throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IOENGINE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01551
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS……………………………………………………………….v
`I. 
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................................. 2 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................ 2 
`B.  Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................................... 2 
`C.  Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ........................................................................................................ 3 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES ......................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR .............................................................................. 4 
`A.  Grounds for Standing .................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge ............................................................................ 5 
`1.  The Specific Art on Which the Challenged is Based ................................. 5 
`2.  Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenged is Based .............................. 5 
`3.  Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted ...................................................... 5 
`V.  BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 7 
`A. 
`’584 Patent ..................................................................................................... 7 
`B.  Prosecution History of the ’584 Patent ......................................................... 8 
`C.  Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art ......................................... 9 
`1.  Overview of Technology ............................................................................ 9 
`2.  Overview of Asserted Prior Art ............................................................... 10 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 15 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 16 
`VIII.  GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ..................................................... 17 
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`A.  Ground 1: Combining Ozawa and Prabhu Renders Claims 1, 3-16, 22-24,
`39, 41-53, 58, 73, 75-84, and 90-92 Obvious ...................................................... 17 
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa and Prabhu ............................................. 17 
`2.  Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 22 
`3.  Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 52 
`4.  Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 52 
`5.  Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 53 
`6.  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 54 
`7.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 54 
`8.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 55 
`9.  Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 57 
`10.  Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 58 
`11.  Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 58 
`12.  Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 59 
`13.  Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 59 
`14.  Claim 14 ................................................................................................ 60 
`15.  Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 61 
`16.  Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 61 
`17.  Claim 22 ................................................................................................ 62 
`18.  Claim 23 ................................................................................................ 63 
`19.  Claim 24 ................................................................................................ 64 
`20.  Claim 39 ................................................................................................ 65 
`21.  Claim 41 ................................................................................................ 66 
`22.  Claim 42 ................................................................................................ 66 
`23.  Claim 43 ................................................................................................ 66 
`24.  Claim 44 ................................................................................................ 66 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`25.  Claim 45 ................................................................................................ 66 
`26.  Claim 46 ................................................................................................ 67 
`27.  Claim 47 ................................................................................................ 67 
`28.  Claim 48 ................................................................................................ 67 
`29.  Claim 49 ................................................................................................ 67 
`30.  Claim 50 ................................................................................................ 67 
`31.  Claim 51 ................................................................................................ 67 
`32.  Claim 52 ................................................................................................ 67 
`33.  Claim 53 ................................................................................................ 67 
`34.  Claim 58 ................................................................................................ 67 
`35.  Claim 73 ................................................................................................ 68 
`36.  Claim 75 ................................................................................................ 68 
`37.  Claim 76 ................................................................................................ 68 
`38.  Claim 77 ................................................................................................ 69 
`39.  Claim 78 ................................................................................................ 69 
`40.  Claim 79 ................................................................................................ 69 
`41.  Claim 80 ................................................................................................ 69 
`42.  Claim 81 ................................................................................................ 69 
`43.  Claim 82 ................................................................................................ 69 
`44.  Claim 83 ................................................................................................ 69 
`45.  Claim 84 ................................................................................................ 69 
`46.  Claim 90 ................................................................................................ 69 
`47.  Claim 91 ................................................................................................ 69 
`48.  Claim 92 ................................................................................................ 70 
`B.  Ground 2: Combining Ozawa, Prabhu, and Lyle Renders Claims 2, 36-38,
`40, 70-72, and 74 Obvious ................................................................................... 70 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`1.  Motivation to Combine Ozawa, Prabhu, and Lyle .................................. 70 
`2.  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 80 
`3.  Claim 36 ................................................................................................... 81 
`4.  Claim 37 ................................................................................................... 83 
`5.  Claim 38 ................................................................................................... 86 
`6.  Claim 40 ................................................................................................... 87 
`7.  Claim 70 ................................................................................................... 88 
`8.  Claim 71 ................................................................................................... 88 
`9.  Claim 72 ................................................................................................... 88 
`10.  Claim 74 ................................................................................................ 88 
`IX.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 88 
`X.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 88 
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`PETITIONER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman (“Lippman”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030959 (“Ozawa”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,848 (“OzawaPro-1”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,320 (“OzawaPro-2”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,310 (“OzawaPro-3”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,308 (“OzawaPro-4”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,233 (“OzawaPro-5”)
`U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,234 (“OzawaPro-6”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/473,625 (“Ozawa’625”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104091 (“Prabhu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,242,766 (“Lyle”)
`Complaint, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D.
`Tex. Dec. 14, 2021)
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku,
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,338 (“Wood-1”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0057893 (“Wood-2”)
`Excerpt of Warwick Ford & Michael S. Baum, Secure Electronic
`Commerce, published 1997 (“Ford”)
`IOENGINE, LLC’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1296 (W.D. Tex. Aug.
`18, 2022)
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-16,
`
`22-24, 36-53, 58, 70-84, and 90-92 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,972,584 (EX1001, “’584 Patent”). The Board should institute trial and cancel the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims purport to cover the basic idea of a “portable device”
`
`with a memory and processor such that the portable device can communicate with a
`
`network node and a “terminal.” But this architecture was well known before the
`
`’584 Patent: both in general and specifically in the set-top box (“STB”) art.1 STB
`
`prior art never considered by the Patent Office renders the Challenged Claims
`
`unpatentable. The Patent Owner’s infringement theories against Petitioner’s
`
`products in co-pending district court litigation confirm the overbreadth of the
`
`Challenged Claims and that the asserted prior art reads on the same.
`
`
`1 Except for quotations from asserted references, “set-top box” / “set top box” are
`
`abbreviated as “STB” in the Petition.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The petitioner in this proceeding is Roku, Inc. (“Roku” or “Petitioner”) and
`
`Roku is the real party-in-interest. There are no other real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`IOENGINE, LLC (“Patent Owner”) has asserted the ’584 Patent against
`
`Petitioner in a co-pending litigation, IOENGINE, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`
`1296 (W.D. Tex.) (“District Court Case”). EX1015. The Complaint in the litigation
`
`was filed on December 14, 2021 and served on December 15, 2021.
`
`Petitioner identifies U.S. Application No. 17/409,761; U.S. Application No.
`
`17/222,294 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,082,537); U.S. Application No.
`
`15/712,780 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,447,819 (“’819 Patent”)); U.S. Application
`
`No. 15/712,714 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,397,374 (“’374 Patent”)); U.S.
`
`Application No. 14/721,540 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703 (“’703 Patent”));
`
`U.S. Application No. 13/960,514 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 (“’969
`
`Patent”)); U.S. Application No. 12/950,321 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,539,047
`
`(“’047 Patent”)); and U.S. Application No. 10/807,731 (issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,861,006 (“’006 Patent”)) as related administrative matters.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`Petitioner identifies the following district court proceedings involving the
`
`’703 Patent, ’969 Patent, and ’047 Patent: IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings,
`
`Inc., No. 18-cv-452 (D. Del., filed Mar. 23, 2018); and Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE,
`
`LLC, No. 18-cv-826 (D. Del., filed June 1, 2018).
`
`Petitioner identifies the following inter partes review proceedings involving
`
`the ’819 Patent, ’703 Patent, ’969 Patent, and ’047 Patent: IPR2022-01257;
`
`IPR2022-01258; IPR2019-00416; IPR2019-00584; IPR2019-00879; IPR2019-
`
`00929;
`
`IPR2019-00884;
`
`IPR2019-00885;
`
`IPR2019-00886;
`
`IPR2019-00887;
`
`IPR2019-00906; IPR2019-00907; IPR2019-00930; and IPR2019-00931. The
`
`Board’s judgments in IPR2019-00879 and IPR2019-00929 are pending on appeal in
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc., Case Nos. 21-1227, -1331, -1332, -1375, and -
`
`1376 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`C. Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service Information (37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner designates James L. Lovsin (Reg. No. 69,550) as lead counsel for
`
`this matter, and designates James L. Korenchan (Reg. No. 70,760), Mateusz J.
`
`Kulesza (Reg. No. 74,965), and Margot M. Wilson (Reg. No. 77,094) as back-up
`
`counsel for this matter.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`Post mailings and hand deliveries for lead and back-up counsel should be
`
`addressed to: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert and Berghoff LLP, 300 South Wacker
`
`Drive, Chicago, IL, 60606. (Telephone: 312-913-0001; Fax: 312-913-0002).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioner consents to e-mail service at:
`
`docketing@mbhb.com.
`
`For compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney is filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a) and any additional fees to Deposit Account 132490.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies the ’584 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the following grounds.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenged is Based
`
`This Petition relies on the prior art identified below, none of which was
`
`previously considered by the USPTO.2 This Petition also relies on an expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Andrew B. Lippman (EX1003, referred to as “Lippman”).
`
`Name
`Ozawa
`
`Prabhu
`
`Lyle
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`
`Filed
`3/16/2001
`
`Published/Issued
`10/18/2001
`
`Prior Art
`§102(b)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1/26/2001
`
`8/1/2002
`
`11/21/2001
`
`7/10/2007
`
`§102(b)
`
`§102(e)
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenged is Based
`
`The Challenged Claims are rendered unpatentable based on:
`
`
`
`Ground Statute
`1
`§103
`
`Art Cited
`Ozawa and Prabhu
`
`§103
`
`Ozawa, Prabhu, and Lyle
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3-16, 22-24, 39, 41-53,
`58, 73, 75-84, and 90-92
`2, 36-38, 40, 70-72, and 74
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted
`
`
`2 As the cited art predates the ’584 Patent’s earliest priority date, Petitioner takes
`
`no position as to the legitimacy of the priority claim.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§314(a) or 325(d) to deny this Petition.
`
`(a) The Fintiv factors do not apply
`
`Denial would be improper based on factors in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-0019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) because the Petition presents
`
`compelling evidence of unpatentability. Interim Procedure For Discretionary
`
`Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, at
`
`3-4 (Jun. 21, 2022).
`
`(b) The General Plastic factors do not apply
`
`The ’584 Patent has not been challenged in any prior IPR petition. As such,
`
`none of the discretionary factors in General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabsuhiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sep., 6, 2016) (Section
`
`II.B.4.i precedential) apply to this Petition, and discretionary denial is not warranted.
`
`(c) The Becton, Dickinson factors favor institution
`
`None of the asserted references or Dr. Lippman’s testimony were disclosed,
`
`cited, or considered during prosecution. As such, the discretionary factors in Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsugen AG, IPR2017-01586 Paper 8 (PTAB Dec.
`
`15, 2017) (precedential) weigh in favor of institution, and discretionary denial is not
`
`warranted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`The asserted references are materially different from the prior art considered
`
`by the Examiner; and are not cumulative of the art relied upon during prosecution.
`
`The Examiner never rejected the Challenged Claims and noted in reasons for
`
`allowance that the art of record did not teach certain features. But the asserted
`
`references teach the features the Examiner found lacking in the art of record. For at
`
`least this reason, Ozawa is materially different and not cumulative of the art of
`
`record.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`’584 Patent
`
`The ’584 Patent discloses “a portable device [referred to throughout the
`
`specification as a tunneling client access point (“TCAP”)] configured to
`
`communicate with a terminal and a network server, and execute stored program code
`
`in response to user interaction with an interactive user interface.” EX1001, Abstract.
`
`Figure 1, below, illustrates a topology of a TCAP connected to a terminal (right side
`
`of figure) and back-end TCAP server(s) (left side of figure). Id. 3:59-60.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`The topology includes remote storage 105; servers 110, 115, and 120;
`
`communication network 113a, 113b, and 113c; access terminals (“ATs”) 127; TCAP
`
`
`
`130; and user 133a. Id. 3:59-4:4, 4:17-40.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’584 Patent
`
`The ’584 Patent issued from a sixth continuation application, U.S. Application
`
`No. 16/579,169 (the “’169 Application”). The Challenged Claims were never
`
`rejected by the Examiner in an Office Action during examination. Further, many of
`
`the Challenged Claims were added or amended after the Notice of Allowance.
`
`Lippman, ¶52; EX1002, pp.26-41, 44-52.
`
`The Examiner stated that the art of record does not teach “the portable device
`
`comprising a communication interface, network interface, an interactive user
`
`interface and program code that receives commands and affect presentation on the
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`interactive user interface” and “other features such as the portable device configured
`
`to facilitate key exchange as well as securely transmitting the processed data through
`
`the communication interface.” Id. at 49-50; Lippman, ¶54.
`
`C. Overview of Technology and Asserted Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Technology
`
`The architecture recited in the Challenged Claims was well known before the
`
`’584 Patent, as illustrated by STB prior art listing Anthony Wood – founder and
`
`CEO of Roku – as an inventor. U.S. Patent No. 6,324,338 (EX1017, “Wood-1”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0057893 (EX1018, “Wood-2”);
`
`Lippman, ¶¶68-76.
`
`Furthermore, the secure network communications recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims was well known before the priority date of the ’584 Patent, as illustrated by
`
`Secure Electronic Commerce, written by Warwick Ford & Michael S. Baum
`
`(EX1019, “Ford”), which was published by Prentice Hall PTR in 1997 (ISBN 0-13-
`
`476342-4). Lippman, ¶82. Ford extensively discusses protecting the security of
`
`electronic communications over the Internet using encryption and digital certificates,
`
`demonstrating that these techniques were well known to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSA”) as of the earliest priority date of the ’584 Patent. Ford also
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`describes means for implementing digital certificates and encryption, enabling a
`
`POSA to use these techniques. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Asserted Prior Art
`
`(a) Ozawa
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030959 (EX1005, “Ozawa”)
`
`incorporates by reference six provisional applications: U.S. Provisional No.
`
`60/197,848 (EX1006, “OzawaPro-1”), U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,320 (EX1007,
`
`“OzawaPro-2”), U.S. Provisional 60/197,310 (EX1008, “OzawaPro-3”), U.S.
`
`Provisional No. 60/197,308 (EX1009, “OzawaPro-4”), U.S. Provisional No.
`
`60/197,233 (EX1010, “OzawaPro-5”), and U.S. Provisional No. 60/197,234
`
`(EX1011, “OzawaPro-6”). Ozawa, ¶[0001]. Further, Ozawa incorporates by
`
`reference U.S. Application No. 09/473,625 (EX1012, “Ozawa’625”). Lippman,
`
`¶86.
`
` OzawaPro-1, OzawaPro-2, OzawaPro-3, OzawaPro-4, OzawaPro-5,
`
`OzawaPro-6, (hereinafter, “the Ozawa provisionals”), and Ozawa’625, are each a
`
`part of the disclosure of Ozawa for purposes of this IPR. Lippman, ¶¶85-86; see,
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`e.g., NueMoDx Molecular Inc. v. Handylab, Inc., IPR2020-01133, Paper 23 at 4-6
`
`(citing Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).3
`
`In the STB field, Ozawa discloses “a method and apparatus for handling
`
`MPEG (Moving Pictures Expert Group) and other SI (Service Information) data
`
`formatted in ATM [(Asynchronous Transfer Mode)] packets.” Ozawa, ¶[0003];
`
`Lippman, ¶87. Ozawa provides a mechanism to get SI data to a system processor
`
`“in an efficient manner that neither overloads the system processor nor places undue
`
`performance requirements on the system processor.” Ozawa, ¶[0004]; Lippman,
`
`¶87.
`
`Ozawa’s embodiments illustrate an STB connected to a television and a
`
`service provider head end. FIG. 1 of Ozawa illustrates this architecture. Lippman,
`
`¶88.
`
`
`3 Because Ozawa predates the ’584 Patent, Petitioner need not and does not rely on
`
`the filing date of OzawaPro-1, OzawaPro-2, OzawaPro-3, OzawaPro-4, OzawaPro-
`
`5, OzawaPro-6, and Ozawa’625.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`FIG. 2 of Ozawa below illustrates a block diagram of an STB that can be used
`
`with embodiments of Ozawa. Lippman, ¶90.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`
`
`Each of the Ozawa provisionals discloses various operations that are
`
`applicable in the above-indicated architecture. Lippman, ¶91.
`
`(b) Prabhu
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0104091 (EX1013, “Prabhu”)
`
`“provides methods and apparatuses for passing secure … video streams from a
`
`digital set-top box to a digital television in accordance [with] EIA standards 775A
`
`and 799,” where “EIA 775A is a specification for sending video and user interface
`
`information to a DTV over a[n] [IEEE] 1394 interface.” Prabhu, ¶[0007]; Lippman,
`
`¶94. “In one embodiment, the invention contains a component performing on-screen
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`display function for user interface information displayed on a DTV.” Prabhu,
`
`¶[0007]; Lippman, ¶94.
`
`Prabhu also discloses that a copy protection module of the STB “incorporates
`
`a 5C authentication protocol” allowing the STB to selectively stream out high
`
`definition video over the 1394 bus to the DTV, provided that the DTV is an
`
`authenticated device. Prabhu, ¶¶[0022]-[0023]; see also Prabhu ¶¶[0043]-[0047],
`
`FIG. 7; Lippman, ¶96.
`
`(c) Lyle
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,242,766 (EX1014, “Lyle”) teaches “content protection
`
`using a transmitter that encrypts data, a receiver that receives and decrypts the
`
`encrypted data, and an external agent that communicates with at least one of the
`
`transmitter and receiver to facilitate the encryption and decryption.” Lyle, 1:7-16.
`
`Lippman, ¶101.
`
`Lyle teaches that “a transition minimized differential signaling interface
`
`(‘TMDS’ link) … is used primarily for high-speed transmission of video data from
`
`a set-top box to a television.” Lyle, 1:20-28, 1:64-67; Lippman, ¶102.
`
`Lyle also teaches that the “High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection”
`
`(“HDCP”) protocol “has been proposed to encrypt video data for transmission over
`
`a TMDS serial link” such as a DVI link. Lyle, 2:3-11, 3:6-11; Lippman, ¶102. Lyle
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`thus teaches “encryption and/or decryption of data in accordance with the HDCP
`
`protocol,” modified versions thereof, and “other non-HDCP protocols.” Lyle, 7:8-
`
`16; Lippman, ¶103.
`
`Lyle further teaches that “[c]onventional encryption methods and systems
`
`often use keys that are either captive (contained wholly within a transmitter or
`
`receiver, and seldom or never changing) or limited in number (sometimes distributed
`
`with the media that stores the encrypted content).” Lyle, 7:38-42; Lippman, ¶104.
