UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01558
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,724,622
`Issued: May 13, 2014
`Application No.: 13/546,673
`Filed: July 11, 2012
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,724,622 (CLAIMS 1, 2, 9, 36, AND 37)
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01558
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,724,622
`Issued: May 13, 2014
`Application No.: 13/546,673
`Filed: July 11, 2012
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING
`_________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,724,622 (CLAIMS 1, 2, 9, 36, AND 37)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Pages
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................. v
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................... viii
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................ viii
`2.
`Related Matters .................................................................................. viii
`3.
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information .................... xii
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(A) ............................ 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 1
`A.
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested/Statutory Grounds ........... 1
`B.
`These Prior Art And Arguments Were
`Not Considered During Original Prosecution ....................................... 2
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite
`Earlier Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent ................ 2
`III. UNILOC IS PRECLUDED FROM
`
`CHALLENGING SEVERAL ISSUES RAISED IN THIS PETITION ......... 6
`IV. THE ’622 PATENT ......................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The ’622 Patent’s Specification ............................................................ 7
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART, AND STATE OF THE ART ................... 9
`A.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 9
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`Proposed Constructions ....................................................................... 11
`1.
`Instant Voice Message .............................................................. 11
`
`V.
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`2.
`
`Attaching One Or More
`Files To The Instant Voice Message ......................................... 14
`Instant Voice Messaging Application ....................................... 16
`3.
`Client Platform System ............................................................. 19
`4.
`Instant Voice Message Client System ...................................... 20
`5.
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 9, 36, AND 37 ARE
`
`OBVIOUS OVER ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF SHINDER ............................... 22
`A.
`Zydney (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................... 22
`B.
`Shinder (Ex. 1005) .............................................................................. 25
`C.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 25
`D.
`Claim 36 .............................................................................................. 45
`E.
`Claim 37 .............................................................................................. 55
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS OVER
`
`ZYDNEY IN VIEW OF SHINDER AND KIRKWOOD............................. 57
`A. Kirkwood (Ex. 1006) ........................................................................... 57
`B.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 58
`IX. GROUND 3: CLAIM 2 IS OBVIOUS OVER ZYDNEY
`
`IN VIEW OF SHINDER, KIRKWOOD, AND BONEH ............................. 63
`A.
`Boneh (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................ 63
`B.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 64
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 66
`X.
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 67
`
`
`
`Page iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Borad Ocean Motor Co.
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). ..........................................................................10
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................10
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.
`924 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 6
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................10
`SSIH Equip. S.A. v. ITC
`718 F.2d 365 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................ 6
` Board Decisions
`Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. et al.
`IPR2017-01648, Paper 34 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2018) ...............................................10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................... 22, 25, 57, 64
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 ........................................................................................... 10, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iv
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
` U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622 Patent”)
` File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622
` Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., signed and dated August 29,
`2019
` PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert Zydney
`et al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001 as WO
`01/11824 A2) (“Zydney”) (with line numbers added)
` Excerpts
`from DEBRA LITTLEJOHN SHINDER, COMPUTER
`NETWORKING ESSENTIALS
`(Cisco Press,
`January 2002)
`(“Shinder”)
` U.K. Patent Application No. 0106915.2 to Andrew David
`Kirkwood (filed March 20, 2001, published February 20, 2002 as
`GB 2 365 664 A) (“Kirkwood”)
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0112167 (“Boneh”)
` Reserved
` R. Droms, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, Internet
`Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments 2131
` Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th. ed. 2000)
` John Rittinghouse, IM Instant Messaging Security (1st ed. 2005)
` Dreamtech Software Team, Instant Messaging Systems: Cracking
`the Code (2002)
` Upkar Varshney et al., Voice over IP, Communication of the
`ACM (2002, Vol. 45, No. 1)
` Iain Shigeoka, Instant Messaging in Java: Jabber Protocols
`(2002)
` Trushar Barot & Eytan Oren, Guide to Chat Apps, TOW Center
`for Digital Journalism, Columbia University (2005)
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Page v
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
` Samir Chatterjee et al., Instant Messaging and Presence
`Technologies for College Campuses, IEEE Network (Nov. 9,
`2005)
` Daniel Minoli & Emma Minoli, Delivering Voice Over IP
`Networks (2nd ed. 2002)
` Thomas Porter & Michael Gough, How to Cheat at VoIP
`Security (1st ed. 2007)
` Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th. ed. 2002)
` Justin Berg, The IEEE 802.11 Standardization Its History,
