PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate Demonstrative Exhibit MemoryWebEx. 2128
`
`IPR2022-0003 1
`U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2128
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`

`

`‘228 Patent Litigation Matters
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`MIT, 2-6
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Unified Reasonably Could Have Asserted the
`
`Apple Grounds in its IPR DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Legal Standard
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)
`
`The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent underthis chapter
`that results in a final written decision under section 318(a), or the real party in
`interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before
`the Office with respect to that claim on any groundthatthe petitioner raised or
`reasonably could haveraised during thatinter partes review.
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`lronburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
`
`Estoppelapplies “to all groundsnot stated in the
`petition but which reasonably could have been asserted
`against the claims included in the petition.”
`
`A ground reasonably could have been asserted when “a
`skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably
`would have been expected to discover” the relied-upon
`references.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Mot. to Terminate (Paper 57, “MITT"”), 27
`
`

`

`MemoryWeb's Skilled Searcher
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`>» MemoryWebpresented evidence from skilled searcher: Mr. Eugene Lhymn
`
`EUGENE LHYMN
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`225 South Lake Ave, Suite 300, Pasadena, CA 91101-626-432-7292
`Eugene. ihymn@shermanpatentsearch.com-https://www.linkedin.com/in/eugenelhymn/
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE,INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`MEMORYWEB,LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 1PR2022-00031
`
`DECLARATION OF EUGENE LHYMN
`
`EDUCATION
`B.S. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
`
`EXPERIENCE
`2012 ~ PRESENT
`CEO, FOUNDER, SHERMAN PATENT SEARCH GROUP, LLC
`®
`100% U.S.-BASED PATENT SEARCH FIRM, PROVIDING A FULL RANGE OF
`PATENT SEARCH SERVICES
`2019 — PRESENT
`CEO, FOUNDER,VISUALIZE IP, LLC
`@
`COMPUTER VISION PATENT SEARCH SAAS STARTUP
`
`2005 - 2012
`SENIOR ANALYST, CARDINALIP
`@
`PERFORM PATENT SEARCHES
`@ REVIEW PATENT SEARCHES FROM TEAM
`e
`TRAIN SEARCH ANALYSTS IN BEST PRACTICES
`
`2004 - 2005
`PATENT EXAMINER, USPTO
`e MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PATENT EXAMINER, TC 3727
`e
`PRIOR ART SEARCH
`e DRAFT OFFICE ACTIONS TO COUNSEL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MIT, 27-31
`
`

`

`Unrebutted Evidence of a Diligent Search
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`28.
`
`An ordinarily skilled searcher conducting a reasonably diligent search
`
`Mr. Lhymn’s Declarationiterativelysearchthroughindividualcodes,combinedwithwould classification
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35._keywordstringsofa subject potent to inceementally and reasonably inerenceIn addition, an ordinarily skilled searcher conducting a reasonably search
`
`
`‘
`‘
`,
`th
`fthe
`prior art search. According
`to the above
`public
`patentoffice indexes,
`
`diligent search during the Timeframe wouldreviewallreferencescitedonthefaceee areca _ eerie —
`
`the relevant classifications of claims 1-19 of the ‘228 patent, include at least the
`
`
`of‘228patent. Patent references cited on the face of ‘228 can be obtained via
`
`below:
`
`Patworld, and non-patent literature references cited on the face of ‘228 can be
`
`obtained via the USPTO PAIR system, or Google, amongst other non-patent
`
`e CPC class GO6F (Electrical Digital Data Processing), subclass 16/51
`
`(Indexing; data structures therefor; storage structures) (relevant to the ‘228
`
`literature sources. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled searcher would review those
`
`patent)
`
`
`references cited on the face of ‘228 patentforfurthercitationsordisclosureof¢ CPC class GO6F (Electrical Digital Data Processing), subclass 3/0481
`
`
`additionalpriorart.This citation approach is effective in developing a “trail” of (based on specific properties of the displayed interaction object or a
`
`
`prior art for review by an ordinarily skilled searcher.
`
`EX2111, 135
`
`metaphor-based environment, ¢.g., interaction with desktop elements like
`
`windows or icons, or assisted by a cursor’s changing behaviour or
`
`appearance)(relevant to the ‘228 patent)
`
`EX2111, 1 28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 28-29; MTT Reply (Paper 71), 12
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Aperture 3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Mr. Lhymn’s Declaration
`
`Your iPhone camera tags your photos
`with the location where they were taken
`(unless, that is, you don’t wantit to) and
`embedsthis information in them. You can
`then view images by location with a fea-
`ture called Places. Here’s how to do this
`with the Photos app:
`
`51.
`
`In addition, as discussed above, a skilled searcher of ordinary skill
`
`1
`
`Places
`to zoom on a particular area. As
`
`Tap the Photos app, end then tap
`Places at the bottom of the screen.
`2.
`Amap appears, with red pins mark-
`ing locations with photos (Fig-
`
`
`
`during the Timeframewouldreviewallreferencescitedonthefaceof‘228patent.
`ure 1-20). Tap a pin, and you'll see
`how many images are tagged for
`that location. Tap the arrow in the
`blue circle to view those images
`
`
`
`
`3
`From the map, double-tap or use
`the pinch-and-spread technique
`
`One of the references on the face of ‘228 patent is Hoffman (“Create Great iPhone
`
`Photos").HoffmanmentionstheAppleApertureproducton page 18, mentioning
`
`“Events and Faces”sorting features. Ex. 2004, 18. The ‘228 patent claims a “map
`
`you zoom, additionalpinswill likely
`FIGURE 1-20: By tapping Places,
`appear, because the location data
`a mapis displayed with red pins
`
`
`view” and “people view” whichwouldpromptaskilledsearchertoidentifyApple
`is displayed more precisely,
`for locations with photos.
`
`Facesand Events
`
`Ifyou useAilesthtsdrApettirsactieemyo. will have the option ofviewing
`
`EX2111, 951
`
`your photos by tapping Events anc Faces—features that sort your images by occa-
`sion andbyindividual. (The Faces feature uses face detection technology tofind
`people in your photos.) For these features to work on your iPhone, you will need
`to synchronize Events and Faces using iTunes. The Events and Faces icons won't
`appear within the Photos appif you don’t synchronize your Events and Faces(orif
`you're not using a Macintosh computer).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2004, 18
`
`MTT, 29-30; MTT Reply, 13-16
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Mr. Lhymn’s Declaration
`
`eBay Search Results
`
`53. Additionally, as discussed above, an ordinarily skilled searcher
`
`conducting a reasonably diligent search in the Timeframe would be aware that
`
`Hi
`Sion
`or
`cegiste
`DalyDesh
`ebay Shopey vy
`Category
`a
`aM
`
`«
`
`
`
`search string “Apple Aperture Manual” in eBay returns numerous listings of
`
`Aperture 3 installation DVD’s, which contain the official technical manual of
`
`Running the
`
`For Opereting Systems
`Language
`
`Band
`
`Format
`
`Condition
`
`© Naw
`iw
`©) Used
`D> Not Specited
`4
`
`Aperture 3. Based on my experience, eBay works in materially the same way as
`
`Grand Qutet Heb & Contact
`
`appleaperture manual
`Ali Categories
`
`Buy tNow
`faction
`23 msuls for apple aperurema,,,
`
`—Consica v=
`
`Shipprg
`
`Local w
`
`Te: newyiises v=
`
`Si Yartisy Mety~ JY
`
`b>
`
`a
`#
`
`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located a DVD
` BeanNew
`
`APPLE APERTURE 2 FOR MAC PHOTO EDITING FOR MACINTOSH- NEW
`SHRINKWRAPPED MB284Z/4
`tok whee
`Er
`
`$22.56
`dds
`
`$
`
`opine,
`
`Sep-7 19:C0
`avemorris(Z.574) 100%
`
`a
`Apple Aperture 3 and Aperture 2 Photo Editing Software with Box and
`Manuals
`New(Other)
`
`$9.99
`2 bde
`$12.99
`Bey It Now
`*33.92 shipping
`
`Bep-3 18:44
`rbirdauations (337) 100%
`
`Pice
`© Undar $12.00
`Apple Aperture 3 2007 manual ONLY no software: original manual trom
`© s1200t0s1a00
`Apple very g
`O ove $18.90
`Prn-Qwnee
`
`$3 Min to|$ Max
`they did during the Timeframe. Ex. 2108 shows that Aperture DVD’s were indeed
`$10.00
`Aug-16 08:08
`Buy It Now
`michuea66(77) 100%
`°$3.02
`shipping
`
`available during the relevant Timeframe.
`
`EX2111, 153
`
`lh
`
`st
`
`j
`
`Merny
`
`$1000
`
`ill
`
`EX2109
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 30-31; MTT Reply, 14-16
`
`

