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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ‘228 Patent ............................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`The ‘228 patent ...................................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Relevant Prosecution History ................................................................ 5 
`1. 
`The Related ‘426 Application ..................................................... 6 
`2. 
`The ‘228 Patent ........................................................................... 7 
`Summary of References Identified by Petitioner ............................................ 8 
`A.  Okamura (Ex. 1004) .............................................................................. 8 
`1. 
`Okamura’s Description of the Related Art ................................. 8 
`2. 
`Okamura’s Improvement Over the Related Art ........................ 15 
`Flora (Ex. 1005) .................................................................................. 19 
`B. 
`C.  Wagner (Ex. 1006) .............................................................................. 22 
`D.  Gilley (Ex. 1007) ................................................................................. 22 
`  Real-Party in Interest ..................................................................................... 22 
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution Pursuant to 35
` 
`U.S.C. § 314(a), 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and 37 CFR § 42.108(a) ..................... 29 
`  The Board Should Deny Institution Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............ 33 
`A. 
`Substantially The Same Art Was Already Considered ....................... 34 
`1. 
`The Office Already Considered Art That Is Substantially the
`Same as Okamura and Gilley .................................................... 35 
`The Office Already Considered Art That Is Substantially the
`Same as Flora ............................................................................ 39 
`Petitioner Did Not Show How the Office Allegedly Erred ................ 41 
`B. 
`  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 42 
`  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 43 
`  Petitioner Has Not Established a Reasonable Likelihood of Success ........... 43 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Purported Obviousness over Okamura and Flora .............. 44 
`1. 
`Limitation [1c]: “the map view including: (i) an interactive
`map” .......................................................................................... 44 
`Limitations [1g] and [1j] ........................................................... 57 
`2. 
`Ground 2: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora, and
`Wagner ................................................................................................ 63 
`Ground 3: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora, and
`Gilley ................................................................................................... 65 
`D.  Ground 4: Purported Obviousness over Okamura, Flora,
`Wagner and Gilley ............................................................................... 65 
`Dependent Claims 2-7 (Grounds 1-4) ................................................. 66 
`E. 
`The Petition Does Not Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................ 66 
`  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 67 
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-EL Elktromedizinische Gerate GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .................................... 33, 41, 42
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00356, Paper 9 (PTAB June 26, 2015) ............................................... 67
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 29
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 22, 27, 28
`
`
`Application of Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959) ........................................................................ 55
`
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 49
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 49
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 34
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 66
`
` C
`
` & D Zodiac, Inc. v. b/e Aerospace, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01276, 2017 WL 5067512 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2017) ............................... 59
`
`
`
`Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Wag Acquisition,
`IPR2015-01036, 2016 WL 6946904 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2016) .............................. 60
`
`General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaishaat,
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ......................................... 29, 32
`
`
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 46, 65
`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 56, 65
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`711 F. App’x 633 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 54
`
`
`Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc.,
`48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 34
`
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 43
`
`
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 49, 56
`
`RPX Corp. v. Iridescent Networks, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00254, 2018 WL 6523985 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2018) ............................. 60
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 55
`
`
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) .................... 32
`
`Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc. v. Velocity Patent LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00276, Paper 8 (PTAB June 1, 2015) ................................................. 46
`
`Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc.,
`903 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 23
`
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................ 1, 22, 28, 66
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................... 1, 29, 30, 41
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ................................................................................... 1, 29, 30, 32
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 30
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 33, 41
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. 1.14(a) ...................................................................................................... 67
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 66, 67
`Other Authorities
`MPEP § 102 ............................................................................................................. 67
`MPEP § 904 ............................................................................................................. 41 
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D.
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`160058 and Certified English Translation (“Fujiwara”)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-
`323544 and Certified English Translation (“Takakura”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,552,376 (“the ’376 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,658 (“the ’658 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ’823 patent”)
`
`’376 patent Prosecution History
`
`Reserved
`
`Transcript of October 15, 2019 Deposition of Kevin Jakel
`(IPR2019-00482)
`
`Non-confidential Brief of Barkan Wireless IP Holdings on
`Appeal from IPR2018-01186
`
`3 Questions for Unified Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`
`Brief of Amicus Curiae Unified Patents Inc. in Cuozzo Speed
`Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee et al.
`
`Unified Patents September 3, 2021 Press Release regarding
`MemoryWeb IPR
`
`Unified Patents September 9, 2021 email regarding MemoryWeb
`IPR
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (Benefits for Large Company
`Members)
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`Description
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (Unified Patents’ Collaborative
`Deterrence Approach)
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (Zones)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/npe)
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (Success)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/success)
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (FAQs)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0058212 A1 to Belitz et al.
`(“Belitz”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,098,531 (“the ‘531 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,017,020 (“the ‘020 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,170,042 (“the ‘042 patent”)
`
`Jaffe et al., Generating Summaries and Visualization for Large
`Collections of Geo-Referenced Photographs (“Jaffe”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0113350 (“Hibino”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0165380 (“Tanaka”)
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`MemoryWeb, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this preliminary response under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 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”).
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny institution. First, the
`
`Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), 37 CFR § 42.108(a), 35 U.S.C. § 325(d),
`
`and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2). The Board should deny institution pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a) in view of follow-on petitions filed by Apple and Samsung which
`
`challenge all claims of the ‘228 patent (whereas the Petition only challenges claims
`
`1-7) and rely on the same or similar references. The Board should also deny
`
`institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the references in the Petition are
`
`substantially the same as references that were specifically considered during
`
`prosecution of one of the ‘228 patent’s parent applications. Petitioner does not even
`
`attempt to explain why the Office allegedly erred in allowing the challenged claims
`
`over these references.
`
`Second, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on
`
`the merits. Each of Grounds 1-4 relies on modifying Okamura with Flora to include
`
`a map view including an interactive map. However, Okamura specifically teaches
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`away from and disparages art that is nearly identical to Flora. As a result, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Okamura with Flora as
`
`Petitioner suggests.
`
` 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. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 28.
`
`To this end, the ‘228 patent discloses methods “allow[ing] people to organize, view,
`
`preserve these files with all the memory details captured, connected and vivified via
`
`an interactive interface.” Ex. 1001 at 1:61-65.
`
`For example, referring to FIG. 41 (reproduced below), the ‘228 patent
`
`discloses a map view including “an interactive map.” Ex. 1001 at 29:41-45; Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 29.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 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.” Ex. 1001 at 29:48-55; Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 30. 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.” Ex. 1001 at 29:52-55, FIG. 41; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 30.
`
`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)).” Ex. 1001 at 29:48-55; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 31.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 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.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`24:22-28; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 32. 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. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 33. For example, referring to FIG. 32, a people view 1400 is
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`shown including for “each person, a thumbnail of their face along with their name is
`
`depicted.” Ex. 1001 at 22:59-23:4.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 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. at 23:12-49; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 34.
`
`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),
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 15/375,927 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`10,423,658) (Ex.2005), 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) (Ex. 2004).
`
`Ex. 1001, cover.
`
`1.
`The Related ‘426 Application
`The prosecution of the ‘426 application included four Office Actions. In one
`
`Office Action dated April 15, 2016 (“the April 2016 Office Action”), the examiner
`
`rejected pending independent claims 1 and 15 as purportedly obvious over a non-
`
`patent reference entitled “Capture, Annotate, Browse, Find, Share: Novel Interface
`
`for Personal Photo Management” by Kang et al. (“Kang,” Ex. 1009) in view of
`
`another non-patent reference entitled “Generating Summaries and Visualizations for
`
`Large Collections of GeoReferenced Photographs” by Jaffe et al. ( “Jaffe,” Ex. 2024)
`
`and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0113350 (“Hibino,” Ex. 2025). Ex. 2007 at
`
`358-85; Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 67-68. The examiner alleged that Kang discloses storing “a
`
`plurality of digital files . . . each of the digital files having embedded therein content
`
`data and metadata. . . the metadata including a geotag indicative of geographic
`
`coordinates where the digital photograph or image or video was taken.” Ex. 2007 at
`
`366.
`
`In the same April 2016 Office Action, the examiner alleged that Jaffe
`
`disclosed “a representative of an interactive map . . . a first thumbnail image at a first
`
`location on the interactive map . . . [and] a second thumbnail image at a second
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`location on the interactive map.” Id. at 367-69; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 79. The examiner
`
`further alleged that it would have been obvious “to modify the teachings of Kang
`
`with the teachings of Jaffe” to include, among other things, Jaffe’s interactive map
`
`and first/second thumbnail images and first/second locations on the interactive map.
`
`Id. at 369. The examiner also alleged that Hibino “discloses that the thumbnail
`
`images are user selectable,” and further that “responsive to a click or tap of the first
`
`user selectable thumbnail image” and that Hibino displays scaled replicas of
`
`associated digital photographs or images or videos. Id. at 370.
`
`In a subsequent Office Action dated June 3, 2016 (“the June 2016 Office
`
`Action”), the examiner again rejected the claims based on Kang, Jaffe, and Hibino,
`
`but this time further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0165380
`
`(“Tanaka,” Ex. 2026). Ex. 2007 at 433-37.
`
`2.
`The ‘228 Patent
`No Office Actions were issued during prosecution of the ‘228 patent. See Ex.
`
`1003. 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. at 366. A Notice of Allowance was
`
`entered on December 2, 2019 entering claims amendments via an examiner’s
`
`amendment. Id. at 350-66. The examiner characterized Hibino as “[t]he closest prior
`
`art” and found that it “discloses similar limitations of people view in figure 15 and
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`paragraph 0052.” Id. at 361. The examiner also characterized Tanaka as “[a]nother
`
`close prior art” that “discloses a similar features of grouping pictures according to
`
`location information in figure 3, paragraphs 58, 60.” Id. at 362.
`
` Summary of References Identified by Petitioner
`Petitioner relies on four references: Okamura (Ex. 1004), Flora (Ex. 1005),
`
`Wagner (Ex. 1006), and Gilley (Ex. 1007). Each reference is discussed below.
`
`A. Okamura (Ex. 1004)
`Okamura is generally directed to “an information processing apparatus which
`
`displays contents such as image files.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0002].
`
`1. Okamura’s Description of the Related Art
`In its “Description of the Related Art” section, Okamura explains that prior
`
`systems which incorporated a large map view made it difficult to associate the
`
`relationship between the locations at which images were taken. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶
`
`[0003]-[0006]. In particular, Okamura explains that in prior systems, images could
`
`be associated “with positional information on the position where the image is
`
`captured.” Id. at ¶ [0004]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 42. 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. at ¶¶ [0005]-[0006]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 42.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`First, Okamura
`
`identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2001-160058 (“Fujiwara,” Ex. 2002) as an exemplary “apparatus
`
`which arranges thumbnail icons of images side by side in time series . . . [and]
`
`displays position icons indicating the shooting locations of these images in a map
`
`window.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0005]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 43. This system is configured so that
`
`when a user clicks a thumbnail icon, “a position icon indicating the shooting location
`
`of an image corresponding to the clicked thumbnail icon is displayed at the center
`
`of the map window.” Id.
`
`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. Ex. 2002 at ¶ [0071]; Ex. 2001
`
`at ¶ 44.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2002 at 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. Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ [0074]-[0077]; Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 45. 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.” Ex. 2002 at ¶
`
`[0085]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 45.
`
`Second, Okamura identifies Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2007-323544 (“Takakura,” Ex. 2003) as an exemplary system
`
`displaying thumbnail images and “markers at positions on a map corresponding to
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`the shooting locations of these images,” and also “displays these images and markers
`
`in association with each other.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0006]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 46. According
`
`to Okamura, in this system, “when a click operation on a marker displayed on the
`
`map is performed by the user, an image associated with the clicked marker is
`
`displayed on the map as a pop-up.” Id.
`
`Okamura refers specifically to FIG. 7 of Takakura. Id. Takakura illustrates a
`
`map 223 and “a marker 202 displayed at the location that corresponds to a location
`
`set in the attribute information for an image on the map.” Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ [0085]-
`
`[0086]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 47.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 2003 at FIG. 7 (annotated)
`
`
`
`“An image 203 corresponding to a photograph taken by the user pops up when each
`
`marker is selected.” Ex. 2003 at ¶ [0064]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 48. The image 203 includes
`
`“Image” and “Information” tags. Ex. 2003 at ¶ [0065]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 48. Image data
`
`or a thumbnail image is displayed in the “Image” tag.” Id. “Date and time
`
`information indicating when the image was taken, latitude and longitude information
`
`indicating where the image was taken, and file path information original image data
`
`are displayed” in the “Information Tag.” Id.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 1 of Takakura is similar to FIG. 7 and includes a marker 12 “placed at a
`
`location indicating, for example, one of the destinations visited by the user on a map
`
`10.” Ex. 2003 at ¶ [0005]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 49.
`
`Ex. 2003 at FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`correspondence between individual contents.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0008]; Ex. 2001 at ¶
`
`50. Okamura illustrates this issue in the related art with two hypotheticals.
`
`As a first example, Okamura supposes that a person living in Tokyo will likely
`
`have “relatively many images of Tokyo and its vicinity” but “relatively few images
`
`of other regions (for example, United States or United Kingdom visited by the person
`
`on a trip).” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0009]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 51. This is problematic because “it
`
`is necessary to display the map at a scale sufficiently large to show the countries of
`
`the world” to convey “correspondence between images taken in Tokyo and its
`
`vicinity and images taken in other regions.” Id. At this scale, “images taken in
`
`Tokyo and its vicinity . . . are displayed at substantially the same position on the
`
`map, which may make it difficult to grasp the geographical correspondence between
`
`the images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity.” Id.
`
`As a second example, Okamura explains that “when the map is displayed at a
`
`scale sufficiently small to show regions in the vicinity of Tokyo” the relative
`
`positions of the images taken in Tokyo and its vicinity “can be grasped.” Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ [0010]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 52. However, the ability to zoom in does not achieve
`
`Okamura’s objectives because at this scale, “it is not possible to display the
`
`generated positions of images taken in other regions . . . on the map.” Id.
`
`As shown below, Takakura illustrates the two hypotheticals posed in
`
`Okamura.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003 (Takakura) at FIGS. 1 and 7 (annotated); Ex. 2001 at ¶ 53
`
`On one hand, FIG. 1 of Takakura shows the map 10 at a larger scale showing
`
`multiple continents with markers in or around northeast Europe, the Mediterranean,
`
`and Japan. Ex. 2003 at FIGS. 1 and 7; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 54. On the other hand, FIG. 7
`
`is displayed at a smaller scale that shows three markers at three different locations
`
`in the Tokyo area. Id. But, at this scale, no other locations are visible (e.g., Europe).
`
`Id.
`
`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.” Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ [0011]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 55. 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.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0139]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 55. The
`
`pieces of data can include “image contents such as still image files” and the
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`“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.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0213]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 56. 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. Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0215]. For example, FIG. 18 illustrates “a
`
`list of marks (cluster maps) in a 3 x 5 matrix. Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0237]; see also id. at ¶¶
`
`[0240]-[0241]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 56.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 18
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 18
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 18
`
`17
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`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). Ex. 2001 at ¶ 57.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at FIG. 18 (excerpted and annotated); Ex. 2001 at ¶ 57
`
`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. Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0009]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 58. Conversely,
`
`if the map were displayed at a smaller scale to focus on the Tokyo vicinity, other
`
`regions (e.g., Hawaii) would be excluded. Ex. 1004 at ¶ [0010]; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 58.
`
`Okamura addresses this issue by generating cluster maps and displaying them in an
`
`array as shown in FIG. 18. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 58.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Flora (Ex. 1005)
`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.” Ex. 1005 at 1:8-11; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 59. 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.” Ex. 1004 at 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. at 6:5-9; Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 60.
`
`Ex. 1005 at FIG. 2
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The “geographic map 46 of the globe is scalable and can show fine levels of
`
`geography, such as individual cities and towns.” Ex. 1005 at 6:22-24; Ex. 2001 at ¶
`
`60. 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. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 60. “[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.” Ex. 1005 at 6:26-
`
`29; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 60.
`
`“[I]f the user moves the cursor 44 to a new location on the electronic map, the
`
`icons 42 displayed proximate or next to the old location will eventually disappear or
`
`face after a pre-determined period of item.” Ex. 1005 at 6:16-19; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 61.
`
`“[N]ew icons will appear proximate to the new cursor position” if “content is
`
`associated with the new location.” Ex. 1005 at 6:19-21; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 61.
`
`FIG. 3 of Flora illustrates “an alternative exemplary embodiment” where “a
`
`user has restricted the type of media to be presented to all ‘images.’” Ex. 1005 at
`
`6:66-7:3; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 63.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1005 at 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.” Ex. 1005 at 7:3-8; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 64. 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 the media item
`
`62.” Ex. 1005 at 7:23-34; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 64. The media view 64 includes, among
`
`other things, a “caption 72 of the chosen media item.” Ex. 1005 at 7:48-52; Ex. 2001
`
`at ¶ 64.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Wagner (Ex. 1006)
`Wagner “relates generally to electronic devices with touch-sensitive surfaces
`
`. . . that are used to display and navigate through content.” Ex. 1006 at ¶ [0002].
`
`Wagner describes methods for displaying content based on certain multi-contact
`
`gestures. Id. at ¶¶ [0006]-[0013].
`
`D. Gilley (Ex. 1007)
`Gilley generally relates to “organizing images . . . by correlating one or more
`
`faces represented in the images.” Ex. 1007 at ¶ [0002]. Gilley describes techniques
`
`for determining a likelihood that a face in a test image corresponds to a face in a base
`
`image. Id. at ¶¶ [0006]-[0009].
`
` Real-Party in Interest
`A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition
`
`identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312. Here, the Petition fails to
`
`name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”), including at least Samsung and Apple, and
`
`should therefore be denied.
`
`The Petition only identifies Unified as a real party in interest. Petition at 1.
`
`However, publicly available information confirms that Samsung and Apple are
`
`member companies, and as acknowledged by Unified, it is aware of related district
`
`court proceedings involving both Apple and Samsung. Exs. 2009 at 27:21 – 28:1
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`(“Apple is a member, yes.”), 2010 at 23 (“Samsung and Verizon substantially
`
`outside other members in resources…”); see also Petition at 1.
`
`In Worlds Inc., v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242−43 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the
`
`Federal Circuit reiterated that a petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to
`
`show that its identification of real parties in interest is correct.
`
`The Federal Circuit has provided guidance on the real party in interest inquiry.
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018); id. at 1351 (“[d]etermining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in interest’
`
`demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical
`
`considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear
`
`beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner”). In
`
`its analysis of the term “real party in interest,” the Federal Circuit noted various
`
`aspects of the AIA that suggest that the term should