
`35 U.S.C. §328(b) .................................................................................................... 30
`35 U.S.C. §6 ............................................................................................................. 31
`35 U.S.C. §6(a) ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`vi
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`5 U.S.C. §706(2)(B) ................................................................................................. 32
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.51 ...................................................................................................... 30
`37 C.F.R. §42.65 ...................................................................................................... 30
`Constitutional Provisions 
`
`U.S. Const., art. II, §2, cl. 2 ........................................................................ 29, 30, 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, 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
`
`(’293 Patent)
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Notice of Acceptance of Power of Attorney, Date Mailed
`03/11/2016, for A lication No. 14/547,148 ’293 Patent
`
`Declaration of Michael N. Zachary in Support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`2004
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Transcript of Deposition of
`
`Unified Patents CEO, Kevin Jakel dated September 10, 2018
`
`Team, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/team/#
`
`Join, Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join/
`
`Join, Unified Patents (May 17, 2018),
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20180517015601/https://www.unifiedp
`
`atents.com/join/
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Unified Patents Membership
`
`Agreement
`
`2009
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL: Exhibit A: Subscription Form
`
`— Internet of Things (IoT) Zone
`
`2010
`
`Belcher, Marta, et al., “Hacking the Patent System: A guide to
`
`2008
`
`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/20161027135832/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
`
`viii
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Exhibit
`
`2014
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC, Unified Patents (August 3, 2015),
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150803044103/http://bradiumtechnol
`
`ogies.com/
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`Docket Navigator of Unified Patents dated Jun. 17, 2015
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint, filed
`
`Jan. 9, 2015
`
`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
`
`
`
`Unified Patents, backed by Google, takesfight to patent trolls, Don
`
`Reisinger, CNET (Apr. 8, 2013)
`
`Don Clark, New Venture Enters Patent Fray, Wall Street Journal,
`
`published Apr- 7, 2013
`
`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 1 7/7/5/according-to-rpx-
`
`datea-has-challenged-almost-all—of-20 1 7s-most-prolific-npes
`
`2023
`
`Email fiom 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/
`
`ix
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, 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
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`LLC’s Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC’s Disclaimer of Claims 1-19, 21-25
`
`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
`
`203 1
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-01897 (US. 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,
`
`20 1 7)
`
`NPE Zones: Deter bad NPE conduct, Unified Patents (Sept. 20,
`
`201 8), https://www.unifiedpatents.com/npe/
`
`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’s
`
`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
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, 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 ht
`
`s://www.unified atents.com/'oin/ (downloaded
`
`October 9, 2018)
`
`2041
`
`PDF Copy of ht
`
`s://www.unified atents.com/'oin-1/ (downloaded
`
`October 9, 2018) (not filed)
`
`Declaration of C. Coulson (not filed)
`
`Declaration of L. Quan (not filed)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Christopher K. Wilson (March 8, 2019)
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`
`
`2045 Wilson Deposition Ex. 2038: Unified Patents Inc. v. Location Based
`
`Services, LLC, IPR2017-01965, Declaration of Christopher K-
`
`Wilson (Excerpted)
`
`Wilson Deposition Ex. 2039: US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2012/0095682
`
`Wilson Deposition EX. 2040: US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2002/0014979
`
`Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Internet Archive
`
`(wwwarchiveorg), dated November 27, 2018
`
`Exhibits to Notarized Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Exhibit A
`
`(Unified Patents “Join” Webpage) and Exhibit B (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 2016)
`
`Dec. 8, 2016 J. Lasker Letter to M. Shanahan
`
`June 17, 1996 FlashPix Format and Architecture White Paper
`
`Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2017 Non-Final Rejection, IDS,
`
`List of References
`
`Application No. 15/457,816, Oct. 4, 2018 Final Rejection
`
`2054
`
`Declaration of Dr. Agourls 1n Support of Patent Owner Response
`
`xi
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, 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
`
`m (downloaded April 1, 2019)
`
`Portal,” prepared by J. Sprague
`
`2058
`
`PDF copy of
`
`ht
`
`s:// ortal.unified atents.com/ tab/caselist? atent_owners=bradiu
`
`xii
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`Introduction
`The Board instituted trial on a single ground: whether Claim 20, which
`
`I.
`
`depends from Claim 1, is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Reddy,
`
`Hornbacker, and Rosasco.
`
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Reddy and Hornbacker for Claim 1,
`
`and Patent Owner has already disclaimed Claim 1. Petitioner relies on the
`
`disclosures of only Reddy and Rosasco for its obviousness assertion for the
`
`additional limitations of Claim 20. Patent Owner disputes the obviousness of
`
`Claim 20.
