UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`RINGCENTRAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`Case No.: IPR2021-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`Issue Date: March 5, 2013
`Title: Phone Directory In A Voice Over IP Telephone System
`____________
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,392,298
`____________
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information ......................................... 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW ................................................................ 6
`A.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 6
`B.
`Challenges and Statement of Relief Requested ................................... 6
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE ................................... 7
`A.
`§314(a) .................................................................................................. 7
`B.
`§325 .................................................................................................... 10
`THE ’298 PATENT ...................................................................................... 10
`A. Overview ............................................................................................ 10
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 13
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 13
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 14
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENABLE ........................... 16
`A.
`Prior Art Summary ............................................................................. 16
`1.
`Chang ....................................................................................... 16
`2.
`Byrne ........................................................................................ 19
`3.
`Imielinski ................................................................................. 20
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 17-19 would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C ..................................................................... 21
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 22
`a.
`Element 1[p]: “An information handling system
`comprising:” .................................................................. 22
`Element 1[a]: “a first local area network (‘LAN’);” ..... 23
`Element 1[b]: “a second LAN;” .................................... 24
`Element 1[c]: “a wide area network (‘WAN’)
`coupling the first LAN to the second LAN;” ................ 25
`Element 1[d]: “a third LAN coupled to the first
`and second LANs via the WAN;” ................................. 26
`
`b.
`c.
`d.
`
`e.
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Element 1[e]: “a first telecommunications device
`coupled to the first LAN;” ............................................. 27
`Element 1[f]: “a plurality of telecommunications
`extensions coupled to the second LAN;” ...................... 29
`Element 1[g]: “the first LAN including first
`circuitry for enabling a user of the first
`telecommunications device to observe a list of the
`plurality of telecommunications extensions;” ............... 31
`Element 1[h]: “the first LAN including second
`circuitry for automatically calling one of the
`plurality of telecommunications extensions in
`response to the user selecting one of the plurality
`of telecommunications extensions from the
`observed list, wherein the list of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions is stored in a server
`in the second LAN, and is accessed by the first
`circuitry across the WAN; and”..................................... 37
`Element 1[i]: “a plurality of telecommunications
`extensions coupled to the third LAN, the first LAN
`including circuitry for enabling the user to select
`between observing the list of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the
`second LAN or observing a list of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the
`third LAN.” .................................................................... 42
`Claim 2: “The system as recited in claim 1, wherein
`communication among the first LAN, second LAN, and
`WAN uses an IP protocol.” ...................................................... 45
`Claim 3: “The system as recited in claim 2, wherein the
`list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions is
`displayed to the user of the first telecommunications
`device.”..................................................................................... 46
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 4: “The system as recited in claim 3, wherein the
`first telecommunications device is an IP telephone having
`a display for showing the list of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions, wherein the second
`circuitry includes a key for enabling the user to tacitly
`selecting one of the plurality of telecommunications
`extensions from the displayed list.” ......................................... 47
`Claim 5: “The system as recited in claim 4, wherein the
`tactile selection of one of the plurality of
`telecommunications extensions from the displayed list by
`the user results in an initiation of a call from the first
`telecommunications device to the selected one of the
`plurality of telecommunications extensions across the
`WAN.” ..................................................................................... 49
`Claim 7: “The system as recited in claim 1, wherein the
`first telecommunications device includes circuitry for
`enabling the user to scroll through the displayed list of
`the plurality of telecommunications extensions.” .................... 50
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 53
`a.
