`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00041 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`
`L‘WYM
`III IIIII IIII
`
`.; United States Patent
`Thur
`SI SIS")! \‘l!w‘nm FDR mum.
`\‘II 'luIIViWI lunlwunywm:
`.\\D\ llllu Pukhlllnfll \l\ \
`( ("Willanu
`in u
`IMKJ-I Nu— .DMLIM
`
`~
`
`US ”07.699 B:
`-|In Punt Nm:
`Mar. 26. 2013
`aw Dale ot Punt:
`I'M VIII-ll human-n um.
`VIr.
`TI! T.“ 13,114. V1I.
`, 1‘7"
`20K.
`
`‘01:”.2}:
`m qua.- m l: mu"..- m u",
`an...“ I...
`
`m)
`
`I;
`
`n 1; .Wlaim
`_
`‘
`n...“ mum-nu Una mun-"u...
`..u m... u
`. an».- a...“
`
`w. 4'“...
`‘
`WW I... m
`“mun
` -')
`
`m ”I...“ I...
`A nth-I mm...
`mun. Mum "“qu
`“Imp-.1... ..mp...-
`>.\-I‘nlmlp'n-u m
`|“-‘l““’5“"'- U
`R-
`I:MIK1‘"\\I rum-u .mum A
`-
`rm. "and" Jun-1...... II .-
`.m.
`
`
`mu, .m- uni-zinc “1.“qu .m. .Ilu. Ila-m
`Autumnal-unnum-
`an mum mmra.m(m~om1mauu mum
`Mu. Ann:IoumnuIn-vuwunlu-qmln
`,,
`|
`_
`“
`
`:Ҥ;"""
`"" ""‘”""“"“‘""
`um. my...
`lulu-xuufivylmdlnllsh-u:
`
`
`a“, a,
`mm,”
`mm max-u... . luau-ml u I. u. Ina-1d»-
`(yarn/M
`[mun
`mun-.mnmmfihmu
`:zmsm-«mm mm
`uu-nmmmum.
`«: mu
`"swo- 1|\“II,‘I:\7:I vrwtr
`
`“'
`
`Inventor:
`
`Tod C. Turner
`
`Assignee:
`
`LINQware Inc.
`
`FIling Date:
`
`August 21, 2009
`
`Provisional Date: August 21 , 2008
`
`
`
`NETFLIX. INC. EXHIBIT IDOI
`
`Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’609 Patent
`
`1. A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network comprising:
`[a] providing a corresponding web page to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system;
`[b] providing identifier data to the user’s computer using the first computer system;
`[c] providing an applet to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the
`first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the user’s computer as a timer;
`[d] receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user’s computer responsively to the timer
`applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`[e] storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system;
`[f] wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed
`from a second computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user’s computer
`independent of the first computer system;
`[g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed
`from the second computer system to the user’s computer; and
`[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was
`displayed by the user’s computer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`Section
`
`References
`
`1-3
`
`1-3
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Davis (Ex. 1003)
`
`Choi (Ex. 1004)
`
`Siler (Ex. 1005)
`
`Davis (Ex. 1003)
`
`Pet. at 5; Inst. Dec. at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`The “Receiving” Step
`
`[d] receiving at least a portion of the identifier data
`from the user’s computer responsively to the timer
`applet each time a predetermined temporal period
`elapses using the first computer system;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
`
`
`Choi
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶47, Appendix C, ¶97.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`The Hulu Precedential Opinion
`
`The opportunity to submit additional evidence does not allow a
`petitioner to completely reopen the record, by, for example, changing
`theories after filing a petition. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(affirming Board discretion to deny entry of petitioner’s reply brief
`that contained an improper new unpatentability theory and evidence,
`citing, among other things, § 312(a)(3)); see also CTPG at 74
`(“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean
`proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the
`positions taken in a prior filing.”).
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039,
`Paper 20, at 15-16 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Precedential).
`
`POSR at 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against “Gap-Filling”
`
`It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including
`new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior
`filing, for example newly cited prior art references intended to “gap-
`fill” by teaching a claim element that was not present in the prior art
`presented with the petition.
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74.
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against Hindsight Reconstruction
`
`Not only must the claimed invention as a whole be evaluated, but so also
`must the references as a whole, so that their teachings are applied in the
`context of their significance to a technician at the time — a technician
`without our knowledge of the solution. The defendants propounded and the
`district court appears to have followed an analytical method that well
`illustrates the “mosaic” analogy discussed in W.L. Gore Assocs., 721 F.2d at
`1552, 220 USPQ at 312, where this court said: [T]he claims were used as a
`frame, and individual, naked parts of separate prior art references were
`employed as a mosaic to recreate a facsimile of the claimed invention.
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`