PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`NOVEMBER 7, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`APPLE INC.
` v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,982,863 B1
`IPR2022-01222
`GREER N. SHAW, COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 85
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`NOVEMBER 7, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`APPLE INC.
` v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,982,863 B1
`IPR2022-01222
`GREER N. SHAW, COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW
`SEPARATE SERVER AND
`NETWORK SWITCH BOX
`COMPONENTS
`
`2
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 2 of 85
`
`
`
`The claimed “server” and “network switch box”
`are separate components
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:59-12:10, 12:59-13:10; POR, 4; Sur-Reply, 1-2.
`
`3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 3 of 85
`
`
`
`The claimed “server” and “network switch box”
`are separate components
`
`Reply, 12.
`
`4
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 4 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps both the “server” and “network
`switch box” to Ahopelto’s GGSN
`
`Pet., 24, 33.
`
`5
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 5 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps both the “server” and “network
`switch box” to Ahopelto’s GGSN
`
`Pet., 24, 33.
`
`6
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 6 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps both the “server” and “network
`switch box” to Ahopelto’s GGSN
`
`Pet., 69.
`
`7
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 7 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps both the “server” and “network
`switch box” to Ahopelto’s GGSN
`
`Pet., 38.
`
`8
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 8 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner maps both the “server” and “network
`switch box” to Ahopelto’s GGSN
`
`Pet., 62.
`
`9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 9 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto does not teach “server functionality” as
`distinct from “routing functionality”
`
`GGSN depicted as a
`single component
`
`POR, 7; Ex. 1005, FIG. 1 (annotation added).
`
`10
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 10 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto does not teach “server functionality” as
`distinct from “routing functionality”
`
`POR, 7.
`
`11
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 11 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto does not teach “server functionality” as
`distinct from “routing functionality”
`
`POR, 7.
`
`12
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 12 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s other references show no
`distinction between alleged GGSN “server
`functionality” and “routing functionality”
`
`Pet., 39; POR, 8.
`
`13
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 13 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s other references show no distinction
`between alleged “server functionality” and
`“routing functionality” of Ahopelto’s GGSN
`Re Ex. 1022 (Stallings):
`
`POR, 8; Ex. 2005, 57:19-58:1, 60:19-61:1.
`
`14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 14 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s other references show no distinction
`between alleged “server functionality” and
`“routing functionality” of Ahopelto’s GGSN
`Re Ex. 1010 (Granholm):
`
`POR, 8; Ex. 2005, 56:1-14.
`
`15
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 15 of 85
`
`
`
`Dutnall (Ex. 1015) does not support Petitioner
`
`Reply, 8; Sur-Reply, 8.
`
`16
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 16 of 85
`
`
`
`The alleged “server functionality” and “routing
`functionality” are not distinct
`
`POR, 9-10; Ex. 2008, ¶37.
`
`17
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 17 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s purported distinction between
`“server functionality” and “router
` functionality” is artificial and unsupported
`
`Reply, 13; Sur-Reply, 4.
`
`18
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 18 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s purported distinction between
`“server functionality” and “router
` functionality” is artificial and unsupported
`
`Sur-Reply, 9; Ex. 2005, 47:3-16.
`
`19
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 19 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto refers to alleged
`“server functionality” as “routing”
`“The Petition demonstrated that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes the “server functionality” (checking
`the protocol and determining whether the packet is supported, See Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41,
`10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59; Ex.1003, ¶77;”
`
`Reply, 12; Sur-Reply, 3, 4; Ex. 1005, 7:4-14, 37-40.
`
`20
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 20 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto refers to alleged
`“server functionality” as “routing”
`“The Petition demonstrated that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes the “server functionality” (checking
`the protocol and determining whether the packet is supported, See Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41,
`10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59; Ex.1003, ¶77;”
`
`Reply, 12; Sur-Reply, 3, 4; Ex. 1005, 8:13-15, 40-41.
`
`21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 21 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto refers to alleged
`“server functionality” as “routing”
`“The Petition demonstrated that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes the “server functionality” (checking
`the protocol and determining whether the packet is supported, See Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41,
`10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59; Ex.1003, ¶77;”
`
`Reply, 12; Sur-Reply, 3, 4; Ex. 1005, 10:13-14, 22-23.
`
`22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 22 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto refers to alleged
`“server functionality” as “routing”
`“The Petition demonstrated that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes the “server functionality” (checking
`the protocol and determining whether the packet is supported, See Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41,
`10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59; Ex.1003, ¶77;”
`
`Reply, 12; Sur-Reply, 3, 4; Ex. 1005, 10:13-14, 39-42, 48-50, 56-59.
`
`23
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 23 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on checking a
`data packet for both “server functionality” and
`“routing functionality”
`
`POR, 5-6; Reply, 12; Sur-Reply, 4-5; Ex. 2005, 47:3-16.
`
`24
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 24 of 85
`
`
`
`Ahopelto teaches that the protocol is checked
`(alleged “server functionality”) to determine where
`to route a packet
`
`Sur-Reply, 5-6; Ex. 1005, 3:5-6 10:14-19.
`
`25
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 25 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s dependent claim theories contradict
`the purported distinction that “server functionality”
`does not determine “where” to route packet
`
`Petitioner arguing that “server functionality”
`determines where to route packet (i.e., first
`or second network path) for claim 4
`
`Pet., 52; Sur-Reply, 6-7.
`
`26
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 26 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s dependent claim theories contradict
`purported distinction that “server functionality”
`does not determine “where” to route packet
`
`Petitioner arguing that “server functionality”
`determines where to route packet (i.e.,
`Operator 1) for claim 3
`
`Pet., 49; Sur-Reply, 6-7; Ex. 1005, 3:5-6, 10:14-19.
`
`27
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 27 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s dependent claim theories contradict
`purported distinction that “server functionality”
`does not determine “where” to route packet
`
`Petitioner arguing that “server functionality”
`determines where to route packet (i.e., a
`different network path) for claim 6
`
`Pet., 54-55; Sur-Reply, 6-7; Ex. 1005, 3:5-6, 10:14-19.
`
`28
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 28 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites the same disclosures as
`teaching purportedly distinct functionalities
`
`Pet., 34, 75; POR, 6.
`
`29
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 29 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites the same disclosures as
`teaching purportedly distinct functionalities
`
`Pet., 24, 43-44; POR, 6.
`
`30
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 30 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites the same disclosures as
`teaching purportedly distinct functionalities
`
`Reply, 12, 16-17, 75; Sur-Reply, 5-6.
`
`31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 31 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites the same disclosures as
`teaching purportedly distinct functionalities
`
`Reply, 12, 16-17; Sur-Reply, 5-6.
`
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 32 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW
`LIMITATION 1[D]
`UNDER THE “SERVER
`FUNCTIONALITY” THEORY
`
`33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 33 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s indirect communication
`argument is untimely
`
`Pet., 36; Sur-Reply, 9.
`
`34
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 34 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s indirect communication
`argument is untimely
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`Pet., 36; Reply 16, Sur-Reply, 9.
`
`35
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 35 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s indirect communication
`argument is incorrect
`
`Pet., 36; Reply 16, Sur-Reply, 9.
`
`36
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 36 of 85
`
`
`
`Unrebutted expert testimony
`contradicts Petitioner’s “indirect” theory
`
`Sur-Reply, 9-10; Ex. 2008, ¶¶45, 48.
`
`37
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 37 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW
`LIMITATION 14[E]
`UNDER THE “SERVER
`FUNCTIONALITY” THEORY
`
`38
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 38 of 85
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to explain how the “server” is
`configured for communication with the “second
`network switch box” element of 14[e]
`
`?????
`
`Pet., 69-70; POR, 17-19; Sur-Reply, 10-11.
`
`39
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 39 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “indirect” communication
`argument is untimely
`
`Reply 19, Sur-Reply, 10-12.
`
`40
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 40 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “indirect” theory is disproven by
`unrebutted expert testimony
`
`Sur-Reply, 10-12; Ex. 2008, ¶¶45, 48.
`
`41
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 41 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S “ACCESS
`THEORY” FAILS TO TEACH OR
`SUGGEST ALL LIMITATIONS OF
`CLAIM 1
`
`42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 42 of 85
`
`
`
`Petition does not explain how the “access server”
`is configured for communication with a plurality of
`network devices
`
`????
`
`Pet., 36; POR, 11-12.
`
`43
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 43 of 85
`
`
`
`Reply also fails to explain how the “access
`server” is configured for communication with a
`plurality of network devices
`
`????
`
`Reply, 15; Sur-Reply, 14.
`
`44
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 44 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S “ACCESS
`SERVER” THEORY FAILS TO
`TEACH OR SUGGEST ALL
`LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 14
`
`45
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 45 of 85
`
`
`
`14[e] requires a server configured for
`communication with “the first network switch box”
`and the “second network switch box”
`
`46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 46 of 85
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to address how the “server” is
`configured for communication with the “second
`network switch box”
`
`?????
`
`Pet., 69; POR, 13; Sur-Reply, 14.
`
`47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 47 of 85
`
`
`
`Reply also fails to explain how the “access
`server” is configured for communication with a
`“second network switch box”
`
`??????
`
`Reply, 19-20; Sur-Reply, 15.
`
`48
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 48 of 85
`
`
`
`Reply also fails to explain how the “access
`server” is configured for communication with a
`“second network switch box”
`
`Pet., 69; Sur-Reply, 15.
`
`49
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 49 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO PROVIDE
`A REASONED EXPLANATION
`FOR ITS “ACCESS SERVER”
`THEORY
`
`50
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 50 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that it seeks to fill a
`critical, missing claim element with background
`knowledge
`
`Petitioner did
`not contest in
`Reply
`
`POR, 11; Reply, 14; Sur-Reply, 12-14.
`
`51
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 51 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner points to Dr. Jensen
`for the required explanation
`
`POR, 11; Reply, 14; Sur-Reply, 12-14.
`
`52
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 52 of 85
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen’s testimony mirrors the Petition and
`lacks a reasoned explanation
`
`Petition
`
`Expert report
`
`Pet., 24-25; Ex. 1003, ¶79; Reply, 14; Sur-Reply, 12-14.
`
`53
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 53 of 85
`
`
`
`Dr. Jensen’s testimony mirrors the Petition and
`lacks a reasoned explanation
`
`Petition
`
`Expert report
`
`Pet., 34; Ex. 1003, ¶106; Sur-Reply 12-14.
`
`54
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 54 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT
`CHALLENGE CLAIMS 4-6, 19,
`AND 24 UNDER “ACCESS
`SERVER” THEORY
`
`55
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 55 of 85
`
`
`
`The POR established that the Petition did not,
`and could, not challenge claims 4-6 and 24 under
`the “access server” theory
`
`POR, 32-36.
`
`56
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 56 of 85
`
`
`
`The POR establishes that the Petition did not
`challenge limitation 19[b] under its “access
`server” theory
`
`POR, 32-35.
`
`57
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 57 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner left these arguments
`uncontested in its Reply
`
`Sur-Reply, 16.
`
`58
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 58 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER ATTEMPTS TO
`REWRITE CLAIM 4 UNDER ITS
`“SERVER FUNCTIONALITY”
`THEORY
`
`59
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 59 of 85
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:21-26.
`
`60
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 60 of 85
`
`
`
`The alleged “first network switch box” does not receive
`data packets using dynamically changing paths
`
`POR, 19-21.
`
`61
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 61 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner improperly attempts to re-write Claim 4
`
`Reply, 23-24; Sur-Reply, 18.
`
`62
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 62 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner ignores legal and grammatical
`principles
`
`“Our holding in SuperGuide reflects a more general grammatical
`principle applicable to a modifier coming before a series. ‘When there is
`a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs
`in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies
`to the entire series.’ Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:
`The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 19, 147 (2012).
`As SuperGuide makes clear, the principle has particular force when
`the term joining the items in a series is ‘and.’”
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983
`F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021)(emphasis added)
`
`Reply, 23; Sur-Reply, 18.
`
`63
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 63 of 85
`
`
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s claim “transmit” and
`“receive” are both in plural form
`
`Incorrect
`
`Reply, 24; Sur-Reply, 18.
`
`64
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 64 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner also argues that claim 4 is met
`because “other parts” of the path change
`
`Reply, 23; Sur-Reply, 18.
`
`65
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 65 of 85
`
`
`
`Plain language requires both network switch
`boxes “receive data packets using dynamically
`changing network paths”
`
`Reply, 23; Sur-Reply, 18.
`
`66
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 66 of 85
`
`
`
`Unrebutted expert opinion establishes that there
`is no change on any part of a path used by the
`“first network switch box” to receive packets
`
`POR, 20; Ex. 2008, ¶52.
`
`67
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 67 of 85
`
`
`
`CLAIM 6 “SERVER THEORY”
`FAILS BECAUSE THERE IS NO
`SWITCH IN RESPONSE TO AN
`APPLICATION
`
`68
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 68 of 85
`
`
`
`Claim 6
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:31-34.
`
`69
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 69 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner equates a switch in response to a
`protocol with a switch in response to an
`application
`
`Pet. 54-55.
`
`70
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 70 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner agrees the same application can use
`multiple protocols
`
`Pet., 54-44; POR, 27, n.5; Sur-Reply, 19.
`
`71
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 71 of 85
`
`
`
`There is no mapping between
`protocol and application
`
`POR, 28-29; Sur-Reply, 19-20; Ex. 2008, ¶62.
`
`72
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 72 of 85
`
`
`
`The Board should reject Petitioner’s alternative
`construction for “application”
`
`Reply, 26; Sur-Reply, 20-21.
`
`73
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 73 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner agreed in district court that “application”
`means “a software program that enables a device
`to perform one or more tasks.”
`
`Smart Mobile’s
`Responsive
`Claim Construction
`Brief (Ex. 2006)
`
`Defendants’ Reply
`Claim Construction
`Brief (Ex. 2007)
`
`POR, 27, n.5; Sur-Reply, 19; Ex. 2006, 25; Ex. 2007, 8-9.
`
`74
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 74 of 85
`
`
`
`The Board should reject Petitioner’s alternative
`construction for “application”
`
`Petitioner agreed to a construction in district court and did not seek a
`different construction before the PTAB. Petitioner cannot pull an “about
`face.”
`
`“Now Traxcell insists in retrospect that this construction was wrong. But
`having stipulated to it, Traxcell cannot pull an about-face.”
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP, 15 F.4th 1121, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (party
`cannot advocate construction on appeal that differs from construction stipulated in district court)
`
`Reply, 26; Sur-Reply, 20-21.
`
`75
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 75 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s backup theory is also unsupported
`and unexplained
`
`Pet., 55; POR, 28-29; Sur-Reply, 20-21; Ex. 2008, ¶64.
`
`76
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 76 of 85
`
`
`
`PETITIONER FAILED TO
`IDENTIFY A “SPECIFIC DATA
`STREAM FLOW” TO MEET
`CLAIM 19
`
`77
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 77 of 85
`
`
`
`Claim 19
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:3-8.
`
`78
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 78 of 85
`
`
`
`The Petition does not address
`“specific data stream flow”
`
`POR, 30-32.
`
`79
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 79 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply raises new argument about
`“specific data stream flow”
`
`Reply
`
`Petition did not cite this to
`show specific data stream flow
`
`Petition
`
`Pet., 72; Reply 27; Sur-Reply, 22.
`
`80
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 80 of 85
`
`
`
`The referenced analysis for claim 6 in the Petition
`also fails to address a “specific data stream flow”
`
`??????
`
`Pet., 54-55; Reply 27; Sur-Reply, 22.
`
`81
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 81 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites other content in its Reply not used
`in the Petition to address “specific data stream
`flow”
`
`Pet., 56 addresses claim 8 and Pet., 73
`addresses claim 24. Neither claim recites a
`“specific data stream flow” and neither
`section of the Petition mentions a “specific
`data stream.”
`
`Pet., 55-57, 73-75; Reply 27; Sur-Reply, 22-23.
`
`82
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 82 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new argument also fails to show
`“specific data stream flow”
`
`Reply 27; Sur-Reply, 22-23.
`
`83
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 83 of 85
`
`
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that protocol
` dictates the path of a packet in Ahopelto,
`not a “data stream flow”
`
`Pet., 53; Sur-Reply, 22-23.
`
`84
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 84 of 85
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`NOVEMBER 7, 2023
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`APPLE INC.
` v.
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,982,863 B1
`IPR2022-01222
`GREER N. SHAW, COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2009
`Page 85 of 85
`
`
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