`
`Claim 20 is not unpatentable based on the asserted prior art combination.
`
`The Board has previously agreed that Reddy in combination with Hornbacker does
`
`not disclose the prioritization recited by Claim 20. IPR2016-01897, Paper 17
`
`(Institution Decision), at 20 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2017) (denying institution as to
`
`Claim 20). In this IPR, Petitioner added the Rosasco reference in an attempt to
`
`overcome the deficiency of the Reddy/Hornbacker combination, although in
`
`reality, the deficiency is the asserted prioritization disclosure of Reddy alone, as
`
`neither petitioner in IPR2016-01897 nor Petitioner in this IPR asserts that
`
`prioritization is disclosed by Hornbacker.
`
`In this IPR, the Board accepted that Reddy’s disclosure of a “flying mode”
`
`in which a user navigates through a three-dimensional representation of scene, in
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`combination with the prioritization of image sets of Rosasco, was sufficient for
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`institution purposes. But it is undisputed that Rosasco discloses prioritization only
`
`with respect to a single viewpoint. As explained below, Claim 20 requires
`
`prioritization of two requests that are each based on a different viewpoint.
`
`Therefore, Rosasco does not solve the deficiency of Reddy, and Claim 20 is not
`
`obvious over the combination of Reddy, Hornbacker, and Rosasco.
`
`The Board concluded that Claim 20 “broadly requires prioritizing requests
`
`for update data parcels.” Paper 31, 40. Claim 20, however, must be read in the
`
`context of Claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 requires steps for a first and a
`
`second request, and that the two requests for update data parcels must each be
`
`based on a different user-controlled viewpoint. As Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Mr. Wilson, explained at deposition, a “user-controlled viewpoint” is a viewpoint
`
`that is controllable by the user, for example, by user navigational controls.
`
`EX2044 (Wilson Deposition), 80:10-21. Claim 20 therefore requires determining
`
`a priority for two requests that are each based on different user-controlled
`
`viewpoints.
`
`Because the prior art relied on by Petitioner does not alone or in combination
`
`disclose the limitations of Claim 20 as set forth above, the Petition fails on its
`
`merits.
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`Additionally, Petitioner has failed to identify all real parties in interest, and
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`this proceeding should be terminated as a result, or at least the Board should
`
`mandate that Petitioner correct its Mandatory Disclosures to address this
`
`deficiency by adding Apple and Google as RPI’s. This proceeding is also a highly
`
`duplicative “copy” of a prior proceeding and the Board should therefore exercise
`
`its discretion to terminate the proceeding for this reason as well. This proceeding
`
`should also be terminated because the Board has not been properly appointed
`
`under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
`
`II. Unified Has Not Identified All Real-Parties-in-Interest
`“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . (2) the
`
`petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2). A Petitioner’s
`
`statement that it is the sole real-party-in-interest (“RPI”) is not entitled to a legal
`
`presumption of truth, if challenged. Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237,
`
`1243 (Fed. Cir. 2018). If the patent owner comes forth with evidence “that tends
`
`to show that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest,” the
`
`Petitioner has the burden to prove its RPI statement with admissible evidence. Id.
`
`Unified Patents identifies only itself as the RPI. Paper 2 (Petition), p.2.
`
`Bradium, however, adduces evidence that showing that at least two other entities—
`
`Google and Apple—are real parties in interest. Not having identified either entity
`
`as an RPI, Unified has failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of identifying all
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`RPIs, and accordingly this proceeding should be terminated or Petitioner should be
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`required to correct its identification of RPIs.
`
`In its institution decision, the Board disagreed with Bradium’s position. In
`
`addition to updating its argument below, Bradium responds to the institution
`
`decision.
`
`A. Under the AIT Decision, Unified is Not the Only Real-Party-in-
`Interest
`In AIT, the Federal Circuit held that the term RPI in Section 315(b) has an
`
`“expansive” common-law meaning, the goal being “to ascertain who, from a
`
`‘practical and equitable’ standpoint, will benefit from the redress that the chosen
`
`tribunal might provide.” Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897
`
`F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (hereafter “AIT”) (emphasis added) (citation
`
`omitted). Further, the RPI determination “demands a flexible approach that takes
`
`into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward
`
`determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting
`
`established relationship with the petitioner.” Id. at 1351 (emphasis added).