`Elements 8[p] and 8[a]: “An information handling
`system comprising: a first local area network
`(“LAN”) operating under an IP protocol;” .................... 53
`Element 8[b]: “a first IP telephone coupled to the
`first LAN, the first IP telephone having a display
`and a set of keys for enabling a user to enter
`inputs;” ........................................................................... 54
`Element 8[c]: “a second LAN operating under the
`IP protocol;” ................................................................... 55
`Element 8[d]: “second and third telephone
`extensions coupled to the second LAN;” ...................... 55
`Element 8[e]: “a wide area network (“WAN”)
`operating under the IP protocol coupling the first
`LAN to the second LAN;” ............................................. 55
`Element 8[f]: “a third LAN coupled to the first and
`second LANs via the WAN;” ........................................ 56
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Element 8[g]: “the first LAN including first
`circuitry for enabling a user of the first IP
`telephone to view a list including the second and
`third telephone extensions, wherein the list is
`stored in a server in the second LAN, and is
`accessed by the first circuitry across the WAN;
`and” ................................................................................ 56
`Element 8[h]: “a plurality of telephone extensions
`coupled to the third LAN, the first LAN including
`circuitry for enabling the user to select between
`viewing the list of the telephone extensions
`coupled to the second LAN or viewing a list of the
`plurality of telephone extensions coupled to the
`third LAN.” .................................................................... 57
`Claim 9: “The system as recited in claim 8, further
`comprising: the first LAN including second circuitry for
`automatically calling the second telephone extension in
`response to the user selecting the second telephone
`extension from the viewed list.” .............................................. 57
`Claim 10: “The system as recited in claim 9, wherein
`selection of the second telephone extension from the
`viewed list by the user is accomplished by selection of
`one of the set of keys.” ............................................................. 57
`10. Claim 11: “The system as recited in claim 10, wherein
`the selection of one of the set of keys results in an
`initiation of a call from the first IP telephone to the
`second telephone extension across the WAN.” ....................... 58
`11. Claim 12: “The system as recited in claim 8, wherein the
`first IP telephone includes circuitry for enabling the user
`to scroll through the displayed list.” ........................................ 58
`12. Claim 17: .................................................................................. 59
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Elements 17[a]-[b]: “A method comprising the
`steps of: receiving a first touch input from a user
`on an IP telephone that is networked into a first
`LAN operating under an IP protocol; in response
`to receipt of the first touch input, displaying on a
`display on the IP telephone a first list including
`second and third LANs coupled to the first LAN,
`wherein the second and third LANs operate under
`the IP protocol, wherein the first, second, and third
`LANs are coupled via a WAN;” .................................... 59
`Elements 17[c]-[d]: “receiving a second touch
`input from the user on the IP telephone; in
`response to receipt of the second touch input,
`displaying on the display on the IP telephone a
`second list of telephone destinations accessible
`from the second LAN;” ................................................. 63
`Elements 17[e]-[f]: “receiving a third touch input
`from the user on the IP telephone; in response to
`receipt of the third touch input, automatically
`dialing one of the telephone destinations accessible
`from the second LAN for a communications
`connection between the one of the telephone
`destinations and the IP telephone” ................................ 65
`Elements 17[g]-[h]: “wherein the step of
`displaying on the display on the IP telephone the
`second list further includes the steps of: sending a
`message from the first LAN to the second LAN
`requesting the second list; and receiving the
`second list from the second LAN to the first
`LAN;” ............................................................................ 67
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`e.
`
`Elements 17[i]-[j]: “receiving a fourth touch input
`from the user on the IP telephone; and in response
`to receipt of the fourth touch input, displaying on
`the display on the IP telephone a third list of
`telephone destinations accessible from the third
`LAN, wherein the step of displaying on the display
`on the IP telephone the third list further includes
`the steps of: sending a message from the first LAN
`to the third LAN requesting the third list; and
`receiving the third list from the third LAN to the
`first LAN.” ..................................................................... 69
`13. Claim 18: “The method as recited in claim 17, before the
`step of receiving the second touch input, further
`comprising the steps of: receiving a fifth touch input
`from the user on the IP telephone; and in response to
`receipt of the fifth touch input, scrolling through the first
`list.” .......................................................................................... 69
`14. Claim 19: “The method as recited in claim 18, before the
`step of receiving the third touch input, further comprising
`the steps of: receiving a sixth touch input from the user
`on the IP telephone; and in response to receipt of the
`sixth touch input, scrolling through the second list.” .............. 70
`C. Motivation to Combine Chang with Byrne ........................................ 71
`D. Ground 2: Claim 6 Would Have Been Obvious Under 35 U.S.C ...... 74
`1.