`

`Unitied Could Have Located an Aperture 3 DVD
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Dr. Terveen’s Declaration
`
`Petitioner's Sept. 17, 2021 Order
`
`97.
`
`In addition to the copy of Aperture 3 that was provided to me by
`
`Buyer |
`Sam Dillon
`litem
`$24.90
`fromathirdpartyviaeBay.See EX1052 (eBay order details, redacted to remove Seller mikedu ek Fe Shipping $7.95
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PlacedonSep17,2021 es $149
`counsel’s personal information). This copy wasindistinguishable physically from
`Payment
`Credit Card
`United States
`eactaneasis
`rr
`the Apple-provided copy other than a sticker on the front that said “Academic.”
`Paid on
`Sep17, 2021
`
`OnceI installed this copy of Aperture 3 using the samestepsI outlined above for
`
`the Apple-provided copy, I was provided access to the same Aperture 3.0 software
`
`product as well as the same Help and HTMLversions of the Aperture 3 User
`
`Manualthat I describe below. Based on my review,the content of the Aperture 3
`
`Items boughtfrom mikedusek
`Order number: 14 07615 23854
`
`Qty Item name
`
`Shipping ervice
`a
`nvelope
`
`tem
`oles
`
`EX1003, 9] 97
`
`EX1052
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 30-31; MTT Reply, 14-15
`
`

`

`The Board Accepted Apple’s Arguments
`
`Regarding A3UM's Accessibility
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Apple’s Public Accessibility Arguments
`
`Second, A3UM existed in February 2010. Witnesses from both parties
`
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb,LLC
`IPR2022-00033, Paper 39 at 48 (PTAB May 18, 2023)
`
`testifieditislocatedonandcanberetrievedfrom(i)theInstallerDVDand(ii)a
`
`
`
`
`
`localcopyoftheApertureapplicationbundleafterinstallation.EX1003, 9977-96;
`Wedeterminethat Petitioner has shown by a preponderanceof the
`evidence that the A3UM HTMLfile set present on the Aperture 3
`
`EX1020, 9]12-16; EX2025, 4109; EX1089, 139:20-140:1, 143:9-13. Dr. Surati
`
`installation DVDis a printed publication. Even though the HTMLfile set
`
`confinediheInstallerDVDhascretion
`
`was hidden after installation,anyonewhohadtheinstallerDVDcould
`
`).., Aperture
`
`EX1089, 125:3-25; EX1073, 1 (right).
`
`
`
`¥ General:
`Kind. Volurne
`Created: Thursday, January 21,2010 8:44 PM
`
`Reply (Paper37), 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MIT, 29; MTT Reply, 15
`
`

`

`Unified Did Not Need Mr. Birdsell’s Testimony To
`
`Reasonably Raise AZUM
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Apple’s Public Accessibility Arguments
`
`Fourth, the Installer DVD was publicly distributed starting in February of
`
`2010. An array of evidence corroboratesthis, including (i) Apple’s press release
`
`(EX1048, 1), (ii) Mr. Birdsell’s recollections aboutits release date, his activities
`
`aroundthat release date, and that he witnessedit for sale in Apple stores then
`
`Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb, LLC
`IPR2022-00033, Paper 39 at 47-48 (PTAB May18, 2023)
`
`that suggests Mr. Birdsell’s testimony is unreliable. Petitioner, however, has
`
`provided corroborating evidence to show that Aperture 3 was marketed,
`
`including a press release (Exhibit 1048), a feature on the home page of
`
`Apple (Exhibit 1021), and two separate reviewerarticles (Exhibits 1044,
`
`1045). See also Ex. 2026, 57:3—12 (stating that the presence of Aperture 3
`
`manufacture three separate versions also supports this finding. Though
`
`(EX1020, 95-7; EX2026, 59:10-60:10, 62:4-21), and (iii) webpages captured
`
`Petitioner’s expert apparently lacked personal knowledge of Aperture 3 prior
`
`between February and June 2010 reporting experiences of people using Aperture 3.
`
`EX1044, 1; EX1045, 2; EX1077, 1; EX1089, 181:14-182:11, 192:2-7, 189:10-14,
`
`170:6-13.
`
`Reply (Paper37), 3
`
`to this case, Mr. Birdsell’s testimony, along with the other evidence
`
`corroborating Apple’s marketing and sales of Aperture 3, shows that
`
`POSITAs would likely have known about Aperture 3. See, e.g., Ex. 1020,
`
`{| 7 (noting that at least 100,000 copies of Aperture 3 were sold); Ex. 2026,
`
`51:16—20 (stating that website analytics corresponded with sales); 54:15—22
`
`(discussing website access volume for Aperture 3); Exs. 1044, 1045, 1048
`
`(published press releases and product reviews of Aperture 3). Wefindit far
`
`more likely than not that A3UM waspublicly accessible throughretail sales
`
`of Aperture 3 software at least as of June 2010.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 30-31; MTT Reply, 10-11;
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Aperture 3
`
`Through Multiple Methods
`
`Mr. Lhymn’s Declaration
`
`41.
`
`Running the search string (metadata* and imag*) identified above,
`
`42.
`
`As discussed above,a skilled searcher of ordinary skill conducting a
`
`reasonably diligent search in the Timeframe would review the references cited on
`through the Patworld prior art search tool for global patents within classification
`
`
`In this case,the face ofthe patents reviewed during the search.Salvadorcitesan
`CPC GO6F 16/51 (Electrical Digital Data Processing), returned a list of 141 search
`
`
`AppleAperturemanualonitsface,namely: “Apple Computer, Inc. Technical
`results. The search string returned patents that include variations of “metadata” and
`Manual, Aperture Getting Started, 2006.”
`
`“image” in the title, abstract, or claims of the references. This search, which is
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`effectively the same search tool and the same prior art databases during the
` TiamfinanlUSeloRDOearlAErecente
`
` “141
`
`searchresults.In particular, Salvador was the 100th result out of 141. Ex. 2100
`is a true and correct copy of these Patworld searchresults.
`
`EX2111, 141
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MIT, 29-30; MTT Reply, 13
`
`Ex. 2101, cover
`
`EX2111, 4 42
`
`JETTA CP-3451, “Exchangeable imagefile format for digital still
`cameras: ExifVersion 2.2”, Standard of Japan Electronics and Infor-
`mation Technology Industries Association, Apr. 2002.*
`Flickr, “Popular Tags on Flickr Photo Sharing” printed Sep. 27, 2006,
`
`http://www.flickr.com’photostags, pp. 1-2.
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Aperture 3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`43. As discussed above, a skilled searcher can easily obtain digital copies
`
`“manual”inGoogle(as shown below)returnsa hit titled “How to find the Aperture I
`
`Browse
`
`Search
`
`
`
`
`
`Communit
`
`User Manual” underthefirst result. Ex. 2102 is a true and correct printout of these
`
`Google searchresults.
`
`Ex 2111, | 43
`
`About 6,660,000 results (0.32 seconds)
`
`“em Iéonie
`
`(C4
`
`Level10 (193,597points)
`
`Howto find the Aperture User Manual
`
`@& Aple Support
`httds. (sup porlapple.com > manuals
`ok Ik 1 741 views—Last modified Feb 22, 2020 2:01 AM1 like
`
`
`Manuals
`Browse Manuals by Product - Aperture 3.5 - User Guide - Aperture3-
`Exploring Aperture»Aperture 3 - Keyboard Shortcuts'Aperture 3 - Installing Your Software.
`
`httgs://prohelp.apple.com » aperture_otherhelp
`
`Exploring Aperture
`Aperture can automatically locate images on the mapif the camera has recorded GPS
`information. You can also manually specify the location of an image,and...
`
`Update: It is now back:
`
`
`https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1560/en_US/Aperture_3_User_Manual.pdf
`
`hitgssifdeveloper. apple.com» 1436594-aperiure
`aperture | Apple Developer Documentation
`A factor that determines the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. Animatable
`
`EX2 ] 03
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2102
`
`MTT, 30; MTT Reply, 12-14
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Aperture 3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`INTERNET ARCHIVE
`
`|http://docume
`
`
`
`
`
`ion.apr
`
`13 Feb 2010 - & Aug 2018
`
`& websarchiveorg/web/20190504121245/httpy'documentationapple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/indexhtrr
` [fitp.idocumentaton apple comenianetue/usermanualindex. Him
`
`iereiser cecurye
`
`
`72captures
`wayogenmacnine
`
` CS
`
` Aperture sa powerhil and aasy-to-ixedijral mage management systernthal
`
`
`
`With Aperture,
`you canefficiently import digital mages,
`perform a photo edit, ad
`you work with high-quality JPEG, TIFF, and RAW imagefiles—and even HD video |
`
`
`This preface covers
`‘ollowing:
`* ADout
`Aperture
`* About
`the Aperture
`
`-
`
`Documerkate
`
`3 User Monvel
`@ Averture
`Wekometo Aperture
`An Overeny o} Aperture
`The Aperture Interface
`Workieo with theAperture Uibenry
`Importing Images
`Workleg with Imoges ty the
`Browser
`Dioptoylng Dneges in the Viewer
`Viewing Images in Full Serean View
`Stacking Images and Naking Pick:
`Rating Images
`Agptyiag Keywords to lmages
`Workira with Metadata
`Organizing ameges with Faces
`Locating and Organizing meges
`with Plces:
`Using PhetoStream
`Searching for end Displaying
`Ameges
`GroupingImageswith Smart
`Albunes
`An Overview of Tmage Adjustments,
`Moking Image Adiustments
`Making Brushed Adjustments
`Printing Your Imager
`Exporting Your Imagox
`Creating Slideshow Presentations
`Using theLight rable
`Creating Books
`Cresting Webpages
`Sharing Your Images Online
`Backing Up Your Images
`Castorsizing the Aperture
`Workspace
`
`Apple EX1021, 6
`
`
`@ Aperture 3
`User Manual
`
`©) Aperture 3 User Manual
`Welcometo Aperture
`An Overview of Aperture
`The Aperture Interface
`Working with the Aperture Library
`Importing Images
`Working with Imagesin the
`Browser
`Displaying Images in the Viewer
`Viewing Images in Full Screen
`View
`Stacking Images and Making Picks
`Rating Images
`Applying Keywords to Images
`Working with Metadata
`Organizing Images with Faces
`Locating and Organizing Images
`with Places
`Searching for and Displaying
`Images
`Grouping Images with Smart
`Albums
`An Overview of Image
`Adjustments
`Making Image Adjustments
`Making Brushed Adjustments
`Printing Your Images
`Exporting Your Images
`Creating Slideshow Presentations
`Using the LightTable
`Creating Books
`Creating Webpages
`Sharing Your Images Online
`Backing Up Your Images
`Customizing the Aperture
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2104
`
`MTT Reply, 12
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Beliiz
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`The Petition
`
`Il.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Claims1-19 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIAorpre-
`
`Mr. Lhymn’s Declaration
`
`57.
`
`Runningthe search string (map* and thumbnail* and imag*), identified
`
`above,
`
`through the Patworld prior art search tool
`
`for global patents within
`
`classification CPC GO6F 3/0481, also identified above, and limited to references
`
`with a priority date before June 9, 2011, returned a list of 76 search results. The
`
`searchstring returned patents that includes variations of“map” and “thumbnail” and
`
`“image”in the title, abstract, and claims of the references. This search, which is
`
`effectively the same search tool and the same prior art databases during the
`
`
`
`
`Timeframe,returnedBelitzasamongthe76searchresults.In particular, Belitz was
`Petition, 3
`
`the 37th result out of 76. Ex. 2109 is a true and correct copy ofthese searchresults.
`
`58.
`Based on myinvestigation, it is my opinion that an ordinarily skilled
`
`searcher exercising reasonable diligence during the Timeframewouldandshould
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 28; MTT Reply, 9
`
`patent using,at least, the search strings and prior art searching resources available
`
`during the Timeframe.
`
`EX2111, 11 57-58
`
`

`

`A Skilled Searcher Would Have Located Beliiz
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Samsung's IPR Petition
`
`Apple’s Sept. 24, 2021 Letter to MemoryWeb’s Counsel
`
`‘SamsunglearnedofOkamura and Belitz, the references advanced in this
`
`
`
`
`Apple's products. For example,U.S.PatentApp.Pub.No.20100058212("Belitz”),
`published in 2010 and assigned to Nokia, also discloses a map for viewing and organizing
`
`
`
`
`
`petition, throughpriorartsearchingthatcommencedinJune2021.With the
`photos grouped by location, complete with interactive thumbnails:
`
`Norwerethe sort of features that MemoryWebclaimsare coveredby its patents limited to
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. MemoryWeb,LLC
`IPR2022-00222, Paper 2 at 83 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2023)
`
`EX2112, 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MIT, 28
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`tet A| ie <i) oh |
`
`PROPER
`
`TERMINATION OF
`THE ENTIRE
`PROCEEDING IS
`
`

`

`Termination of the Entire Proceeding is Proper
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`> 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) contemplates termination in these circumstances
`
`> Apple failed to respond to the policies underlying RPI and privy provisions
`of 35 U.S.C. § 315 that support termination
`
`> “Lengthy and duplicative proceedings are one of the worst evils...[during
`Which] a patent owneris effectively prevented from enforcing his patent.”
`
`> “Core function” of these provisions is “to protect owners from harassment”
`from:
`
`> Multiple proceedings (Unified files on less than all claims; Apple files on all claims)
`
`> “Second bite at the apple”
`
`> Protect the integrity of the USPTO/Federal Courts (Unified’s settlements only benefit
`members)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 31-36; Reply MTT, 17-19
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Apple is an RPI to the Unified IPR DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`RPI Order
`
`The Board's Unified RPI Order
`
`
`
`
`“Unified’s first learning that the ’228 patent was being asserted against its members, Apple
`and Samsung, the subsequent preparation and filing of the Petition by Unified’s in-house
`attorneys, the reporting of the filing of the Petition and Decision to Institute to Apple,
`Samsung, and other Unified members,[I
`
`, all indicate that Unified prepared andfiled the
`its members Apple and Samsung, supporting a
`Petition in this case to benefit
`conclusion that Apple and Samsungare RPIs in this proceeding.”
`
`EX2080, 22-33
`
`MIT, 3-5
`
`

`

`RPI and Privity Inquiries
`been filed at a nonparty’s behest.”
`invalidated”
`
`Applications in Internet Time v. RPX,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (AIT |)
`“Determining whether a non-party is a ‘real party in
`interest’ demandsa 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.”
`“Courts should] bea[r] in mind who will benefit from
`having
`[the
`challenged]
`claims
`canceled’
`or
`
`Aruze ¥. RAG! Gaming
`IPR2014-01288, Paper 13 (Feb. 20, 2015)
`“The word ‘privy’ has acquired an expanded
`meaning. The courts, in the interest of justice
`and to prevent expensive litigation, are
`striving to give effect
`to judgments by
`extending ‘privies’ beyond the classical
`description. The emphasis
`is not on a
`concept of identity of parties, but on the
`practical situation.”
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`“[Two factors are] whether a non-party ‘desires
`review of the patent’ and whethera petition has
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MIT, 7-8
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Unified’s Business Model and Operations
`
`Contirm Apple is an RPI DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Unitied is a Top PTAB Petitioner
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Unified Website-2021
`
` Unified Website - 2023
`sx
`
`“Unified has filed more patent challenges than all other third-
`etitioners combined.
`
`Moreover, we have
`successfully neutralized more patents than any otherthird-party.”
`
`95%
`
`Success Rate
`In 2020
`
`Bas
`ty
`
`instituted
`28%
`
`Adverse Judgment
`
`Petitioner
`
`Apple Inc Q
`
`Google LLC Q
`
`Samsung Q
`
`Samsung Electronics America Inc Q
`
`Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Q
`
`Microsoft Corp Q
`PoPiriiii
`
`i Unified Patents LLC Q
`:SOCOOOOOOOOSESSESEOEEEEEEEESESSESSESEEEESEEESESSESSESEESEESESSESEESESSESSESSESSESESSESSEOSESSOSEOSED
`
`Intel Corp Q
`
`#Cases
`
`948
`
`583
`
`557
`
`436
`
`+
`Poeeoeoreereoreoeees-
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2065,1; EX2083, UNIFIED_O0001 |
`
`EX2065, |
`
`MIT, 14-15
`
`

`

`Apple’s Fees Fund Unified’s Validity Challenges
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`2022 Jakel Transcript — Unified IPR
`
`2023 Jakel Transcript — Apple IPR
`
`Q. And then | asked: “That aM came from membership
`fees?” Then there was an objection. But ultimately you said
`“That's correct.”
`A.
`| said that but, | mean, it-
`a
`
`Q. RM NPE zone revenue that you collect comes from
`membership fees, correct?
`A. Yes, that's -- | believe that's correct, yeah.
`
`EX2091, 29:21 - 30:8, 31:18 - 32:17, 33:11-34:5
`
`A. So Unified Patents has what wecall zones and in those
`zones we have members and from those we have two
`
`different areas of zones. We have the standard essential
`patent zones and then wealso have zonesrelated to NPE, so
`what_we call NPE zones, [Jia
`
`aa
`
`.
`
`| believe our Jj revenue wasx
`A.
`in that ballpark.
`Q. That RRRcame from membership fees?
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`EX2068, 35:10-23; 36:7-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MITT, 11-12
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`RPI Order
`
`4k
`
`“Unified’s business model, finances, and operations are
`structured to support Unified’s patent validity
`challenges,
`including patent reexamination and the
`filing of petitions for IPR. These activities act to protect
`0 nified Files
`Unified’s members, including Apple and Samsung,from
`the threat of patent
`litigation and are important
`P nn
`t
`> ola ‘eo core_subscriptioncomponents of Unified’s
`
`
`
`Apple's Behest
`ee
`
`
`
`“Even though Unified’s members may not decide which
`patents Unified challenges,
`it
`is not credible to
`suggest that Apple and Samsung do not expect
`Unified to file petitions for IPRs against patents they
`are accused ofinfringing... .”
`
`EX2080, 22, 30
`
`we
`
`>
`
`MIT, 15-19
`
`

`

`Apple-Unified Agreemenis To File Validity
`
`Challenges
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Ga Membership Agreement
`
`ME Zone Agreement
`
`EX2069, 4.1]
`
`EX2114, 2, 2(d)
`
`Applications in Internet Time v. RPX,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (AIT!)
`
`“[A] nonparty to an IPR can be a real party in interest
`even without entering into an express or implied
`agreementwiththe petitionerto file an IPR petition.”
`
`b—
`
`MTT, 15-19: MTT Reply, 5-6
`
`

`

`Apple's Funding of Unified’s IPR
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Membership fees, such as thosepaid by Apple,i Unitied’s
`“technology zone” business
`Apple currently pays Unifiedi annually
`Payments account for Jiifof Unitied’sMM in annual revenue
`FeesI for thea
`ee NPE” zones and SEP zone (both include
`validity challenges)
`
`MIT, 11-12, 15-19; MTT Reply, 5, 8-9
`
`

`

`Uniftied’s Soend on Member-Funded Validity
`
`Challenges DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2083, UNIFIED_000019
`
`MIT, 12-15; MTT Reply, 5
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Unitied’s Value Proposition to Apple: Filing IPRs
`way to stop unreasonable ~ Monitored Apple lawsuit in May 2021
`
`Unified Website - 2021
`> Unified first learned of the ‘228 patent
`“Challenging invalid patents instead of
`from district court filings
`paying for expensive licenses has
`proved
`
`- Monitored Samsunglawsuitin April 2021 themostcosteffectiveandto be
`
`assertions.”
`
`> Filed the Unified IPR petition in
`Septem ber 2021
`> Ma | led notice O t e U Nl ied
`iti
`f h
`E
`AD Dp le | a Se ptemM bei 202 1
`
`IPR
`
`to
`
`2068
`MEMORYWEBPATENTCHALLENGED
`managementsystems,EiscurrenthgteingsseertedagainstAppleandSensing.oo,
`content
`to
`relates
`by MemoryWeby.dakCy..an..NE...The.228..patant.geverally
`owned
`10,621,228,
`View district courtlitigations by MemoryWeb, LLC. To read the petition and view the case record, see
`
`On September 3, 2021, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent
`
`Unified’s Portal. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, Ellyar Barazesh and Ashraf Fawzy.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MITT, 16-19; MTT Reply, 5
`
`EX2074, |
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Uniftied’s Value Proposition to Apple: Filing IPRs DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MITT, 16-19; MTT Reply, 5-6
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`RPI Order
`
`IN® ole Desired
`RES NALSNAY, ‘elare mols
`Benefited
`
`5
`
`| “This evidence leads to the inference
`case to benefit its members Apple
`and
`Samsung,
`supporting
`a
`conclusion that Apple and Samsung
`are RPls in this proceeding.”
`
`that Unified filed the Petition in this
`
`EX2080, 22
`
`MTT, 19-20: MTT Reply, 1-3
`
`

`

`Denying That Apple Benefits is Not Credible
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Apple/Unified’s implausible claims:
`> “Unified does not and cannot knowif”
`Apple benefits
`> “INJo evidence that Unified took
`Apple’s interests into account”
`> “Unified considers only the interests
`of the Zone.”
`
`> “It really is not about the individual
`members in terms of the benefit of
`what we do on behalf of the
`technology area.”
`
`EX2077, 9113; EX2117, 66:1-6; EX2091, 90:14-23, 177:1-5
`
`The truth: Apple benefits
`> Apple’s
`> Of the countless options, Unified chose to
`challengethis ’228 patent asserted
`against Apple
`> Filed its own IPR seeking the same result
`(invalid ‘228 patent claims)
`ee
`> Cannotbe found toinfringe invalidated
`claims
`
`> Enjoys two “bites at the apple”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MITT, 15-20; MTT Reply, 1-3; Opp., 28
`
`

`

`The Unified IPR Benefits Apple
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`r
`
`Unified Website
`
`instead of paying for
`“Challenging invalid patents
`expensive licenses has proved to be the most cost-
`effective and successful way to stop unreasonable
`assertions.”
`
`
`
`
`
`“Because Unified Patents offers its Micro-Pool solution
`on a technology-by-technology basis, companies can
`subscribe to and pay for only these Micro-Pools they
`need. This
`structure provides complete
`alignment
`between Unified Patents and its member companies.
`Companies can be confident that their subscription fees
`are exclusively used to reduce the risk of NPEs targeting
`their key technologies.”
`
`AIT I, 897 F.3d at 1363
`
`“The invalidation of AIT's patents-in-suit
`would directly benefit Salesforce because
`Salesforce was sued byAIT for infringing
`the same patents.”
`
`
`
`2023 Jakel Transcript
`
`“We want to work on behalf of the zone. And
`we, you know, hope that members appreciate
`that work, and in doing so, you know,continue
`to remain members.”
`
`
`
`r
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2065, 1; EX2063,
`
`|
`
`EX2091, 89:9-12
`
`MIT, 16-22
`
`

`

`Unified’s settlement practices
`directly benefit only members
`
`> Validity challenges lead to settlements
`
`>
`
`Unitied’s Settlement Practices Directly Benefit
`Members
`
`1 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2116,
`
`MTT, 20-22; MTT Reply, 1-2
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Jakel Transcript
`
`“A.
`
`| mean, | have no knowledge about whetheror
`
`EX2091, 177:1-5
`
`Not credible:
`
`> Filed one or more IPR/PGR petitions each calendar month
`since March 2021
`
`IPR/PGR petitions stopped after the March 8, 2023 RPI Order
`
`Unified could have continued benefiting the zone with
`IPRs/PGRs, but stopped for the interest of paying members -
`the only parties facing estoppel
`
`Case
`
`nified Patents, LLC v. Competitive Access Systems,Inc.
`PR2023-00584 (PTAB)
`
`
`
`Unitied Stopped Filing IPRs for Members
`not Apple wants estoppel to apply or not.”
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Togail Technologies Ltd.
`PR2023-00338 (P TAB)
`
`Jnified Patents, LLC v. DynapassIP Holdings LLC
`IPR2023-00425(PTAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Ozmo Licensing LLC
`PR2023-00193 (P TAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation
`PR2022-01508 (PTAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Mel NavIP LLC
`PR2023-00083 (P TAB)
`
`Jnified Patents, LLC v. Peter Hennk Pedersen
`PR2023-00029 (PTAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Corrigent Corporation
`PR2022-01514 (PTAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Electronics and lelecommunications ResearchInstitute et al
`PGR2022-00060 (P TAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Torchlight Technologies LLC etal
`IPR2022-01500 (P TAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Sunflower Licensing LLC
`PR2022-01498 (P TAB)
`
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Backertop Licensing LLC
`IPR2022-01438 (P TAB)
`
`Case Filing Date w
`frrsescescees*s
`?Mar. 01, 2023
`
`Feb, 02, 2023
`
`Jan. 06, 2023
`
`Dec. 06, 2022
`
`Nov. 21, 2022
`
`Oct. 24, 2022
`
`Oct. 14, 2022
`
`Sep. 29, 2022
`
`Sep. 28, 2022
`
`Sep. 22, 2022
`
`Sep. 16, 2022
`
`Sep. 02, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MTT, 23-27: MTT Reply, 2-3
`
`EX2095
`
`

`

`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`RPI Order
`
`“Despite Unified’see
`
`EX2080, 28 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`MemoryWeb Has Aiara
`Not Relied on
`Direct
`Communications
`ols Coord | nation
`,
`,
`
`:
`This creates an obvious advantage for Unified’s
`members because it allows Unified to act as a
`proxy
`for
`its members’
`interests’ while
`RPI, thus insulating Unified’s members from being
`attempting to avoid naming its members as an
`
`subjected to the statutory estoppel provisions of 35
`U.S.C. § 315(e).”
`
`MTT, 23-27; MTT Reply, 3-4
`
`

`

`Avoiding Direct Communications is Irrelevant
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`The RPI Order did not rely on
`> Direct Communications
`
`> Specific coordination
`
`> Lack of “independence”
`
`
`
`AIT I