U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ‘228 Patent ............................................................................ 1 
`A.  The ‘228 patent ................................................................................................ 1 
`B.  Relevant Prosecution History .......................................................................... 4 
`III. 
`Summary of References Identified by Petitioner ............................................ 5 
`A.  Okamura (EX1004) ......................................................................................... 5 
`1.  Okamura’s Description of the Related Art ................................................. 5 
`2.  Okamura’s Improvement Over the Related Art ......................................... 9 
`B.  Flora (EX1005) .............................................................................................. 11 
`C.  Wagner (EX1006) .......................................................................................... 14 
`D.  Gilley (EX1007) ............................................................................................ 14 
`IV.  Estoppel / Real-Party in Interest .................................................................... 14 
`A.  The Board Should Decide if Apple and Samsung are Unnamed RPIs in
`This proceeding ............................................................................................. 15 
`B.  Samsung and Apple are Unnamed RPIs ........................................................ 18 
`1.  The RPI Inquiry ........................................................................................ 18 
`2.  Unified Files Petitions at Apple and Samsung’s Behest .......................... 19 
`a.  Apple and Samsung’s Paid “Memberships” ....................................... 20 
`b.  Unified’s Business Model: Filing IPRs ............................................... 21 
`3.  Apple and Samsung Desire Review and Will Benefit ............................. 24 
`4.  Unified’s Own Interest in this IPR ........................................................... 25 
`5.  Communications with Apple and Samsung ............................................. 25 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 26 
`V. 
`VI.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 26 
`A.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing a
`map view to be displayed … the map view including: … a first / second]
`location selectable thumbnail image” ............................................................ 27 
`B.  Limitations [1n] and [1p]: “the people view including: . . . a first name …
`
`i
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 2 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`[and] … a second name” ............................................................................... 28 
`C.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and claim 3 “the first indication feature is
`connected to the first location selectable thumbnail image” ......................... 30 
`D.  Claim 5: “the map view further includes a first indication feature” and
`“second indication feature” ........................................................................... 32 
`VII.  Petitioner Has Not Carried Its Burden On Obviousness ............................... 33 
`A.  Ground 1: Purported Obviousness over Okamura and Flora ........................ 34 
`1.  Limitation [1c]: “the map view including: (i) an interactive map” .......... 34 
`2.  Limitation [1d] the “map view including . . . [first/second] location
`selectable thumbnail image[s]” ................................................................ 37 
`a.  A POSITA Would Not Have Combined Okamura and Flora ............. 37 
`b.  Accused Infringer Construction of Thumbnail Image ........................ 50 
`3.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing a
`map view to be displayed … the map view including: … a [first / second]
`location selectable thumbnail image … on the interactive map” ............. 52 
`4.  Limitations [1g] and [1j]: “a first location name associated with the first
`location” and “a second location name associated with the second
`location” .................................................................................................... 54 
`5.  Limitations [1n] and [1p]: “the people view including: . . . a first name …
`[and] … a second name” .......................................................................... 63 
`6.  Dependent Claims 2–7 ............................................................................. 64 
`a.  Claim 3: “the first indication feature is connected to the first location
`selectable thumbnail image” ............................................................... 64 
`b.  Claim 5: “the map view further includes a first indication feature” and
`“second indication feature” ................................................................. 66 
`B.  Ground 2: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora and Wagner ......... 68 
`1.  Petitioner’s Reliance on Ground 1 for Ground 2 ..................................... 68 
`2.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e] ................................................................. 68 
`3.  Limitations [1g] and [1j] .......................................................................... 69 
`4.  Limitations [1n] and [1p] .......................................................................... 71 
`5.  Dependent Claims 2 – 7 ........................................................................... 72 
`
`ii
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 3 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`C.  Ground 3: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora, and Gilley ........... 72 
`1.  Petitioner’s Reliance on Ground 1 for Ground 3 ..................................... 72 
`2.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e] ................................................................. 73 
`3.  Limitations [1g] and [1j] .......................................................................... 73 
`4.  Limitations [1n] and [1p] .......................................................................... 73 
`5.  Dependent Claims 2–7 ............................................................................. 75 
`D.  Ground 4: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora, Wagner and
`Gilley ............................................................................................................. 75 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Okamura, Flora Wagner, and Gilley ................. 76 
`2.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e] ................................................................. 76 
`3.  Limitations [1g] and [1j] .......................................................................... 77 
`4.  Limitations [1n] and [1p] .......................................................................... 77 
`5.  Dependent Claims 2–7 ............................................................................. 78 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 78 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 4 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.,
`715 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 33
`
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................... 44
`
`American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 27
`
`
`Application of Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................... 49
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 18, 19, 24, 25
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................... 44, 50
`
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................... 75
`
` C
`
` & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01276, 2017 WL 5067512 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017) .............................. 58
`
`
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................... 16
`
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01660, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2016) .................................................. 34
`
`
`Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Wag Acquisition,
`
`IPR2015-01036, 2016 WL 6946904 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2016) .............................. 58
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEX-IS 142102 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2012) ............................... 27
`
`
`
`iv
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 5 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................ 36, 71
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................. 49, 62, 71, 74
`
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01248, Paper 34 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2020) ................................................ 16
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 70
`
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1300, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 54
`
`
`Lincoln v. Vigil,
`508 U.S. 182, 193 (1993) .................................................................................... 15
`
`
`MaxLite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00181, Paper 7 (PTAB May 26, 2020) .............................................. 34
`
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 48
`
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`851 F.3d 1270, 1274-75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 58
`
`
`Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.,
`345 F. Supp. 2d 431, 437 (D. Del. 2004) ........................................................... 34
`
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 75
`
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 48, 49
`
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics LLC,
` No. IPR2016-00781, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2016) ...................................... 17
`
`
`v
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 6 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................... 59
`
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) ........................................ 24, 25
`
`
`RPX Corp. v. Iridescent Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00254, 2018 WL 6523985 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2018) ............................ 58
`
`
`Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc.,
`
`308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................... 33
`
`Square, Inc. v. Cooper, IPR2014-00158, Paper No. 8 (May 15, 2014) .................. 70
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ 48
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Voice Tech. Corp.,
`IPR2020-01018, Paper 46 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2021) ............................................. 15
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00276, Paper 8 (PTAB June 1, 2015) ................................................. 36
`
`Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 15
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 15
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ........................................................................................... 59
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 33, 59
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 33
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a) .................................................................................................. 33
`
`vi
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 7 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 8 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 9 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 10 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Response to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 (“the ‘228
`
`patent”), filed by Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner” or “Unified”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board should find that Petitioner has not shown that any of claims 1-7 are
`
`unpatentable because Petitioner has not carried its burden of proving obviousness by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence under any of grounds 1-4. The Board should also
`
`find that Apple and Samsung, who have initiated IPR proceedings challenging the
`
`same ‘228 patent claims, should be named as RPIs in this proceeding.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘228 Patent
`A. The ‘228 patent
`The ’228 patent is directed to methods for intuitively organizing and
`
`displaying digital files, such as digital photographs and videos. EX2038, ¶35.1 For
`
`example, referring to FIG. 41 (reproduced below), the ‘228 patent discloses a map
`
`view including “an interactive map.” EX1001, 29:41-45; EX2038, ¶36.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to p. 51 of the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner withdraws its reliance
`
`on the Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman (EX2001) submitted with the
`
`preliminary response.
`
`1
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 11 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 41.
`
`
`
`In the map view, “individual or groups of Digital Files are illustrated as photo
`
`thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.” EX1001, 29:48-55;
`
`EX2038, ¶37. The geographic map is interactive in that the user can, for example,
`
`“narrow the map view by either using the Zoom in/Zoom out bar (0876) on the left
`
`or simply selecting the map.” EX1001, 29:52-55, Fig. 41; EX2038, ¶37.
`
`The ‘228 patent also discloses that in the map view (Fig. 41), “the user can
`
`select the thumbnail to see all the Digital Files with the same location (as seen Fig.
`
`34 (indicator 1630)).” EX1001, 29:48-55; EX2038, ¶38.
`
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 12 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 34.
