Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. WAG Acquisition LLC
`
`IPR2022-01430
`U.S. Patent 9,742,824
`
`IPR2022-01433
`U.S. Patent 9,762,636
`
`December 12, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Challenged Patents
`
`US 9,742,824
`
`US 9,762,636
`
`IPR2022-1430 Inst. Dec., 2; IPR-01433 Inst. Dec., 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Challenged Patents
`
`9,742,824
`
`9,762,636
`
`Pet., 8-9
`
`EX1001, 3:65-68
`
`EX1001, 4:1-5
`
`EX1001, 16:64-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`References and Challenged Claims
`
`IPR2022-1430 Inst. Dec., 14; IPR-01433 Inst. Dec., 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Only Three Limitations in Dispute
`
`1.a
`
`b
`
`c
`
`d
`
`e
`
`f
`
`A method for distributing over the Internet, from a server system to
`responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or
`one or more user systems, a pre-recorded audio or video program
`more media data elements having the one or more specified serial
`g
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting
`stored in digitally encoded form on computer-readable media, the
`identifiers, to the requesting user systems corresponding to the
`method comprising:
`requests; wherein
`h
`user system has a data rate more rapid than the playback rate of the
`reading, by at least one computer of the server system, the pre-
`one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting
`recorded audio or video program from the computer-readable
`user system has a data rate more rapid than the playback rate of the
`h
`media;
`one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`supplying, at the server system, media data elements representing
`the program, each media data element comprising a digitally
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without
`each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection
`encoded portion of the program and having a playback rate;
`i
`between the server system and each requesting user system allow;
`j
`depending on the server system maintaining a record of the last media
`serially identifying the media data elements, said serial identification
`data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`indicating a time sequence of the media data elements;
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending
`on the server system maintaining a record of the last media data element
`j
`storing the media data elements in a data structure under the control of
`sent to the requesting user systems;
`the server system;
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one
`receiving requests at the server system via one or more data connections
`k
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the
`or more user systems are sent in response to the requests; and
`over the Internet, for one or more of the media data elements stored in
`k
`the data structure, each received request specifying one or more serial
`one or more user systems are sent in response to the requests; and
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the
`identifiers of the requested one or more media data elements, each
`requesting user systems are sent from the data structure under the control
`l
`received request originating from a requesting user system of the one or
`of the server system as the media data elements were first stored therein.
`more user systems; and
`
`EX1001, 16:36-17:15; POR, 37-62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Challenged Patents Invalid
`
` A POSITA would have understood that Carmel and Feig
`each disclose a pull system
`
` A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Carmel
`and Feig
`
` Limitations h, j, and k are obvious in view of Carmel and
`Feig
`
`Pet., 1-66; Reply, 1-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Claim Constructions
`
`Pet., 11; Inst. Dec., 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`WAG’s Claim Constructions
`
`Not discussed in
`Sur-Reply.
`
`Does not affect disputed
`limitations.
`
`POR, ii, 6-17; Reply, 8, 18; Pet., 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Carmel – Streaming Using HTTP
`
`6,389,473
`
`EX1005, 2:4-7
`
`EX1005, 2:11-15
`
`EX1005, 2:22-23
`
`Pet., 13-14; EX1002, ¶¶ 64-68; POR, 5; Inst. Dec., 19-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`WAG: Carmel Discloses Only Push
`
`POR, 29
`
`POR, 30
`
`POR, 43
`
`POR, 45
`
`POR, 58
`
`Patent Owner
`Response
`
`Reply, 1-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Carmel Discloses Two Embodiments – Single Quality Level
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3A,
`5:46-48
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6A,
`6:3-6
`
`Pet., 13-14, 27-28, 30, 43, 49, 53; Reply, 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Carmel Discloses Two Embodiments – Multiple Quality Levels
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3D,
`8:42-44
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6B,
`6:7-10
`
`Reply, 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition Relies on Carmel’s Single Quality Level Embodiment
`
`Pet., 13-14
`
`Pet., 13-14, 27-28, 30, 43, 49, 53; Reply, 6-8
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6A
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Single Quality Level Embodiment is a Pull System
`
`…
`
`Pet., 33-35, 53; Reply, 2-6
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6A
`
`EX1005, 10:24-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Carmel Uses HTTP
`
`Inst. Dec., 58
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6A; Pet., 14, 27-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`Dr. Jeffay: Using HTTP GET Requests in Carmel was Obvious
`
`EX1002, ¶ 156; Pet., 53; Inst. Dec., 58; EX1033, 18:2-19:3; 47:25-48:19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`Mr. Hoarty: Using HTTP GET Requests Was Obvious
`
`Q. And with the identification of the slice ID,
`the client, Carmel, could send a GET request to
`request a particularslice;right?
`
`…A
`
`. By – by the – basically, yes, it can request
`any particular file by just the basic definition
`of a GET request.
`
`Q. Would you understand the GET request to
`be the mostcommonrequest in HTTP 1.1?
`A. I do.
`
`…
`Of all the methods in HTTP 1.1, only the GET
`method is described as being able to retrieve
`content requested by a client from a server;
`right?
`A. I believe so, correct.
`
`EX1033, 18:2-19:3
`
`EX1033, 47:25-48:6
`
`Reply, 3, 4, 18, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`WAG’s “Push” Argument Misinterprets Carmel
`
`Carmel
`(US 6,389,473)
`
`“this sort of file
`streaming” =
`streaming single file
`
`EX1031, 2:22-28
`
`EX1031, 7:27-28
`
`Slices in single level
`data stream 40 are
`separate files
`
`Reply, 4-5, 18; POR, 59, 61; see also Pet. 29, 59; Reply, 7; Ex. 1005 at 7:18-28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`Mr. Hoarty Confirms Chunked Transfer Encoding is for Large Files
`
`Q. So is a chunked transfer encoding more – would you say more suited
`to large files compared with smaller files?
`
`A. That was the purpose of it and – relatively speaking. Again, referring
`to dynamic or large – you know, large media like audio or video.
`
`Q. What was – what do you mean "the purpose"? What was "the
`purpose?
`
`A. Safe transfer of large content. Large, relatively speaking. Remember,
`we're in the era of 28.8 kilowatt modems. So it's all relative. But for the
`time of its creation, it was recognizing the need for moving large – large
`– large message bodies.
`EX1033, 36:23-37:10
`
`Reply, 5-6; POR, 59, 61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`

`Dr. Jeffay’s Testimony
`
`Single Quality Level -
`Pull
`
`Multiple Quality Levels -
`Push
`
`“I think the underlying process for handling data
`stream 40, as disclosed in more detail in column
`10, is disclosing where a person of skill in the art
`would understand as a pull process.”
`
`“But I think generally the processing for figure – for
`the data stream embodiment 41 that's disclosed in
`the specification,
`I
`think that would be best
`understood as for a push scenario.”
`
`EX2010, 72:21-25
`
`EX2010, 73:11-15
`
`Reply, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`Dr. Jeffay’s Testimony
`
`Single Quality Level -
`Pull
`
`Carmel’s Description of FIG.
`6A
`
`“I think the underlying process for handling data
`stream 40, as disclosed in more detail in column
`10, is disclosing where a person of skill in the art
`would understand as a pull process.”
`
`EX2010, 72:21-25
`
`Pet., 52-53; Reply, 18-20; POR, 56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`EX1005, 10:35-54
`
`

`

`Dr. Jeffay’s ITC Testimony
`
`Q. So even in – in view of the multi-level data stream embodiment,
`your opinion is that Carmel does not disclose its slices being
`independently requestable and playable by the apparatus?
`
`A. Certainly in the context of
`the multi-level data stream
`embodiment, it's also my opinion that it's not disclosed in terms of
`the single level embodiment, but this particular sentence that your
`[sic] pointing to here is, I believe, really related to the multi-level data
`stream . . .
`
`EX2013, 81:24-82:7
`
`Reply, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Dr. Jeffay’s ITC Testimony
`
`IPR Testimony
`
`ITC Testimony
`
`“even the comments about data stream 40, my
`crazy
`recollection is
`they were about
`this
`combination of data stream 40 and data stream
`41 that the other side was trying to do.”
`
`EX2010, 145:21-25
`
`Q. Does Carmel's Figure 6B modify Carmel Figure
`6A?
`
`A. No. These are completely separate figures
`describing separate embodiments and completely
`different operations of the client.
`
`Q. And there's no motivation to combine Figures
`6A and 6B?
`
`A. No. Yeah, as I say, these are illustrating quite
`different operations of – of the client.
`
`EX2013, 91:10-21
`
`Reply, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`Carmel’s Single Quality Level Embodiment is a Pull System
`
` Experts agree -a POSITA would have understood that the
`slices in Carmel are stored as separate files
`
` POSITA would have found it obvious that slices could be
`requested using a series of HTTP GET requests
`
` Thus, Carmel discloses a pull system
`
`EX1002, ¶ 156; Pet., 53; EX1033, 18:2-19:3, 47:25-48:6; Reply, 3, 4, 18, 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`Feig – Streaming Using HTTP
`
`6,175,862
`
`EX1031, 1:9-10
`
`Pet., 15-16; EX1002, ¶¶ 69-74; Inst. Dec., 25-30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`

`Feig’s Client Pulls and Stores Individual Files
`
`EX1031, 4:66-5:50, Fig. 4; Pet., 15-16, 50-51; Inst. Dec., 25-30; EX1002, ¶¶ 69-74, 120, 151
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`EX1031, 4:16-43
`
`

`

`No Dispute - Feig Discloses Pull Using HTTP GET Requests
`
`“the pull disclosed in Feig . . . ” POR, 61
`
`Inst. Dec., 59
`
`EX1031, 2:60-64
`
`Pet., 31, 36, 39, 50-51, 53-54; POR, 61; Reply, 3
`
`EX1031, 5:16-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`

`Motivations to Combine Carmel and Feig
`
`Inst. Dec., 60-63; Pet., 17, 31-33, 37, 39, 51, 54; Reply, 1-2, 10, 16, 21; EX1002, ¶ 109
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`WAG’s MOTC Argument Assumes Carmel Push
`
`POR, 54
`
`POR, 61
`
`Patent Owner
`Response
`
`POR, 54
`
`POR, 61
`
`POR, 61
`
`Reply, 1-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`MOTC Even if Carmel Were Push System
`
`Reply, 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Limitation h – Data Rate More Rapid Than the Playback Rate
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid than
`the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`h
`
`EX1005, 2:56-59
`
`Inst. Dec., 45
`
`Pet., 40-44; Reply, 9-14; EX1002, ¶ 132; EX1033, 90:2-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Limitation h – Patent Owner is Precluded from Challenging
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid than
`the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`h
`
`‘141 Patent
`
`‘824 Patent
`
`EX1015, 13:30-33
`
`EX1001 (IPR2022-1430), 16:57-60
`
`Pet., 22, 39-41, 50; Reply, 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Reply, 9-10
`
`

`

`Limitation h – Feig Also Discloses the Rapid Data Rate
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid than
`the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`h
`
`Pet., 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`EX1031, 6:24-34
`
`

`

`Limitation h – MOTC At Least Because Feig Avoids Buffer Overflow
`the data connection between the server system and each requesting user system has a data rate more rapid than
`the playback rate of the one or more media data elements sent via that connection;
`
`h
`
`Pet., 54, 15-16; EX1002, ¶¶ 157, 69-74; Reply, 12-13, 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`EX1002, ¶ 157
`
`

