TED DANE (SBN 143195)
`ted.dane@mto.com
`PETER E. GRATZINGER (SBN 228764)
`peter.gratzinger@mto.com
`HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI (SBN 245845)
`heather.takahashi@mto.com
`ZACHARY M. BRIERS (SBN 287984)
`zachary.briers@mto.com
`BRIAN J. SPRINGER (SBN 309094)
`brian.springer@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`
`PETER A. DETRE (SBN 182619)
`peter.detre@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street
`Twenty-Seventh Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105-3089
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 512-4077
`
`Attorneys for Google LLC and YouTube, LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE
` Case No. 2:18-CV-03629-GW-JC
`STREAMING LLC,
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ELECTION OF
`Plaintiff,
`ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC, and YOUTUBE, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the Court’s May 23, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 67),
`Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively “Google”) elect to assert
`the prior art references listed below. Google hereby incorporates by reference the
`objections, statements and reservations of rights made in its Invalidity Contentions
`regarding the deficiencies in Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC’s
`(“Realtime”) infringement contentions. In particular, Google notes that Realtime’s
`infringement contentions fail to identify “the priority date to which each asserted
`claim allegedly is entitled,” N.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 3-1(f), stating only that each of
`the asserted claims is “entitled to priority dates at least as early as” the filing date of
`the first related patent application. See Invalidity Contentions at 3. In the event that
`Realtime makes arguments or produces evidence in support of conception and
`reduction to practice dates earlier than the effective filing dates shown on the face of
`the Asserted Patents, Google reserves the right to rely on earlier versions of the
`references listed below, or to modify its elected prior art references.
`Google reserves the right to rely on any prior art references disclosed
`pursuant to N.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 3-4 and any admissions regarding the prior art or
`state of the art made in the Asserted Patents themselves for purposes of any tutorial,
`background explanation of the technology at issue, to show the state of the art
`relating to the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, including any motivation
`to combine the prior art, or to rebut any denial by Realtime that one or more claim
`elements were known in the prior art.
`A. The ’046 Patent1
`Google elects to assert the following prior art references with respect to U.S.
`Patent No. 7,386,046.
`
`1 The parties dispute whether Realtime has properly asserted claims from the ’046 patent.
`Realtime’s deadline to make its final election of asserted claims was August 2, 2019. ECF No. 67.
`On the deadline, Realtime sent its elections to Google. Its elections did not include any claims
`from the ’046 patent. On August 9, 2019, Realtime’s counsel emailed Google’s counsel, stating
`that it was “amending” its final election to assert claims from the ’046 patent. Google’s counsel
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 2
`
`

`

`1. Beyda
`2. Couwenhoven
`3. Darwin (Gao-Takahashi) System
`4. Pian
`5. RealNetworks RealSystem
`6. Rynderman
`The ’535 Patent
`B.
`Google elects to assert the following prior art references with respect to U.S.
`Patent No. 8,934,535.
`1. Chu
`2. Dye
`3. Hsu
`4. Imai
`5. Ishii
`6. Microsoft NetMeeting
`C. The ’477 Patent
`Google elects to assert the following prior art references with respect to U.S.
`Patent No. 9,769,477.
`1. Brooks
`2. Darwin (Gao-Takahashi) System
`3. Imai
`4. Microsoft NetMeeting
`5. Pauls
`6. RealNetworks RealSystem
`
`
`
`informed Realtime that it could not amend its elections after the deadline without leave of Court.
`See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., 2015 WL 7959890, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015) (holding
`that, in order to amend elections, “a party must make a timely showing of good cause and seek
`permission from the Court”).
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`DATED: September 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`TED DANE
`PETER A. DETRE
`PETER E. GRATZINGER
`HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI
`ZACHARY M. BRIERS
`BRIAN J. SPRINGER
`
`By:
`/s/ Zachary Briers
`ZACHARY M. BRIERS
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google LLC and
`YouTube, LLC
`
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Exhibit 2004
`IPR2019-01035
`Page 4
`
`