Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00600
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TELEPUTERS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
` v.
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION AND SUN
`MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Teleputers, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Teleputers”) hereby files this First Amended
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant Oracle Corporation and Sun Microsystems,
`
`Inc. (collectively “Defendants” or “Defendant” or collectively as “Oracle”), and alleges, on
`
`information and belief, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Teleputers, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Oracle Corporation is a California corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California 94065. Oracle
`
`Corporation may be served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC
`
`– Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 1
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc. was a California corporation
`
`and was acquired by Oracle Corporation in January 2010 for $7.4 Billon. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
`
`may be served through its current parent/owner, Oracle Corporation.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. This
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants maintain regular and systematic business interests
`
`in this district and throughout the State of Texas including through their representatives, employees
`
`and physical facilities.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
`
`Defendants have committed, and continue to commit, acts of infringement in the State of Texas,
`
`have conducted business in the State of Texas, and/or have engaged in continuous and systematic
`
`activities in the State of Texas. On information and belief, Defendants’ accused instrumentalities
`
`that are alleged herein to infringe were and continue to be used, imported, offered for sale, and/or
`
`sold in the Western District of Texas.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants voluntarily conduct business and solicit customers
`
`in the State of Texas and within this District, including, but not limited to, its offices located at
`
`2300 Cloud Way, Austin, Texas 78741.
`
`Austin
`
`Austin
`
`Frisco
`
`Houston
`
`2300 Oracle Way
`
`5300 Riata Park
`
`7460 Warren
`
`Two Allen Center
`
`Austin, TX 78741
`Phone:
`
`
`Court
`Building B
`
`Parkway
`Suite 300
`
`1200 Smith St.
`Suite 1500
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 2
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 2
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`+1.737.867.1000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Austin, TX 78727
`Phone:
`+1.512.401.1000
`
`Frisco, TX
`75034
`Phone:
`+1.972.963.2300
`
`Houston, TX
`77002 Phone:
`+1.713.654.0919
`
`Fax:
`+1.512.401.1001
`
`
`Fax:
`+1.972.963.2301
`
`
`
`
`Fax:
`+1.713.654.8743
`
`Source: Oracle website https://www.oracle.com/corporate/contact/field-offices.html, as visited
`on June 23, 2020.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants also have engineers and actively recruit for employees to work in Austin,
`
`Texas.
`
`
`
` Oracle today announced the opening of the Oracle Startup Cloud
`Accelerator in Austin, Texas, the global program’s first U.S. location and
`part of the Oracle Global Startup Ecosystem. The new accelerator provides
`statewide startups with access to a network of more than 430,000 Oracle
`customers, technical and business mentors, state-of-the art technology, co-
`working space at Capital Factory, introductions to partners, talent, and
`investors, and free Oracle Cloud credits. In addition to local expertise, the
`program offers an ever-expanding global community of startup peers and
`program alumni.
`
`Source: Oracle website https://www.oracle.com/corporate/pressrelease/expanded-oracle-
`accelerator-gives-texas-startups-a-boost-062218.html, as visited on June 22, 2020.
`
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants generate substantial revenue within this District and
`
`from the acts of infringement as carried out in this District. As such, the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`over Defendants would not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 3
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 3
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`NOTICE OF TELEPUTERS’ PATENTS
`
`12.
`
`Teleputers is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,472 (“the ’472 Patent”)
`
`entitled “Method and system for performing permutations using permutation instructions based on
`
`butterfly networks.” A copy may be obtained at:
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US6922472B2/en.
`
`13.
`
`Teleputers is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,478B2 (“the ’478 Patent”)
`
`entitled “Method and system for performing permutations using permutation instructions based on
`
`modified omega and flip stages.” A copy may be obtained at:
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US6952478B2/en.
`
`14.
`
`Teleputers is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,526B2 (“the ’526 Patent”)
`
`entitled “Method and system for performing subword permutation instructions for use in two-
`
`dimensional multimedia processing.” A copy may be obtained at:
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US7092526B2/en.
`
`15.
`
`Teleputers is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,174,014B2 (“the ’014 Patent” and
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”) entitled “Method and system for performing permutations with bit
`
`permutation instructions.” A copy may be obtained at:
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US7174014B2/en.