`
`Thus, “an external agent [can provide] at least one key to at least one of the receiver
`
`and transmitter,” so that “the system can operate using more keys, the keys can be
`
`changed frequently, and the keys can be limited either in scope (allowable use), in
`
`time (with an expiration date), or in some other way.” Lyle, 7:42-62; Lippman,
`
`¶104.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`On or before 3/24/2004, a POSA in the field of the ’584 Patent would have
`
`had a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science,
`
`Computer Engineering or related discipline, and experience in programming
`
`software or firmware for computers/peripheral devices or databases/servers, and
`
`would have had a working understanding of computer hardware, operating systems,
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`encryption, data storage, user interfaces, and communication protocols. Lippman,
`
`¶60.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claims are construed in accordance with the Phillips standard applied in
`
`district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Although the District Court has not yet
`
`construed claims in the District Court Case, Patent Owner has served infringement
`
`contentions showing Patent Owner’s expected interpretations of certain claim terms,
`
`including “terminal” and “facilitate a key exchange” recited in independent Claims
`
`1, 39, and 73. Lippman ¶¶64-65. Patent Owner is expected to take the same
`
`positions on “terminal” and “facilitate a key exchange” in this proceeding, and based
`
`on these expected interpretations, the prior art discloses all limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`The table below summarizes Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation of certain terms recited in the Challenged Claims based on Patent
`
`Patent Owner’s Expected
`Interpretation in This Proceeding
`
` A
`
` “computing device,” which is
`broad enough to include a TV or
`monitor that displays video and/or
`outputs audio (See, e.g., EX1016,
`
`Owner’s infringement contentions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`“terminal”
`(Claims 1, 39, and 73)
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`
`p.160; EX1015, p.72; EX1020, p.9-
`10).
`Broad enough to include initiating
`or participating in a key exchange
`(See, e.g., EX1016, pp.162-166;
`EX1015, p.74).
`
`“facilitate a key exchange”
`(Claims 1, 39, and 73)
`
`Petitioner submits that the other terms recited in the Challenged Claims, other
`
`
`
`than those identified in the table above, can be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would have been understood by a POSA. Thus, no express constructions
`
`are needed for the Board to institute the IPR and cancel the Challenged Claims.
`
`Lippman ¶67.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`A. Ground 1: Combining Ozawa and Prabhu Renders Claims 1, 3-
`16, 22-24, 39, 41-53, 58, 73, 75-84, and 90-92 Obvious
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Ozawa and Prabhu
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Ozawa and Prabhu to arrive
`
`at the alleged invention in Claims 1, 3-16, 22-24, 41-53, 58, 73, 75-84, and 90-92
`
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so. Lippman,
`
`¶113.
`
`Ozawa and Prabhu are in the same field of endeavor, and were both filed by
`
`and assigned to Sony Electronics, Inc. Further, Ozawa and Prabhu each teach
`
`delivering content (e.g., video) to an STB, and, in turn, to a TV connected to the
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 10,972,584
`Petition for Inter Partes Review – IPR2022-01551
`
`STB. In addition, Ozawa and Prabhu each teach communication between an STB
`
`and a digital TV in accordance with the home audio video interoperability (HAVi)
`
`standard, which is part of an architecture set forth by an industry group (including
`
`Sony) enabling interoperability among devices on a network regardless of the
`
`manufacturer of the device, such as on a 1394 interface or Digital Visual Interface
`
`(DVI) between the STB and the TV. See Ozawa, ¶¶[0022], [0024]; Prabhu, ¶[0004];
`
`Lippman, ¶114.
`
`Ozawa’s STB 22 can include a smart card reader that serves as a conditional
`
`access module [(‘CAM’)] conventionally utilized for “authorization of services and
`
`storage of authorized cryptography keys,” such as by “provid[ing] the key for
`
`decoding incoming cryptographic data for content that the CAM determines the user
`
`is authorized to receive.” Ozawa, ¶[0031]; Lippman, ¶115.
`
`An STB performs copy protection in both Ozawa and Prabhu. See OzawaPro-
`
`5, p.34 (copy protecting digital signals over a 1394 interface); see also OzawaPro-
`
`5, p.10 (the STB utilizes Digital Transmission Copy Protection (DTCP) for digital
`
`copy protection, which “[was] previously known as ‘5C Copy Protection’”) and p.50
`
`(the STB’s video outputs to the TV must support copy protection); Lippman, ¶116.
`
`Prabhu teaches passing secure video streams from a digital STB to a dig

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket