Filed: August 26, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01031
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01031
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`September 2, 2021
`
`Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. v.
`Synkloud Technologies, LLC
`
`IPR2020-01031
`IPR2020-01032
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`1031 Institution Decision, 6
`
`1032 Institution Decision, 6
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`4
`
`
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`*In these demonstratives, citations are to the record in IPR2020-01031, unless indicated otherwise.
`
`5
`
`
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001, Face.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7(cited in Pet., 34).
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:18-21.
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:8-16.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 10:24-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:5-10.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Ex. 1005, 11:4-23.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 12:23-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7 (cited in Pet., 14, 38).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`
`
`WO 01/67233 A2 to McCown et al. (“McCown”)
`
`Ex. 1005, 12:23-29.
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 7 (cited in Pet., 14, 38).
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1 (cited in Pet., 19)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0078102 A1 to Dutta (“Dutta”)
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 3 (cited in Pet., 21).
`
`14
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination of McCown and Dutta
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`Pet., 40-41.
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination of McCown and Dutta
`• Reasons to Combine
`– Analogous art. Pet. 22.
`– Arrangement of old elements; predictable results. Pet. 22-23.
`– Dutta’s techniques were well known in the prior art. Pet., 23.
`– Dutta’s caching technique would “provide the user with a faster
`and more convenient storage for the user site program
`application data.” Pet., 23-24
`– Dutta’s allocation technique would “would allow the user site
`application to access the user site’s data more quickly so that it
`can be transmitted, e.g., to the storage site more quickly without
`having to make another request to the web server.” Pet., 24.
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,266,555 B1 to Coates et al. (“Coates”)
`
`Ex. 1007, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1007, columns 15-16 (cited in Pet., 70 ).
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,266,555 B1 to Coates et al. (“Coates”)
`
`Ex. 1007, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 1007, columns 15-16 (cited in Pet., 70 ).
`
`18
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination of McCown, Dutta, and Coates
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`19
`
`Pet., 66-67.
`
`
`
`The Obvious Combination of McCown, Dutta, and Coates
`
`• Reasons to Combine
`–Analogous art. Pet., 67.
`–Arrangement of old elements; predictable
`results. Pet., 68.
`–Coates’ file and folder manipulation techniques
`provide increased usability to McCown’s virtual
`storage system. Pet., 69.
`
`Ex. 1005, Face.
`
`Ex. 1006, Face.
`
`Ex. 1007, Face.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`
`
`Roadmap
`
`254 Patent Overview
`
`Prior Art Overview
`
`Patentability Issues
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`21
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – utilizing download information
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“using information in the cache storage of the
`“This claim limitation requires information
`wireless device to stored download a file from a
`needed to download a file from a remote server
`remote server.”
`to be (i) stored in a cache storage of a wireless
`device and (ii) utilized to download the file
`across a network into an assigned storage
`space for the user of the wireless device..”
`Reply, 3-5 (quoting Inst. Dec., 11); POR, 10.
`
`Institution Decision (at 11)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`22
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – utilizing download information
`Petitioners’ Proposed Construction
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction
`“using information in the cache storage of the
`“This claim limitation requires information
`wireless device to download a file from a
`needed to download a file from a remote server
`remote server.”
`to be (i) stored in a cache storage of a wireless
`device and (ii) utilized to download the file
`Patent Owner Argument
`Petitioner’s Argument
`across a network into an assigned storage
`space for the user of the wireless device..”
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 4.
`
`Sur-Reply, 3.
`
`23
`
`
`
`URLs Come From The Cache, Not The Display
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR, 16
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Pet, 41
`
`24
`
`
`
`Reasons To Combine Need Not Be Found In Combo References
`Patent Owner Argument
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR, 16
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 6.
`
`25
`
`
`
`McCown Users Can Select One or More URLs
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR, 26-27
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`EX1005, 11:12-20 (cited in Reply, 13).
`
`Reply, 13.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Obvious To Cache URLs for Subsequent Retrieval
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 16-17
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Reply, 7-8.
`
`27
`
`
`
`Obvious To Cache URLs for Subsequent Retrieval
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Pet., 41.
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 8.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petition Identified Combo With Particularity
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 18
`
`Institution Decision (at 17)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 9.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Combo Required No Major Architectural Changes
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`POR, 24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 11.
`
`30
`
`
`
`Combo Required No Major Architectural Changes
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Pet., 18.
`
`31
`
`
`
`Combo Required No Major Architectural Changes
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`32
`
`EX1007, 10:60-66 (cited in Reply, 12)
`
`
`
`Combo Required No Major Architectural Changes
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`33
`
`EX1003, ¶¶137-138 (cited in Reply, 12)
`
`
`
`No Hindsight or Conclusory Arguments
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Dr. Henry Houh
`
`POR, 37-38
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`EX1003, ¶¶132-140
`EX1006
`EX1010
`EX1011
`EX1012
`EX1013
`34
`
`(Cited in Pet., 20-24.)
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Patent Owner’s Burden
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`35
`
`Reply, 22
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – No Presumed Nexus
`
`Paper 17, Scheduling Order, 8
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 22
`
`36
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – No Presumed Nexus
`
`As WBIP correctly argues, there is a presumption of nexus for objective considerations when the patentee shows that the
`asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product "is the invention disclosed and claimed in the
`patent."[3] J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F.
`Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294,
`1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir.
`2000); Demaco,851 F.2d at 1392-93.
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F. 3d 1317, 1329 (Fed.Cir. 2016) (cited in Sur-Reply, 20).
`
`As first recognized in Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., a patentee is entitled to a
`rebuttable presumption of nexus between the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a
`patent claim if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that the
`product "is the invention disclosed and claimed." 851 F.2d at 1392 (emphasis added). That is,
`presuming nexus is appropriate "when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to
`a specific product and that product `embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.'"
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Brown & Williamson
`Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Conversely, "[w]hen the thing
`that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention—for example, if the
`patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful machine or process," the patentee
`is not entitled to a presumption of nexus. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392.
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F. 3d 1366, 1373 (Fed.Cir. 2019) (cited in Reply, 22).
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`37
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – WRONG Nexus
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`POR, 50.
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`Reply, 22-23.
`
`38
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Cited Devices Do Not Practice Claims
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`EX2016, 6 (cited in POR, 56).
`
`Reply, 23
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`39
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Cited Devices Do Not Practice Claims
`
`Petitioner’s Argument
`
`Patent Owner Argument
`
`EX2016, 6 (cited in POR, 56).
`
`Reply, 23
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`40
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Any Success Attributable to Prior Art Cloud
`Storage Techniques
`
`Ex. 1005, Face (Pet., 13-14)
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract (cited in Petition, 22)
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`41
`
`
`
`No Secondary Considerations – Licensing
`
`Reply, 24
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative – Not Evidence
`
`42
`
`
`
`Beijing
`
`Boston
`
`Brussels
`
`Century City
`
`Chicago
`
`Dallas
`
`Geneva
`
`Hong Kong
`
`Houston
`
`London
`
`Los Angeles
`
`Munich
`
`New York
`
`Palo Alto
`
`San Francisco
`
`Shanghai
`
`Singapore
`
`Sydney
`
`Tokyo
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`sidley.com
`
`43
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 26th day of
`
`August, 2021, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the
`
`following counsel:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves - gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`Yeasun Yoon - yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 26, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Scott M. Border/
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`sborder@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 736-8818
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