`
`16.
`
`Teleputers is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,519,795B2 (“the ’795 Patent”)
`
`entitled “Method and system for performing permutations with bit permutation instructions.” A
`
`copy may be obtained at:
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US7519795B2/en.
`
`17.
`
`The foregoing Patents, namely the ’014 Patent, the ’526 Patent, the ’478 Patent, the ’472
`
`Patent, and the ’795 Patent are collectively referred to as “the Teleputers Patents.”
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 4
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 4
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`18.
`
`Teleputers is the owner of all right, title, and interest in each of the Teleputers Patents.
`
`None of the Teleputers Patents, nor any of the claimed subject matter in any such Teleputers
`
`Patents, has been otherwise assigned to any person or entity other than Teleputers. Teleputers
`
`therefore has complete and unfettered standing to assert and seek money damages for the
`
`infringement of each and every one of the Teleputers Patents.
`
`19.
`
`No entity other than Teleputers presently claims any ownership interest, valid or otherwise,
`
`in any of the Teleputers Patents. Teleputers possesses full legal title to each of the Teleputers
`
`Patents.
`
`20.
`
`The records at the United States Patent and Trademark Office indicate duly recorded
`
`assignments of the Teleputers Patents from the inventors (Lee, Shi, Yang, and/or Vachharajani) to
`
`Teleputers, LLC, executed on February 14, 2005. No other assignments of interest in any
`
`Teleputers Patent have been recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and no
`
`such assignments exist. Indeed, the face of each Teleputers Patent properly identifies Teleputers
`
`LLC as the legal assignee. As such, because each of the Teleputers Patents were issued to the
`
`inventors, and because the inventors assigned the Teleputers Patents to Teleputers LLC and filed
`
`copies of such assignments with the Patent and Trademark Office, Plaintiff presumptively has
`
`proper standing to bring these causes of action. By operation of law, legal title vests in the
`
`inventors, and passes to another only by way of assignment or effective legal transfer.
`
`21.
`
`To the extent Princeton University possessed any rights whatsoever in any Teleputers
`
`Patent, such rights were equitable in nature and non-exclusive to the rights of the inventors. The
`
`Verified Statement Claiming Small Entity Status (dated March 5, 2000) in the certain Provisional
`
`Patent Application Number 60/202,250 states only that certain unidentified “rights under contract
`
`or law” were, at the time, allegedly possessed by The Trustees of Princeton University. The
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 5
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 5
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`Verified Statement further made clear that the named inventors possessed legal rights to the
`
`inventions. At best, such rights possessed by Princeton were equitable, and were in any event
`
`limited to the inventions, not to the issued patents. Further, the written policies of Princeton
`
`University
`
`relating
`
`to
`
`inventions
`
`(see
`
`https://dof.princeton.edu/policies-
`
`procedure/policies/patents) expressly call for the outright assignment of inventions to the inventors
`
`or the transfer of the inventions to a patent management company. Having not transferred any of
`
`the Teleputers Patents to any patent management company, the historical actions of Princeton
`
`reflect an abandonment of equitable rights and an assignment of all rights (equitable and legal) to
`
`the inventors. Stated differently, the conduct of the parties (Princeton and the inventors) evidences
`
`an abandonment of rights on the part of Princeton, and full equitable and legal title in the inventors.
`
`In any event, the “rights” allegedly possessed by Princeton in the ‘250 Application do not carry
`
`over to the inventions described and claimed in the Teleputers Patents.
`
`22.
`
`The Teleputers Patents are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants, at least by the date of this Original Complaint, are on notice of the Teleputers
`
`Patents.
`
`24.
`
`Each of the aforementioned Teleputers Patents are directed to, and claim, patent eligible
`
`subject matter, and each is presumed to be valid and patent-eligible.
`
`25.
`
`The ‘472 Patent relates generally to methods and systems for providing permutation
`
`instructions which can be used in software executed in a programmable processor for solving
`
`permutation problems in cryptography, multimedia and other applications. The permute
`
`instructions are based on a Benes network comprising two butterfly networks of the same size
`
`connected back-to-back. Intermediate sequences of bits are defined that an initial sequence of bits
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 6
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 6
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`from a source register are transformed into. Each intermediate sequence of bits is used as input to
`
`a subsequent permutation instruction. Permutation instructions are determined for permitting the
`
`initial source sequence of bits into one or more intermediate sequence of bits until a desired
`
`sequence is obtained. The intermediate sequences of bits are determined by configuration bits. The
`
`permutation instructions form a permutation instruction sequence of at least one instruction. At
`
`most 21 gr/m permutation instructions are used in the permutation instruction sequence, where r
`
`is the number of k-bit subwords to be permuted, and m is the number of network stages executed
`
`in one instruction. The permutation instructions can be used to permute k-bit subwords packed into
`
`an n-bit word, where k can be 1, 2, . . . , or n bits, and k*r=n. See Abstract, ‘472 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`The claims of the ‘472 Patent claim priority to at least May 5, 2000.
`
`The claims of the ‘472 Patent are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`28.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘472 Patent contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`29.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘472 Patent overcome deficiencies in the prior art, including but
`
`not limited to those relating to secure use of the Internet, symmetric key cryptography, bit-level
`
`permutations, table lookup methods, and methods requiring excessive memory requirements. See
`
`‘472 Patent at 1:17-3:15.
`
`30.
`
`For example, the claims of the ‘472 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide significantly faster and more economical ways to perform
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 7
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 7
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`arbitrary permutations of n bits, without any need for table storage, which can be used for
`
`encrypting large amounts of data for confidentiality or privacy. See ‘472 Patent at 3:17-21.
`
`31.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘472 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide improved and more efficient cryptography, which
`
`provides for improved multimedia processing. See ‘472 Patent at 3:24-37.
`
`32.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘472 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide a basis for the design of new processors or coprocessors
`
`which can be efficient for both cryptography and multimedia software. See ‘472 Patent at 3:42-
`
`47.
`
`33.
`
`The foregoing improvements and technological solutions, as captured in the claims of the
`
`‘472 Patent, enable prior art systems to perform better than they previously could by implementing
`
`unconventional methodologies.
`
`34.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘472 Patent do not preempt all methods and systems for solving
`
`permutation problems in cryptography.
`
`35.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the ‘472 Patent recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`36.
`
`The ‘472 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Gilberto Barron,
`
`Jr, with Assistant Examiner Grigory Gurshman. During the examination of the ‘472 Patent, the
`
`United States Patent Examiner(s) searched for prior art in the following US Classifications:
`
`380/37, 28, 1.
`
`37.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ‘472 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 8
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 8
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`references found during the search: (i) US5495476A; (ii) US5546393A; (iii) US6381690B1; (iv)
`
`US6446198B1; (v) US6629115B1; (vi) US6108311A; and (vii) US5940389A.
`
`38.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for
`
`all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) allowed all of the claims of the ‘472 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that the Examiner(s) used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the claims.
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further
`
`presumed that the Examiner has experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner
`
`properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
`
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`39.
`
`The ‘478 Patent relates generally to methods and systems for providing permutation
`
`instructions which can be used in software executed in a programmable processor for solving
`
`permutation problems in cryptography, multimedia and other applications. The permute
`
`instructions are based on an omega-flip network comprising at least two stages in which each stage
`
`can perform the function of either an omega network stage or a flip network stage. Intermediate
`
`sequences of bits are defined that an initial sequence of bits from a source register are transformed
`
`into. Each intermediate sequence of bits is used as input to a subsequent permutation instruction.
`
`Permutation instructions are determined for permuting the initial source sequence of bits into one
`
`or more intermediate sequence of bits until a desired sequence is obtained. The intermediate
`
`sequences of bits are determined by configuration bits. The permutation instructions form a
`
`permutation instruction sequence, of at least one instruction. At most 21 gr/m permutation
`
`instructions are used in the permutation instruction sequence, where r is the number of k-bit
`
`subwords to be permuted, and m is the number of network stages executed in one instruction. The
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 9
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 9
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`permutation instructions can be used to permute k-bit subwords packed into an n-bit word, where
`
`k can be 1, 2, . . . , or n bits, and k*r=n. See Abstract, ‘478 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`The claims of the ‘478 Patent claim priority to at least May 5, 2000.
`
`The claims of the ‘478 Patent are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`42.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘478 Patent contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`43.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘478 Patent overcome deficiencies in the prior art, including but
`
`not limited to those relating to secure use of the Internet, symmetric key cryptography, bit-level
`
`permutations, table lookup methods, and methods requiring excessive memory requirements. See
`
`‘478 Patent at 1:17-3:15.
`
`44.
`
`For example, the claims of the ‘478 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide significantly faster and more economical ways to perform
`
`arbitrary permutations of n bits, without any need for table storage, which can be used for
`
`encrypting large amounts of data for confidentiality or privacy. See ‘478 Patent at 3:17-21.
`
`45.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘478 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide improved and more efficient cryptography, which
`
`provides for improved multimedia processing. See ‘478 Patent at 3:24-37.
`
`46.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘478 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide a basis for the design of new processors or coprocessors
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 10
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 10
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`which can be efficient for both cryptography and multimedia software. See ‘478 Patent at 3:42-
`
`47.
`
`47.
`
`The foregoing improvements and technological solutions, as captured in the claims of the
`
`‘478 Patent, enable prior art systems to perform better than they previously could by implementing
`
`unconventional methodologies.
`
`48.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘478 Patent do not preempt all methods and systems for solving
`
`permutation problems in cryptography.
`
`49.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the ‘478 Patent recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`50.
`
`The ‘478 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Thomas Peeso,
`
`with Assistant Examiner Grigory Gurshman. During the examination of the ‘478 Patent, the
`
`United States Patent Examiner(s) searched for prior art in the following US Classifications:
`
`380/37, 28, 1, 380/26.
`
`51.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ‘478 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art
`
`references found during the search: (i) US5495476A; (ii) US5546393A; (iii) US6381690B1; (iv)
`
`US6446198B1; and (v) US6629115B1.
`
`52.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for
`
`all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) allowed all of the claims of the ‘478 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that the Examiner(s) used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the claims.
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 11
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 11
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`presumed that the Examiner has experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner
`
`properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
`
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`53.
`
`The ‘526 Patent relates generally to methods and systems for providing provides a set of
`
`permutation primitives for current and future 2-D multimedia programs which are based on
`
`decomposing images and objects into atomic units, then finding the permutations desired for the
`
`atomic units. The subword permutation instructions for these 2-D building blocks are also defined
`
`for larger subword sizes at successively higher hierarchical levels. The atomic unit can be a 2×2
`
`matrix and four triangles contained within the 2×2 matrix. Each of the elements in the matrix can
`
`represent a subword of one or more bits. The permutations provide vertical, horizontal, diagonal,
`
`rotational, and other rearrangements of the elements in the atomic unit. See Abstract, ‘526 Patent.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`The claims of the ‘526 Patent claim priority to at least May 7, 2001.
`
`The claims of the ‘526 Patent are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`56.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘526 Patent overcome deficiencies in the prior art, including but
`
`not limited to those deficiencies embodied in subword parallelism, shift-and-rotate instructions,
`
`extract-and-deposit instructions, and mix-and-permute. The prior art was deficient in its ability to
`
`permute more than 16 elements. See ‘526 Patent at 1:15-2:23.
`
`57.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘526 Patent contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 12
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 12
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`58.
`
`For example, the claims of the ‘526 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide for efficient subword permutation instructions that can
`
`be used for parallel execution, for example in 2-D multimedia processing. See ‘526 Patent at 2:50-
`
`53.
`
`59.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘526 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide for single-cycle instructions, which can be used to
`
`construct any type of permutations needed in two-dimensional (2-D) multimedia processing. The
`
`instructions can be used in a programmable processor, such as a digital signal processor, video
`
`signal processors, media processors, multimedia processors, cryptographic processors and
`
`programmable System-on-a-Chips (SOCs). See ‘526 Patent at 2:56-62.
`
`60.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘526 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, wherein the subword permutation primitives enhance the use of
`
`subword parallelism by allowing in-place rearrangement of packed subwords across multiple
`
`registers, reducing the need for memory accesses with potentially costly cache misses. The
`
`alphabet of permutation primitives of the invention is easy to implement and is useful for 2-D
`
`multimedia processing and for other data-parallel computations using subword parallelism. See
`
`‘526 Patent at 3:40-47.
`
`61.
`
`The foregoing improvements and technological solutions, as captured in the claims of the
`
`‘526 Patent, enable prior art systems to perform better than they previously could by implementing
`
`unconventional methodologies.
`
`62.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘526 Patent do not preempt all methods and systems for providing
`
`permutation primitives.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 13
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 13
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 14 of 30
`
`63.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the ‘526 Patent recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`64.
`
`The ‘526 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Hosuk Song.
`
`During the examination of the ‘526 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner(s) searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 708/100, 708/520, 712/1, 10, 20, 16, 24, 200, 380/28,
`
`380/37, 42-47.
`
`65.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ‘526 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art
`
`references found during the search: (i) US4751733A; (ii) US4845668A; (iii) US5113516A; (iv)
`
`US5423010A; and (v) US5673321A.
`
`66.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for
`
`all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) allowed all of the claims of the ‘526 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that the Examiner(s) used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the claims.
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further
`
`presumed that the Examiner has experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiner
`
`properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
`
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`67.
`
`The ‘014 Patent relates generally to methods and systems for providing permutation
`
`instructions usable in a programmable processor for solving permutation problems in
`
`cryptography, multimedia and other applications. PPERM and PPERM3R instructions are defined
`
`to perform permutations by a sequence of instructions with each sequence specifying the position
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 14
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 14
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 15 of 30
`
`in the source for each bit in the destination. In the PPERM instruction bits in the destination register
`
`that change are updated and bits in the destination register that do not change are set to zero. In the
`
`PPERM3R instruction bits in the destination register that change are updated and bits in the
`
`destination register that do not change are copied from intermediate result of previous PPERM3R
`
`instructions. Both PPERM and PPERM3R instructions can individually do permutation with bit
`
`repetition. Both PPERM and PPERM3R instructions can individually do permutation of bits stored
`
`in more than one register. In an alternate embodiment, a GRP instruction is defined to perform
`
`permutations. See Abstract, ‘014 Patent.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`The claims of the ‘014 Patent claim priority to at least May 7, 2001.
`
`The claims of the ‘014 Patent are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`70.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘014 Patent contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`71.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘014 Patent overcome deficiencies in the prior art, including but
`
`not limited to those relating to secure use of the Internet, symmetric key cryptography, bit-level
`
`permutations, table lookup methods, and methods requiring excessive memory requirements. See
`
`‘014 Patent at 1:14-2:67.
`
`72.
`
`For example, the claims of the ‘014 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide significantly faster and more economical ways to perform
`
`arbitrary permutations of n bits, without any need for table storage, which can be used for
`
`encrypting large amounts of data for confidentiality or privacy. See ‘014 Patent at 3:1-5.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE | 15
`
`Oracle-1010 p. 15
`Oracle v. Teleputers
`IPR2021-00078
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00600-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/24/20 Page 16 of 30
`
`73.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘014 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide improved and more efficient cryptography, which
`
`provides for improved multimedia processing. See ‘014 Patent at 3:9-21.
`
`74.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘014 Patent recite and are drawn to improvements in existing
`
`computational technologies, and provide a basis for the design of new processors or coprocessors
`
`which can be efficient for both cryptography and multimedia software. See ‘014 Patent at 3:26-
`
`31.
`
`75.
`
`The foregoing improvements and technological solutions, as captured in the claims of the
`
`‘014 Patent, enable prior art systems to perform better than they previously could by implementing
`
`unconventional methodologies.
`
`76.
`
`Further, the claims of the ‘014 Patent do not preempt all methods and systems for solving
`
`permutation problems in cryptography.
`
`77.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the ‘014 Patent recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`78.
`
`The ‘014 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Emmanuel L.
`
`Moise, with Assistant Examiner Paul Callahan. During the examination of the ‘014 Patent, the
`
`United States Patent Examiner(s) searched for prior art in the following US Classifications:
`
`380/44, 380/265, 28, 377/54, 60, 75, 67, 81, 711/109, 340/825.68, 365/73, 78, 712/1, 24, 10,
`
`712/223.
`
`79.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ‘014 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner(s) identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art
`
`references found during the search: (i) US5524256A; (ii) US5734721A; (iii) US6865272B2; (iv)
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAI