Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2020-00038
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`__________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIM 17 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,868,079)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,079 ("the '079 Patent")
`
`Prosecution History of the '079 Patent
`
`Merakos (U.S. Patent No. 5,521,925)
`
`Kay (U.S. Patent No. 5,299,198)
`
`Borth (U.S. Patent No. 4,829,543)
`
`Alamouti (U.S. Patent No. 5,933,421)
`
`Declaration of Zhi Ding, PhD.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`Dahlman (U.S. Patent No. 6,606,313)
`
`Barnett (U.S. Patent No. 6,216,009)
`
`Raitola & Ranta, Comparison of Diversity Combining Techniques
`for GSM (1996).
`
`Zhang, A Bandwidth Reservation Multiple Access Protocol for
`Wireless ATM Local Networks (1997).
`
`Brennan, Linear diversity combining techniques (1959).
`
`Meierhofer, Priority scheduling algorithm for ATM wireless
`network access (1997).
`Simpson & Houts, Fundamentals of Analog and Digital
`Communication Systems (1971).
`Van Trees, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I
`(Wiley 1968).
`Lee (U.S. Patent No. 5,301,333)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`DESCRIPTION
`Crisler (U.S. Patent No. 5,142,533)
`
`Andersson (U.S. Patent No. 5,604,744)
`
`Tobagi (U.S. Patent No. 4,503,533)
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`Apple Inc. et al v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00510
`
`Messerschmitt (U.S. Patent No. 5,267,244)
`
`Order Staying Apple Case
`
`Order Dismissing Samsung Case
`
`Order Staying LG Case
`
`Fenwick (U.S. Patent No. 4,001,692)
`
`Order Staying Motorola Case
`
`Atkinson (U.S. Patent No. 5,031,193)
`
`Raitola (U.S. Patent No. 6,445,757)
`
`Jasper (U.S. Patent No. 5,140,615)
`
`References citing to Brennan
`
`References citing to Van Trees
`
`Declaration of Ilona Wheat
`
`Fundamental of Analog and Digital Communication Excerpt
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Printout of Fundamentals of Analog
`and Digital Communication
`WorldCat Printout of Fundamentals of Analog and Digital
`Communication
`Understanding MARC, Parts 7 to 10
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`DESCRIPTION
`University of Maryland, College Park Catalog MARC Printout of
`Fundamentals of Analog and Digital Communication
`Case Western Reserve University Catalog MARC Printout of
`Fundamentals of Analog and Digital Communication
`Brown University Catalog MARC Printout of Fundamentals of
`Analog and Digital Communication
`University of Cincinnati Catalog MARC Printout of Fundamentals
`of Analog and Digital Communication
`Michigan State University Catalog MARC Printout of
`Fundamentals of Analog and Digital Communication
`Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I Excerpt
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Printout of Detection, Estimation,
`and Modulation Theory, Part I
`WorldCat Printout of Detection, Estimation, and Modulation
`Theory, Part I
`George Mason University Catalog MARC Printout of Detection,
`Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I
`Universität Ulm Catalog MARC Printout of Detection, Estimation,
`and Modulation Theory, Part I
`IEEE Xplore Digital Library Printout of Brennan
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,111,438 to Kelly.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................................... 2 
`A. 
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1)) ................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2)) .............................................................. 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3)) .............................................. 3 
`D. 
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4)) ........................................................ 3 
`FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103) ......................................... 3 
`III. 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................. 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a)) ....................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenged Claim (§42.104(b)(1)) ............................. 4 
`C. 
`Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2)) ................................................. 4 
`PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT, NOR SHOULD
`THEY BE DENIED INSTITUTION ON ANY DISCRETIONARY
`GROUND ........................................................................................................ 5 
`VI.  RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '079 PATENT ......... 10 
`A. 
`Background of the Technology ........................................................... 10 
`B. 
`Overview of the '079 Patent ................................................................ 11 
`C. 
`Prosecution History of the '079 Patent ................................................ 17 
`D. 
`State of the Art .................................................................................... 18 
`E. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 25 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT"—37
`C.F.R. §42.104 (b)(3) .................................................................................... 26 
`VIII.  PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................................... 27 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prior Art Applied in This Petition ............................ 27 
`1. 
`Overview of Merakos ............................................................... 27 
`2. 
`Combination of Relevant Teachings of Merakos and Kay ....... 34 
`3. 
`Overview of Alamouti .............................................................. 37 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`4. 
`Combination of Merakos (via Kay) and Alamouti ................... 38 
`Overview of Borth .................................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Combination of Merakos (via Kay) and Borth ......................... 43 
`6. 
`Ground 1: Merakos in view of Alamouti renders Claim 17
`obvious. ............................................................................................... 45 
`Ground 2: Merakos in view of Borth renders Claim 17 obvious. ....... 67 
`C. 
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73 
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ.
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 32
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`IPR2019-00510 ..................................................................................................... 3
`Becton Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG
`Case IPR2017-01586, slip op. (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ......................................... 5
`Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. v. IronBurg Inventions Ltd.
`No. IPR2018-00356, 2018 WL 2939036 (P.T.A.B. June 7, 2018) ...................... 7
`Ericsson Inc., v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`IPR2014-00527 (PTAB May 18, 2015).............................................................. 62
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2016-01357, slip op. 16–17 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) .................................... 5, 6
`Hulu v. Innovations
`No. IPR2018-00366, 2018 WL 3326806 (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2018) ................... 6, 8
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. v. Athena Automation Ltd.
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 32
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Ericsson Inc.
`No. 2015-1947, 2016 WL 4363178 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2016) .......................... 62
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 36, 40, 44, 45
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 26
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al.
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00102 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 2
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation
`3:18-cv-03065 (N.D. Tex.) ................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America Inc
`2:18-cv-01728 (W.D. Wash.) ............................................................................... 2
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.
`Case No. 2-18-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex.) .................. 2, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35,
`36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64,
`65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE Inc et al.
`3:18-cv-03064 (N.D. Tex.) ................................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.
`1:18-cv-00158 (W.D. Tex.) .................................................................................. 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.
`3:19-cv-01691 (N.D. Cal.) .................................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. BlackBerry Corporation
`2:18-cv-00305 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 3
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v. Blackberry Corporation
`3:18-cv-01883 (N.D. Tex.) ................................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al.
`2:18-cv-00075 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA Inc et al v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al.
`3:18-cv-00557 (N.D. Tex.) ................................................................................... 3
`Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al.
`3:18-cv-06737 (N.D. Cal.) .................................................................................... 2
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al.
`2:18-cv-00304 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 3
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al.
`3:18-cv-02835 (N.D. Tex.) ................................................................................... 2
`Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products
`IPR2019-00062, slip op. 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) ....................................... 5, 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................. 27, 41
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 27, 41
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) ...................................................................................... 27, 37, 41
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. 42.15(a) ...................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. 42.100 ...................................................................................................... 26
`37 C.F.R., pt. 42 ......................................................................................................... 1
`83 Fed. Reg. No. 197, 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) .......................................................... 26
`U.S. Patent No. 4,829,543 .................................................................................... 4, 41
`U.S. Patent No. 5,299,198 .................................................................................... 4, 32
`U.S. Patent No. 5,521,925 .................................................................................... 4, 27
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,421 .................................................................................... 4, 37
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 .......... 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24,
`25, 26, 32, 41, 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 ("the '079 Patent," EX-1001), assigned to Uniloc
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`2017 LLC ("Patent Owner" or "Uniloc"), is generally directed to "a radio
`
`communication system in which secondary stations use dedicated time slots to
`
`request services from a primary station." EX-1001, Abstract. The body of the sole
`
`claim of the '079 Patent challenged in this Petition, claim 17 ("the Challenged
`
`Claim"), recites four limitations. The first two limitations describe the well-known
`
`uplink resource allocation procedure in which secondary stations are allocated time
`
`slots in an uplink channel to transmit their respective service requests to the
`
`primary station. The remaining two limitations describe two purportedly inventive
`
`features, namely, (1) the secondary station re-transmitting the same service request
`
`in consecutive allocated time slots ("re-transmission"); and (2) the primary station
`
`determining whether a signal strength of the transmitted request exceeds a
`
`threshold value ("threshold decision"). As shown in this petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review ("IPR") under 35 U.S.C. §§311–319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42, the re-
`
`transmission and threshold decision techniques for improving signal reception
`
`quality were known before the priority date of the '079 patent. This Petition, along
`
`with the cited evidence, demonstrates that the Challenged Claim is rendered
`
`obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Motorola Mobility LLC ("Petitioner"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`or "Motorola"), therefore requests that this claim be found unpatentable and
`
`cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (§42.8 (b)(1))
`The real-party-in-interest is Motorola. Motorola is a direct wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Motorola Mobility Holding LLC, which is an indirect wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited.
`
`B. Related Matters (§42.8 (b)(2))
`The '079 Patent is at issue in the following district court proceedings:
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01841
`(D. Del.)
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case
`No. 2-18-cv-00042 (E.D. Tex.)
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00102 (E.D. Tex.)
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-
`00075 (E.D. Tex.)
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE Inc et al., 3:18-cv-03064 (N.D. Tex.)
` Uniloc USA Inc et al v. Blackberry Corporation, 3:18-cv-01883 (N.D.
`Tex.)
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation, 3:18-cv-03065 (N.D.
`Tex.)
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America Inc, 2:18-cv-01728 (W.D. Wash.)
` Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al., 3:18-cv-06737
`(N.D. Cal.)
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., 3:19-cv-01691 (N.D. Cal.)
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., 1:18-cv-00158 (W.D. Tex.)
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-02835 (N.D.
`Tex.)
` Uniloc USA Inc et al v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al., 3:18-cv-00557
`(N.D. Tex.)
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. ZTE (USA), Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-00304 (E.D.
`Tex.)
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. BlackBerry Corporation, 2:18-cv-00305
`(E.D. Tex.)
`The '079 Patent is at issue in the following PTAB proceeding:
`
` Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00510.
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (§42.8 (b)(3))
`Petitioner appoints Martin Bader (Reg. No. 54,736) of Sheppard, Mullin,
`
`Richter & Hampton LLP as Lead Counsel, and appoints Nam Kim (Reg. No
`
`64,160), Harper Batts (Reg. No. 56,160), and Mike Kim (Reg. No. 72,867), of the
`
`same firm as Back-Up Counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`D.
`Service Information (§42.8 (b)(4))
`Service of any documents to Counsel can be made via hand delivery to
`
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200, San
`
`Diego, California 92130. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at LegalTm-
`
`Lenovo-Uniloc-IPRs@sheppardmullin.com.
`
`III. FEE FOR IPR (37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103)
`Petitioner has paid the required fees. The Office is authorized to charge any
`
`fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-4561.
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the '079 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the claims of
`
`the '079 Patent.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenged Claim (§42.104(b)(1))
`This Petition challenges the validity of claim 17 of the '079 Patent.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (§42.104(b)(2))
`The Grounds of unpatentability presented in this Petition are as follows.
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§103 U.S. Patent No. 5,521,925 to Merakos
`("Merakos") (via incorporation-by-
`reference of U.S. Patent No. 5,299,198
`to Kay ("Kay")) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,933,421 to Alamouti ("Alamouti")
`§103 Merakos (via incorporation-by-reference
`of Kay ("via Kay")) in view of U.S.
`Patent No. 4,829,543 to Borth ("Borth")
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`The '079 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/455,124, filed
`
`December 6, 1999, claims the benefit of a Great Britain Application No. 9827182,
`
`filed December 10, 1998. Without conceding valid priority entitlement, for
`
`purposes of this Petition only, it is assumed that December 10, 1998 marks the
`
`earliest effective priority date (the "Critical Date") of the '079 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`V. PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT, NOR SHOULD
`THEY BE DENIED INSTITUTION ON ANY DISCRETIONARY
`GROUND
`The grounds in the instant Petition rely upon prior art and argument that
`
`have never before been presented to the USPTO, including in the petition filed on
`
`January 10, 2019 (the "First Petition") by Apple Inc. ("Apple"), LG Electronics
`
`Inc. ("LG"), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. ("Samsung") (collectively "First Petitioners"). The prior art and argument in
`
`this Petition are not cumulative of the prior art evaluated during examination.
`
`Petitioner submits that the Becton Dickinson factors weigh in favor of institution,
`
`and that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) for at least that reason. See Becton Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun
`
`Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, slip op. at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)
`
`(Paper 8) (informative).
`
`Moreover, the General Plastic analysis weighs in favor of instituting this
`
`Petition in addition to the First Petition. See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, slip op. 16–17 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)
`
`(Paper 19); see also Trial Practice Guide Update (July 2019), 25–28; Valve Corp.
`
`v. Electronic Scripting Products, IPR2019-00062, slip op. 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 2,
`
`2019) (Paper 11). For at least the reasons below, the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`The first General Plastic (GP) factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Motorola has never previously filed an IPR petition challenging any claims of the
`
`'079 Patent. Moreover, none of the relationships that drove the Board's Valve Corp.
`
`decision exist between Motorola and any of the First Petitioners, making it clear
`
`that Motorola is not "similarly situated" with any of the First Petitioners. See Valve
`
`at 9–10.
`
`The second GP factor also weighs in favor of institution. At the time the
`
`First Petition was filed, Motorola was not aware of any of the three prior art
`
`references asserted in the present Petition. See GP at 16–17. Nor "should"
`
`Motorola have been aware of these references at this time, because the suit against
`
`Motorola had just been filed less than two months prior to the filing of the First
`
`Petition. Id.
`
`The third GP factor does not weigh against institution. Although the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response ("POPR") has been submitted and the Board has
`
`issued its Institution Decision in the First Petition, the existence of a Preliminary
`
`Patent Owner Response should not be held against Motorola because it was sued at
`
`least eight months after the First Petitioners were sued. See Hulu v. Innovations,
`
`No. IPR2018-00366, 2018 WL 3326806, at *6 (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2018) (finding
`
`Hulu's seven-month filing delay acceptable, despite issuance of institution decision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`in an IPR filed by Facebook, because Hulu was sued long after Facebook and
`
`Hulu's petition was filed "months before the one year time bar").
`
`The fourth GP factor weighs in favor of institution. Less than four months
`
`have elapsed since Motorola became aware of the Merakos reference ( relied upon
`
`in both grounds of this Petition) and the Alamouti reference (relied upon in Ground
`
`1 of this Petition). Neither Merakos nor Alamouti was relied upon in any ground of
`
`the First Petition, and there is no practical reason why Motorola should have
`
`known about the references sooner. See Collective Minds Gaming Co. Ltd. v.
`
`IronBurg Inventions Ltd., No. IPR2018-00356, 2018 WL 2939036 at *6 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 7, 2018) (holding six-month gap between learning of prior art and filing the
`
`petition was reasonable amount of time given the circumstances).
`
`The fifth GP factor weighs in favor of institution. Though approximately
`
`nine months have elapsed since the First Petitioners filed the First Petition, this
`
`period of elapsed time is excusable because: (1) Uniloc filed its suit against
`
`Motorola approximately nine months after it filed suits against the First Petitioners,
`
`so a similar delay in filing this Petition is appropriate; and (2) as noted above,
`
`Motorola only became aware of the primary prior art reference, Merakos (relied
`
`upon in both grounds of this Petition) four months ago, and it has diligently
`
`worked to prepare the this Petition since then. See Collective Minds Gaming Co.
`
`Ltd. v. IronBurg Inventions Ltd., No. IPR2018-00356, 2018 WL 2939036 at *6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(P.T.A.B. June 7, 2018) (holding six-month gap between learning of prior art and
`
`filing the petition was reasonable amount of time given the circumstances); Hulu v.
`
`Innovations, No. IPR2018-00366, 2018 WL 3326806, at *6 (P.T.A.B. July 6,
`
`2018) (finding Hulu's seven-month filing delay relative to Facebook's filing was
`
`acceptable because Hulu was sued long after Facebook).
`
`The sixth and seventh GP factors also weigh in favor of institution.
`
`Instituting this Petition in addition to the First Petition would not be an inefficient
`
`use of the Board's time, nor over-burden the finite resources of the Board, nor pose
`
`any challenges for the Board in satisfying the requirement under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(11). See GP at 16–17. If this Petition is instituted, then together with the
`
`First Petition, the Board will still only have to evaluate two claims of the '079
`
`Patent.1 This is still well under the 20 claims allowed for the fee paid under 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.15(a). The collective burden on the Board's finite resources would also
`
`be less than the burden imposed by a typical single petition. Thus, instituting this
`
`Petition will not impose an excessive burden on the Board, nor impede the Board's
`
`ability to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`
`All GP factors either weigh in favor of institution, or do not weigh against
`
`
` The First Petition challenges claims 17 and 18 and this petition only challenges
`claim 17.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`institution.
`
`In connection with the Board's evaluation of the foregoing, Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution because, inter alia, (i) none of the prior art references relied upon in this
`
`Petition were cited in, considered during, or otherwise overlap with those relied
`
`upon during prosecution of the '079 Patent or in the First Petition, 23 (ii) the
`
`arguments made in this Petition are not the same arguments that have already been
`
`presented to the USPTO, (iii) the timing of the filing of this Petition is justified by
`
`the timing of the lawsuit brought against Motorola and the timing of Motorola’s
`
`discovery of the prior art references relied upon in this Petition, (iv) instituting this
`
`Petition will not impose an undue burden on the finite resources of the Board, and
`
`(v) the Board is highly likely to be able to reach its Final Written Decision in the
`
`First Petition and this Petition before Petitioner's trial in the district court,4 and
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
` See EX-1002, 87, 120, 171, 194, 195.
`3 See EX-1022, 1–2.
`4 Motorola's district court case was stayed on June 18, 2019, pending the Federal
`Circuit's decision on Uniloc's appeal of the finding of indefiniteness of claim 18 of
`the '079 Patent by the Eastern District of Texas (Gilstrap, J.). EX-1028. Based on
`the median time to disposition at the Federal Circuit, a decision on Uniloc's appeal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`before any of the lawsuits against the First Petitioners reach trial.5
`
`VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '079 PATENT
`A. Background of the Technology
`The '079 Patent discussed establishing resource allocation in a wireless
`
`network before a mobile station communicates with a base station. EX-1001, 3:22–
`
`40; see also EX-1007, ¶39. At the Critical Date, both static and dynamic resource
`
`allocation strategies were known. See EX-1007, ¶39. In a static resource allocation
`
`strategy, the base station would pre-allocate a certain amount of channel resources
`
`or bandwidth (e.g., time slots) to each potential mobile station. See id., ¶39.
`
`Meanwhile, in dynamic resource allocation, mobile stations would first send an
`
`uplink allocation request to the base station (i.e., an access request). See EX-1007,
`
`¶40. Upon decoding the access request, the base station would evaluate the amount
`
`of requested resources versus the amount of available resources before allocating
`
`channel resources to the requesting mobile station. See id.
`
`
`
`is estimated to issue no earlier than the fall of 2020. Prior to the stay, Motorola's
`district court case was still in its early stages, with discovery having not yet begun.
`5 Apple's case was stayed on June 7, 2019; Samsung's case was dismissed on June
`4, 2019; and LG's case was stayed on April 29, 2019. EX-1024; EX-1025; EX-
`1026.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`For multiple mobile stations attempting to send their uplink requests,
`
`"multiple access" protocols were implemented. See EX-1007, ¶41. There were two
`
`main types of "multiple access" protocols: random access or dedicated access. See
`
`id. In a "random access" protocol (also referred to as a "contention" protocol),
`
`mobile stations contend for uplink resources by sending access requests to the base
`
`station at pseudo-random time instants in a random access channel. See id.
`
`Collisions are likely to occur due to simultaneous requests transmitted by the
`
`stations. See id. Consequently, contention resolution schemes for random access
`
`collisions were developed. See id. In a "dedicated access" protocol (also referred to
`
`as a "fixed assignment" protocol), mobile stations sent access requests in pre-
`
`assigned channel resources (e.g., time slots), thereby avoiding collisions. See id,
`
`¶42.
`
`B. Overview of the '079 Patent
`At the Critical Date, the multiple access protocols discussed above were
`
`well-known in the wireless communications art. See EX-1007, ¶43. For example,
`
`WiFi standards (IEEE 802.11-1997, and IEEE 802.11a/b under development) and
`
`the 3G cellular standard (UMTS under development) utilized random access. See
`
`id. A bandwidth reservation multiple access (BRMA) was a dedicated access
`
`protocol dating back to 1997. See EX-1012, 147–161; see also EX-1018, 1:13–35
`
`(describing a dedicated access system); EX-1007, ¶43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`In the Background of the Invention section, the '079 Patent alleged that a
`
`random access channel used in conventional cellular systems (e.g., 2G GSM)
`
`worked satisfactorily only with a low traffic load and would not handle the
`
`requirements of the 3G UMTS cellular system. EX-1001, 1:35–42. The '079 Patent
`
`acknowledged that UMTS would address this problem by providing a dedicated
`
`signaling channel whereby a mobile station (MS) transmits a request for services in
`
`an allocated time slot in the channel and then waits for an acknowledgement from
`
`the base station (BS). Id., 1:35–49. The '079 Patent alleged, however, that the
`
`dedicated signaling channel scheme can still experience performance issues such
`
`as false alarms, missed detections, and delays between a request for a service by
`
`the MS and the provision of that service by the BS. Id., 1:49–54. Consequently, the
`
`'079 Patent purports to improve the dedicated signaling channel scheme by re-
`
`transmitting the request in allocated time slots until an acknowledgement is
`
`received from the primary station. Id., 1:57–67.
`
`Annotated Figure 1 (reproduced below) shows an example radio
`
`communication system of the '079 Patent, including a primary station 100 (shown
`
`in red) and secondary stations (only one secondary station 110, shown in green, is
`
`depicted in Figure 1). EX-1001, 3:10–24, 5:49–55, FIG. 1. The primary station 100
`
`transmits signals to the secondary station 110 on downlink channel 122 (identified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`in blue), while the secondary station 110 transmits signals to the primary station
`
`100 on uplink channel 124 (also identified in blue). Id., 3:19–22.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 (reproduced below) shows an example frame format for a dedicated
`
`uplink signaling channel 124 that is "dedicated to the transmission of requests for
`
`services by a MS 110 to a BS 1