Demonstratives of Petitioner Snap Inc.
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 and 8,326,327
`
`IPR2019-00714
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Oral Hearing: June 9, 2020
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0001
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 and 8,326,327
`
`IPR2019-00714
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Oral Hearing: June 9, 2020
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0001
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00714 and -00715:
`Petitioner Snap Inc.’s oral hearing agenda
`
`IPR2019-00714 (’084 patent) / -00715 (’327 patent)
`• Board’s initial determination finding challenged claims unpatentable over Lemmela
`and Crowley grounds is correct
`• Board did not appreciate full disclosure of Winkler
`• Challenged claims are unpatentable over Winkler and Altman grounds
`
`IPR2019-00715: substitute claim 21
`• Adding video to pop-up display would have been obvious under full KSR analysis
`• Substitute claim 21 does not have written description support
`• Substitute claim 21 is unpatentable under Alice
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0002
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00714
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 5-6 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`
`IPR2019-00715
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, 13-15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 13-15 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 10-11 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`• Ground 4: Claims 9 and 20 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Waldman
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0003
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 claim 1
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0004
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “action spot”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`-00714, Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 12; see also -00715:
`Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 8
`
`-00714, Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 14; see also -00715 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 8-9
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0005
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “action spot”
`’084 / ’327 patent specification
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (3:66-4:4); -00714 Ex. 1001 (4:6-11)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (4:19-23); -00714 Ex. 1001 (4:27-32)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (3:32-35); -00714 Ex. 1001 (3:39-42)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (6:32-36); -00714 Ex. 1001 (6:41-45)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (6:51-56); -00714 Ex. 1001 (6:60-65)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (12:17-24); -00714 Ex. 1001 (12:27-44)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0006
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “action spot”
`
`Petitioner
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 3; see also -00715: id. at 2-8, Ex. 1001 (3:39-42, 4:4-11, 4:27-32, 6:37-45, 6:61-65, 8:28-39, 8:44-48, 11:56-57, 12:27-34, 12:43-48, 14:15-25, 19:35-
`50), Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 16-20), Ex. 2005 at 40-41; -00714: Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 2-8, Ex. 1001 (3:3-5, 3:39-42, 4:4-11, 4:27-32, 6:37-45, 6:61-65, 8:37-48, 11:56-67, 12:27-34, 12:43-
`48, 14:15-25, 19:35-50), Ex. 1012 at 40-41, Ex. 1011 (¶¶ 16-20)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0007
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00714
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 5-6 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`
`IPR2019-00715
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, 13-15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 13-15 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 10-11 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`• Ground 4: Claims 9 and 20 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Waldman
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0008
`
`
`
`Lemmela
`Identifying Interesting Locations Based on Commonalities in Location Based Postings
`
`-00715 Ex. 1005 (Fig. 1, ¶¶ 26, 28); see also -00715: Petition (Paper 1) at 11-13, Ex. 1002 (¶¶ 47-
`49); -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 11-13, Ex. 1002 (¶¶44-45), Ex. 1005 (Fig. 1, ¶¶ 26, 28)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0009
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “activity level”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`-00715 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 18-19; see also -00714 Institution Decision (Paper 9)
`at 21-22, 25-26
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0010
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “activity level”
`
`’084 / ’327 patent claims
`
`District court
`
`-00715 Ex. 1001 (claim 1)
`
`-00714 Ex. 1001 (claim 1)
`
`-00715 Ex. 2002 at 39-41; see also -00714 Ex. 2002 at 39-41
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0011
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “activity level”
`
`Lemmela
`
`-00715 Ex. 1005 (¶ 12); see also -00714 Ex. 1005 (¶ 12)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1005 (¶ 28); see also -00714 Ex. 1005 (¶ 28)
`
`See also -00715: Petition (Paper 1) at 53-55, 56-58, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 22-24, Ex. 1002, (¶¶ 62-64), Ex. 1020 (¶¶33-43); -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 54-56, 58-
`60, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 22-24, Ex. 1002 (¶¶58, 61), Ex. 1011 (¶¶41-50)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0012
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “server receiv[ing] data indicative of a
`current location of a first mobile device”
`Institution Decision
`
`-00714 proceeding only
`
`-00714 Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 23-24; see also id. at 22-25
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0013
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “server receiv[ing] data indicative of a
`current location of a first mobile device”
`Lemmela
`
`-00714 proceeding only
`
`-00714 Ex. 1005 (¶ 38)
`
`-00714 Ex. 1005 (Fig. 1, ¶ 26)
`
`See also -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 47, Institution Decision (Paper 9)
`at 22-25, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 27-29, Ex. 1002 (¶¶ 44-45, 58),
`Ex. 1011 (¶¶ 33-40), Ex. 1005 (¶¶ 37, 39), Ex. 1013 (153:20-154:11)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0014
`
`
`
`Lemmela discloses the claimed “server receiv[ing] data indicative of a
`current location of a first mobile device”
`Petitioner’s expert
`
`-00714 proceeding only
`
`-00714: Ex. 2004, 60:15-61:5. See also id. at 66:22-67:6, 67:11-18, 78:6-79:8, 79:18-80:5,
`82:15-83:1
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0015
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00714
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 5-6 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`
`IPR2019-00715
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, 13-15 as obvious over Winkler and Altman
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 8, 13-15 as obvious over Lemmela and Crowley
`• Ground 3: Claims 10-11 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Winkler
`• Ground 4: Claims 9 and 20 as obvious over Lemmela, Crowley, and Waldman
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0016
`
`
`
`Winkler
`Dynamic Elements on a Map Within a Mobile Device, Such as Elements that Facilitate Communication Between Users
`
`-00715: Ex. 1004 (Figs. 5, 7A, 2:16-33); see also id. at 10:1-13:42, Petition (Paper 1) at 7-9, Ex. 1002 (¶¶ 41-43); -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 7-
`9, Ex. 1002 (¶¶38-40), Ex. 1004 (Figs. 5, 7A, 2:16-33, 10:1-13:42))
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0017
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” may be dynamically
`modified by multiple “events”
`Winkler
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (2:29-33); -00714 Ex. 1004 (2:29-33)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (3:2-3); -00714 Ex. 1004 (3:2-3)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1020 (¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:36-54)); -00714: Ex. 1011
`(¶ 69 (Ex. 1004, 11:36-54))
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (14:19-21); -00714 Ex. 1004 (14:19-21)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 8-9; see also -00715: Petition (Paper 1) at 23-25, Ex. 1002 (¶ 53), Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 62-68); -
`00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-19, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 9-10, Ex. 1002 (¶ 48), Ex. 1011 (¶¶ 66-72).
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0018
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” may be dynamically
`modified by multiple “events”
`Petitioner
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 8-9; see also -00715: Petition (Paper 1) at 23-25, Ex. 1004 (2:29-33, 3:2-3, 14:19-21), Ex.
`1002 (¶ 53), Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 62-68); -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-19, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 9-10, Ex. 1004 (2:29-33, 3:2-
`3, 14:19-21), Ex. 1002 (¶ 48), Ex. 1011 (¶¶ 66-72).
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0019
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” may be within a “pre-
`selected range” of a user’s current location
`
`Petitioner
`
`Winkler
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (11:34-40); -00714: Ex. 1004 (11:34-40)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 11; see also -00715: Petition (Paper 1) at
`23-26, Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5, 10:17-19), Ex. 1020 (¶ 71); -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-
`20, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 11, Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5, 10:17-19), Ex. 1011 (¶ 75)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (10:17-20); -00714: Ex. 1004 (10:17-20)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0020
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” as action spots
`Petitioner
`Winkler
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5, 10:1-11:65); see also -00715: Petition (Paper
`1) at 23-26; -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-20, Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5,
`10:1-11:65)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 14-17; see also -00715: Ex. 1020 (¶ 72); -
`00714: Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 14-17, Ex. 1011 (¶ 76)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0021
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” as action spots
`Petitioner
`Winkler
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5, 10:1-11:65); see also -00715: Petition (Paper
`1) at 23-26; -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-20, Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5,
`10:1-11:65)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 17-19; see also -00715: Ex. 1020 (¶ 73); -
`00714: Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 17-19, Ex. 1011 (¶ 77)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0022
`
`
`
`Winkler’s “map elements” as action spots
`Petitioner
`Winkler
`
`-00715 Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5, 10:1-11:65); see also -00715: Petition (Paper
`1) at 23-26; -00714: Petition (Paper 1) at 17-20, Ex. 1004 (Fig. 5,
`10:1-11:65)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 19-21; see also -00715: Ex. 1020 (¶ 74); -00714:
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22) at 19-21, Ex. 1011 (¶ 78)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0023
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00715:
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend
`
`IPR2019-00715: substitute claim 21
`• Adding video to pop-up display would have been obvious under full KSR
`analysis
`• Substitute claim 21 does not have written description support
`• Substitute claim 21 is unpatentable under Alice
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0024
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious
`
`Grounds:
`
`• Winkler-Altman system with either Eyal or Jaffe
`
`•
`
`Lemmela-Crowley system with either Eyal or Jaffe
`See Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 6-18; Petitioner’s Reply to
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 1-10, Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 127-234)
`
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 26) at 9
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0025
`
`
`
`Jaffe
`Summarization of Media Object Collections
`
`-00715: Ex. 1013 (Figs. 2B, 4, Abstract); see also id. at Fig. 2A, 1:57-3:36,
`Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 10-12, Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 121-26)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0026
`
`
`
`Eyal
`System and Method for Obtaining and Sharing Content Associated with Geographic Information
`
`-00715: Ex. 1014 (Fig. 2, 5:3-6, 6:50-59); see also id. at 1:28-4:19, 5:64-10:4,
`Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 10-12, Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 116-20)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0027
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s prior art combinations disclose all
`elements of substitute claim 21
`
`Preliminary Guidance
`
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 26) at 10; see also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 6-14, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 1, Ex. 1020 (¶¶
`127-203)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0028
`
`
`
`Obviousness under KSR
`
`• Helpful insights, however, need not become rigid and mandatory formula. If it is
`so applied, the TSM test is incompatible with this Court's precedents.
`• The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against
`confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words
`teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of
`published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.
`• In many fields there may be little discussion of obvious techniques or
`combinations, and market demand, rather than scientific literature, may often
`drive design trends.
`• Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course
`without real innovation retards progress and may, for patents combining
`previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility. . . .
`But a court errs where, as here, it transforms general principle into a rigid rule
`limiting the obviousness inquiry.
`• KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401-02 (2007)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0029
`
`
`
`Multiple rationales support obviousness determination
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 210, 217, 224, 231)
`• Combining prior art element according to known methods to yield
`predictable results (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 209, 216, 223, 230)
`• Improved similar systems in same way (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 211-12, 218-19,
`225-26, 232-33)
`• Design choice for a POSITA (Ex. 1020, ¶¶213, 220, 227, 234)
`• Obvious to try (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 213, 220, 227, 234)
`• Teaching, suggestion, or motivation (Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 210-34)
`
`See also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 14-18, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 1-10
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0030
`
`
`
`KSR rationale: adding video was natural extension of Lemmela/
`Winkler systems in view of broad societal trends
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`-00715 Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 211-12); see also id. at ¶¶ 218-19, Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 14-
`18, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 2-10, Ex. 1005 (Fig. 5, ¶¶ 2-6), Ex.
`1013 (1:7-53), Ex. 1014 (1:7-24), Ex. 1015
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0031
`
`
`
`KSR rationale: Eyal and Jaffe show POSITAs treated picture and video content for
`social media applications as complementary and interchangeable
`
`Eyal
`
`Jaffe
`
`-00715 Ex. 1014 (1:13-24); -00714 Ex. 1014 (1:13-24)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1013 (4:48-60); -00714 Ex. 1013 (4:48-60)
`
`See also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 14-18, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 2-10, Ex. 1005 (Fig. 5, ¶¶ 2-6), Ex. 1013 (1:7-53), Ex. 1014 (1:7-
`24), Ex. 1015
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0032
`
`
`
`KSR rationale: adding video to text- and picture-based posts to Lemmela and Crowley would
`have been an natural extension and obvious to try
`
`Lemmela
`
`Crowley
`
`-00715 Ex. 1005 (¶¶ 2-3)
`See also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 14-18, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 2-10, Petition (Paper 1) at 13-14, 51, Ex. 1004
`(13:63-14:6), Ex. 1005 (Fig. 5, ¶¶ 2-6), Ex. 1013 (1:7-53), Ex. 1008 (2:19-21, 2:24-38, 14:42-44, 14:61-64), Ex. 1014 (1:7-24)
`
`-00715 Ex. 1008, 2:19-21, 2:24-38
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0033
`
`
`
`KSR rationale: adding video to Lemmela or Winkler would have yielded
`predictable results
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`-00715 Ex. 1020 (¶ 210); see also id. at ¶¶ 209, 216-17
`
`See also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 14-18, Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary
`Guidance (Paper 30) at 2-10, Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 209-10, 216-17, 223-24, 230-31)
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 4-5
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0034
`
`
`
`Winkler-Altman system with video posts
`
`Winkler
`
`Ex. 1004 (13:63-14:6); see also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 9-14, Petitioner’s Reply to
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 1-10, Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 169, 183-86, 188, 194-95, 203, 221-34)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0035
`
`
`
`Lemmela-Crowley system with video posts
`
`Lemmela
`
`Jaffe
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 15; see also id. at 11, 14-16; compare Ex. 1005 (¶¶ 7-16) with Ex. 1013 (Fig. 4, 13:22-48, 2:56-62, 4:61-66, 6:63-7:1, 7:39-48, 10:50-60);
`Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 169, 180-82, 187, 202, 207-220)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0036
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated substitute claim 21 has written description
`support under §316(d)
`
`• “[T]he [written description] test requires an objective inquiry into the four
`corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art.”
`• Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
`• “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the
`invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.
`. . . [T]he specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed
`subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an
`earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.”
`• Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis original)
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to amend (Paper 24) at 3-4.
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0037
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated substitute claim 21 has written
`description support under §316(d)
`
`• Becton, Dickenson, and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, IPR2019-00121, Final Written Decision at 88-91
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2020)
`• Not enough to show written description support for claimed function in disparate pieces: specification must show
`how component operates as claimed
`• Claim required “memory is capable of associatively storing” (FWD 89)
`• Specification disclosed processor, memory, and processor in operative communication with memory, but that
`processor, and not memory “store[d] data to memory and control[led] access to the data stored in the memory”
`(FWD 90-91)
`
`•
`
`L&P Prop. Mgmt. Co. v. Remacro Mach. & Tech. (Wujiang) Co. Ltd.,
`IPR2019-0255, Final Written Decision at 49-55 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2020)
`•
`POSITA’s “understand[ing]” of specification’s disclosure not “adequate”
`when disclosure did not expressly characterize movable slider as part of
`motor
`• Claim required “bolt connection of the motor”
`•
`Specification did not expressly describe movable slider 5 attached to the
`motor’s rotor shaft 1 as being “part of motor 6,” and thus there was no
`written description support for “of the motor”
`
`FWD at 52-53
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0038
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated substitute claim 21 has written description
`support under §316(d)
`
`• Substitute claim 21 does not comply with § 316(d) because there is no written description support for a
`mobile device that can be configured to “provide a pop-up display of said posted video”
`• Original disclosure describes:
`• posted video, determining action spots based on posted video recordings that have occurred at action spots, but not
`display of those posted video recordings in a pop-up display at a determined action spot (Ex. 2007 ¶ 0048)
`• “[d]etermining,” (id. ¶ 0022), “monitoring” number or data packet size (id. ¶ 0032-33, 35-36, 41) of posts, but not
`storing video for later display
`• Original disclosure does not describe pop-up displays of video posts in the claimed combination in which
`they are recited in substitute claim 21
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend (Paper 24) at 3-4; Petitioner’s reply to PG (Paper 30) at 12.
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0039
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated substitute claim 21 has written description
`support under §316(d)
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 1024, 179:16-180:3, 184:7-185:1, 187:5-18; Petitioner’s Opposition to motion to amend (Paper 24) at 3-4.
`
`Ex. 1024, 185:12-187:4; Petitioner’s Opposition to
`motion to amend (Paper 24) at 3-4.
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0040
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated substitute claim
`21 has written description support under §316(d)
`
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 26) at 9
`See also Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 2-6, Petitioner’s Reply to
`Preliminary Guidance (Paper 30) at 11-12; Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 84-89)
`
`Ex. 2007 (¶¶ 22, 48-49); see also Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 13) at 2, 5-6
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0041
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s positions on interpreting the display of “recent
`postings” in specification and “media objects” in Jaffe differ
`Patent Owner: motion to amend
`Patent Owner: sur-reply to preliminary guidance
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 13) at 5-6
`
`Patent Owner’s sur-Reply to Preliminary Guidance (Paper 32) at 9-10; see also id. at 1-2
`(arguing prior art’s reference to “photos” should not include videos).
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0042
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s positions on interpreting the display of “recent
`postings” in specification and “media objects” in Jaffe differ
`Jaffe
`’676 application (original disclosure)
`
`Ex. 1013 (3:63-4:4, 6:6-13)
`
`Ex. 2007 (¶¶ 22, 48-49); see also Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 13) at 2, 5-6
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0043
`
`
`
`Substitute claim is invalid as patent-ineligible
`
`• Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`• Claims that “demand[] the production of a desired result (non-interfering display of two information
`sets) without any limitation on how to produce that result” are not a technological improvement.
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“[C]laims directed to a single display of information collected from various sources are abstract.”
`“[T]he collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract absent a specific
`improvement to the way computers [or other technologies] operate.” (citations omitted)
`“[T]he act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of
`information is an abstract idea.”
`“[C]laims directed to displaying two different information sets sequentially are abstract.”
`
`• Claims abstract when they involve “generic and conventional information acquisition and organization
`steps that are connected to, but do not convert, the abstract idea . . . into a particular conception of
`how to carry out that concept.” (emphasis added)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0044
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one
`
`District Court
`
`Petitioner
`
`-00715 Ex. 2005 at 41-43
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 19; see also Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 97-103)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0045
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 21 does not recite an inventive concept at Alice step two
`
`District Court
`
`Petitioner
`
`-00715 Ex. 2005 at 43-45
`
`-00715 Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper 24) at 23-25; see also Ex. 1020 (¶¶ 104-11)
`
`Snap Inc. v. Blackberry Limited
`IPR2019-00715
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1027 Page 0046
`
`
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