`Claim 6: “The system as recited in claim 1, wherein the
`list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions is
`played as audio to the user of the first
`telecommunications device.” ................................................... 75
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 78
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`No. IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ...... 7, 8, 9, 10
`Apple v. Seven Networks,
`No. IPR2020-00707, 2020 WL 6260366 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2020) ..................... 9
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Dynamics Inc.,
`No. IPR2020-00499, 2020 WL 4690077 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020) .................. 10
`Sharkninja Operating LLC, et al. v. iRobot Corp.,
`IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 (October 6, 2020) ............................................... 14, 15
`VLSI VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217593 (W.D. Tex. 2020)........................................... 8, 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §103 ............................................................................................... 7, 21, 74
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(b) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019) ................................................................................... 14
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 (Suder)
`Ex-1002 Excerpts from Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 (Suder)
`Ex-1003
`International Application WO 99/05590 (“Chang”)
`Ex-1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,490,619 (“Byrne”)
`Ex-1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,240,558 (“Imielinksi”)_
`
`Ex-1006 Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh in Support of the Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`Ex-1007 Scheduling Order in Estech Systems, Inc. v. Howard Midstream Energy
`Partners, LLC, W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:20-cv-00777-ADA
`Ex-1008 Scheduling Order in Estech Systems, Inc. v. Target Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:20-cv-00123-JRG
`Ex-1009 Texas Patent Trials Halted Due To COVID-19 Spike, Law 360, Nov. 20, 2020,
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1330855/texas-patent-trials-halted-due-to-
`covid-19-spike (Nov. 20, 2020)
`Ex-1010 U.S.D.C., W.D. Tex. – Thirteenth Suppl. Order Regarding Court Operations
`Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the Covid-19 Pandemic, Feb. 2,
`2021, https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-
`content/uploads/2021/02/ThirteenthSupplementalOrderCOVID020221.pdf
`Ex-1011 U.S.D.C., W.D. Tex. – Eighth Standing Order Relating to Entry into United
`States Courthouse Waco, Texas, Feb. 25, 2021,
`https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-
`content/uploads/2021/02/EighthStandingOrderEntryToWacoCthse022521.pdf
`Ex-1012 Fed. Cir. Rebukes Put Spotlight on Albright Transfer Rulings, Law 360, Feb. 12,
`2021, https://www.law360.com/articles/1353897/fed-circ-rebukes-put-spotlight-
`on-albright-transfer-rulings
`Ex-1013 DocketNavigator Report for W.D. Tex. and Hon. Alan D. Albright
`Ex-1014 McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB Discretionary
`Denials (July 24, 2020), https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-trial-
`dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/
`Ex-1015 Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16th ed. 2000)
`Ex-1016 Excerpts from Understanding LDAP, H. Johner, et al., June 1998
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex-1017 U.S. Patent No. 5,956,391 (“Melen”)
`Ex-1018 An Introduction to NetWare Directory Services, Herbon, April. 1, 1993
`Ex-1019
`Internet Protocol, RFC 791, Information Sciences Institute, Sept. 1981,
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791
`Ex-1020 On the Net: Web Browser Keyboard and Navigation Shortcuts, Notes, May
`1998, https://notess.com/write/archive/9805.html
`Ex-1021 Use these keyboard shortcuts when your mouse dies, M. Jackman, Nov. 14,
`2000, https://www.techrepublic.com/article/use-these-keyboard-shortcuts-when-
`your-mouse-dies/
`Ex-1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,430 (“Copland”)
`Ex-1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,883,619 (“Ho”)
`Ex-1024 Microsoft Internet Explorer 5: Quick Look, May/June 2000,
`https://www.wap.org/journal/msie5/msie5.html
`Ex-1025 Excerpts from Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1, RFC 2068, Fielding et
`al., Jan. 1997
`Ex-1026 The Intranet: A New Concept for Corporate Information Handling, Barbera,
`1996
`Ex-1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,856,822 (“Du”)
`Ex-1028 A Comparison of Three Selection Techniques for Touchpads, MacKenzie, CHI
`98, 18-23, Apr. 1998
`Ex-1029 Excerpts from TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical Overview, 6th ed., IBM,
`Murhammer, et al., Oct. 1998
`Ex-1030 Syntha-Voice Computers Gives Speech to Windows, July 16, 1992,
`https://www.cbronline.com/news/syntha_voice_computers_gives_speech_to_windows
`Ex-1031 Challenged Claim Listing for U.S. Patent No. 8,392,298
`Ex-1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,298,057 (“Guy”)
`Ex-1033 U.S. Patent No. 6,829.231 (“Wilson”)
`Ex-1034 U.S. Patent No. 6,065,016 (“Stuntebeck”)
`Ex-1035 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry H. Houh
`Ex-1036 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1999)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner RingCentral, Inc., respectfully requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-12 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298.
`
`The ’298 Patent describes a Voice over IP (VoIP) directory system that allows
`
`users to access a list of phone numbers associated with multiple local area networks
`
`(LAN) connected by a wide area network (WAN). Ex-1001, 1. Because VoIP
`
`systems with directories were well known before the ’289 Patent’s priority date, the
`
`patentee added limitations to the ’289 Patent’s claims during prosecution that require
`
`the user to select between observing different lists of numbers associated with
`
`different LANs within a VoIP network. This concept, however, was also well known
`
`when the ’289 Patent was filed. Chang teaches a VoIP system that includes a WAN,
`
`multiple LANs, and searchable directories for each LAN. Similarly, Byrne teaches
`
`a directory organization scheme displaying lists of numbers associated with each
`
`LAN within a VoIP network.
`
`Chang and Byrne render obvious every challenged ’289 Patent claim except
`
`for claim 6, which additionally requires playing directory information as audio. But
`
`it was well known in the art to play directory information as audio before the ’298
`
`Patent’s priority date. Imielinski teaches an interactive audio-enabled webpage that
`
`allows the user to navigate and receive information via telephone input and audio
`
`output. Ex-1005, Abstract. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`Chang and Byrne with Imielinksi to arrive at the audio-enabled directory of claim 6
`
`as explained in detail below.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Petitioner RingCentral, Inc. and Howard Midstream Energy Partners (“HEP”)
`
`are the real parties in interest. No party other than RingCentral exercised or could
`
`have exercised control over this petition; no other parties funded or directed this
`
`Petition. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759-60 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`B. Related Matters
`
` Patent Owner Estech Systems, Inc. (“Estech”) has asserted infringement of
`
`the ’298 Patent in the cases listed below. Petitioner is not a party to any of this
`
`litigation but agreed on February 1, 2021 to defend and indemnify its customer HEP
`
`in Case No. 6:20-cv-00777 (filed August 25, 2020) (“HEP Case”).
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. PlainsCapital Bank, 2-20-cv-00122 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Target Corporation, 2-20-cv-00123 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Regus
`
`International Ltd., 2-20-cv-00124
`
`(EDTX)(dismissed)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Private Jets, Inc., 6-20-cv-00320 (WDTX)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Open Mortgage, LLC, 6-20-cv-00321 (WDTX)
`(dismissed)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Regions Financial Corporation, 6-20-cv-00322
`(WDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. BOKF, National Association, 2-20-cv-00126
`(EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., 2-20-cv-00127
`(EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Company et al, 2-20-cv-0012
`(EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Regus Management Group, LLC et al, 2-20-cv-
`00143 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Burnco Texas LLC et al, 2-20-cv-00275 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Burrow Global LLC, 2-20-cv-00276 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Hancock Whitney Bank et al, 2-20-cv-00277
`(EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. US Dermatology Medical Management, Inc.
`d/b/a US Dermatology Partners, 2-20-cv-00278 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Oliver Street Dermatology Management, LLC d/b/a
`U.S. Dermatology Partners, 2:20-cv-00311 (EDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Energy Transfer LP, 6-20-cv-00773 (WDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, PC
`d/b/a Gensler et al, 6-20-cv-00774 (WDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. HWC Wire & Cable Company, 6-20-cv-00776
`(WDTX)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. Howard Midstream Energy Partners, 6-20-cv-
`00777 (WDTX)
`
` Estech Systems, Inc. v. SWBC Mortgage Corporation, et al., 6:20-00778
`(WDTX)
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed IPR2021-00329 on December 22, 2020
`
`seeking inter partes review of the ’289 Patent. Cisco also filed IPR2021-00332,
`
`IPR2021-00331, and IPR2021-00333 seeking inter partes review of other Estech
`
`patents.
`
`Petitioner is also filing concurrently a petition for review of U.S. Patent
`
`6,067,349, which Estech also asserts against HEP in and is the subject of Cisco
`
`IPR2021-00332.
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioners designate the following counsel and service information:
`
`Lead Counsel
`K. Patrick Herman
`Registration No. 75,018
`(P52PTABDocket@orrick.com)
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`T: (212) 506-3596
`F: (212) 506-5151
`
`Backup Counsel
`Alyssa Caridis
`Registration No. 57,545
`(A8CPTABDocket@orrick.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
`T: 213-629-2020; F: 213-612-2499
`
`Clement S. Roberts
`Pro Hac Vice to be submitted
`CA Bar No. 209203
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`(PTABDocketC1R1@orrick.com)
`
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Robert L. Uriarte
`Pro Hac Vice to be submitted
`CA Bar No. 258274
`(PTABDocketRXZ@orrick.com)
`
`Li Shen
`Pro Hac Vice to be submitted
`CA Bar No. 307896
`(PTABDocketL6S6@orrick.com)
`Postal & Hand-Delivery Address:
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`T: (650) 614-7400
`F: (650) 614-7401
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`service
`
`by
`
`electronic
`
`email
`
`at
`
`P52PTABDocket@orrick.com,
`
`A8CPTABDocket@orrick.com,
`
`PTABDocketC1R1@orrick.com,
`
`PTABDocketRXZ@orrick.com,
`
`and
`
`PTABDocketL6S6@orrick.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), Petitioners’
`
`Power of Attorney has been filed along with this petition.
`
`The USPTO is authorized to charge the filing fee and any other fees incurred
`
`by Petitioner to the deposit account of Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP: 15-0665.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW
`A. Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’298 Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from the grounds identified herein.
`
`B. Challenges and Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR and challenges claims 1-12 and 17-19 in this petition.
`
`This petition discusses claim construction, explains why the claims are unpatentable,
`
`provides details regarding where claim limitations are found in the prior art, and is
`
`supported by the accompanying Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh (Ex-1006), a
`
`leading expert in the field.
`
`The ’298 Patent’s application was filed May 29, 2003. Ex-1001, 22. This
`
`application is a continuation in part of another application filed on Feb 1, 2001 that
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684. Id., 63.
`
`The prior art references relied on are Chang, Byrne, and Imielinski.
`
`Chang is under prior art §102(b). Assuming without conceding that the
`
`Challenged Claims are entitled to claim priority to February 1, 2001, Byrne and
`
`Imielinski are prior art under §102(e). None of these references was cited during the
`
`’298 Patent’s prosecution.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 17-19 would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103 over Chang in view of Byrne in further view of the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 6 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`
`Chang in view of Byrne in further view of Imielinski and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE
`Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of success and all other
`
`requirements for IPR are met.
`
`A.
`
`§314(a)
`
`The Board’s cases addressing §314(a) discretionary denial due to district court
`
`proceedings “have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency,
`
`fairness, and patent quality” by looking at six non-exclusive factors. Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc., No. IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495, at *2 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20,
`
`2020). These factors favor Petitioner.
`
`Issuance of Stay. No party has been denied a stay.
`
`Proximity of Trial Date. “If the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected
`
`statutory deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising
`
`authority to deny institution.” Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *4. Here, there is
`
`litigation against HEP in the Western District of Texas (“Western District”), but no
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`trial date is set or likely to occur anytime soon. Ex-1007.1 Assuming the court’s
`
`standard schedule, the earliest projected trial date would be April 11, 2022. Id. But
`
`that trial date is unlikely due to a significant backlog of cases in the Western District
`
`caused by a surge of case filings and the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`On February 2, 2021, the Western District continued all jury trials scheduled
`
`through March 31, 2021. Ex-1010. The Waco Division where the HEP Case is
`
`pending is presently conducting trials, Ex-1011, but it is absorbing trial workload
`
`from other courts, and “a backlog of trials” is creating a chain reaction of delays that
`
`means likely continuances of more recently filed cases such as Patentee’s. See VLSI
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217593, at *9 (W.D. Tex.
`
`2020) (discussing COVID-related delays and transfer).
`
`Meanwhile, the Western District’s patent docket has continued to balloon.
