Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`December 16, 2022
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`Unified Patents, LLC
`v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 65
`
`
`
`December 16, 2022
`
`IPR2021-01413
`U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`Unified Patents, LLC
`v.
`MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 1 of 65
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`• Overview of U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`• Overview of the Prior Art
`• Okamura
`•
`Flora
`• Wagner
`• Gilley
`
`• Disputed Issues
`
`• Unified is the Sole Real Party-In-Interest
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 2 of 65
`
`
`
`Challenged Patent – U.S. 10,621,228
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4-6
`
`EX1001, Fig. 41
`(annotated)
`
`3
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 3 of 65
`
`
`
`Challenged Patent – U.S. 10,621,228
`
`EX1001, Fig. 34 (annotated) (in part)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 4-6
`
`4
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 4 of 65
`
`
`
`Challenged Patent – U.S. 10,621,228
`
`EX1001, Fig. 32 (annotated) (in part)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 6-7
`
`EX1001, 23:1-4
`
`5
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 5 of 65
`
`
`
`Challenged Patent – U.S. 10,621,228
`
`EX1001, 23:12-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 6-7
`
`EX1001, Fig. 32
`(annotated) (in part)
`
`EX1001, 23:22-25
`
`6
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 6 of 65
`
`
`
`File History
`
`• Patent Owner filed a preliminary
`amendment adding new claim 40
`(eventually issued as claim 1)
`
`• Claim 40 lacked limitations
`regarding a “people view”
`EX1003, 72-79, 372
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 8
`
`EX1003, 76
`
`7
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 7 of 65
`
`
`
`File History
`
`•
`
`First-action notice of allowance
`EX1003, 350
`• Patent Owner agreed to an Examiner’s
`Amendment incorporating limitations
`regarding the “people view”
`•
`These limitations were identified as
`rendering the claim allowable
`
`EX1003, 355, 366
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 8
`
`EX1003, 360-363
`8
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 8 of 65
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`• Overview of U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`• Overview of the Prior Art
`• Okamura
`•
`Flora
`• Wagner
`• Gilley
`
`• Disputed Issues
`
`• Unified is the Sole Real Party-In-Interest
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 9 of 65
`
`
`
`Okamura (EX1004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 9-11; EX1004, ¶¶0091, 0232-0247
`
`10
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 18
`(annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 10 of 65
`
`
`
`Okamura (EX1004)
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Figs. 27A and 27B (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 15, 19
`
`EX1004, ¶¶0232-0234, 0275-0281;
`EX1002, ¶¶62, 69, 76, 82; EX1038, ¶53
`11
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 11 of 65
`
`
`
`Okamura (EX1004)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 9-11; EX1004, ¶¶0236, 0246
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 21
`(annotated)
`
`12
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 12 of 65
`
`
`
`Flora (EX1005)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 11-13; EX1005, 7:1-13, 1:7-11
`
`13
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3
`(annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 13 of 65
`
`
`
`Flora (EX1005)
`
`EX1005, 7:23-42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 11-13
`
`14
`
`Flora (EX1005), 7:23-42
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 14 of 65
`
`
`
`Wagner (EX1006)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 69, 75-79, 81-84; EX1006, ¶¶0183, 0228
`
`15
`
`Wagner (EX1006), Fig.
`5S (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 15 of 65
`
`
`
`Wagner (EX1006)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 69, 75-79, 81-84; EX1006, ¶¶0183, 0228
`
`16
`
`Wagner (EX1006), Fig.
`5V (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 16 of 65
`
`
`
`Gilley (EX1007)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Pet., 85-96; EX1007, ¶¶99-100
`
`Gilley (EX1007), Fig. 7
`(annotated)
`
`17
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 17 of 65
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`• Overview of U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`• Overview of the Prior Art
`• Okamura
`•
`Flora
`• Wagner
`• Gilley
`
`• Disputed Issues
`
`• Unified is the Sole Real Party-In-Interest
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 18 of 65
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Statute
`
`Art
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Okamura and Flora
`
`Okamura, Flora, and Wagner
`
`Okamura, Flora, and Gilley
`
`Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 19 of 65
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`Issue 1: Whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`[1c] the map view including: (i) an interactive map; [1d] (ii) a first location selectable thumbnail image at a
`first location on the interactive map; and [1e] (iii) a second location selectable thumbnail image at a second
`location on the interactive map;
`
`Issue 2: Grounds 2-4 motivations to combine
`
`Issue 3: Whether Grounds 1-4 render obvious the following claim elements
`• map
`•
`thumbnail image
`
`•
`
`•
`
`responsive to a first input…
`
`location name
`
`•
`
`•
`
`first name and second name
`
`limitations of claims 3 and 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 20 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`[1c] the map view including: (i) an interactive map; [1d] (ii) a first location selectable
`thumbnail image at a first location on the interactive map; and [1e] (iii) a second location
`selectable thumbnail image at a second location on the interactive map;
`• Okamura’s cluster map display area 414 (the map view)
`includes cluster maps 417 arranged in a 3x5 matrix (an
`interactive map)
`o Arranged cluster maps 417 show geographic map
`areas where content has been captured
`o Each cluster map changes color
`o Information 418 displayed for each cluster map
`EX1004, ¶¶0018, 0110, 0130-0135, 0139, 0213,
`0232-0248, 0275-0281, Figs. 18-19; EX1002, ¶76
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 3-4; Pet., 18-19
`
`21
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 18 (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 21 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`[1c] the map view including: (i) an interactive map; [1d] (ii) a first location selectable
`thumbnail image at a first location on the interactive map; and [1e] (iii) a second location
`selectable thumbnail image at a second location on the interactive map;
`
`•
`
`Flora describes a scalable geographic map 46 (an interactive
`map) with “icons [] (or thumbnail versions)” of “media
`items” (icons 58 and 59) at various locations
`EX1005, 5:65-6:11, 6:66-7:42, Figs. 2, 3
`
`• Map 46: “scalable and can show fine levels of
`geography, such as individual cities and towns”
`
`• A user can “click” an icon to “obtain direct access to the
`content of the associated media item”
`EX1005, 6:11-7:42, Figs. 2, 3; id., 2:4-37;
`EX1002, ¶¶77-80
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 3-4; Pet., 20-22
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`22
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 22 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The combination of Okamura and Flora:
`
`• when organizing content according to location, Okamura’s cluster map display area 414 displays content as
`taught by Flora’s geographic map 46 and media viewer 64
`
`• Okamura’s content is indicated at various locations on the map by Flora’s icons 58 and 59 and Flora’s media
`viewer 64 provides a window for viewing Okamura’s content associated with the locations, shown by icons 66
`Pet., 22; EX1002, ¶¶81-82
`
`Rationale
`
`ü Enhances how Okamura displays content associated with various locations, using Flora’s scalable geographic
`map with icons and media viewer, improving user experience
`
`ü Provides improved awareness regarding locations associated with content
`
`ü Predictable result
`
`ü Reasonable expectation of success
`
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0018, 0091-0093, 0103-0106, 0110, 0123, 0130,
`0135-0143, 0213-0220, 0222, 0225, 0232-0241, 0267, 0272; Flora
`(EX1005), 1:55-56, 2:2-9, 3:22-46, 6:66-7:52, Fig. 3; EX1002, ¶¶82-86
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 15-16; Pet., 22-27
`
`23
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 23 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`ü TSM:
`
`Ø Okamura explains its displayed cluster maps help a user “easily grasp[]” areas where content has been
`captured and allow a user to “easily grasp the distribution of the location of generation of contents”
`included in the cluster
`
`Ø enhancing Okamura with Flora’s discussed teachings furthers these goals
`
`Ø Flora’s system improves how a user views content organized by location
`
`Ø “allow[ing] a user to interface with” a map displaying content and “facilitate[][ing] access to content
`associated with locations of the electronic map”
`
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0018, 0110, 0123, 0130, 0139, 0213-0215,
`0222, 0272; Flora (EX1005), 1:55-56, 2:2-9, 3:22-46; EX1002, ¶82
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 15-16; Pet., 24-25
`
`24
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 24 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`ü Combining prior art elements
`Ø Okamura’s cluster map display area 414; Flora’s geographic map 46 with icons 58 and 59 and media viewer 64
`ü according to known methods
`Ø known programming techniques to adjust the software of Okamura’s content playback application
`ü to yield predictable results
`Ø using Flora’s geographic map 46 with icons 58 and 59 and media viewer 64 to organize and display Okamura’s
`content on cluster map display area 414 according to location associated with content
`
`ü Simple substitution of one known element
`Ø Flora’s geographic map 46 with icons 58 and 59 and media viewer 64
`ü for another
`Ø Okamura’s cluster map display area 414
`ü to obtain predictable results
`Ø using Flora’s geographic map 46 with icons 58 and 59 and media viewer 64 to organize and display Okamura’s
`content according to location associated with content
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 15-16; Pet., 27; EX1002, ¶¶85-86
`
`25
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 25 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Okamura’s related art description of using geographic maps having different scales is
`not a teaching away
`POR, 37-49; Okamura (EX1004),
`¶¶0004-00012
`
`• The Board preliminarily recognized as much in the institution decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 4-5
`
`D.I., 55
`
`Compare POPR, 49-54,
`with POR, 39-44
`
`26
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 26 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Ø Okamura uses the very characteristics Patent Owner argues it disparages
`
`Ø Patent Owner: Okamura disparages maps having different scales
`POR, 40-43, 49
`Ø Okamura uses maps having changing or differing scales
`
`Ø “the map information storing section 220 stores map data corresponding to a plurality of
`scales”
`Not addressed by Patent Owner
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶0093
`
`Ø “Background map generating section 610 acquires map information from the map information
`storing section 220, and generates a background map…”
`EX1004, ¶¶0093, 0312, 0314
`
`Ø The background map is displayed as part of a map view, which includes a “map view screen
`780” having a “scale-changing bar 781” by which a user can change map scale
`EX1004, ¶¶0321, 0355, 405-407, Fig. 41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 8-10; Pet., 15, 18-27; D.I., 55; EX1038, ¶¶56-57
`
`27
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 27 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 8-10; Pet., 15, 18-27; D.I., 55; EX1038, ¶¶56-57
`
`28
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 41
`(annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 28 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Ø Okamura uses the very characteristics Patent Owner argues it disparages
`Ø Patent Owner: Okamura disparages using geographic maps
`POR, 38-40
`
`Ø Okamura uses geographic maps
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0139, 0213, 0275-0281, Figs. 27A-27B (annotated);
`EX1002, ¶¶69, 76, 82; EX1038, ¶53; EX1034, 123:3-125:20, 129:19-130:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 5-8; Pet., 15, 19
`
`29
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 29 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Ø Okamura’s related art is different from Flora
`
`Takakura, Fig. 7 (annotated)
`
`Fujiwara, Fig. 12 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 10-12; Pet., 22-27
`
`Okamura (EX1004),
`¶¶0004-0012; EX1038,
`¶¶39-48
`
`30
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 30 of 65
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Ø Okamura’s related art is different from Flora
`
`Ø No “correspondence” issues between content
`
`Ø Thumbnail icons are arranged at locations of the
`map
`
`Ø Media viewer 64, displayed after selection of an
`icon, shows media items at icon’s location
`
`EX1005, 6:29-32, 7:1-13, 7:23-
`39, Figs. 2, 3; EX1038, ¶¶47-48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 12-13; Pet., 22-27
`
`31
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 31 of 65
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`Issue 1: Whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Issue 2: Grounds 2-4 motivations to combine
`
`Issue 3: Whether Grounds 1-4 render obvious the following claim elements:
`• map
`
`thumbnail image
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`responsive to a first input…
`
`location name
`
`•
`
`•
`
`first name and second name
`
`limitations of claims 3 and 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 32 of 65
`
`
`
`Ground 2-4 Motivations to Combine
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Statute
`
`Art
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`1-7
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Okamura, Flora, and Wagner
`
`Okamura, Flora, and Gilley
`
`Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley
`
`Pet., 71-73, 76-79, 81-84, 88-93, 95-96
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 19-20, 22
`
`33
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 33 of 65
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`Issue 1: Whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Okamura and Flora
`
`Issue 2: Grounds 2-4 motivations to combine
`
`Issue 3: Whether Grounds 1-4 render obvious the following claim elements:
`
`• map
`
`•
`
`•
`
`location name
`
`first name and second name
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`responsive to a first input…
`
`thumbnail image
`
`limitations of claims 3 and 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 34 of 65
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`Element
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner
`
`map
`
`Not taught by Okamura
`
`Taught by Okamura
`
`Taught by Okamura and Flora (undisputed)
`location name Not taught by Okamura and Flora Taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`first name and
`second name
`
`Not taught by Okamura
`
`Taught by Okamura, Flora, and Wagner (undisputed)
`
`Taught by Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley (undisputed)
`Taught by Okamura
`
`Taught by Okamura, Flora, and Gilley (undisputed)
`
`Taught by Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley (undisputed)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 35 of 65
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`Element
`responsive to a
`first input…
`
`Patent Owner
`Not taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`Petitioner
`Taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`thumbnail
`image
`
`limitations of
`claims 3 and 5
`
`Not taught by Okamura and Flora*
`
`Taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`*under a construction Patent Owner “does not agree with”
`
`Not taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`Taught by Okamura and Flora
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 36 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1b], [1d], and [1e] – responsive to a first input…
`
`[1b] responsive to a first input, causing a map view to be displayed on an interface,
`[1c] the map view including: (i) an interactive map;
`
`[1d] (ii) a first location selectable thumbnail image at a first
`location on the interactive map; and
`
`[1e] (iii) a second location selectable thumbnail image at a
`second location on the interactive map;
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 17-18
`
`37
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 37 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1b], [1d], and [1e] – responsive to a first input…
`
`Patent Owner
`Plain meaning requires no intervening inputs between the
`claimed “first input” and display of the “map view”
`POR, 27-28
`
`Petitioner
`Plain meaning encompasses intervening inputs, as well as
`no intervening inputs, between the claimed “first input”
`and display of the “map view”
`Reply, 1-2; EX1038, ¶¶21-26
`
`•
`
`Intrinsic record does not impose Patent Owner’s restrictive interpretation
`• No restriction in claim language
`• No restriction in specification
`• EX1001 at 23:34-35, 29:41-56, and Figure 41 do not exclude intervening inputs
`• No restriction in file history
`
`Reply, 1-2; EX1038, ¶¶21-26
`
`• Dr. Reinman (Patent Owner’s expert): Figure 41 is not limiting
`EX1034, 51:14-19, 52:4-53:5
`
`The Grounds render this limitation obvious under either interpretation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 1-2, 17-18; Pet., 14-30
`
`38
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 38 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1b], [1d], and [1e] – responsive to a first input…
`
`• Depressing PLACE tab 413 (responsive to a first input)
`causes display of cluster map display area 414 (causing a
`map view to be displayed) without any intervening inputs
`Pet., 14-20; Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0232-0247, Figs. 17-19
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 18 (in part, annotated)
`
`•
`
`Combined with Flora, geographic map 46 (interactive
`map) having thumbnails 58 and 59 is displayed responsive
`to depressing PLACE tab 413
`Pet., 20-30; EX1002, ¶¶81-86; EX1005,
`5:65-6:11, 6:66-7:42, Figs. 2, 3
`Reply, 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`39
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 39 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1b], [1d], and [1e] – responsive to a first input…
`
`• Patent Owner: the combination requires separate inputs to cause display of Flora’s icons 58 and 59
`POR, 52-54
`
`• Patent Owner misunderstands the combination, separate inputs are not required
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 17-18; Pet., 22-27; EX1002, ¶¶81-86; EX1038, ¶64
`
`40
`
`Pet., 22
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 40 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1d], [1e], [1f], [1i] – thumbnail image
`
`Patent Owner
`Flora does not teach thumbnail image under a
`construction proposed by “an accused infringer”
`
`Petitioner
`Whether this construction is adopted or not, Flora teaches
`thumbnail image
`
`thumbnail image = “reduced-size duplicate of an image”
`POR, 50-51
`
`•
`
`Flora: Icons 58 and 59 can be “thumbnail[s]”
`EX1005, 7:5-22
`
`• Unrebutted expert testimony demonstrates Flora’s disclosure encompasses:
`
`ü duplicate having smaller dimensions and fewer pixels than the original
`
`ü cropped portion of the original
`
`Reply, 17; EX1038, ¶¶61-63
`
`ü Flora never limits how original images become reduced into icons 58 and 59 (e.g., shrunken duplicate or
`cropped portion)
`EX1038, ¶¶61-63; EX1005, 7:5-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 17; Pet., 28-29
`
`41
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 41 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitation [1c] - map
`
`UNDISPUTED: Even if Okamura’s cluster map array is not found as a map, Flora teaches this via geographic
`map 46
`Flora (EX1005), 5:65-6:11, 6:66-7:42, Figs. 2, 3;
`EX1002, ¶¶77-80; EX1038, ¶37; POR, 34-37; Reply, 3-4
`
`• Okamura’s cluster maps 417 arranged in a 3x5 matrix teach a map
`
`• Cluster maps 417 show geographic map areas where content has been captured, arranged on “map
`display area 414”
`Pet., 18-19; Okamura (EX1004), 0232-
`0248, Figs. 18-19; EX1002, ¶76
`
`• A POSITA would have understood or at least found obvious Okamura’s cluster map arrangement forms a
`map:
`•
`arrangement provides information about particular geographic areas, showing geographic locations
`where content has been captured
`
`Reply, 3-4; EX1038, ¶¶32-37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 3-4; Pet. 18-22
`
`42
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 42 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1g] and [1j] – location name
`
`UNDISPUTED:
`• Ground 2: Okamura, Flora, and Wagner
`• Ground 4: Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley
`
`• Wagner’s media viewer displays the city
`name “San Francisco” associated with
`content
`
`Wagner (EX1006), ¶¶0183, 0228, Fig. 5V
`
`• Patent Owner questions reliance on Wagner
`for
`location name because "Okamura
`already accomplishes this function”
`
`POR, 70-71
`• Wagner explicitly specifies that
`the
`displayed location name in a media
`viewer is a city name associated with
`content
`Pet., 77-78; EX1002, ¶¶139-141; EX1038, ¶68
`
`Wagner (EX1006), Fig. 5V (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 19; Pet., 70-84
`
`43
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 43 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1g] and [1j] – location name
`
`• Grounds 1-4: Okamura and Flora (1st way)
`
`• Flora’s viewer 64 displays a location name
`of “Baikanur Cosmodrome”
`Flora (EX1005), 7:23-51, Fig.
`3; EX1002, ¶93
`• Flora’s file history (EX1008):
`• at
`least
`corroborating evidence a
`POSITA would have understood Figure
`3 recites “Baikanur Cosmodrome”
`EX1008, 40; EX1038, ¶65
`
`UNDISPUTED: Flora’s Figure 3 is a copy of the
`same figure from its file history
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 18-19; Pet., 33-35
`
`44
`
`POR, 57-59
`
`Flora’s File History (EX1008), 40 (Fig. 3) (annotated)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 44 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1g] and [1j] – location name
`
`• Grounds 1-4: Okamura and Flora (2nd way)
`
`• Okamura’s
`includes
`“information 418”
`location name where content was captured
`•
`“Mt. Fuji”
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0018, 0110,
`0135-0143, 0213, 0225, 0240, Fig. 19
`
`the
`
`• Other example location names:
`•
`“Tokyo-prefecture”
`•
`“Saitama-prefecture”
`• Address:
`•
`prefecture
`“Tokyo
`Osaki 1-chome”
`EX1004, ¶¶0122-0127, 0136, 0229, 0240
`
`Shinagawa-ward
`
`Patent Owner concedes Okamura describes displaying
`a location name
`
`POR, 69-70; Sur-Reply, 19
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 18-19; Pet., 35-39
`
`45
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 45 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1n] and [1p] – first name and second name
`Patent Owner
`Petitioner
`Plain meaning requires “people view” must include
`Plain meaning encompasses “people view” displaying a
`displaying a “first name” and “second name”
`“first name” and “second name” both simultaneously
`simultaneously in the same view
`and at different times in the same view
`Reply, 2-3; EX1038, ¶¶16-20
`
`•
`
`POR, 28-29
`Intrinsic record does not impose Patent Owner’s restrictive interpretations
`• No restriction in claim language
`• No restriction in specification
`•
`EX1001 at 22:59-23:4 and Figures 32 and 41 do not require simultaneous display
`• No restriction in file history
`
`The Grounds render this limitation obvious under either interpretation
`
`Reply, 2-3; EX1038, ¶¶16-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 2-3, 20; Pet., 55-61, 85-96
`
`46
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 46 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1n] and [1p] – first name and second name
`• Grounds 1-4: Okamura’s information 433 of each thumbnail
`image
`includes a person’s name associated with the thumbnail
`Pet., 55-61
`• Grounds 3 and 4: Undisputed that Gilley displays thumbnail images of
`people in content with the name of each person (“Bert,” “James”); names
`displayed simultaneously
`POR, 73-75
`
`Gilley (EX1007), Abstract, ¶¶0002, 0005, 0014-
`0016, 0099-0103, Figs. 7 (annotated), 8; EX1002,
`¶¶152-164
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0247,
`Figs. 20, 21 (annotated);
`EX1002, ¶¶110-114, 118-122
`Reply, 20; Pet., 55-61, 85-96
`
`47
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 47 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1n] and [1p] – first name and second name
`
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition only identified what a POSITA “would have been able to do”
`POR, 74
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 20; Pet., 85-96
`
`48
`
`Pet., 90
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 48 of 65
`
`
`
`Limitations [1n] and [1p] – first name and second name
`• Grounds 1-4: Okamura and Flora
`
`• Okamura describes
`information 433 of each
`thumbnail
`image as including a person’s name
`corresponding to the thumbnail’s face
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶0247, Fig. 21
`
`• Patent Owner does not address the Petition’s
`analysis under the proper plain meaning where
`“people view” encompasses displaying a “first
`name” and “second name” simultaneously and at
`different times in the same view
`
`POR, 63
`
`• Patent Owner instead bases its argument
`solely
`on
`its
`incorrect
`“simultaneous”
`interpretation
`POR, 63
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 21 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 20; Pet., 55-61
`
`49
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 49 of 65
`
`
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the map view further includes a first indication feature associated with the first location
`selectable thumbnail image, the first indication feature being based on a number of digital files in the first set of digital files.
`
`Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the first indication feature is connected to the first location selectable thumbnail image.