`
`In AIT, the court took special note of the following facts, among others: (1)
`
`“RPX, unlike a traditional trade association, is a for-profit company whose clients
`
`pay for its portfolio of ‘patent risk solutions’” (Id.); (2) one of RPX’s strategies is
`
`“the facilitation of challenges to patent validity” to “reduce expenses for [RPX’s]
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`clients” (Id.); (3) the fact that RPX may not discuss specific IPRs with clients may
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`be for the purpose of circumventing the RPI requirement. Id., 1352, n.4.
`
`Collectively, these facts “imply that RPX can and does file IPRs to serve its
`
`clients’ financial interests, and that a key reason clients pay RPX is to benefit from
`
`this practice in the event they are sued by an NPE.” Id.
`
`The facts here regarding Unified are similar:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Like RPX, Unified is not a trade association. It is a “for-
`profit” entity, owned by two individuals. EX2004, 10:15-
`18.
`.
`EX2004, 127:14-19.
`Like RPX, Unified’s business model is “NPE deterrence.”
`By filing IPRs against NPEs, Unified seeks to reduce
`lawsuits against its members. EX2004, 62:10-63:3. “[A]
`unique and important part of Unified Patents’ overall
`strategy is filing inter partes review petitions to undermine
`current assertions based on invalid patents by large
`nonpracticing entities against companies in the technology
`industry…and to deter future claims in the same space….”
`EX2025, 1.
`
`
`. EX2013, 19. Unified has established “NPE Zones,”
`to “Deter Bad NPE Conduct.” EX2033. Each “zone”
`focuses on a particular business area, such as “Mobile,”
`“IoT,” “Retail,” etc. Id.
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`US. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`-. EX2004, 49:4_9.
`
`.4;
`
`5.
`
`-. Id.; EX2006, EX2007.
`
`l
`
`From these figures,
`
`it is clear that the main benefit of
`
`membership is that Unified files IPRs against patents that
`
`might be asserted against members, without members
`
`facing the consequence of IPR estoppel or a time bar.
`
`6.
`
`Prior to filing this IPR, Unified was aware that Bradium
`
`had previously sued Microsoft. EX2004, 139220-140: 10.
`
`7.
`
`Unified filed this IPR specifically to go after General
`
`1 See EX2013, 20-21. At deposition, Unified conceded that these
`
`probably 10w.—
`
`_. EX2004, 13:7-19, 17:10-16, 132:3-133:20, 159:5-160z6, 161:9-20.
`
`—. Id., 132:3—133120. Unified also incurs expenses for
`
`“Business Development” personnel, whose function is to attract more members so
`
`that, among other things, Unified can file more IPRs on their behalf. Id., 15:10—16,
`
`1812-4, 117:4—19, 17518—19; EX2005.
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`9.
`
`8.
`
`(Bradium’s managing member)
`Patent Corporation
`because it “is a NPE and a well-known one.” EX2004,
`153:20-21. Unified also threatened Bradium that Unified
`would proceed with this IPR unless Bradium agreed to
`give Unified a zero-dollar license to the entire Bradium
`portfolio. EX2037, ¶10.
`Unified filed this IPR to protect its ‘zone’ members.
`EX2033, 153:17-19; see also EX2033, 175:8-19. The
`’239 Patent is considered part of the “Content Delivery
`Zone.” Id., 35:10-14.
`
` Id., 123:12-21.
`Google was one of Unified’s first two members. Id.,
`70:11-12; EX2020. In a press release issued in December
`2013, Unified announced that “In the world of fighting
`patent trolls, there is a new player named Unified Patents
`Inc. that aims to level the playing field for companies such
`as Google….” Unified went on: “Unified patents tightly
`aligns its deterrent solution with its participating
`companies.” EX2020 (emphasis added).
`10. Unified had filed 156 IPRs through April 1, 2019, since
`filing its first IPR in September 2013 (42 in the last nine
`months alone). Of these, at least 71 were filed on patents
`for which its members had already faced infringement
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`11.
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`suits. 2 EX2035 (Quan Declaration); EX2036; EX2056
`(Sprague Declaration); EX2057. Unified has filed 16 IPRs
`on patents Google had been sued on. EX2035, ¶8;
`EX2056, ¶7. Unified has filed 28 IPRs on patents Apple
`had been sued on. EX2035, ¶9; EX2056, ¶8. Unified’s
`very first IPR was filed on a patent that both Google and
`Apple had been sued on. EX2021. All of Unified’s IPRs
`were filed to protect the members of the applicable zones
`in which the patents are classified. EX2004, 34:8-35:4,
`35:15-26:1, 45:20-47:13, 61:7-14, 62:1-63:6, 64:2-65:3,
`67:8-11, 68:14-69:18, EX2006, EX2008.
`
`
`. EX2004,
`183:12-14, 184:12-14. If Google and Apple had to file
`their own IPRs instead of Unified, it would have cost them
`
`
`2 The number is “at least” this high. Although Bradium requested that
`
`Unified produce its full membership list, it only provided its membership list for
`
`the Content Delivery Zone. EX2013, 7-13; EX2003, 118:6-20, 119:19-120:3.
`
`Production of the full membership list would enable Bradium to calculate the
`
`(presumably higher) number of IPRs filed by Unified where any member was
`
`previously sued.
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`
`
`an estimated $5,600,000 and $9,200,000 respectively,3 not
`to mention the consequent IPR estoppels and the potential
`obstacles to successful institution of subsequent, serial
`IPRs filed either by them or others.
`12. Google and Apple are obvious potential licensees of the
`’239 patent, and in fact Bradium has held licensing
`discussions with both Google and Apple beginning in May
`2014. EX2037, ¶¶8-9. At least Apple is aware of this IPR.
`Id., ¶8.
`The facts above show that Google and Apple are both RPIs, and at a
`
`minimum “tend to show” their status as RPIs. Worlds, 2018 WL 4262564, at *5.
`
`From “a practical and equitable standpoint,” they are the parties who “will benefit
`
`from the redress” that would flow from grant of the IPR. AIT, 897 F.3d at 1349.
`
`This puts the burden on Unified to prove that Google and Apple are not RPIs.
`
`In fact, Unified’s membership recruiting “join” web page (EX2006, 3)
`
`quoted from and linked to a “Hacking the Patent System” article that explained that
`
`Unified’s membership structure allowed its members to benefit from Unified’s
`
`IPRs without being considered RPI’s—i.e., “hacking” the PTAB’s rules:
`
`
`3 This figure is based on averaging RPX’s figures for the high and low costs
`
`of an IPR. EX2029.
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`…it should allow members to benefit from inter partes
`review of dubious patents without becoming the ‘real
`parties-in-interest’ in the review. A ‘real party-in-interest’
`in an inter partes review that reaches a final decision
`cannot later defend a patent infringement lawsuit using
`any argument that could have been raised during that inter
`partes review.
`
`EX2010 at 6-7 (emphasis added); see EX2004 at 45:3-48:2, 50:12-51:3; 88:16-
`
`90:2. A prior version of Unified’s “join” website also quoted and linked to this
`
`article.4 EX2007, 3; EX2004, 51:11-21.
`
`Tellingly, after Bradium asked Unified’s CEO about Unified’s “join” web
`
`page at deposition, Unified removed the quote and link. Compare EX2007, 3
`
`(prior version including quote and link) to EX2040 (later “join” page with article
`
`removed).5
`
`To be sure, IPR grants also benefit Unified itself, but only to the extent it
`
`will encourage members like Google and Apple to continue paying membership
`
`fees of
`
`, so that Unified’s owners may continue to enjoy the
`
`profits derived from such fees.
`
`
`4 See also EX2048; EX2049.
`
`5 See also https://www.unifiedpatents.com/join (last visited March 18, 2019).
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`In its Petition, Unified contends that no other party “controls” this IPR.
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,253,239
`
`Petition at 2. However, as the Court noted in AIT, “a nonparty to an IPR can be a
`
`real party in interest even without entering into an express or implied agreement
`
`with the petitioner to file an IPR petition.” AIT, 897 F.3d at 1349. Similarly, prior
`
`PTAB decisions determining that Unified’s members are not real parties in interest
`
`because they do not “control” (or directly fund) the IPR have effectively been
`
`overruled by AIT. See EX2038 (Unified Patents website), citing Unified Patents
`
`Inc. v. Qurio Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-01940, Paper 7 at 26 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13,
`
`2016) (Comcast not real-party-in-interest due to lack of “actual proof that Comcast
`
`exerted control over the Petition.”) and Unified Patents Inc. v. American Vehicular
`
`Sciences, LLC, IPR2016-00364, Paper 13 at 6 (P.T.A.B. June 27, 2016) (“Patent
`
`Owner provides no evidence that any other entity actually is controlling this
`
`particular proceeding, or is providing direct financing for this particular
`
`proceeding.”)
`
`In sum, Google and Apple are each “a clear beneficiary that has a
`
`preexisting established relationship with the petitio