PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00031
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Apple Is an RPI or Privy to the Unified IPR ................................................... 1 
`A.  Apple’s Denial that Unified Acted in Apple’s Interests or That Apple
`Benefited from The Unified IPR Is Not Credible ........................................... 1 
`1.  Unified’s Settlement Practices Reinforce That Unified’s Validity
`Challenges Benefit Apple, Rather Than All Practicing in a Zone ............. 1 
`2.  Apple’s Argument That Unified Ignored Apple’s Interests Is Also Not
`Credible ...................................................................................................... 2 
`B.  Apple’s Avoidance of Direct Communications With Unified is Irrelevant .... 3 
`C.  The Presentation Materials Unified Prepares For Members Are Relevant
`to Apple’s RPI Status ...................................................................................... 5 
`D.  Apple’s Discussion of Unified’s
` to File IPRs Also
`Misses the Mark ............................................................................................... 5 
`E.  Apple Does Not Contribute
` Annually For “Other Activities” ... 6 
`F.  Apple’s Reliance on the Board’s Prior Determinations Misses The Mark ..... 7 
`Unified Could Have Raised Apple’s Invalidity Ground ................................. 9 
`A.  Apple Did Not Show Unified Lacked Evidence to Prove the Prior Art
`Status of A3UM ............................................................................................... 9 
`B.  A Skilled Searcher Would Have Discovered Aperture 3 and A3UM ........... 11 
`III.  Apple Fails to Rebut That the Entirety of This Proceeding Should be
`Terminated ..................................................................................................... 17 
`IV.  MemoryWeb’s RPI Arguments Are Not Waived ......................................... 19 
`V. 
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 19 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00033, Paper 39 (PTAB May 18, 2023) ............................................. 11
`
`Cascades Canada ULC v. Essity Prof. Hygiene N. Am. LLC,
`
`IPR2017-02198, Paper 40 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) .............................................. 19
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.a.r.l.,
`70 F.4th 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2023) .................................................................. 19
`
`
`RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amagamated Bank,
`566 U.S. 639 (2012) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`
`Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
`
`352 U.S. 500, 508 n.17 (1957) ............................................................................ 19
`
`RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) ................................................ 3
`
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Techs. LLC (Bradium),
`
`IPR2018-00952, Paper 31 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2018) .......................................... 8, 9
`
`Unified Pats., LLC v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip. LLC,
`IPR2018-00091, Paper 33 (PTAB May 22, 2019) ........................................... 8, 9
`
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`
`989 F.3d 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ......................................................................................... 1, 17, 18
`
`
`i
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) ............................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`2001
`
`WITHDRAWN
`
`Hyunmo Kanget al., Capture, Annotated, Browse, Find, Share:
`NovelInterfacesfor Personal Photo Management, International
`Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 315-37 (2007)
`
`(“Kang”) Jaffe et al., Generating Summaries and Visualizationfor Large
`
`Collections ofGeo-Referenced Photographs, Proceedingsofthe
`8th ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Multimedia
`Information Retrieval, MIR 2006, October 26-27, 2006 (“Jaffe”)
`
`Allan Hoffman, Create Great iPhone Photos: Apps, Tips, Tricks,
`and Effects, No Starch Press, Inc. (Copyright 2011)
`
`2005
`
`006
`
`2007
`
`US.Patent Publication No. 2010/0171763 (“Bhatt”)
`
`Feb. 8, 2022 eBay Order Confirmation for “Apple Aperture 3
`Upgrade for Mac Brand New Photography”
`
`Apple Inc. Aperture Software License Agreement
`
`Declaration of John Leone, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal
`Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, EX1005 (July 20, 2018)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual (Archive.org:
`July 26, 2010)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual,
`http://documentation.apple.com/aperture/usermanual(Archive.org:
`Feb. 17, 2010)
`
`2011
`
`RESERVED
`
`lil
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`2012
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., www.apple.com, (Archive.org: Mar. 12, 2010)
`2013
`
`Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`(https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/review-aperture-3/) (last
`accessed Feb. 2, 2022)
`
`2014
`
`
`
`015
`
`016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Hilary Greenbaum, Who Made Google’s Map Pin?, The New York
`Times, (Apr. 18, 2011)
`
`Google Developers, Customizing a Google Map: Custom Markers
`(last accessed Feb. 17, 2022)
`
`KML4Earth, Google Earth/Maps Public Icons,
`http://kml4earth.appspot.com:80/icons.html (Archive.org May 27,
`2012)
`
`Declaration of Angelo J. Christopher
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Apple, Inc., “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” (Aug. 20, 2009)
`
`Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to UserInterface Design:
`An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” Wiley
`Publishing,Inc. (3°? Ed.) (2007)
`
`1V
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`Affidavit of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`2028
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notices (Mot.)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413.,
`Decision Granting Director Review (Public Version) (Paper 76)
`
`Regarding MemoryWeb’s Motion to Terminate (Mar. 14, 2023)
`
`Petitioner (Jun. 2-8, 2023)
`
`
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Final
`Written Decision (Public Version) (Paper 67)
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`Unified Patents Testimony Subpoena, Attachment A
`
`Apple Document Production Requests, Attachment A
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Hayes
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Order
`Identifying Real Party in Interest (Public Version) (Paper 79)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413,
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal and For Entry of Protective Order
`(Paper 10)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Order
`Entering Protective Order (Paper 26)
`
`Declaration of Keven Jakel
`
`Docket Reports
`
`Blog Post regarding Petition Filing
`
`2056
`
`2044
`
`045
`:
`
`2046
`
`3047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`3057
`
`Transcript of October 15, 2019 Deposition of Kevin Jakel
`
`(IPR2019-00482)
`Non-confidential Brief ofBarkan Wireless IP Holdings on
`Appeal from IPR2018-01186
`
`3 Questions for Unified Patents CEO Post-Oil States (Part II)
`
`2059
`
`
`
`Brief ofAmicus Curiae Unified Patents Inc. in Cuozzo Speed
`
`v1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee et al.
`
`MemoryWebIPR
`
`IPR
`
`Members)
`
`5064
`
`Deterrence Approach)
`Unified Patent’s website link (Zones)
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/npe)
`
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/success)
`
`
`
`(https://www.unifiedpatents.com/faq)
`
`2067
`
`Unified Patents Web Page at www.unifiedpatents.com/npe/
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-Transcript of May 26, 2022 Deposition of
`Kevin Jakel (IPR2021-01413)
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`vil
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`Description
`
`9072
`
`3073
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`
`
`2074
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`
`
`076
`
`077
`
`078
`
`2079
`
`080
`
`CONFIDENTIAL- List of email addresses
`
`Unified Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 10,621,228
`(IPR2021-01413)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Jakel
`(IPR2021-01413)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - Unified Patents March 15, 2022 News Update
`"MemoryWebPatent Likely Invalid
`
`CONFIDENTIAL- List of email addresses
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - Order Identifying Real Party-in-Interest
`(IPR2021-01413)
`
`3081
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (IPR2021-01413)
`2082
`
`cosy|CONFIDENT
`
`cosy|CONFIDENTA.-
`
`Vill
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`Description
`
`086
`
`CONFIDENTIAL -
`
`Unified Patent’s website link (Top 20 Petitioners)
`(https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/analytics/case-level/top-
`parties)
`
`CONFIDENTA,-
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-
`
`2090|CONFIDENTA.-
`09] CONFIDENTIAL-Transcript of September 7, 2023 Deposition of
`
`Kevin Jakel (IPR2022-0003 1)
`
`
`
`3092
`
`3093
`
`2094
`
`2095
`
`2096
`
`2097
`
`2098
`
`2099
`
`REDACTED- Order Identifying Real Party-in-Interest (IPR2021-
`01413) (Originally entered March 8, 2023)
`
`MemoryWebSubscription plans website link at
`(www.memoryweb.me/pricing)
`
`Internet Archive Declaration of Nathaniel E Frank-White
`
`Unified Patents PTAB Filings Since March 1, 2021
`(Docketnavigator.com)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL — Request for Director Review
`
`REDACTED — Request for Director Review
`
`Unified RPI page (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/rp1)
`
`Redline Comparison of A3UM
`
`2100
`
`Patworld Search Results
`
`1X
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`2101
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,543
`
`2104
`
`2105
`
`2106
`
`Welcometo Aperture (https://web.archive.org/web/20180504121246/
`http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html)
`
`Aperture Help (https://web.archive.org/web/20180418021025/
`http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/)
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20170106175757/
`http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/
`Aperture%203%20User%20Manual%20(en).pdf)
`
`2107
`
`Aperture 3 User Manual (downloaded from Ex. 2106)
`
`(https://usermanual.wiki/apple/Aperture3.1938174072)
`
`eBay.com (apple aperture manual)
`
`Google Search Results (apple aperture manual)
`2102
`
`2103
`How to find the Aperture User Manual,
`(https://discusions.apple.com/docs/DOC-250000352)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - January 6, 2016 email chain
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - Exhibit D Subscription Form
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - June 6, 2019 email and attachments
`
`2116
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`
`
`2117 CONFIDENTIAL-Transcript of October 3, 2023 Deposition
`
`2118
`AmicusBrief — Intel v. VLSI
`
`2119
`Amicus Brief — Apple v. Qualcomm
`
`2120
`
`RESERVED
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`J. Hayes Declaration
`
`Xl
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`I. Apple Is an RPI or Privy to the Unified IPR
`Nothing in Apple’s Opposition rebuts what the Motion established; Unified
`
`should have named Apple as an RPI in the Unified IPR.1
`
`A. Apple’s Denial that Unified Acted in Apple’s Interests or That Apple
`Benefited from The Unified IPR Is Not Credible
`Apple denies Unified acts in Apple’s interests, or it has stood to benefit from
`
`the Unified IPR, but the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Paper 64 (“Opp.”), 24-
`
`29.
`
`1. Unified’s Settlement Practices Reinforce That Unified’s Validity
`Challenges Benefit Apple, Rather Than All Practicing in a Zone
`For starters, Apple failed to rebut that Unified’s settlements benefit
`
`
`
`. Paper 57 (“Mot.”), 21-22;
`
`Opp., 24-25. When Unified settles a validity challenge for a zone Apple subscribed
`
`to, Apple receives
`
`18.
`
` EX2091, 226:25-228:8; EX2117, 89:19-90:10, 91:3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 As indicated in the Motion, “RPI” refers to both RPI and privy of the petitioner as
`
`used in Sec. 315(e)(1). Mot., 9.
`
`1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Unified’s communication to Apple further illustrates this point.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Later that year,
`
`EX2116, 1; EX2117, 89:19-90:10.
`
`
`
` EX1095, §8; EX2091, 37:22-39:17; 40:23-41:12; 42:7-14. All told,
`
`Unified leverages its validity challenges into settlement agreements
`
`
`
`
`
` Opp., 24; EX2091,
`
`90:14-23, 177:1-5.
`
`2. Apple’s Argument That Unified Ignored Apple’s Interests Is Also
`Not Credible
`Apple also claims there is “no evidence that Unified took Apple’s interests
`
`into account when” filing the Unified IPR and that “Unified considers only the
`
`interests of the Zone.” Opp., 28; EX2117, 66:1-6 (denying Apple would benefit from
`
`Unified invalidating claims). Apple, however, concedes Unified recently stopped
`
`filing IPRs precisely because of concerns over members’ interests. Opp., 21
`
`(acknowledging Unified’s concerns over “impairing the ability of … members to
`
`pursue their own IPRs”); Mot., 25; EX2095; Opp., 21. If Unified disregarded
`
`2
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Apple’s interests, as Apple claims, Unified would have continued benefitting all
`
`practicing in the zone (Unified’s stated goal) by filing IPRs over the past six months,
`
`but Unified immediately stopped doing so the moment it learned these challenges
`
`may not benefit its members – the only entities facing estoppel. Mot., 25.
`
`Apple’s admission that Unified’s “pause” in filings is “entirely rational,”
`
`actually proves the point that Unified is acting in Apple’s interests. Opp., 21.
`
`Commonsense dictates that acting in the interests of a
`
` (i.e., Apple)
`
`who pays Unified
`
` annually is entirely rational. EX2091, 40:23-41:12;
`
`42:7-14; EX2117, 53:4-15. However, denying that Unified acts in Apple’s interests
`
`is not.
`
`B. Apple’s Avoidance of Direct Communications With Unified is Irrelevant
`Apple also disputes that it participated in either the Unified IPR or the
`
`
`
` Opp., 15-18, 29; EX1024, ¶¶2.1, 2.2. However, as noted in the Motion,
`
`intentionally avoiding discussion about a forthcoming IPR in these circumstances
`
`suggests a ‘willful blindness’ strategy.” See, Mot., 23; RPX Corp. v. Applications in
`
`Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128, 17-20 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020) (AIT
`
`II).
`
`Id.; EX2091, 47:24-48:11 EX2080, 13
`
`(inferring Unified avoids
`
`3
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`communications to enable IPR filings without naming “members as RPIs”.2
`
`MemoryWeb did not rely on the
`
`
`
`t in the Unified RPI or in the Motion. Instead, MemoryWeb
`
`relied on other evidence. Mot., 9-27. And, while the Board referred to the
`
`
`
` in the RPI Order, such discussion was not determinative of the Board’s
`
`ultimate findings. The Board determined both Apple
`
` were unnamed
`
`RPIs, even though only
`
` includes
`
`
`
` (
`
`). EX2080, 34; EX2091,
`
`181:17-22.
`
`
`2 Contrary to Apple’s argument,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EX2091, 196:15-197:5, 240:14-244:23.
`
`4
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`C. The
`to Apple’s RPI Status
`Next, Apple denies the relevance of a
`
` Are Relevant
`
`, such as Apple, to encourage renewal (hereinafter,
`
`
`
`
`
`). See, EX2083; Opp., 19-20; EX2091, 91:14-92:6, 96:20-25; 97:15-98:15
`
`(quoting EX2068, 49:22-50:5). The
`
`
`
` are highly relevant
`
`because they reinforce that Apple and other paying members understand Unified’s
`
`validity challenges are Unified’s primary value proposition,
`
`
`
`. Mot., 16-19; EX2083, UNIFIED_000026, 28, 45.
`
`Apple also incorrectly claims
`
` is “no different from public
`
`information.” Opp., 20. However,
`
` (which Unified marked as
`
`“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL), includes
`
` detailing Unified’s
`
`
`
` demonstrating the
`
` corresponds to
`
`validity challenges. EX2083, UNIFIED_000019-24; Mot., 14. Unified did not
`
`dispute this in the Unified IPR, nor did Apple dispute it in its Opposition.
`
`D. Apple’s Discussion of Unified’s Contractual Obligation to File IPRs Also
`Misses the Mark
`Apple insists there are “no constraints on Unified’s discretion to file IPRs in
`
`any circumstance,” but this is not credible as Apple recognizes that Unified is
`
` to file invalidity challenges; i.e., Unified
`
`
`
`5
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
` to not file such challenges. Opp., 24; EX2117, 25:5 - 26:4, 35:5-18.
`
`Apple’s
`
` agreement refers to using
`
` EX2069, §§4.1, 4.1(c); EX2114, §2(d) (
`
`). Unified’s primary contact at Apple,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, such as the Unified IPR. Id.; EX2117, 25:5 - 26:4, 35:5-18, 85:7-12,
`
`87:21-88:3.
`
`E. Apple Does Not Contribute
` Annually For “Other Activities”
`Apple argues invalidity challenges are only one of “many forms of deterrence
`
`engaged in by Unified” and provides a list of ancillary services in Mr. Lasker’s
`
`declaration. Opp., 23 (citing EX1118, ¶11). However, evidence of these ancillary
`
`services only corroborates that Unified and members value validity challenges above
`
`all else. For example, each of the “other activities” is either directed to validity
`
`challenges or are of such a small value as compared to Apple’s overall financial
`
`contribution to Unified in exchange for the challenges:
`
`
`
`Unified offers its “reports on patenting practices” for a fee
`
`, and
`
`
`
`
`
`. EX1118, ¶11; EX2114, 2; EX2115, 4; EX2117, 42:16-43:24;
`
`6
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`46:12-47:4; 71:23-72:6.
`
`
`
`Unified offered the “database service” for a
`
`
`
`. EX1118, ¶11; EX1097, §1.1; EX2117,
`
`58:9-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Lasker also identifies “legislative reform” advocacy but was
`
`unaware of any “specific” efforts. EX1118, ¶11; EX2117, 68:7-69:1.
`
`Many of Unified’s “amicus briefs” support PTAB petitioners, including
`
`Apple. EX1118, ¶11; EX2118, (seeking en banc review of a finding by
`
`the Board that Apple lacked standing); EX2119 (challenging the
`
`Board’s reliance on its own NHK-Fintiv ruling).
`
`F. Apple’s Reliance on the Board’s Prior Determinations Misses The Mark
`Apple’s attempts to highlight the Board’s “prior determinations” also fall
`
`short. Opp., 21-24. Unified offered a similar narrative in its IPR. EX2080, 15-16.
`
`Still, the Board issued the RPI Order based on the unique factual record of these
`
`cases. EX2080, 32 (“Given this record, we find that Unified filed the Petition in
`
`this case to benefit the interests of its existing clients, Apple and Samsung,
`
`supporting a conclusion that Apple and Samsung are RPIs in this proceeding”).
`
`7
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Apple’s reliance on Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Techs. LLC (Bradium)
`
`illustrates this point. IPR2018-00952, Paper 31 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2018); Opp., 21-23,
`
`25, 29. Unlike this case, Bradium involved a patent that had not been asserted in a
`
`lawsuit “against any of Petitioner’s members.” Bradium, 9. Thus, the Patent Owner
`
`relied on Unified’s “business model alone.” Id. In this case, however, Unified filed
`
`its IPR after learning MemoryWeb asserted the ‘228 patent against Apple and
`
`Samsung. EX2091, 63:20-64:17.3 Further, Bradium was an institution decision
`
`decided based on a preliminary factual record, rather than a FWD, a distinction the
`
`Board referenced in the RPI Order. Bradium, 8; see, EX2080, n6.
`
`Apple’s reliance on Unified Pats., LLC v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip. LLC
`
`(CCE) is also misplaced because the Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence its
`
`member “directly financed” the proceeding initiated by Unified. CCE, IPR2018-
`
`0091, Paper 33 at 17 (PTAB May 22, 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Apple notes Unified already knew of the ’228 patent when Apple was sued because
`
`Samsung was sued one month earlier, but this is a distinction without a difference.
`
`Paper 64, 27. Unified filed the Unified IPR within four months of learning of both
`
`suits, understanding two paying members could benefit. Paper 57, 2.
`
`8
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`
`34:5. Indeed, Apple’s membership contributions alonePo
`x20:
`
`29:21-30:8, 37:22-39:17; 40:23-41:12: 42:7-14. Further, like Bradium, CCE issued
`
`before the Board’s precedential A/T JI decision.
`
`II.
`
`Unified Could Have Raised Apple’s Invalidity Ground
`
`Apple only disputes whether a searcher would have located A3UM and
`
`whether Unified could have raised A3UM in its IPR; it does not dispute that a
`
`diligent searcher would have located Belitz. Opp., 4-12. A skilled searcher would
`
`have easily discovered the Aperture 3 DVD containing A3UM.Apple’s arguments
`
`to the contrary are inconsistent with its arguments that A3UM wasaccessible via at
`
`least an Aperture 3 DVD andan installed copy ofAperture 3. Mot., 28-29. The Board
`
`agreed with Apple that A3UM waspublicly accessible via these means. Jd.
`
`A.
`
`Apple Did Not Show Unified Lacked Evidence to Prove the Prior
`Art Status of A3UM
`
`Apple argues Unified could not have asserted A3UM because Unified lacked
`
`“evidence neededto prove [its] prior art status”— and,in particular, access to Apple’s
`
`employee Mr. Birdsell. Opp., 4-6. But Apple cites no authority that MemoryWeb
`
`needed to do this. Instead, the Federal Circuit asks whether a skilled searcher
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover the
`
`art. See Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1299 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2023). MemoryWeb demonstrated that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent
`
`search would have located A3UM. Mot., 27-31.
`
`Apple’s argument is also based on the false premise that the only way Unified
`
`(or anyone else) could have raised A3UM is with Mr. Birdsell’s testimony and that
`
`Unified would not have been able to locate Mr. Birdsell. Opp., 7. Apple’s own
`
`evidence establishing public accessibility of Aperture 3 and A3UM would have been
`
`equally available to Unified, without Mr. Birdsell, including:
`
` Wayback Machine printouts from apple.com. EX1021; EX1074;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1076; EX1078.
`
`2010 article titled “Review: Aperture 3.” EX1044.
`
`2010 article titled “Using Aperture 3: Part 1.” EX1045.
`
`2010 article titled “Apple Release Aperture 3” from apple.com.
`
`EX1048.
`
` Webpage titled “Exploring Aperture 3” from apple.com. EX1051.
`
`
`
`2010 article titled “Apple releases Aperture 3.” EX1077.
`
`Indeed, the Board relied, at least in part, on much of this evidence in finding that
`
`“A3UM was publicly accessible through retail sales of Aperture 3 software at least
`
`10
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`as of June 2010.” Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2022-00033, Paper 39 at 47-
`
`48 (PTAB May 18, 2023); see also Paper 26 (“Reply”), 3.
`
`Had Unified needed witness testimony to raise A3UM, Unified could have
`
`contacted its member, Apple, for the identity of current or former employees who
`
`could provide the same or similar testimony as Mr. Birdsell.4 Alternatively, Unified
`
`could have (1) searched for current or former Apple employees who worked on
`
`Aperture 3, (2) procured a declaration from the authors of the articles identified
`
`above, and/or (3) procured a declaration from one of the thousands of individuals
`
`who purportedly purchased Aperture 3 in the relevant time period. Reply, 3.
`
`Moreover, as discussed infra, a skilled searcher would have identified the
`
`Aperture 3 DVD available via eBay in their search. Infra, §II.B. Apple previously
`
`argued the DVD file dates confirm A3UM necessarily existed before February 2010.
`
`Reply, 2. Unified could have relied on this same evidence.
`
`B. A Skilled Searcher Would Have Discovered Aperture 3 and A3UM
`A skilled searcher would have located Aperture 3 and A3UM. Mot., 27-31.
`
`The path to locating A3UM is straightforward:
`
`
`4 Contrary to Apple’s suggestion otherwise (Opp., 7), nothing in the Unified-Apple
`
`membership agreement prohibits this (EX2069).
`
`11
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`A skilled searcher would have learned of Aperture by reviewing the
`
`references on the face of the ‘228 patent or running keyword searches
`
`(EX2111, ¶¶34-35, 41-42, 51);
`
`
`
`A simple Google search for the Aperture manual yields a webpage
`
`literally titled “How to find the Aperture User Manual” with a link to a
`
`Wayback Machine capture of the “index” page on apple.com (EX2111,
`
`¶¶43-45; EX2102; EX2103; cf. EX2104 and EX1021, 6);
`
`The searcher would know a physical copy could be obtained via eBay
`
`(EX2111, ¶50); and
`
`Once an Aperture 3 DVD was acquired (as both parties did in this case),
`
`the searcher or a POSITA (e.g., Unified’s expert) could access the
`
`manual (Mot., 28-29).
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple presents no testimony from a skilled searcher to rebut Mr. Lhymn’s
`
`opinions; instead, it presents only attorney arguments.
`
`First, Apple argues that Mr. Lhymn’s opinions are flawed because his
`
`“investigation improperly started from knowledge of A3UM’s existence.” Opp., 9.
`
`But Apple cites no authority that a full-scale, blind search is necessary, and ignores
`
`that Aperture 3 was locatable from the references on the face of the ‘228 patent.
`
`Apple’s argument that Mr. Lhymn “used a search tool that he admitted he had
`
`12
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`not used until 2023” ignores his unrebutted testimony that the PatWorld tool was (1)
`
`readily available and used by skilled searchers in 2021 and (2) works the same way
`
`in 2023 as it did in 2021. Opp., 9; EX2111, ¶¶29, 38; EX1115, 62:17-22. Apple
`
`proffers no evidence to the contrary.
`
`Second, Mr. Lhymn’s testimony that a skilled searcher would have reviewed
`
`all the references cited on the face of the ‘228 patent, including the Hoffman
`
`reference that would lead a searcher to investigate Aperture, is unrebutted. EX1115,
`
`163:18-22, 167:16-168:15; EX2111, ¶¶35, 51. That counsel identified Hoffman to
`
`Mr. Lhymn in no way detracts from that conclusion. Opp., 11. Notably, Apple does
`
`not dispute that Hoffman refers to “Aperture” in connection with a feature highly
`
`relevant to the ‘228 patent claims, which would motivate the searcher to investigate
`
`Aperture. Id., ¶51. Apple’s Aperture product would have been of particular interest
`
`to the searcher because the ‘228 patent was asserted against Apple. EX2111, ¶¶16,
`
`26; EX1115, 20:21-21:6.
`
`Third, Apple argues that to locate the Salvador patent, the searcher would have
`
`to first review 99 references in the results. Opp., 10. But Apple does not dispute that
`
`a skilled searcher would have performed the search that yielded Salvador. EX2111,
`
`¶¶41-42. Apple also proffers no evidence rebutting Mr. Lhymn’s testimony that a
`
`skilled searcher would have reviewed each of the results, which is “a very low
`
`13
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2127
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`IPR2022-00031 Patent Owner’s Reply ISO Motion to Terminate
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`number for a skilled searcher to review.” EX1115, 52:6-53:24; see also id., 68:15-
`
`20. Running searches with basic keywords and classification codes and reviewing
`
`the results for additional references is hardly a “scorched earth campaign” – it is a
`
`skilled searcher’s standard practice. Opp., 10; EX2111, ¶¶34, 42.
`
`Fourth, Apple complains that Mr. Lhymn did not retrieve the Aperture URL
`
`listed on Salvador and instead Google searched “Apple aperture manual.” Opp., 10-
`
`11. This is irrelevant. Consistent with Apple’s prior arguments, a skilled searcher
`
`would perform a Google and eBay search using the search string “Apple aperture
`
`manual.” EX2110, ¶¶43-53; see also Reply, 4-5.
`
`Apple’s argument that Mr. Lhymn did not locate EX1005 because he failed
`
`to obtain a DVD from eBay (Opp., 11 n.2) misses the point and ignores reality; i.e.,
`
`there is no dispute that a skilled searcher could have obtained the Aperture 3 DVD
`
`from eBay in 2021 and that both parties actually obtained DVDs from eBay in 2021.
`
`Mot., 31. Mr. Lhymn’s testimony that a skilled searcher “would be aware that
`
`physical copies of older technical manuals are easily accessible online, via eBay”
`
`and that a searcher could order one “to ensure the technical manual is complete” is
`
`unrebutted. EX211