throbber
IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654 (“the ’654 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`Nokia 9000i Owner’s Manual (“Nokia Manual”)
`Business Week names Nokia 9000i Communicator a “Best New
`Product”, Nokia Press Release, Published January 14, 1998,
`Nokia introduces the new Nokia 9000i Communicator for GSM
`Markets, Nokia Press Release, February 6, 1998
`U.S. Patent 5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`Declaration of Steven Harris (with Exhibit A)
`Communication Device Inactivity Password Lock, Charles P. Schultz,
`November 1996 (“Schultz”)
`French Application No. 9916136
`Declaration of Henry Houh, dated August 8, 2019 (“Houh Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault”)
`Intentionally left blankRESERVED
`Luca Benini et al., Policy Optimization for Dynamic Power
`Management, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of
`Integrated Circuits and Systems, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1999
`Declaration of Timo Henttonen
`Docket Navigator List of Cases involving U.S. Patent 6,836,654
`Comparison between the Current Petition and Petition in
`IPR2019-01471
`
`Page i
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1016
`
`Page 1 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Microsoft Corporation is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Apple Inc., and Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC, as the real parties-in-interest. Motorola Mobility LLC is an indirect wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`ThePursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), to the best knowledge of the Petitioner,
`
`the ’654 patent (Ex. Patent1001) is assertedor was involved in the following
`
`litigationscases:
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 8:19-cv-00781 (C.D.
`
`Cal.), filed April 29, 2019;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 3:19-cv-01697 (CN.D. Cal.),
`
`filed April 2, 2019;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. HTC America, Inc., 2:18-cv-01732 (W.D. WA),
`
`filed November 30, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01844 (DED),
`
`filed November 20, 2018;
`
`Page ii
`
`Page 2 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00493 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed November 17, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., 2:18-
`
`cv-00508 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., 2:18-cv-00509
`
`(E.D. Tex.), filed November 17, 2018;
`
` Uniloc 2017 LLC et al. v. Google LLC, 2:18-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed October 1, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00357 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 14, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 1:18-cv-01230
`
`(DED), filed August 10, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.,
`
`2:18-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., et al., 2:18-cv-
`
`00310 (E.D. Tex.), filed July 23, 2018;
`
` Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 1:18-cv-00293 (W.D. Tex.), filed
`
`April 9, 2018.
`
`The ’654 Patent is involved in the following proceedings before the Board:
`
`Page iii
`
`Page 3 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01218 (Claims 1-9);
`
` Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01219 (Claims 10-20).
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition challenging claims 1-9
`
`of the ’654 patent.
`
` Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01470 (Claims
`
`1-9)
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Microsoft Corporation
`
`v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01471 (“the Microsoft IPR Proceeding”), which the
`
`Board instituted on February 11, 2020. Petitioner has spoken with counsel of record
`
`for Microsoft, and Microsoft does not oppose joinder to the IPR2019-01471 petition.
`
`The following patent application alleges priority to the ’654 patent or its
`
`alleged priority application: French Appl. No. 9916136, priority date December 21,
`
`1999.
`
`3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel, And Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates lead and back-up counsel as noted below. Powers of
`
`attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`Page iv
`
`Page 4 of 80
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Todd M. SiegelTiffany C. Miller, Reg.
`52,032No. 73,232
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B St., Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`Email: Apple-Uniloc19-
`DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`
`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Back-upBackup Counsel
`(First Back-Up)
`Andrew(for Apple and Motorola)
`James M. MasonHeintz, Reg. No.
`64,03441,828
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`John M. Lunsford, Reg. 11911 Freedom
`Dr., Suite 300
`Reston VA 20190
`Phone: 703.773.4000
`Fax: 703.773.5000
`Apple-Uniloc19-
`Email:
`
`DLA@us.dlapiper.comNo. 67,185
`
`Joseph T. Jakubek, Reg. No. 34,190
`
`(for Samsung)
`Naveen Modi, Reg. No. 46,224
`Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
`Phillip W. Citroën, Reg. No.
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN,66,541
`Paul Hastings LLP
`121 SW Salmon875 15th Street, Suite
`1600 NW
`Portland, Oregon, 97204
`503-595-5300 (phone)
`503-595-5301 (fax)Washington, DC
`20005
`Phone: (202) 551-1700
`Fax: (202) 551-1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at the address above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service viaby email at the above email addresses.
`
`Page v
`
`Page 5 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), concurrently filed with this petition is a
`
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioner: Apple-Uniloc19-DLA@us.dlapiper.com
`
`and appointing the above counselPH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`Page vi
`
`Page 6 of 80
`
`

`

`Microsoft Corporation (“
`
`IPR2019-01471
`IPR2020-00701
`Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`Page iii
`
`Page 7 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), (collectively “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,654
`
`(“’654 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.
`
`As noted above, this Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion
`
`for Joinder. Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with the
`
`Microsoft IPR Proceeding, which the Board instituted on February 11, 2020.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a mobile
`
`radiotelephony device that is linked to a particular user identification module.
`
`Specifically, the ’654 patent disclosure aims at protecting mobile devices by
`
`preventing normal operation of the device upon expiration of a predefined period of
`
`inactivity. Normal operation of the device can be resumed only upon supplying a
`
`“debugging code” known only to the particular user linked to the device. But, as
`
`discussed herein, this functionality was known in the prior art more than a year
`
`before the priority date of the ’654 patent.
`
`Page 1
`
`Page 8 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PER SECTION 42.104 (A)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’654 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.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`A.
`Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested / Statutory Grounds
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 10-20 (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’654 patent, on the following statutory grounds:
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`10-20
`
`Reference(s)
`Ground 1 Nokia 9000i Communicator
`Owner’s Manual (“Nokia
`Manual”) in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,940,773 (“Barvesten”)
`Ground 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773
`(“Barvesten”) in view of
`“Communication Device Inactivity
`Password Lock” (“Schultz”)
`In Sections VII-VIII below, the petition presents evidence of unpatentability
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`10-20
`
`and establishes a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail in establishing
`
`that each Challenged Claim is unpatentable.
`
`With the filing of this petition an electronic payment of $30,500 for the
`
`requisite fees is being charged to deposit account no. 02-455050-3266. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a). Any fee adjustments may be debited/credited to the deposit account.
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 9 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`No Examiner Addressed These Unpatentability Grounds
`B.
`This petition relies on the Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual
`
`(Ex. 1003, “Nokia Manual”), as well as the combination of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,940,773 (Ex. 1006, “Barvesten”) with Motorola’s Communication Device
`
`Inactivity Password Lock” (Ex. 1008 1 , “Schultz”). Neither “the same [n]or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`The Nokia Manual is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it discussed during
`
`prosecution, and expressly discloses many of the limitations of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`Prior art reference Barvesten is not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. As shown below, Barvesten provides express
`
`teachings on many of the claim limitations of the ’654 patent. These teachings,
`
`which show that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious, were not
`
`considered by the Examiner.
`
`Prior art reference Schultz is also not cited by the ’654 patent, nor was it
`
`discussed during prosecution. Schultz provides important details on the “timing”
`
`1 Ex. 1008 is a duplicate copy of the Schultz paper attached to the Declaration of
`
`Steven Harris (Ex. 1007). Ex. 1008 was obtained from www.ip.com.
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 10 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`and “period of inactivity” claim limitations, which appears to be what the ’654 patent
`
`alleges to be the point of novelty over what is admitted prior art. Notably, both
`
`Barvesten and Schultz were, identified in an apparent prior art search report during
`
`prosecution of the ’654 patent’s counterpart French patent application. Ex. 1002,
`
`51-52/175. While these references were listed on an IDS, nothing suggests the U.S.
`
`Examiner was aware of, much less considered, their disclosures during prosecution.
`
`Indeed, the Examiner did not even initial that he had reviewed either Barvesten or
`
`Schultz, confirming that he lacked the benefit of their teachings. See Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. Parallel Networks, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578, at *8
`
`(PTAB July 15, 2015 (rejecting argument that institution be denied under Section
`
`325(d), because, though listed on an IDS, “the references were not applied against
`
`the claims and there is no evidence that the Examiner considered the particular
`
`disclosures cited by … the Petition” and because “the ex parte nature of the
`
`reexaminations differs from the adversarial nature of an inter partes review”); see
`
`also e.g., Intex Recr. Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00871, Paper 14 at
`
`13 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2018) (references initialed in an IDS, but not discussed or used
`
`as basis for rejections, received only “[c]ursory consideration ... [that] weighs
`
`against exercising discretion to deny under § 325(d)”).
`
`Because these key teachings in the prior art were not previously considered
`
`by the Office, this petition should not be denied under § 325(d).
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 11 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`C. Microsoft’sPetitioner’s Petition Should Be Granted Despite Other
`Third-PartySamsung’s Previous Petitions Challenging The Same
`Patent
`On July Neither Apple nor Motorola have previously filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ’654 patent. On July 23, 2018, Uniloc filed a complaint against
`
`Samsung, accusing it of infringing the ’654 patent. Over nine months later, Uniloc
`
`filed suit against Microsoft, alleging infringement of the same patent. While In
`
`response, Samsung already has filed two petitions challenging the claims of the ’654
`
`patent, Microsoft’s challenges are not redundant and should be separately considered
`
`and instituted for several reasons.
`
`First, Microsoft independently developed its grounds and petition, and
`
`promptly files this petition just over three months after first being sued. Second,
`
`Microsoft files this petition before any patent owner response to Samsung’s petitions.
`
`Third, while Microsoft relies on some of the same art applied in the Samsung
`
`petitions, the Nokia Manual, it presents that art in a different light and combines it
`
`with other art not cited in the Samsung petition. For example, the present petition
`
`combines the Nokia Manual with Barvesten, whereas Samsung combines it with two
`
`different references. Fourth, Microsoft presents a ground based on Barvesten and
`
`Schultz, neither of which were even cited in the Samsung petitions, much less relied
`
`on as part of a ground of unpatentability. Fifth, Patent Owner chose to assert this
`
`patent in a temporally staggered fashion against numerous defendants, and the
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 12 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`staggered filing of these responsive IPR petitions results from the Patent Owner’s
`
`decision to assert its patent in serial, instead of simultaneous, lawsuits.2 Finally, the
`
`Samsung IPR proceedings may settle or otherwise terminate for reasons outside of
`
`Microsoft’s control. If Microsoft were time-barred under § 315 at that point, it would
`
`have no recourse to challenge the patent via IPR, thus necessitating the filing of this
`
`petition now. While joinder theoretically is an option, it is too risky given that
`
`institution of the Samsung IPRs is not guaranteed and if Microsoft waited to file its
`
`own petition, Uniloc would no doubt accuse Microsoft of unwarranted delay and
`
`gamesmanship.
`
`A. Microsoft’s Concurrent Petition Challenges Different Claims
`As noted above, Petitioner is concurrently filing another IPR petition :
`
`IPR2019-01218 (challenging different claims of the ’654 patent, namely IPR2019-
`
`01470. Specifically, this petition challenges claims 10-20 of the ’654 patent, several
`
`of which are being asserted against Petitioner in the underlying district court
`
`litigation. Concurrently filed IPR2019-1470 challenges only claims 1-9 of the ’654
`
`patent. Notably, claims 1-9 recite means plus function language, which is not found
`
`in claims 10-20. It is possible that the Board will determine that corresponding
`
`structure is lacking in the specification for the functions recited by claims 1-9.
`
`2 According to Docket Navigator, the purported patent owner has asserted the ’654 patent against
`at least 7 different defendants, in 6 different district courts, with complaint filing dates that span
`from April 9, 2018 to April 29, 2019. See Ex. 1015.
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 13 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Petitioner is mindful of the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update’s
`
`discussion of parallel petitions ) and IPR2019-01219 (challenging the same patent.
`
`Importantly, the update cites Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2019-00224, -00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229 (PTAB April 3,
`
`2019) wherein the petitioner filed six separate petitions challenging claims 1-28 of
`
`the same patent. This is not that case. Although Petitioner here is filing two petitions
`
`against the same patent, no claim is being challenged in claims 10-20). The Board
`
`denied institution of both petitions, and Petitioner contends that the Board should
`
`give consideration to all challenged claims. Nonetheless, pursuant to the guidance
`
`in Comcast, Petitioner notes that it would prioritize this petition over IPR2019-
`
`01470, which challenges claims 1-9, none of which is presently asserted against
`
`Petitioner in the underlying district court litigation. Despite these prior proceedings,
`
`this Petition should nonetheless be instituted because it does not implicate any of the
`
`discretionary institution factors set forth in the Board’s precedential decision in
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper
`
`19 (Sept. 6, 2017). .
`
`In General Plastic, the Board set forth seven non-exhaustive factors to
`
`consider in determining whether to deny institution under § 314(a) of a follow-on
`
`petition challenging the same patent. IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16. These factors
`
`take into account the AIA’s objective “to provide an effective and efficient
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 14 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`alternative to district court litigation,” as well as “the potential for abuse of the
`
`review process by repeated attacks on patents.” Id. at 16-17. However, where a
`
`petitioner files a “me-too” or “copycat” petition in conjunction with a timely motion
`
`for joinder and agrees to assume a “passive understudy role,” the General Plastic
`
`factors are “effectively neutraliz[ed].” Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-
`
`00580, Paper 13 at 10 (Aug. 21, 2018). This is because such a joinder “will not put
`
`a significant additional burden on the Board or jeopardize the Board’s ability to issue
`
`a final written decision” and “[it] is not a case in which a petitioner has used prior
`
`preliminary responses or decisions of the Board to tailor its substantive arguments.”
`
`Id. at 10-11. Additionally, by its very nature, a “copycat" petition “does not present
`
`any ground or matter not already at issue in [the original] IPR.” Thus, under these
`
`circumstances, a petitioner’s assumption of an understudy role “effectively obviates
`
`any concerns of serial harassment and unnecessary expenditure of resources.”
`
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 10 (Oct. 30, 2018); see
`
`also Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02090, Paper 9
`
`at 9 (Mar. 6, 2018) (“[J]oined cases avoid the multiplicity that Patent Owner
`
`criticizes.”).
`
`Here, Samsung merely seeks to join an already instituted proceedings as an
`
`“understudy.” As such, the present Petition and accompanying Motion for Joinder
`
`do not raise any fairness, timing, or efficiency concerns. See Apple, IPR2018-00580,
`
`Page 8
`
`Page 15 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Paper 13 at 10; Celltrion, IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 10. To the contrary,
`
`Petitioner’s Petition and Motion for Joinder promote the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of the patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly,
`
`the present Petition should be granted.
`
`IV. THE ’654 PATENT
`The ’654 patent, titled “Anti-Theft Protection For A Radiotelephony Device”
`
`issued on December 28, 2004. The ’654 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/739,507 (the “’507 application”), filed on December 18, 2000.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`A.
`As noted above, the ’654 patent is directed at protecting against theft of a
`
`mobile radiotelephony device (now more commonly referred to as merely a mobile
`
`device, mobile phone, or cell phone) by preventing normal operation of the device
`
`under certain circumstances. The technology relies on a user identification module
`
`that is linked to the device.
`
`The ’654 patent describes as prior art devices capable of linking a device with
`
`a “specific user identification module and blocking the normal operation of the
`
`device when the user identification module that is placed inside the device is not the
`
`one that is linked to the device.” Ex. 1001, 1:26-30. The ’654 patent cites U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,913,175 (“Pinault,” Ex. 1011) as an example of such admitted prior art.
`
`The ’654 patent specification goes on to explain that when the Pinault device is lost
`
`Page 9
`
`Page 16 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`or stolen, the user must contact the operator to block use of the device at the network
`
`level. Id., 1:30-35. Of course, this means that the device can be used by anyone for
`
`as long as it takes for the operator to be contacted and subsequently prevent the
`
`device’s operation. Id., 1:35-37.
`
`The ’654 Patent’s Specification
`B.
`The ’654 patent aims to resolve the stated problem and improve device
`
`security by describing a device which
`
`(1) verifies a user identification module mounted inside
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device is linked to the mobile
`
`radiotelephony device, (2) detects a period of inactivity of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device during a normal
`
`operation of the mobile radiotelephony [sic] device,
`
`wherein the normal operation includes a processing of all
`
`outgoing calls, and (3) prevents the normal operation of
`
`the mobile radiotelephony device in response to the
`
`verification of the user identification module and in
`
`response to the detection of the period of inactivity of the
`
`mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`Id., 1:39-51.
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 17 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`More specifically, the ’654 patent discloses that the process begins when a
`
`user chooses to lock a device with a particular identification module. Id., 2:67-3:1.
`
`Upon making such a selection, the device reads the date in the identification module
`
`and automatically links the device to the identification module by storing the date
`
`(e.g., the international identification number IMSI) in the device’s random-access
`
`memory. Id., 3:1-5. Once locked, the device remains available for normal operation
`
`when the proper identification module is inserted in the device. Id., 3:6-7. Since the
`
`identification module data is stored on the device, the device is able to check whether
`
`an unlinked identification module is subsequently inserted into the device. Id.,
`
`3:3:6-30.
`
`The ’654 patent additionally describes a time-based security mechanism.
`
`Specifically, once the device verifies that the identification module is linked to the
`
`device, the device determines “whether the device has remained in the state of
`
`availability for a certain period of time …” Id., 3:31-35. If the predetermined period
`
`of time has passed, the device becomes blocked for normal operation. Id., 3:35-40.
`
`At this point, the device can become available again for normal operation only with
`
`the user “supplying a deblocking code (for example, the Personal Identification
`
`Number) PIN.” Id., 3:40-43.
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 18 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`The Prosecution History
`C.
`As noted above, the ’654 patent issued from the ’507 application filed on
`
`December 18, 2000. The ’654 patent purports to relate to a French patent application
`
`(No. 9916136, Ex. 1009) filed on December 21, 1999. Ex. 1001. In August 2003,
`
`the U.S. Patent Examiner rejected the original ten claims. Ex. 1002, 56-64/175. In
`
`December 2003, the Applicant amended the Abstract, Drawings, and Specification.
`
`Id., 67-84/175. The Applicant also canceled all original ten claims and submitted
`
`twenty new claims. Id.
`
`The Examiner issued multiple rejections over the prior art, relying on Pinault
`
`as a primary reference. Id., 60-64/175, 88-94/175. The Examiner acknowledged,
`
`however, that Pinault did not disclose the claimed “timing means” limitations. Id.,
`
`60/175. For this limitation, the Examiner relied on U.S. Patent No. 6,095,416
`
`(“Grant”), which discloses a credit card that “includes a PIN code and once the code
`
`is entered, the card is activated only for a predetermined period of time, after which
`
`it becomes disabled …” Id., 61/175. Ultimately, the Applicant persuaded the
`
`Examiner that the pending claims were not rendered obvious by this combination as
`
`Grant discloses system a where the device was disabled after a predetermined period
`
`of time, irrespective of any period of inactivity. Id., 112-113/175. Thus, the ’654
`
`patent issued on December 28, 2004.
`
`Page 12
`
`Page 19 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`The person of ordinary skill in the art in December 2000 (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and one year
`
`of general programming experience. Ex. 1010 (Declaration of Henry Houh), ¶ 3 ¶ 43.
`
`Additional experience may substitute for education, and addition education may
`
`substitute for experience. Id.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For inter partes review, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning
`
`that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art on the earliest
`
`effective filing date, in view of the specification and file history. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340;
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Certain claim terms specifically identified below benefit from construction to
`
`clarify their ordinary meaning. In all events, Petitioner applies herein the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of all claim terms, whether or not Petitioner proposes a clarifying
`
`claim construction. Petitioner does not waive any argument in any litigation that
`
`claim terms in the ’654 patent are indefinite or otherwise invalid, nor does Petitioner
`
`waive its right to raise additional issues of claim construction in any litigation.
`
`Because Petitioner is seeking to join the Microsoft IPR Proceeding, this
`
`Petition presents the same claim constructions presented in the Microsoft IPR
`
`3 Dr. Houh has agreed to cooperate with Petitioner.
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 20 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`Proceeding for completeness and given it is essentially identical to the petition filed
`
`in the Microsoft IPR Proceeding.4
`
`Deblocking/Debugging Code
`
`Petitioner contends that two phrases that should be construed are “deblocking
`
`code” and “debugging code.” Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 19 each recites a “deblocking
`
`code.” Claim 15 recites a “debugging code.” The Abstract of the ’654 Patent recites
`
`a “debugging code,” but not a “deblocking code,” while the “Summary of the
`
`Invention” and “Description Of A Preferred Embodiment Of The Invention”
`
`sections recite a “deblocking code,” but not a “debugging code.” Notably, the
`
`prosecution history makes clear that these phrases are interchangeable. See Ex. 1002,
`
`104-117/175 (amending claims to recite “deblocking code” instead of “debugging
`
`code”; it appears as though the Examiner may have unintentionally failed to reject
`
`original claim 25 for reciting “debugging code” as all other claims were rejected for
`
`reciting “debugging code,” and then later amended to recite “deblocking code”
`
`instead). Id., 87-108/175.
`
`In any event, the specification describes “deblocking code” as being formed
`
`by a Pin Code, Personal Identity Number, that when entered, can return the device
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise different claim construction and other
`
`arguments in district court as relevant and necessary to those proceedings.
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 21 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`to normal operation. Ex. 1001, 2:11-14, 3:40-42. Thus, deblocking/debugging code
`
`should be interpreted to encompass a string of characters, such as a PIN code, that
`
`can be entered to return a device to normal operation.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 10-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER THE NOKIA MANUAL + BARVESTEN
`As detailed below, claims 10-20 are unpatentable as obvious over the Nokia
`
`Manual combined with Barvesten.
`
`Nokia
`A.
`As noted above, this petition relies on the Nokia Manual (Ex. 1003). More
`
`specifically, the Nokia Manual is the “Owner’s Manual” for Nokia’s 9000i
`
`Communicator, which was “a mobile phone, messaging device, Internet access
`
`terminal and palmtop organizer all in one compact unit.” Ex. 1003, 7/131. The
`
`9000i Communicator device was on sale in the United States by at least
`
`November 1997. Ex. 1014 (Timo Henttonen, former Nokia engineer, testifying
`
`about the commercialization of the 9000i Communicator and distribution of the
`
`Nokia Manual to customers). A copy of the Nokia Manual was provided to
`
`customers of the device with each sale of the device, and at least thousands of copies
`
`of the Nokia Manual were distributed to customers in the United States by
`
`December 1, 1998. Id.; see also Ex. 1004, Ex. 1005. Thus, the Nokia Manual
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b).
`
`Page 15
`
`Page 22 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`
`Barvesten
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,773 is titled “Access Controlled Terminal And Method
`
`For Rendering Communication Services,” and names Mats Olof Barvesten
`
`(“Barvesten”) as inventor. Ex. 1006. Barvesten issued on August 17, 1999, and was
`
`originally assigned to Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson is a multinational company that has
`
`been manufacturing and selling telephones and related equipment for over 100 years.
`
`The subject matter discussed in Barvesten relates generally to mobile
`
`telephone services, and more specifically, directed at improving security for mobile
`
`telephone subscribers. For example, Barvesten recognizes that unsecure mobile
`
`telephones are at risk of being stolen, including those that are not locked such that
`
`anybody can use the device other than just the particular subscriber for the device.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:10-24. Barvesten noted that one way to protect the device is to lock the
`
`device, and to also lock the access unit card that is inserted into the device, such that
`
`a user has to both enter a code to unlock the device and then enter a different code
`
`to unlock the access unit card that is inserted into the device. Ex. 1006, 1:25-28.
`
`Barvesten provides a solution such that a user does not have to enter two
`
`different codes upon every activation of the device. Ex. 1006, 1:44-48. For example,
`
`Barvesten provides an arrangement wherein upon activating a device (mobile phone),
`
`the device and SIM-card (Subscriber Identity Module) communicate with each other.
`
`The IMSI-code (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) is stored in the device’s
`
`Page 16
`
`Page 23 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`memory. Then, when the device is used, the device can verify whether the currently-
`
`inserted SIM-card is authorized by comparing the IMSI-code with the code in
`
`memory. Ex. 1006, 4:7-61.
`
`C. Motivation And Rationale To Combine Nokia and Barvesten
`A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`Nokia Manual with Barvesten, and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making the combination to implement a device that integrated the mobile
`
`device and security measures of Barvesten with the device inactivity lock security
`
`measure of Nokia. For at least the following reasons, a PHOSITA in December 2000
`
`would have been motivated to make this natural and straightforward combination.
`
`Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 55-58.
`
`First, each of the Nokia Manual and Barvesten is expressly aimed at
`
`improving security for mobile telephone devices; thus, the teachings in these
`
`references complement one another. Id., ¶ 56.
`
`Second, since the goal in the Nokia Manual, as well as in Barvesten, is to
`
`improve security, a PHOSITA reading the Nokia Manual would understand that
`
`implementing the teachings of Barvesten into Nokia would have improved the
`
`security taught by Nokia. For example, the Nokia Manual discloses the ability to
`
`detect SIM card changes, locking the phone if the SIM is not recognized. Id., ¶ 57.
`
`Barvesten provides additional detail regarding how devices might ensure that
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 24 of 80
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01471
`Patent 6,836,654
`installed SIM cards are indeed authorized and appropriately link the device and the
`
`user. Thus, incorporating Barvesten’s teachings into the Nokia Manual would
`
`inform a PHOSITA as to an improved sense of security. Id.
`
`Third, the particular teachings of the Nokia Manual rely on much of the same
`
`principles and disclosures of Barvesten, such as a mobile telephone having a
`
`subscriber identification module. Id., ¶ 58. Therefore, a PHOSITA seeking to
`
`improve the security of mobile telephones would naturally seek out and incorporate
`
`the teachings of Nokia, which is aimed at a discrete improvement to the overall goal
`
`of Barvesten. Id.
`
`Finally, a PHOSITA would have had no issues integrating the Barvesten and
`
`Nokia device security technologies

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket