`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`___________________
`
`
`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 IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`REASONS WHY TERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE ............................... 1
`STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE CHALLENGED
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 2
` CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691 to Estes (“’691 Patent”)
`Declaration of John Tinsman
`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 (“’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)
`(https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/06/15/the-state-of-
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`Description
`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”)
`“Digital Rights Management,” FTC.org (March 25, 2009)
`(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,
`archived December 7, 2004
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`Description
`(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)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,375,131 To Rogers et al. (“Rogers”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`Description
`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/
`how%2Bcan%2Bpublishers%2Blimit%2Bebook%2Bpiracy/339150
`2.html)
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`Description
`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
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0028796 to Roberts et
`al. (“Roberts”)
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`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 (“Plaintiff’s Response”)
`Case Management Conference Order in Reassigned Case, Media
`Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00027-EMC (N.D.
`Cal.), filed December 22, 2021.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,715,581 to Estes (“’581 Patent”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`Exhibit No.
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081-1099
`1100
`
`Description
`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”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 10,885,154 to Estes (“’154 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0150299 A1 to Flory et al.
`(“Flory”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,555,489 to Bell (“Bell”)
`California Northern District Time to Milestones, Docket Navigator,
`accessed January 4, 2022
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Settlement Agreement (CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`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. 10,860,691 (“the ’691 patent”) and assigned case number
`
`IPR2022-00393. 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 IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`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 ’691 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 ’691 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 IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`
`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 IPR2022-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 1, 2022
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
` 18416947_1.DOCX
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`