`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 9,552,376
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00032
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 10) only serves to confirm that the Aperture 3 User
`
`Manual (“A3UM,” Ex. 1005) does not qualify as a printed publication. First,
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a skilled artisan exercising reasonable diligence could
`
`have located the hidden HTML files on an Aperture 3 installation DVD. Second,
`
`Petitioner cites no authority to support its assertion that functionality in an installed
`
`software product can be considered a printed publication. Third, the Reply does not
`
`address many of the issues raised in the POPR regarding A3UM’s alleged
`
`availability on the web. The Board should reject Petitioner’s attempts to rewrite its
`
`Petition and expert declaration in its Reply.
`
`I.
`
`The Hidden HTML Files on the Installation DVD are Not a Publicly
`Accessible
`Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a skilled artisan “exercising reasonable
`
`diligence can locate” the hidden A3UM HTML files on an Aperture 3 installation
`
`DVD. Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018). Petitioner does not dispute that it would take at least 12 steps to locate
`
`the A3UM HTML files on the DVD, and never explains why a skilled artisan would
`
`have any reason to (i) use a Terminal command to view hidden files or (ii) locally
`
`copy and decompress one of the normally-hidden sub-folders. Pet. at 14-17; Reply
`
`at 4-5; Paper 8 (“POPR”) at 29-32; Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 105-111. Petitioner also does not
`
`argue that the installation DVD was searchable. POPR at 32; Reply at 4-5.
`
`Petitioner complains that Patent Owner “has not and cannot cite any evidence
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`or case law to support its assertion that taking ‘numerous steps’” . . . is beyond the
`
`‘reasonable diligence’ of a skilled and interested artisan.” Reply at 5. Tellingly,
`
`Petitioner cannot cite any case law finding a reference to be a printed publication
`
`under analogous facts. See id. at 4-5. Nor does Petitioner dispute that the Board’s
`
`decision in Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, Paper 40
`
`(PTAB Jan. 23, 2020) involved markedly different facts. Id.; POPR at 37-40.
`
`Petitioner also does not dispute the Aperture 3 license prohibits copying and
`
`redistributing the HTML files in a manner akin to a confidentiality obligation. POPR
`
`at 39-40.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the POPR does not cite “any evidence” or case law
`
`regarding accessibility ignores the fact that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Surati,
`
`followed Dr. Terveen’s convoluted process for accessing the hidden HTML files and
`
`concluded that a skilled artisan exercising reasonable diligence would not have done
`
`so. POPR at 30-32; Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 105-111.
`
`Petitioner also mischaracterizes the POPR by responding to an argument
`
`Patent Owner did not make about “unrelated HTML files.” Reply at 2. Petitioner
`
`misses the point entirely. Whether the HTML files are related is irrelevant because
`
`a skilled artisan exercising reasonable diligence would not locate them in the first
`
`place. POPR at 30-32.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioner also repeatedly mischaracterizes its own evidence. For example,
`
`Petitioner argues that its expert, Dr. Terveen, testified that “skilled artisans knew
`
`that user-focused support materials are distributed to consumers as HTML files used
`
`by the Apple Help functionality.” Reply at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶ 94). Dr. Terveen
`
`did not say this. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 94. Petitioner also argues that it “provided evidence
`
`that the Aperture 3 User Manual was known to exist by such skilled artisans in early
`
`2010.” Reply at 5 (citing Pet. at 15-16; Ex. 1051 at 7; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 99). None of
`
`these citations support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner’s attempts to rewrite its
`
`Petition and expert declaration are improper.
`
`Petitioner’s mischaracterizations of the record and failure to distinguish the
`
`authority cited in the POPR constitute tacit admissions that the Petition does not set
`
`forth sufficient evidence of A3UM’s public accessibility for purposes of institution.
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB
`
`Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Relies on Use/Sales of the Aperture 3 Product To
`Argue A3UM is a Printed Publication
`Even if A3UM were technically accessible after installing Aperture 3 on a
`
`Mac computer, it still does not qualify as a printed publication. POPR at 33-37.
`
`Petitioner admits that for this theory, it is relying on “the built-in Apple Help
`
`functionality within the Aperture software when executing,” but claims it is not
`
`relying on “the functionality or availability of the Aperture 3 software per se.” Reply
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`at 3. This is a distinction without a difference.
`
`Petitioner has not proffered any authority suggesting that functionality or files
`
`within an executing software product can be properly considered a printed
`
`publication. Pet. at 14-18; Reply at 3-4. Petitioner appears to acknowledge relying
`
`on the “Places” or “Faces” functionality within Aperture 3, for example, would be
`
`improper. Reply at 3. However, the “built-in Apple Help functionality” and the
`
`underlying files on the Mac computer are, like “Places” and “Faces,” part of the
`
`software product. See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 86-89. Petitioner is drawing an arbitrary
`
`distinction between (i) files that cause A3UM to be displayed in a help window or
`
`web browser and (ii) other files that cause other Aperture 3 features to be displayed.
`
`Congress limited the scope of IPRs to patents and printed publications to avoid
`
`the kind of fact-intensive analyses required for public use and sales grounds. POPR
`
`at 34-35 (citing Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022)).
`
`Petitioner asserts that its arguments premised on installing Aperture 3 do not run
`
`afoul of this principle because printed publication analyses also “necessarily entail
`
`such fact finding.” Reply at 4. Petitioner misses the point. Whether Aperture 3 was
`
`sold or publicly used is part and parcel with Petitioner’s argument that a reasonably
`
`diligent artisan could have located A3UM within an installed copy of Aperture 3.
`
`The Petition expressly relies on allegations that “Apple offered for sale, sold and
`
`distributed” Aperture 3 and “many individuals had installed Aperture 3 . . . onto their
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`computers.” Pet. at 14-15. IPRs were not intended to address these issues.
`
`III. Petitioner Has Not Shown That A3UM Was Accessible on the Web
`Petitioner’s failure to show that A3UM was publicly accessible on the web is
`
`underscored by its failure to address many of the issues identified in the Preliminary
`
`Response concerning Petitioner’s website. POPR at 40-46. There is no evidence
`
`that Ex. 1005 corresponds to the HTML files that were allegedly available on
`
`apple.com in 2010. Id. at 40; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 103. Petitioner does not dispute that are
`
`inconsistencies between Ex. 1005, which bears 2009 copyright dates, and the limited
`
`Internet Archive Wayback Machine printouts, which bear 2011 copyright dates.
`
`POPR at 40-42; Ex. 1005; Ex. 2009. Nor does Petitioner distinguish the authority
`
`cited by Patent Owner finding that web-based materials were not publicly accessible.
`
`POPR at 42-45.
`
`What is more, Petitioner’s new-cited authority addressing multiple web pages
`
`is distinguishable. See Reply at 2-3. The Board has held that “web pages do not
`
`constitute a single reference” when there are “different archival dates.” DocsCorp
`
`LLC v. Litera Techs., LLC, IPR2016-00542, 2016 WL 5632041, at *4 (PTAB Aug.
`
`4, 2016). Similarly, Petitioner has not (and cannot) show that the hundreds of web
`
`pages allegedly comprising A3UM correspond to Ex. 1005. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 103.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein and the POPR, the Board should deny
`
`institution.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
` /Jennifer Hayes/
`Jennifer Hayes
`Reg. No. 50,845
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue,
`Suite 4100,
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`Tel. 213-629-6179
`Fax 866-781-9391
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00032
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Sur-Reply together with all exhibits filed therewith was served on April
`
`25, 2022, upon the following parties via electronic service:
`
`
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Samuel A. Dillon
`Kyle S. Smith
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`kyle.smith@sidley.com
`SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Apple, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`