`Specification, Implementations and Future, George Mason
`University, Technical Report Series (2011)
` Wolter Lemstra & Vic Hayes, Unlicensed Innovation: The Case
`of Wi-Fi, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries
`(2008, Vol. 9, No. 2)
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0039340
` International Published Application No. WO 01/24036
` U.S. Patent No. 9,179,495
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0025080
` WO 02/17650A1
` Oxford (Online) Dictionaries, Definition of “Default” (cached
`2000), https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/default
` PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US00/21555 to Herbert
`Zydney et al. (filed August 7, 2000, published February 15, 2001
`as WO 01/11824 A2) (as-published version without added line
`numbers)
` Excerpts from MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY
`(Microsoft Press, 3d ed. 1997)
` Excerpts from MARGARET LEVINE YOUNG, INTERNET:
`THE COMPLETE REFERENCE (McGraw-Hill/Osborne, 2d ed.
`2002)
`
`Page vi
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,757,365 B1 to Travis A. Bogard (filed October
`16, 2000, issued June 29, 2004)
` N. Borenstein et al., Request for Comments (RFC) 1521: MIME
`(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms
`for Specifying and Describing the Format of Internet Message
`Bodies, September 1993 (“RFC 1521”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page vii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’622 Patent (Ex. 1001) is asserted in the following litigations:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8-19-cv-00780 (C.D. Cal.),
`
`filed April 29, 2019;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. 2-18-cv-00290 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed July 13, 2018;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kik Interactive, Inc., 2-17-cv-00347 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed April 21, 2017;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Hike Ltd., 2-17-cv-00349 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`April 21, 2017;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC, 2-17-cv-00231 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`March 26, 2017;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google Inc., 2-17-cv-00224 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`March 22, 2017;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC, 2-17-cv-00214 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`March 20, 2017;
`
`Page viii
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. HeyWire, Inc. 2-16-cv-01313 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`November 28, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. HTC America, Inc., 2-16-cv-00989 ( E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed September 06, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kyocera America, Inc. et al., 2-16-cv-00990 (
`
`E.D. Tex.), filed September 06, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 2-16-cv-00991 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed September 6, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. V. Motorola Mobility LLC, 2-16-cv-00992 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed September 6, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. V. ZTE (USA) Inc. et al., 2-16-cv-00993 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed September 6, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., 2-16-cv-00994
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed September 6, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Telegram Messenger, LLP, 2-16-cv-00892
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed August 11, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al., 2-16-cv-00893
`
`(E.D. Tex.) filed August 11, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Avaya Inc., 2-16-cv-00777 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`July 15, 2016;
`
`Page ix
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Shore Tel, Inc., 2-16-cv-00779 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed July 15, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. AOL Inc., 2-16-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex.), filed July
`
`5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Bee Talk Private Ltd., 2-16-cv-00725 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed July 5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 2-16-cv-00728 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed July 5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Green Tomato Limited, 2-16-cv-00731 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed July 5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, 2-16-cv-
`
`00732 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. TangoMe, Inc. d/b/a Tango, 2-16-cv-00733
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed July 5, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Tencent America, LLC et al., 2-16-cv-00694
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed June 30, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Snap Inc., 2-16-cv-00696, (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`June 30, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2-16-cv-00638 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`June 14, 2016;
`
`Page x
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. BlackBerry Corporation et al., 2-16-cv-00639
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kakao Corporation, 2-16-cv-00640 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Line Euro-Americas Corp. et al., 2-16-cv-
`
`00641 (E.D. Tex.), filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2-16-cv-
`
`00642 (E.D. Tex.), filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Viber Media Sari, 2-16-cv-00643 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. VoxerNet LLC, 2-16-cv-00644 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed June 14, 2016;
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp, Inc., 2-16-cv-00645 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed June 14, 2016; and
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Tencent America, LLC et al., 2-16-cv-00577
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed May 30, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page xi
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`3.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Andrew M. Mason, Reg. No. 64,034
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`(First Back-Up Counsel)
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. No. 67,185
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`
`Todd M. Siegel, Reg. No. 73,232
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`Joseph T. Jakubek, Reg No. 34,190
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)
`
`Petitioner consents to service via email at the above email addresses.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this Petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner and appointing the above counsel.
`
`
`
`Page xii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 (“the ’622
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001), allegedly assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”). For
`
`the reasons set forth below, these claims should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`I.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104(A)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’622 Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the patent claims on
`
`the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested/Statutory Grounds
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 9, 36, and 37 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of the ’622 Patent, on the following statutory grounds:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Ground 1 Zydney and Shinder
`Ground 2 Zydney, Shinder, and Kirkwood
`Ground 3 Zydney, Shinder, Kirkwood, and
`Boneh
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 9, 36, & 37
`35 U.S.C. § 103 1
`35 U.S.C. § 103 2
`
`For each ground, in Sections VII-IX below, the petition presents evidence of
`
`unpatentability and establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail
`
`in establishing that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`With the filing of this petition an electronic payment of $30,500 is being
`
`charged to deposit account no. 02-4550. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). Any fee adjustments
`
`may be debited/credited to the deposit account.
`
`B.
`
`These Prior Art And Arguments Were
`Not Considered During Original Prosecution
`None of the references presented in Grounds 1-3 were considered during
`
`prosecution of the ’622 Patent. Nor were “substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments” presented during original prosecution.
`
`Because these key teachings in the prior art were not considered by the Office
`
`when issuing the challenged claims, this petition should not be denied under Section
`
`325(d).
`
`C. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite
`Earlier Third-Party Petitions Challenging The Same Patent
`Despite starting its most recent litigation campaign against Microsoft in July
`
`2018, Uniloc did not assert the ’622 Patent against Microsoft until April 2019. By
`
`that time, however, the Board had issued final written decisions in several other
`
`third-party IPRs challenging other claims of the ’622 Patent.1 While Microsoft
`
`necessarily files its petitions after significant proceedings before the Board on this
`
`patent, that result flows from Uniloc’s strategy of filing many one-party lawsuits
`
`serially over time and does not result from gamesmanship or delay on Microsoft’s
`
`
`1 As discussed below, these FWDs have issue-preclusive effect.
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`part (of which there is neither). In fact, Microsoft promptly files this petition (and a
`
`concurrently filed petition challenging claim 5) roughly four months after filing of
`
`the complaint. Moreover, Microsoft challenges a unique set of claims based on
`
`unique set of grounds not previously decided by the Board. Thus, these petitions
`
`should be granted despite other prior IPR proceedings on the same patent.
`
`The following table compares the prior third-party IPRs to the present
`
`Microsoft petitions, which are shown in the last two rows:
`
`IPR
`
`Petitioner(s) Claims
`Challenged
`3, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-
`23, 27-35, 38, 39
`4, 5, 12, 24-26
`
`IPR2017-01667 Facebook,
`Inc. et al
`IPR2017-01668 Facebook,
`Inc. et al
`
`3, 4, 6-8, 10-13,
`18, 21-23, 27, 32,
`34, 35, 38, and 39
`14-17, 19, 24-26,
`28-31, and 33
`
`IPR2017-01797 Samsung
`Electronics
`America, Inc.
`IPR2017-01798 Samsung
`Electronics
`America, Inc.
`IPR2017-02080 Google LLC 3-23
`IPR2017-02081 Google LLC 1, 2, and 24-39
`IPR2019-01558 Microsoft
`1, 2, 9, 36-37
`IPR2019-01559 Microsoft
`5
`
`Outcome
`
`All claims
`unpatentable
`12 and 24-26
`unpatentable;
`4 and 5 not
`shown to be
`unpatentable
`All claims
`unpatentable
`
`All claims
`unpatentable
`
`Disposition
`Date
`01/16/2019
`
`01/16/2019
`
`01/31/2019
`
`01/31/2019
`
`Institution denied 03/19/2019
`Institution denied 03/29/2019
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Microsoft’s challenges are not redundant and should be separately considered
`
`and instituted for several reasons.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`First, Microsoft itself has not previously challenged any claim of the ’622
`
`Patent in IPR.
`
`Second, Microsoft was not sued by Patent Owner until after the PTAB issued
`
`final written decisions in four of the earlier cases, and after institution decisions in
`
`the other two earlier cases. Thus, Microsoft had no reason to evaluate the ’622
`
`Patent, much less challenge claims of that patent, until well after significant other
`
`proceedings had occurred at the PTAB. Microsoft did not know of the presently-
`
`asserted prior art (certainly not in connection with the ’622 patent, if at all) at the
`
`time the earlier petitions were filed.
`
`Third, Microsoft promptly files its petitions within roughly four months of
`
`being sued on the ’622 Patent, and roughly one month after receiving Uniloc’s
`
`preliminary infringement contentions.
`
`Fourth, while Microsoft relies on some of the same art applied in the other
`
`third-party petitions, it presents that art in a different light and relies on other art not
`
`cited in those petitions with respect to the Challenged Claims.
`
`For example, Ground 1 (targeting claims 9, 36, and 37) presents an
`
`obviousness combination that includes Shinder, a reference not presented in
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`previous challenges to claims 92, 36, and 373. Grounds 2 and 3 of the present petition
`
`(targeting claims 1 and 2, respectively) present obviousness combinations that
`
`include Shinder and Kirkwood, references not presented in previous challenges to
`
`these claims4.
`
`So, although claims of the ’622 Patent have been challenged in previous
`
`petitions, none of the previous petitions challenged the Challenged Claims based on
`
`the combination of references presented here.
`
`Additionally, while a number of claims of the ’622 Patent have already been
`
`found unpatentable by the Board, those claims are not the focus of this petition. To
`
`the extent any of those unpatentable claims are discussed here, it is because claims
`
`
`2 Claim 9 was challenged in IPR2017-02080 based on a combination of Zydney,
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0208543 (“Enete”), and RFC2131.
`
`3 Claims 36 and 37 were challenged in IPR2017-02081 based on Zydney, and
`
`alternatively based on a combination of Zydney and Enete.
`
`4 Claims 1 and 2 were challenged in IPR2017-02081. Claim 1 was challenged based
`
`on a combination of Zydney and U.S. Pat. No. 6,750,881 (“Appelman”). Claim 2
`
`was challenged based on Zydney, Appleman, and Boneh.
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`not yet found unpatentable depend from them.5 For example, challenged claim 9
`
`depends from unpatentable claim 3.
`
`III. UNILOC IS PRECLUDED FROM
`CHALLENGING SEVERAL ISSUES RAISED IN THIS PETITION
`Under Federal Circuit precedent, a patent owner is precluded from arguing
`
`any issue that was necessarily resolved as part of a previous IPR proceeding. Papst
`
`Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1252-53
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). That preclusive effect is unchanged by the pendency of an appeal
`
`from a lower tribunal’s holding. SSIH Equip. S.A. v. ITC, 718 F.2d 365, 370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983) ("[T]he law is well settled that the pendency of an appeal has no effect on
`
`the finality or binding effect of a trial court's holding. … That rule is applicable to
`
`holdings of patent invalidity as well."). Thus, Uniloc’s pending appeals do not
`
`change that it is precluded from arguing against the Board’s findings in the previous
`
`IPR proceedings, including any subsidiary holdings necessary to the ultimate
`
`outcome of unpatentability, such as the combinability of prior art references.
`
`The following table lists several issues that were necessarily resolved in
`
`previous proceedings and which Uniloc is precluded from challenging here.
`
`
`5 In particular, claim 9 depends from unpatentable claim 3 and claims 36 and 37
`
`depend from unpatentable claim 27.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`Previous Proceeding(s)
`IPR2017-01667/IPR2017-01668,
`IPR2017-01797/IPR2017-01798
`IPR2017-01667/IPR2017-01668
`
`
`IPR2017-01797/IPR2017-01798
`
`Issue
`Zydney is prior art
`
`Shinder is prior art
`Combinability of Zydney and Shinder
`Combinability of Griffin and Zydney
`The combination of Zydney and Shinder
`satisfies all elements of independent claim 3
`The combination of Zydney and Shinder
`satisfies all elements of claim 27
`Griffin is prior art
`The combination of Griffin and Shinder
`satisfies all elements of independent claim 3
`and dependent claim 4
`IV. THE ’622 PATENT
`
`The ’622 Patent (Ex. 1001), titled “System And Method For Instant VoIP
`
`Messaging” issued on May 13, 2014, and alleges priority through a string of
`
`applications to Application No. 10/740,030, filed on December 18, 2003, now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,535,890.
`
`A. The ’622 Patent’s Specification
`
`The ’622 Patent purports to address a need to provide “local and global instant voice
`
`messaging over VoIP with PSTN support.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:47-53.) The ’622
`
`Patent admits that voice messaging and instant text messaging were both previously
`
`known, and were both previously used in conjunction with VoIP and PSTN. (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:22-46; see also Ex. 1003, ¶47.) Its alleged invention provides a way of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`delivering instant messages containing recorded audio over a packet-switched
`
`network based on client availability.
`
`With reference to Figure 2, the ’622 Patent discloses a system having one or
`
`more instant voice message (IVM) clients 206, 208 and an IVM server 202
`
`connected over a packet-switched network 204. (Id. at 6:60-3:4)
`
`(Id. at Fig. 2.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`The local IVM server 202 enables instant voice messaging functionality over
`
`the network 204. (Id. at 7:61-65; see also Ex. 1003, ¶52.)
`
`A user operates the IVM client to record a message for one or more selected
`
`recipients. (Id. at 7:65-8:14.) The IVM client transmits the voice message to the IVM
`
`server for delivery to the recipients. (Id. at 8:22-26.) If a recipient is “available,” the
`
`server transmits the instant voice message to the recipient. (Id. at 8:32-34.) If the
`
`recipient is “unavailable,” the server temporarily saves the voice message and
`
`transmits it once the recipient becomes available. (Id. at 8:34-39; see also Ex. 1003,
`
`¶53.) Upon receiving the voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 8:29-32; see also Ex. 1003, ¶53.)
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART, AND STATE OF THE ART
`
`A.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art in December 2003 (“POSITA”) would
`
`have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering and would have had at least two years of
`
`experience in the development and operation of network communication systems (or
`
`equivalent degree or experience). (Ex. 1003, ¶18.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`For inter partes review, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning that
`
`the terms would have to a POSITA on the earliest effective filing date, in view of the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`specification and file history. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Unless otherwise expressly discussed, Petitioner applies the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of all claim terms. Petitioner does not, however, waive any
`
`argument in any litigation that claim terms in the ’622 Patent are indefinite or
`
`otherwise invalid nor does Petitioner waive its right to raise additional issues of
`
`claim construction in any litigation.
`
`Petitioner has identified terms relevant to the issues in this IPR. See, e.g.,
`
`Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. et al., IPR2017-01648, Paper 34 at 11
`
`(PTAB Dec. 28, 2018) (“We address the construction of only certain claim terms
`
`raised by the parties, and we do so only to the extent necessary to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”)
`
`(citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Borad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Construction of other claim terms may be relevant to issues
`
`in the parallel district court litigation, e.g., as part of resolving non-infringement
`
`disputes or to “clarify and when necessary to explain” terms for “determination of
`
`infringement” by the factfinder. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Petitioner intends to advise
`
`the Board of pertinent claim construction positions taken in district court filings,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`although it does not intend to file every exchange related to the district court claim
`
`construction process.
`
`Petitioner notes that several terms in the challenged claims were construed in
`
`other, unrelated petitions under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in
`
`IPR2017-01667, IPR2017-01668, IPR2017-01797, and IPR2017-01798. Without
`
`conceding the correctness of the constructions in the other, unrelated petitions,
`
`Petitioner notes that the prior art presented herein satisfies the claim elements under
`
`those other constructions.
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Constructions
`
`1.
`
`Instant Voice Message
`
`Instant voice message should be construed as: “data that includes a
`
`representation of an audio message.” (Ex. 1003, ¶55.)
`
`In IPR2017-01667, the Board construed “instant voice message” as: “data
`
`content including a representation of an audio message” under the Broadest
`
`Reasonable Interpretation standard. (See IPR2017-01667, Paper 37 at 12-19.)
`
`Petitioner urges that this is the correct construction under the “claim construction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`standard that is used to construe the claim in a civil action in federal district court”
`
`(83 FR 51340) as well.6
`
`Claims 3 and 277 recite the term “instant voice message.” Claim 3 recites that
`
`“the messaging system receives an instant voice message from one of a plurality of
`
`instant voice message client systems … wherein the instant voice message includes
`
`
`6 Petitioner respectfully submits that the word “content” is not a necessary part of
`
`the Board’s construction. Petitioner believes that the Board included the word
`
`“content” in its construction to emphasize that the instant voice message is the
`
`content that includes the audio representation, regardless of a structure that contains
`
`it. (See IPR2017-01667, Paper 37 at 15-16.) However, Petitioner urges that the use
`
`of the word “content” is superfluous here because the instant voice message is per
`
`se content. In other words, the data that includes the representation of the audio
`
`message is content, and there cannot be “non-content” data that includes the
`
`representation of the audio message. Thus, Petitioner believes that the proper
`
`construction of “instant voice message” is “data that includes a representation of an
`
`audio message.” Nevertheless, the Grounds presented in this Petition render the
`
`Challenged Claims obvious under either construction.
`
`7 Challenged claim 9 depends from independent claim 3. Challenged claims 36 and
`
`37 depend from independent claim 27.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`USP 8,724,622 (Claims 1, 2, 9, 36 and 37)
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01558
`Patent 8,724,622
`an object field including a digitized audio file.” Claim 27 recites “a client platform
`
`system for generating an instant voice message and a messaging system for
`
`transmitting the instant voice message.” Claim 27 further recites “a document
`
`handler system for attaching one or more files to the instant voice message.” (Ex.
`
`1003, ¶56.)
`
`In three different embodiments, the written description describes the “instant
`
`voice message” as data. (Ex. 1003, ¶57.) In one embodiment, the “instant voice
`
`message” is described as an audio file. (Ex. 1001, 8:7–11, 8:26–27, 9:64–65, 10:38–
`
`39, 10:45–46, 12:40–41, 16:22, 17:23–24, 18:6–7, 18:58, 18:64–65, 19:46–47, and
`
`19:52; see also Ex. 1003, ¶57.) In another embodiment, “successive portions of the
`
`instant voice message” are written to one or more buffers that are transmitted to the
`
`IVM server. (Ex. 1001, 11:35-58, 21:10-42 (referring thusly to portions of the user’s
`
`speech that are written to a buffer); see also id. at 11:35−44; Ex. 1003, ¶57.) Notably,
`
`the written description is clear that the one or more buffers are generated “instead of
`
`creating an audio file.” (Ex. 1001, 11:35-37 (emphasis added).) Thus, using “[t]he
`
`one or more buffers … to automatically write successive portions of the instant voice
`
`message” is an alternative embodiment to storing the instant voice message as an
`
`audio file. (Ex. 1003, ¶57.) In both embodiments, the “instant voice message” is data
`
`that includes a repres
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