`
`Ex-1013. The presiding judge in the HEP case, “the nation’s busiest patent judge,”
`
`Ex-1012, saw his case load grow from 247 cases in 2019 to 792 cases in 2020, Ex-
`
`1013. It appears that the Waco division was only conducting approximately one in-
`
`1 There are tentative trial dates set in other cases involving the ’298 Patent, the
`
`soonest of which is an August 2, 2021 trial scheduled in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Ex-1008. But the Eastern District has not been conducting trials since a COVID
`
`outbreak at the Sherman Division in November 2020. Ex-1009.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`person jury trial per month during the closing months of 2020. See VLSI, 2020 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 217593 at *5-6. Significant scheduling uncertainly in the Western
`
`District increases the chance that trial will occur after the projected final written
`
`decision date for this petition, which weighs against discretionary denial. Apple v.
`
`Seven Networks, No. IPR2020-00707, 2020 WL 6260366, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22,
`
`2020); see also Ex-1014 (“In the WDTX, 70% of trial dates initially relied upon by
`
`the PTAB to deny petitions have slid”).
`
`Investment in District Court Proceedings. “This investment factor is
`
`related to the trial date factor.” Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *4. As noted, the HEP
`
`Case is in its early stages--fact discovery will not open until May 2021. Ex-1007.
`
`Due the early state of the HEP Case, “is [] unclear to what extent the District Court
`
`has invested resources…that bear directly on the issue of patent validity.” Seven
`
`Networks, 2020 WL 6260366, at *5–6. Moreover, “the evidence shows that the
`
`petitioner filed the petition expeditiously,” which “weigh[s] against exercising the
`
`authority to deny institution.” Id. at *5. Petitioner is not a party to, and had no duty
`
`to indemnify HEP in, the HEP Case when it was filed. Petitioner filed this petition
`
`promptly after agreeing to indemnify HEP on February 1, 2021.
`
`Overlap. Overlap is minimal. The HEP litigation involves four patents, only
`
`two of which are subject to Petitioner’s IPR petitions. There are only 11 asserted
`
`’298 Patent claims in the HEP Case, whereas this petition challenges 18 claims,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`including unasserted claims 6 and 14-19, which entail numerous elements not at
`
`issue in the HEP Case. “[N]on-overlapping claim challenges” on dissimilar claims
`
`weighs against denying institution. Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *6; Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Dynamics Inc., No. IPR2020-00499, 2020 WL 4690077, at *5 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Aug. 12, 2020).
`
`Identities of Parties. Petitioner is not a party to the district court proceedings.
`
`Other Circumstances. Petitioner’s strong showing of merit on the
`
`preliminary record weighs in favor of institution. Fintiv, 2020 WL 2126495, at *6.
`
`B.
`
`§325
`
`The arguments set forth in this Petition are different from those previously
`
`addressed by the Patent Office. None of the prior art presented herein was before
`
`the examiner. Moreover, the ’298 patent has not been the subject of any other PTAB
`
`proceeding, other than the not-yet-instituted Cisco petition identified above. Neither
`
`the Office nor the Board has had an opportunity to assess the patentability over the
`
`art discussed in this petition.
`
`V. THE ’298 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`The ’298 Patent was filed on May 29, 2003, and claims priority as a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/775,018, filed on February 1,
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`2001. The ’298 Patent concerns a VOIP system involving multiple LANs, a WAN,
`
`and a telephone number directory.
`
`The ’298 Patent describes LANs comprising basic network hardware like
`
`personal computers, ethernet hubs, telephones, and data servers. Ex-1001, 2: 51-58.
`
`“To add in the voice communication capabilities, an IP multimedia server 101 is
`
`coupled to hub 103 and an IP tele-phony device 105 is connected between the
`
`workstation 106 and the hub 103,” Id., 63-66, as depicted in Figure 1.
`
`The ’298 Patent further describes connecting multiple LANs over a WAN to enable
`
`voice communications between the LANs. Ex-1001, 53-66.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`The ’298 Patent’s directory feature purports to “allow[] a user to manage
`
`names and phone numbers” and to make calls with “a simple press of [a] key.” Id.,
`
`10:5-15. “A second feature permits a user to lo