`Patent Owner
`Petitioner
`Plain meaning requires no intervening inputs between the
`Plain meaning encompasses intervening inputs, as well as
`claimed “first input” and display of the “map view”
`no intervening inputs, between the claimed “first input”
`and display of the “map view”
`Reply, 1-2; EX1038, ¶¶21-26
`POR, 27-28, 30
`
`• No restriction as Patent Owner alleges for the same reasons discussed for limitations [1b], [1d], and [1e]
`
`• Depressing PLACE tab 413 (responsive to a first input) causes display of cluster map display area 414 (causing a map view to be
`displayed) without any intervening inputs
`Pet., 14-20; Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0232-0247, Figs. 17-19
`
`• Combined with Flora, geographic map 46 (interactive map) having thumbnails 58 and 59 is displayed responsive to depressing
`PLACE tab 413
`Pet., 20-30; Flora (EX1005), 5:65-6:11, 6:66-7:42, Figs. 2, 3
`
`• Okamura’s information 418 teaches displaying the number of contents for each thumbnail and would have been connected to
`each thumbnail by overlapping as taught by Okamura’s Figures 19-21
`Pet., 62-67; Okamura (EX1004), ¶¶0234-0241, Figs. 19-21;
`Flora (EX1005), 7:8-42, Fig. 3; EX1002, ¶¶123-125; EX1038, ¶72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 21
`
`50
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 50 of 65
`
`
`
`Claim 3
`
`Okamura (EX1004), Fig. 19 (annotated)
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 21; Pet., 62-67; EX1002, ¶¶123-125; EX1038, ¶72
`
`51
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 51 of 65
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the map view further includes a first indication feature associated with the
`first location selectable thumbnail image, the first indication feature being based on a number of digital files in the
`first set of digital files.
`
`Claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein the map view further includes a second indication feature associated with
`the second location selectable thumbnail image, the second indication feature being based on a number of digital
`files in the second set of digital files.
`
`Patent Owner
`Plain meaning requires “map view” must include
`displaying a “first indication feature” and “second
`indication feature” simultaneously in the same view
`
`Petitioner
`Plain meaning encompasses “map view” displaying a
`“first indication feature” and “second indication feature”
`simultaneously and at different times in the same view
`Reply, 2-3; EX1038, ¶¶27-30
`
`POR, 32
`
`• No restriction as Patent Owner alleges for the same reasons discussed for limitations [1n] and [1p]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 21
`
`52
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 52 of 65
`
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`• Okamura displays “information 418” including “the number of contents [] belonging to a cluster corresponding to the
`cluster map 417” (Fig. 19, “28”)
`Okamura (EX1004), ¶0240, Fig. 19; EX1038, ¶¶73-74
`
`• Okamura and Flora combined:
`• Okamura’s cluster map display area 414 (the map view) includes
`displayed information 418 showing number of contents displayed
`with the first and second of thumbnails 58 and 59
`
`Flora (EX1005), Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`Okamura (EX1004),
`¶¶0234-0241, Figs. 19
`(annotated)-21; Flora
`(EX1005), 7:8-42, Fig. 3;
`EX1002, ¶¶123-125
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 21-22; Pet. 62-68; EX1038, ¶¶73-74
`
`53
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 53 of 65
`
`
`
`Summary
`
`• Overview of U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`
`• Overview of the Prior Art
`• Okamura
`•
`Flora
`• Wagner
`• Gilley
`
`• Disputed Issues
`
`• Unified is the Sole Real Party-In-Interest
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 54 of 65
`
`
`
`Unified is the Sole RPI
`• Unified solely directed, controlled, and funded this IPR
`
`• Unified operates independently, and has not acted at another’s behest
`
`• No pre-filing communications; no post-filing communications with any member other than generic
`reporting of public filings
`
`• Unified exercises “sole and absolute discretion over its decision to contest patents”
`
`• Unified does not coordinate with members regarding its filings
`
`• Members do not exercise any direction or control over Unified’s filings
`
`• Members do not control Unified’s filings through funding
`Patent Owner’s contentions are legally insufficient
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., 989 F.3d 1018, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 22-33
`
`55
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 55 of 65
`
`
`
`Unified is the Sole RPI
`
`• No time bar
`
`• Alleged unnamed RPIs filed their own petitions after Unified
`
`• Patent Owner itself acknowledged the “conflicting positions of different petitioners”
`POR, 50-51
`
`• Other petitions challenge different claims
`• Unified challenged claims 1-7; other petitions challenged claims 1-19
`
`• Other petitions used different prior art
`• None of the other petitions use Flora, Wagner, or Gilley
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 22-33; Pet. Reply to POPR, 1, 4-7
`
`56
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Page 56 of 65
`
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1041
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC v. MEMORYWEB, LLC
`IPR2021-01413
`Pag
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
