Paper 42
`
`
`
`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 NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT
`COURT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF “ACCESS PROFILE”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT
`COURT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF “ACCESS PROFILE”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUCTION
`
`During oral argument on December 5, 2019, the Board requested that the
`
`
`
`
`parties submit any district court claim constructions for “access profile” that have
`
`not been brought to the Board’s attention. Pursuant to this request, Patent Owner
`
`submits as Ex. 2019 the Final Ruling on Markman/Claim Construction from
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03629-
`
`GW-(JCx) (C.D. Cal.); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.,
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-09344-GW-(JCx) (C.D. Cal.). In the Markman order, Judge Wu
`
`construed the term “access profile” in claims 1 and 14 of the ’535 patent to mean:
`
`“profile relating to the number and/or frequency at which information is obtained
`
`(‘read’) or placed (‘written’).” Ex. 2019 at 9–13.
`
`In district court proceedings, Realtime proposed the same construction as its
`
`proposal this IPR: “information that enables the controller to select a suitable
`
`compression algorithm that provides a desired balance between execution speed
`
`(rate compression) and efficiency (compression ratio).” Id. at 9. And defendants
`
`Google and Adobe proposed the same construction as the Board’s preliminary
`
`construction in the Netflix IPR (IPR2018-001169): “information regarding the
`
`number or frequency of reads or writes.” Id.
`
`Judge Wu considered both proposals and provided analysis. Id. at 9–13.
`
`Judge Wu found that the correct construction of “access profile” should identify
`
`what information is actually included in an access profile, not just information
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`about the intended use of an access profile. Id. at 12. Judge Wu also found that the
`
`construction should reflect the meaning of the word “access,” consistent with the
`
`three examples of access profiles in the specification, as well as the technical
`
`meaning of “access” in the field of art:
`
`The specification’s proffered example of three types of “access
`
`profiles” is also generally consistent with the technical definitions of
`
`“access” submitted by Defendants. Although Defendants appear to
`
`acknowledge that the phrase “access profile” need not be limited to
`
`the exact three examples provided in the specification, the technical
`
`meaning of “access” and its consistency with what is disclosed in the
`
`intrinsic record factually support the conclusion that the term “access”
`
`should be given the same meaning in the context of the coined phrase
`
`“access profile” as it generally has in this field.
`
`Id. Accordingly, Judge Wu construed “access profile” as “profile relating to the
`
`number and/or frequency at which information is obtained (‘read’) or placed
`
`(‘written’).” Id. at 12–13. At the Markman hearing, all three parties agreed to this
`
`construction. Ex. 2020 (Markman Hr’g Tr.) at 5:22–7:8.
`
`If invited to, Realtime is willing to submit additional briefing on whether
`
`Judge Wu’s construction of “access profile” should be adopted in view of the
`
`Board’s comments at oral argument.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUCTION
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 Amended Complaint of June 6, 2017, in E.D. Tex. Case No. 17-cv-84
`2002
`Stipulated Motion in D. Colorado Case No. 17-cv-2097
`2003
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: DISH Network LLC
`2004
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling TV LLC
`2005
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: EchoStar Techs. LLC
`2006
`Proof of Service of Amended Complaint re: Sling Media LLC
`2007 Defendants' Supplemental Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
`2008 Defendants’ Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to
`Answer Complaint
`2009 Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`2010
`Expert Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger
`2011
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019
`2012
`Expert Declaration of Alan Bovik, Realtime Adaptive Streaming v.
`Sling, et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 135-1 (D.
`Colo. Nov. 7, 2018),
`2013 Markman Order, Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling, et al., Civil
`Action No. 1:17-CV-02097-RBJ, Dkt. 151 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2019),
`2014 U.S. Patent App. Pub. US 2002/0144271 A1 for Appl. No.
`09/197,441 (“Behagen”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Scott Acton on May 10, 2019 in
`IPR2018-01331 on U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610.
`RFC 2435, RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video,
`October 1998
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Google LLC, et al., Civil Action
`No. 2:18-CV-03629-GW-JC, Dkt. 67 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018),
`Scheduling Order
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`Final Ruling on Markman/Claim Construction, Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. Google LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03629-GW-
`(JCx), Dkt. 84 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 25, 2019); Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-09344-GW-(JCx), Dkt.
`92 (C.D. Cal., Jul. 25, 2019) ( “Google and Adobe CDCal Cases”)
`Excerpts of Transcript of Markman Hearing on July 18, 2019 in
`Google and Adobe CDCal Cases
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`2019
`
`2020
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ 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
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01342 (’535 Patent)
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE REGARDING DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUCTION
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`December 9, 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:
`
`
`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)
`
`
`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 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
