`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`REASONS WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE ............................... 1
`STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE CHALLENGED
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 2
` CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 (“’581 patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0010417 to Peled (“Peled”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0191246 to Brandstetter et al.
`(“Brandstetter”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0004873 to Pou et al. (“Pou”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0140433 to Levy et al. (“Levy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,261 to Weiskopf et al. (“Weiskopf”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0166921 to Vijay et al. (“Vijay”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`(“’581
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 (“’560
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 (“’191
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 (“’691
`Prosecution History”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 (“’154
`Prosecution History”)
`Curriculum Vitae of John Tinsman
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,473 to Rassool et al. (“Rassool”)
`Mary Madden, The State of Music Online: Ten Years After Napster,
`Pew
`Research
`Center
`(June
`15,
`2009)
`
`(“’590
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`(https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/06/15/the-state-of-
`music-online-ten-years-after-napster/)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,185,475 to Hug (“Hug”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,051,130 to Logan (“Logan”)
`(March 25, 2009)
`“Digital Rights Management,” FTC.org
`(https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2009/03/digital-
`rights-management)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,776,216 to Boccon-Gibod et al. (“Boccon-
`Gibod”)
`Urs Gasser et al., “Case Study: DRM-protected Music
`Interoperability and e-Innovation,” Harvard.edu (November 2007)
`(https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2794938/DRM-
`protected+Music+Interoperability+and+eInnovation.pdf;jsessionid=
`FEC1E2A0F87ABB7EB30E41EA93AC1CAC?sequence=2)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314378 A1 to Nijim et al.
`(“Nijim”)
`“Apple TV Coming to Your Living Room,”Apple.com (January 9,
`2007)
`(https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-TV-
`Coming-to-Your-Living-Room/)
`Jaap Haitsma, et al., “A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting
`System,” 3rd International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Paris, France, October 13-17, 2002 (“Haitsma”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,554,176 to Gharaat et al. (“Gharaat”)
`Alex Pappademas, “Mood music for the cyber set,” CNN.com,
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`2004
`7,
`December
`archived
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20041207191754/http:/archives.cnn.co
`m/2000/TECH/computing/09/08/mood.music.idg/index.html)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,306,976 to Handman et al. (“Handman”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0206478 to Glaser et al.
`(“Glaser”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,081,579 to Alcade et al. (“Alcade”)
`Avery Li-Chun Wang, “An Industrial-Strength Audio Search
`Algorithm,” 4th International Conference on Music Information
`Retrieval, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, October 27-30, 2003.
`Bryan Jacobs, “How Shazam Works To Identify (Nearly) Every
`Song You Throw At It,” Gizmodo.com (September 24, 2010)
`https://gizmodo.com/how-shazam-works-to-identify-nearly-every-
`song-you-th-5647458
`European Patent Application Publication No. 1,558,032 to Widevine
`Technologies, Inc.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0051772 to Ramaswamy et al.
`(“Ramaswamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,223,924 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe924”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0056405 to Muyres et al.
`(“Muyres”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 to Halt, Jr. (“Halt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,447,564 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,583,089 to Ramer et al. (“Ramer”)
`Laurie J. Flynn, “Like This? You’ll Hate That. (Not All Web
`Recommendations Are Welcome.),” NYTIMES.com (January 23,
`2006)
`(https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/technology/like-this-
`youll-hate-that-not-all-web-recommendations-are.html)
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,375,131 To Rogers et al. (“Rogers”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0233701 to Kidron (“Kidron”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,722 to Jacobi et al. (“Jacobi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,352,331 to Dunning et al. (“Dunning”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0086341 to Wells et al. (“Wells”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,178,720 to Strubbe et al. (“Strubbe”)
`“Technological Protection Systems for Digitized Copyrighted
`Works: A Report to Congress,” United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, 2002
`Richard Leeming, “DRM – ‘digital rights’ or ‘digital restrictions’
`management?”, EBU Technical Review,
`January
`2007
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_309-digital_rights.pdf)
`Jordi Ribas-Corbera, “Windows Media 9 Series – a platform to
`deliver compressed audio and video for Internet and broadcast
`applications,”
`EBU
`Technical Review,
`January
`2003
`(https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_293-ribas.pdf)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Adrian Slywotzky, et al., “The Future of Commerce,” Harvard
`Business
`Review,
`January-February
`2000
`(https://hbr.org/2000/01/the-future-of-commerce)
`Benno Stein, et al., “Near Similarity Search and Plagiarism
`Analysis,” 29th Annual Conference of the German Classification
`Society (GfKI), Magdeburg, Germany, 2006
`Chow Kok Kent, et al., “Features Based Text Similarity Detection,”
`Journal of Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 1, January 2010
`Benjamin Cohen, “How can publishers limit e-book piracy?”,
`Channel
`4
`News,
`October
`18,
`2009
`(https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Description
`how%2Bcan%2Bpublishers%2Blimit%2Bebook%2Bpiracy/339150
`2.html)
`John Timmer, “Publishers cut book sharing deal with Scribd,” Ars
`Technica, March 18, 2009 (https://arstechnica.com/information-
`technology/2009/03/publishers-cut-book-sharing-deal-with-scribd/)
`Eric A. Robinson, “Digital Rights Management, Fair Use, and
`Privacy: Problems for Copyright Enforcement through Technology,”
`University
`of
`St.
`Augustine,
`December
`2009
`(https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9554-8754)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0020647 to Vogel (“Vogel”)
`Daniel A Keim, et al. “Literature Fingerprinting: A New Method for
`Visual Literary Analysis,” IEEE, 2007
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Complaint, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-cv-00027
`(“Complaint”)
`Order on Motion to Transfer, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`WDTX-1-21-cv-00027 (“Motion to Transfer Order”)
`Scheduling Order, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-
`cv-00027 (“Scheduling Order”)
`Defendant's Answer to Complaint, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`WDTX-1-21-cv-00027 (“Answer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,577,703 to Boucher et al. (“Boucher”)
`Affidavit of Service, Media Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No.
`1:21-cv-00027-LY (W.D. Tex.), filed January 26, 2021.
` Plaintiff's Response, Media Chain LLC v. Roku, Inc., WDTX-1-21-
`cv-00027
`Case Management Conference Order in Reassigned Case, Media
`Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00027-EMC (N.D.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081-1099
`1100
`
`Description
`Cal.), filed December 22, 2021.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 9,898,590 to Estes (“’590 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,489,560 to Estes (“’560 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,515,191 to Estes (“’191 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 to Estes (“’691 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 to Estes (“’154 Patent”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`California Northern District Time to Milestones, Docket Navigator,
`accessed January 4, 2022
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Settlement Agreement (CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`Petitioner Roku, Inc. (“Petitioner”), hereby moves for an order dismissing
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed on January 10, 2022, directed to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 (“the ’581 patent”) and assigned case number IPR2022-
`
`00389. Petitioner has conferred with Patent Owner, who does not oppose this
`
`motion.
`
`Patent Owner did not filed a preliminary response. The Board has yet to
`
`issue a decision to institute trial.
`
`
`
`REASONS WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE
`
`On May 16, 2022, the Board provided email authorization to Petitioner to
`
`file this Motion to Dismiss the Petition. Dismissal is proper because this IPR
`
`proceeding is still in its early stages, and the Board has not yet “decided the merits
`
`of the proceeding.” Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. Neodron Ltd., IPR2020-
`
`01682, Paper 14, 3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2021); see also Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems Int’l, IPR2018-00605, Paper 10, 2
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 16, 2018) (noting that 35 U.S.C. § 317 “does not govern settlement
`
`prior to institution,” but explaining that “it is appropriate to dismiss the
`
`proceedings pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a)”). Accordingly, dismissal is
`
`appropriate here.
`
`Petitioner is filing herewith as Exhibit 1100 a true copy of the confidential
`
`settlement agreement entered between the parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`confidential settlement agreement was entered into in contemplation of the
`
`dismissal of the Petition. There are no collateral agreements or understandings
`
`made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the dismissal of the Petition. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A request is being filed herewith to treat this agreement as
`
`“business confidential information” and to keep it separate from the files of the
`
`involved patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`
`
`STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE CHALLENGED
`PATENT
`The ’581 patent is currently at issue in the related litigation Roku, Inc. v.
`
`Media Chain, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-09528 (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner have agreed to terminate that litigation pursuant to their confidential
`
`settlement agreement.
`
`The parties do not contemplate any other litigation or proceeding between
`
`the parties concerning the ’581 patent in the foreseeable future.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`The parties have settled all disputes relating to the challenged patent. This
`
`inter partes review is in an early stage, and the Board has not entered an institution
`
`decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board dismiss the Petition and terminate this proceeding in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Lestin L. Kenton/
`
`Lestin L. Kenton (Reg. No. 72,314)
`Attorney for Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 1, 2022
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00389
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that true and correct copies of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW and EXHIBIT 1100
`
`(Confidential) were electronically served in their entireties on June 1, 2022, on the
`
`following party via email:
`
`Christopher A. Estes chris@mediachainllc.com
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Lestin L. Kenton/
`
`Lestin L. Kenton (Reg. No. 72,314)
`Attorney for Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 1, 2022
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
` 18416947_1.DOCX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