`

`Limitation j – Server Does Not Maintain Last Element Sent
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system maintaining a record of the
`last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`
`j
`
`Institution Decision, 53
`
`EX1001, 17:4-7; Pet., 48-51; Reply, 14-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`

`Limitation j – Carmel’s Server Does Not Maintain Last Element Sent
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system maintaining a record of the
`last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`
`j
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3C
`
`EX1005, 10:36-54
`
`Pet. 49-50; EX1005, 10:36-54, 8:32-41; EX1002, ¶ 147
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Limitation j – Mr. Hoarty Admits Individual HTTP GET Requests Known
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system maintaining a record of the
`last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`
`j
`
`Q. So in the first instance where we’re talking about separate slices,
`would you agree with me that in 2000, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would
`understand that one way to retrieve the slices is by
`successive GET requests?
`
`A. That would – there – that is one way to retrieve – by definition, that is
`one way to retrieve – retrieve elements from a server or files from a
`server, of course.
`
`EX1033, 42:6-15
`
`Reply, 15, 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Limitation j – Board Agreed Carmel Disclosed Client-side Control in ’141 IPR
`
`j
`
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system maintaining a record of the
`last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`
`Pet. 50, Reply, 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`IPR2016-01238, Paper No.22 at 26
`
`

`

`Limitation j – Feig in Combination With Carmel
`the one or more media data element sent are selected without depending on the server system maintaining a record of the
`last media data element sent to the requesting user systems;
`
`j
`
`No Dispute that Feig Discloses:
`
`POR, 53
`
`Pet., 50-51; Reply 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`

`Limitation k – All Elements are Sent in Response to the Requests
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`Inst. Dec., 57
`
`EX1001, 17:8-10; Pet., 52-54; Reply, 18-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Limitation k – All Elements are Sent in Response to the Requests
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`Pet., 53
`
`Pet. 52-54; Reply, 3-4, 18; EX1002, ¶ 155; EX1005, 2:20-22, 10:38-40; EX1002, ¶ 156; Inst. Dec., 57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`EX1005, FIG. 6A
`
`EX1002, ¶ 155
`
`

`

`Limitation k – Feig Makes HTTP Requests to Fill Buffers
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`Pet. 53-54; Reply, 20-21; EX1031, 5:10-43; EX1002, ¶ 157; Inst. Dec. 26-30, 59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`EX1031, FIG. 4
`
`Pet., 54
`
`

`

`Limitation k – WAG’s Arguments Against Combination
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`Both premises are incorrect.
`
`POR, 60
`
`Pet., 54; EX1002, ¶¶ 157-158; Reply, 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`

`Challenged Patents Invalid
`
` Carmel and Feig demonstrate that using HTTP GET
`requests to obtain media data elements was
`obvious
`
` Carmel and Feig was an obvious combination
`
` Limitations h, j, and k are plainly disclosed by the
`combination
`
`Pet., 1-66; Reply, 1-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`

`Limitation k – Mr. Hoarty Cited an Undated General Dictionary
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`EX2007, ¶ 61; POR, 56-57; Reply, 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`

`

`Limitation k – Technical Definition of “Download”
`all of the media data elements that are sent by the server system to the one or more user systems are sent in response to
`the requests; and
`
`k
`
`EX1032, 3; Reply, 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`

`

`’141 Patent Reexamination Decision on Appeal is Irrelevant
`
`141 Reexam Decision
`
`Present IPR
`
`Relies on Carmel’s multiplequality level
`embodiment (Fig. 6B)
`Anticipation
`
`Relies on Carmel’s singlequality level
`embodiment (Fig. 6A)
`Obviousness
`
`Only Carmel’s express disclosure
`
`Only Carmel for disputed limitation
`
`Expert testimony about how a POSITA
`would interpret Carmel
`Carmel alone and in combination with
`Feig
`
`EX2022, 3, 7-8; Reply, 3-8, 14-15, 18-20; Inst. Dec., 58; IPR2016-01238, Paper 22 at 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`