`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., DISH TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01342
`Patent 8,934,535 B2
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`
`Petitioner filed 137 total demonstrative slides in the two IPRs consolidated
`
`
`
`for oral argument (Ex. 1036 in IPR2018-01342 and Ex. 1030 in IPR2018-01331).
`
`Patent Owner objects to only a small subset of slides in view of the Board’s
`
`guidance in its oral argument order. See Paper 37 at 4 (“The parties are advised to
`
`limit objections to demonstrative exhibits to egregious violations that are
`
`prejudicial to the administration of justice.”).
`
`The following slides are improper because they attempt to expand the scope
`
`of this IPR proceeding beyond the theories and grounds identified in the Petition.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 312(c) (requiring petition to identify “in writing and with
`
`particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each
`
`claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim”). For example, the slides allege that the term “access profile” in claims 1
`
`and 14 of the ’535 patent would have been obvious, but no such obviousness
`
`theory was presented in the instituted grounds for those claims (Grounds 1 and 2).
`
`See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (rejecting “a new obviousness argument for [a particular] limitation that
`
`could have been made in the petition . . . which proposed that [the prior art]
`
`rendered obvious a number of other claim limitations. [Petitioner] had an
`
`opportunity to present this argument in its petition, but chose not to.”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide
`
`42–43
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives (Ex. 1036)
`
`These slides allege that Dvir satisfies Realtime’s construction of
`“access profile.” But the Petition did not consider any alternate
`constructions of “access profile” or present any theories or evidence
`under other constructions. Further, the Petition could have accounted
`for Realtime’s construction because it comes directly from the
`specification at ’535 patent, at 8:8–12.
`
`44–46, 47 These slides allege that Dvir renders obvious “access profile.” But
`this obviousness theory was never presented in the Petition. Ground
`1 is limited to anticipation and Ground 2 never mentions the term
`“access profile.”
`
`51–52
`
`
`These slides allege that Dvir discloses “asymmetric” compression
`under Realtime’s construction. But the Petition did not consider
`Realtime’s construction or present any theories or evidence under
`that construction. Further, the Petition could have accounted for
`Realtime’s construction because it is the definition of “asymmetric”
`compression given in patent. See ’535 patent at 9:63–67.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`/ Philip X. Wang/
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Neil A. Rubin (Reg. 67,030)
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`rak_realtimedata@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`December 2, 2019, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board End to End system as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the
`
`following attorneys of record for Petitioners:
`
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Adam R. Shartzer
`Brian J. Livedalen
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: 202-783-5070
`Email: IPR45035-0002IP4@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip W. Citroën
`S. Emily Lee
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2005
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Email: PH-Google-Realtime-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James L. Day
`Daniel Callaway
`FARELLA BRAUN
`+ MARTELL LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Email: jday@fbm.com
`Email: dcallaway@fbm.com
`Email: calendar@fbm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Philip X. Wang/
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`
`
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