`
`
`
`In the “Single Location Application View” shown in Fig. 34, “a single
`
`location (1630) is illustrated,” which includes “[t]he individual location name” and
`
`“[t]humbnails of each Digital File within the specification collection.” EX1001,
`
`24:22-28; EX2038, ¶39. Thus, the map view and location view allow users to
`
`efficiently and intuitively locate and display digital files associated with a particular
`
`location. Id.
`
`The ‘228 patent additionally discloses a people view for organizing digital
`
`files. EX2038, ¶40. For example, referring to Fig. 32, a people view 1400 is shown
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 13 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`including for “a thumbnail of [each person’s] face along with their name.” EX1001,
`
`22:59-23:4.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32.
`
`
`
`The “Single People Profile Application View” includes, among other things, a
`
`person’s name 1431, a profile photo 1440, and photos 1452 associated with that
`
`person. Id., 23:12-49; EX2038, ¶41.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History
`The ‘228 patent was filed as U.S. Application No. 16/578,238, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/536,300 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823),
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 14 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/375,927 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,423,658) (EX2005), which in turn is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`
`14/193,426 (“the ‘426 application”) (now U.S. Patent No. 9,552,376) (EX2004).
`
`EX1001, cover.
`
`No Office Actions were issued during prosecution of the ‘228 patent. See
`
`EX1003. During an examiner-initiated telephone interview conducted on September
`
`20, 2019, the examiner and applicant discussed claim amendments to place the
`
`application in condition for allowance. Id., 366. A Notice of Allowance was entered
`
`on December 2, 2019 entering claim amendments via an examiner’s amendment.
`
`Id., 350-66.
`
`III. Summary of References Identified by Petitioner
`Petitioner relies on four references: Okamura (EX1004), Flora (EX1005),
`
`Wagner (EX1006), and Gilley (EX1007). Each reference is discussed below.
`
`A. Okamura (EX1004)
`Okamura is generally directed to “an information processing apparatus which
`
`displays contents such as image files.” EX1004, 0002.
`
`1. Okamura’s Description of the Related Art
`In its “Description of the Related Art” section, Okamura explains that prior
`
`systems incorporating a large map view made it difficult to associate the relationship
`
`between the locations at which images were taken. EX1004, 0003-0006. In
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 15 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`particular, Okamura explains that in prior systems, images could be associated “with
`
`positional information on the position where the image is captured.” Id., 0004;
`
`EX2038, ¶49. In these systems, “the generated positions of the contents identified
`
`by their positional information are displayed in association with the contents.” Id.
`
`Okamura describes two examples of such systems. See id., 0005-0006; EX2038, ¶49.
`
`First, Okamura
`
`identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2001-160058 (“Fujiwara,” EX2002). EX1004, 0005. Okamura
`
`refers specifically to Fig. 12 of Fujiwara. Id. Fujiwara shows location icons 181-184
`
`displayed on map window 152 and a thumbnail icon 163 corresponding to the
`
`highlighted location icon 181. EX2002, 0071; EX2038, ¶¶50-51.
`
`
`
`6
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 16 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`EX2002, Fig. 12.
`
`Fujiwara explains that when one of the location icons 181-184 is selected, a
`
`latitude/longitude associated with the selected icon is used to query a database to
`
`obtain images to display in the film window 151. EX2002, 0074-0077; EX2038, ¶52.
`
`Thus, “the relationship between location on a map and photographic image data can
`
`be represented in an easy-to-understand manner” and “makes it possible to easily
`
`retrieve image data . . . using the location as a key.” EX2002, 0085; EX2038, ¶52.
`
`Second, Okamura identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2007-323544 (“Takakura,” EX2040). EX1004, 0006; EX2038, ¶53.
`
`FIG. 1 of Takakura (which is similar to FIG. 7 expressly referenced by Okamura) is
`
`shown below. EX2038, ¶¶54-55.
`
`7
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 17 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
`EX2040, FIG. 1 (annotated). Fig. 1 includes a marker 12 “placed at a location
`
`indicating, for example, one of the destinations visited by the user on a map 10.”
`
`EX2040, 0005; EX2038, ¶55. When the marker 12 is selected, “an image 11
`
`corresponding to a photograph taken by the user is displayed.” Id.
`
`In addressing the problems with these prior systems, Okamura explains that
`
`the art (e.g., Fujiwara and Takakura) shows “images representing contents, and
`
`marks indicating the generated positions of these contents are displayed relatively
`
`far apart from each other,” making “it difficult to intuitively grasp the geographical
`
`correspondence between individual contents.” EX1004, 0008; EX2038, ¶¶56-60.
`
`8
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 18 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`2. Okamura’s Improvement Over the Related Art
`Okamura explains that “when displaying images representing contents with
`
`positions on a map, it is important to be able to easily grasp the correspondence
`
`between a plurality of contents on the map, and each individual content.” EX1004,
`
`0011; EX2038, ¶61. To address the problems in the related art, Okamura describes
`
`“grouping (classifying) together a plurality of pieces of data within a short distance
`
`from each other in a data set.” EX1004, 0139; EX2038, ¶61. The pieces of data can
`
`include “image contents such as still image files” and the “distance” refers to the
`
`distance between geographical positions associated with the images. Id. In Okamura,
`
`a cluster “is a unit in which contents are grouped together by clustering.” Id.
`
`Okamura describes generating “maps corresponding to individual clusters.”
`
`EX1004, 0213; EX2038, ¶62. Specifically, “an area corresponding to the cluster can
`
`be identified, and a map covering this identified area can be used as a map (cluster
`
`map) corresponding to the cluster.” Id. In these cluster maps, “the shooting area or
`
`the like of each of the contents belonging to each cluster can be . . . easily grasped
`
`by the user. EX1004, 0215. For example, Fig. 18 illustrates “a list of marks (cluster
`
`maps) in a 3 x 5 matrix. EX1004, 0237; see also id., 0240-0241; EX2038, ¶62.
`
`9
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 19 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 18
`
`Fig. 18 illustrates how Okamura addresses the scaling problems in the related
`
`art: many of the cluster maps are associated with the Tokyo vicinity (annotated
`
`yellow below), while at least one cluster map is associated with Waikiki, Hawaii
`
`(annotated blue below). EX2038, ¶63.
`
`EX1004, Fig. 18 (excerpted and annotated); EX2038, ¶63.
`
`
`
`10
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 20 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`If this information were conveyed according to the related art (e.g., Takakura),
`
`the map would need to be displayed “at a scale sufficiently large to show the
`
`countries of the world” (or at least Japan and the United States), obscuring the
`
`geographical differences in the Tokyo vicinity. EX1004, 0009; EX2038, ¶64.
`
`Conversely, if the map were displayed at a smaller scale to focus on the Tokyo
`
`vicinity, other regions (e.g., Hawaii) would be excluded. EX1004, 0010; EX2038,
`
`¶64. Okamura addresses this issue by generating cluster maps and displaying them
`
`in an array as shown in Fig. 18. Id.
`
`B.
`Flora (EX1005)
`Flora generally relates to “an interactive map that allows users to display
`
`different items of visual and/or audio media corresponding to a location on the
`
`geographic map.” EX1005, 1:8-11; EX2038, ¶65. In particular, Flora is directed to
`
`presenting “media in an efficient manner that provides a user with perception that
`
`the invention is responding quickly to the user’s inputs.” EX1004, 2:50-54.
`
`Fig. 2 illustrates that icons 42 will be displayed when cursor 44 “is moved
`
`proximate to certain locations on an electronic geographic map 46.” Id., 6:5-9;
`
`EX2038, ¶¶66-67.
`
`11
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 21 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`EX1005, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`The “geographic map 46 of the globe is scalable and can show fine levels of
`
`geography, such as individual cities and towns.” EX1005, 6:22-24; EX2038, ¶68.
`
`To the extent the user re-scales the map, the re-scaling applies to the entire map
`
`rather than any particular region of the map. EX2038, ¶68. “[T]he user can quickly
`
`see what media items, if any, are available at a chosen location by moving the cursor
`
`over an area of the map 46 proximate to that location.” EX1005, 6:26-29; EX2038,
`
`¶68.
`
`12
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 22 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`Fig. 3 of Flora illustrates “an alternative exemplary embodiment” where “a
`
`user has restricted the type of media to be presented to all ‘images.’” EX1005, 6:66-
`
`7:3; EX2038, ¶69.
`
`EX1005, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`In this example, based on the user’s placement of the cursor 56, “the user is
`
`presented with icons 58 representing images (the restricted media category)
`
`associated with the locations proximate to the cursor 56.” EX1005, 7:3-8; EX2038,
`
`¶70. Then, when “the user has moved the cursor 56 so as to contact one of the
`
`presented icons 59,” media viewer 64 “is opened and displays the full-size image of
`
`13
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 23 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`the media item 62.” EX1005, 7:23-34; EX2038, ¶70. The media view 64 includes,
`
`among other things, a “caption 72 of the chosen media item.” EX1005, 7:48-52;
`
`EX2038, ¶70.
`
`C. Wagner (EX1006)
`Wagner “relates generally to electronic devices with touch-sensitive surfaces
`
`. . . that are used to display and navigate through content.” EX1006, 0002. Wagner
`
`describes methods for displaying content based on certain multi-contact gestures.
`
`Id., 0006-0013; EX2038, ¶71.
`
`D. Gilley (EX1007)
`Gilley generally relates to “organizing images . . . by correlating one or more
`
`faces represented in the images.” EX1007, 0002. Gilley describes techniques for
`
`determining a likelihood that a face in a test image corresponds to a face in a base
`
`image. Id., 0006-0009; EX2038, ¶72.
`
`IV. Estoppel / Real-Party in Interest
`For the reasons provided below, the Board should terminate this proceeding
`
`because Petitioner has failed to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”), including
`
`at least Samsung and Apple. Alternatively, the Board should find that Apple and
`
`Samsung are estopped from challenging the validity of claims 1-7 of the ‘228 patent
`
`in related proceedings: Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00031 (the “Apple
`
`14
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 24 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`IPR”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00222 (the
`
`“Samsung IPR”) (collectively, the “Related IPRs”).
`
`A. The Board Should Decide if Apple and Samsung are Unnamed
`RPIs in This proceeding
`A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition
`
`identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. §312; 37 C.F.R. §42.8. Petitioner
`
`bears the burden of persuasion to show that its identification of real parties-in-
`
`interest (“RPIs”) is correct. Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242−43
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). As discussed below, the Petition fails to name least Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”) as RPIs. This is grounds
`
`to terminate this IPR should Petitioner fail to rectify this deficiency.2
`
`The Board declined to consider whether Apple and Samsung should have been
`
`named as RPIs at the institution stage because “even if either were [an RPI], it would
`
`
`2 The Board has declined to address RPI issues in some final written decisions when
`
`“neither the time bar nor estoppel provisions” are implicated. See, e.g., Unified
`
`Patents, LLC v. Voice Tech. Corp., IPR2020-01018, Paper 46, 7 (PTAB Dec. 13,
`
`2021). Patent Owner submits that this approach is inappropriate because 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312 requires the correct identification of RPIs. Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 193
`
`(1993) (“[A]n agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities”).
`
`15
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1030
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 25 of 91
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01413
`
`not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” Paper 15, 12. However,
`
`Apple and Samsung’s follow-on IPRs challenging the ‘228 patent do implicate
`
`estoppel because:
`
`[a] petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim . . . that results in a
`final written decision . . . or the real party in interest or privy of the
`petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office,
`with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or
`reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) (emphasis added). In other words, a petitioner—and any
`
`RPIs—are estopped from maintaining a follow-on IPR challenging the same claims
`
`when the first IPR results in a final written decision. See, e.g., Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
`
`v. Ethicon LLC, No. IPR2018-01248, Paper 34, 10-18 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2020)
`
`(terminating petitioner from IPR based on final written decision in earlier IPR
`
`challenging same claims).
`
`Apple and Samsung filed their own follow-on IPRs challenging all claims of
`
`the ‘228 patent. Paper 15, 12 n.2. If (1) this IPR results in a final written decision
`
`and (2) Apple and Samsung are RPIs (which they are), Apple and Samsung would
`
`be estopped from maintaining their IPRs against claims 1-7 of the ‘228 patent. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). For at least this reason, Patent Owner submits that the Board
`
`must add