IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`Issued: Sep. 17, 2019
`Application No.: 15/933,531
`Filing Date: Mar. 23, 2018
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`For: Artificial Intelligence Assisted Tagging of Users in Digital Media Online
`FILED VIA P-TACTS
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 001
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`Issued: Sep. 17, 2019
`Application No.: 15/933,531
`Filing Date: Mar. 23, 2018
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`For: Artificial Intelligence Assisted Tagging of Users in Digital Media Online
`FILED VIA P-TACTS
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 001
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of Petitioner to provide
`
`my expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of a
`
`publication. My report sets forth my opinions in detail and provides the bases for
`
`my opinions regarding the public availability of this publication.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument, and/or
`
`other additional information that may be provided to or obtained by me after the
`
`date of this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $325 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`Declaration, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this dispute. I have
`
`no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`5.
`
`All of the materials that I considered are discussed explicitly in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`1
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 002
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at
`
`San José State University. I obtained a Master of Library Science from the
`
`University of North Texas in 1972 and a Ph.D. in Library Science from the
`
`University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last fifty years, I have held various
`
`positions in the field of library and information resources. I was first employed as
`
`a librarian in 1966 and have been involved in the field of library sciences since,
`
`holding numerous positions.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (“ALA”) and its
`
`Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (“ALCTS”) Division,
`
`and I served on the Committee on Cataloging: Resource and Description (which
`
`wrote the new cataloging rules) and as the founding chair of the Committee for
`
`Education and Training of Catalogers and the Competencies and Education for a
`
`Career in Cataloging Interest Group. I also served as the Founding Chair of the
`
`ALCTS Division’s Task Force on Competencies and Education for a Career in
`
`Cataloging. Additionally, I served as the Chair for the ALA Office of Diversity’s
`
`Committee on Diversity, a member of the REFORMA National Board of
`
`Directors, a member of the Editorial Board for the ALCTS premier cataloging
`
`journal, Library Resources and Technical Services, and as a Co-Chair for the
`
`2
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 003
`
`
`
`
`
`Membership Committee of the Library Research Round Table (LRRT) of the
`
`American Library Association. Currently, I serve as a member of the LRRT
`
`Nominating Committee
`
`8.
`
`I have also given over one-hundred presentations in the field,
`
`including several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) standards. My current research interests include library cataloging
`
`systems, metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`9.
`
`I have been deposed twenty-five times: (1) Symantec Corp. v. Finjan,
`
`Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926, IPR 2015-
`
`01892, May 26, 2016, on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. v. Finjan,
`
`Inc., 14-cv-299-HSG (N.D. Cal.), on behalf of Symantec Corp., September 14,
`
`2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC
`
`Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 12-193
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport,
`
`Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 13-1631 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1632 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 004
`
`
`
`No. 13-1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1634
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1635 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. United States Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-
`
`1636 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. United States Cellular Corporation,
`
`C.A. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., C.A. No. 15-799
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 15-800 (LPS), on behalf of AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, Boost Mobile, LLC Cricket Wireless LLC, Nextel Operations, Inc., New
`
`Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., United States Cellular Corporation
`
`Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Wayport, Inc., November 15, 2016; (4) Hitachi
`
`Maxell, LTD., v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., et al., 2:14-cv-1121
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas), on behalf of Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD,
`
`et. al., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. General Access Solutions,
`
`Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,916, IPR 2017-
`
`01885, on behalf of Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018; (6) Nichia Corporation v.
`
`4
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 005
`
`
`
`Vizio, Inc., 8:16-cv-00545; on behalf of Vizio, Inc., October 12, 2018; (7)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson
`
`Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2:17-cv-00557 (JRG), on behalf of T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson, October 19, 2018; (8) Pfizer, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873, IPR 2017-01168, on behalf of Pfizer,
`
`November 3, 2018; (9) Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., 3:17-
`
`cv-00183-CAB-BGS, on behalf of ESET, January 15, 2019; (10) Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK, on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`September 6, 2019; (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc. v.
`
`Blackberry Limited for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2, on
`
`behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc., December 20, 2019;
`
`(12) 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,661, IPR 2020-00222 and IPR 2020-
`
`00223, August 10, 2020, on behalf of 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc.; (13) Finjan
`
`Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc. and Rapid7 LLC, District of Delaware, 1:18-cv-01519-MN,
`
`September 15, 2020, on behalf of Rapid7 Inc. and Rapid7 LLC; (14) VLSI
`
`Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas, 6:19-cv-00254,
`
`6:19-cv-00255, 6:19-cv-00256, September 23, 2020, on behalf of the Intel
`
`5
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 006
`
`
`
`Corporation; (15) Finjan Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., Northern District of California,
`
`5:17-cv-04467-BLF-HRL, October 27, 2020, on behalf of Sonicwall, Inc.; (16)
`
`VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel Corporation, District of Delaware, 1:18-cv-00966-
`
`CFC-CJB, February 5, 2021, on behalf of the Intel Corporation; (17) Unified
`
`Patents, LLC v. 3BCOM, LLC, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent
`
`7,127,210, February 11, 2021, on behalf of Unified Patents; (18) Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Qualsys, Inc., Northern District of California, 4:18-cv-07229-YGR, March 1,
`
`2021, on behalf of Qualsys, Inc.; (19) Qualcomm, Inc. v. Monterey Research LLC,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 6,534,805, May 6, 2021, on behalf
`
`of Qualcomm, Inc.; (20) Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 5,806,062, May 14, 2021, on behalf of Hulu,
`
`LLC; (21) VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas,
`
`6:19-cv-00254, 6:19-cv-00255 and 6:19-cv-00256, August 3, 2021, on behalf of
`
`Intel Corporation; (22) Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics
`
`Corporation, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 10,716,793 B2,
`
`October 20, 2021, on behalf of Liquidia Technologies, Inc.; (23) EcoFactor, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., Western District of Texas, 6:20-cv-00075 (ADA), 6:20-0078-ADA,
`
`and 6:20-cv-00080 ADA, October 27, 2021, on behalf of Google, Inc.; (24)
`
`Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation, Petition for Inter
`
`6
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 007
`
`
`
`Partes Review of U. S. Patent 10,716,793 B2, March 11, 2022, on behalf of
`
`Liquidia Technologies, Inc.; and, (25) Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm
`
`Technology LLC, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 9,852,004, May
`
`5, 2022, on behalf of Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`10. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`A.
`Scope of This Declaration
`11.
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on when and how each of these documents was disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before November 15, 2000.
`
`12.
`
`I am informed by counsel that an item is considered authentic if there
`
`is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the item is what it is claimed to be. I
`
`am also informed that authenticity can be established based on the contents of the
`
`documents themselves, such as the appearance, contents, substance, internal
`
`patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all of
`
`the circumstances. I am further informed that an item is considered authentic if it
`
`is at least 20 years old, in a condition that creates no suspicion of its authenticity,
`7
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 008
`
`
`
`and in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be. Lastly, I have been informed
`
`that a document’s authenticity can be established by comparison with an authentic
`
`specimen.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a printed publication qualifies as
`
`publicly accessible as of the date it was disseminated or otherwise made available
`
`such that a person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter
`
`could locate it through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`14. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it. That is, I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, although there are other ways
`
`that a printed publication may qualify as publicly accessible. One manner of
`
`sufficient indexing is indexing according to subject matter category. I understand
`
`that the cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance of a
`
`particular printed publication is sufficient, even if the single library is in a foreign
`
`country. I understand that, even if access to a library is restricted, a printed
`
`publication that has been cataloged and indexed therein is publicly accessible so
`
`8
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 009
`
`
`
`long as a presumption is raised that the portion of the public concerned with the
`
`relevant subject matter would know of the printed publication. I also understand
`
`that the cataloging and indexing of information that would guide a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter to the printed publication, such as the
`
`cataloging and indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to
`
`render the printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that routine business practices, such as general library
`
`cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to establish an approximate date on
`
`which a printed publication became publicly accessible. I also understand that the
`
`indicia on the face of a reference, such as printed dates and stamps, are considered
`
`as part of the totality of the evidence.
`
`B.
`16.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding relates
`
`generally to the field of networked and Web-based media applications.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the inventions” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be
`
`familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions. This
`
`hypothetical person is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of
`
`understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`9
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 010
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I am told by counsel that persons of ordinary skill in this subject
`
`matter or art would have had the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar technical field,
`
`with at least two years of experience in the field of networked and Web-based
`
`media applications. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and
`
`additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been engaged in
`
`research, learning through study, and practice in the field and possibly through
`
`formal instruction, the bibliographic resources relevant to his or her research. By
`
`not later than the late 1990s (and more specifically, 1998), such a person would
`
`have had access to a vast array of long-established print resources in the field, as
`
`well as to a rich set of online resources providing indexing information, abstracts,
`
`and full text services for publications relevant to the field of this dispute.
`
`C. Authoritative Databases
`In preparing this report, I used authoritative databases, such as the
`20.
`
`OCLC WorldCat, the Library of Congress Online Catalog, the ACM Digital
`
`Library, and the digital repositories ResearchGate and Semantic Scholar, to
`
`confirm citation details of the various publications discussed.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 011
`
`
`
`21. OCLC WorldCat Database. The OCLC was created “to establish,
`
`maintain and operate a computerized library network and to promote the evolution
`
`of library use, of libraries themselves, and of librarianship, and to provide
`
`processes and products for the benefit of library users and libraries, including such
`
`objectives as increasing availability of library resources to individual library
`
`patrons and reducing the rate of rise of library per-unit costs, all for the
`
`fundamental public purpose of furthering ease of access to and use of the ever-
`
`expanding body of worldwide scientific, literary and educational knowledge and
`
`information.”1 Among other services, OCLC and its members are responsible for
`
`maintaining the WorldCat database, 2 used by independent and institutional
`
`libraries throughout the world.
`
`22. U.S. Copyright Office. Created by Congress in 1897, the Copyright
`
`Office is responsible for administering a complex and dynamic set of laws, which
`
`include registration, the recordation of title and licenses, a number of statutory
`
`licensing provisions, and other aspects of the 1976 Copyright Act and the 1998
`
`1 Third Article, Amended Articles of Incorporation of OCLC Online Computer
`Library Center, Incorporated (available at
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf)
`2 http://www.worldcat.org/
`
`11
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 012
`
`
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The public catalog in the Copyright Office
`
`includes information filed since 1978. 3 Individuals can search by title, personal or
`
`corporate name, key word, registration number, and document number. Works
`
`filed before 1978 can be located through the Copyright Public Records Reading
`
`Room. 4 A researcher can find the date on which an item was published and
`
`deposited for copyright.
`
`23.
`
`ACM Digital Library.5 This index is produced by the Association for
`
`Computing Machinery, the world’s largest scientific and educational computing
`
`society. The ACM Digital Library contains the full text of all AMC publications,
`
`hosted full-text publications from selected publishers, and the ACM Guide to
`
`Computing Literature—a comprehensive bibliography of computing literature
`
`beginning in the 1950s with more than a million entries. All metadata in the
`
`database are freely available on the Web, including abstracts, linked references,
`
`citing work, and usage statistics. Full-text articles are available with subscription.
`
`3 https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
`4 https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ23.pdf
`5 https://dl.acm.org/
`
`12
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 013
`
`
`
`24.
`
`ResearchGate.6 A European-based social networking site for
`
`scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find
`
`collaborators, ResearchGate is the largest academic social network in terms of
`
`active users, although other services have more registered users.
`
`25.
`
`Features available to ResearchGate members include following a
`
`research interest and the work of other individual participants, a blogging feature
`
`for users to write short reviews on peer-reviewed articles, private chat rooms for
`
`sharing data, editing documents, or discussing confidential topics, and a research-
`
`focused job board. ResearchGate indexes self-published information on user
`
`profiles and suggests members to connect with others who have similar
`
`interests. Member questions are fielded to others who have identified relevant
`
`expertise on their profiles.
`
`26. As of 2021, ResearchGate had more than 20 million scientists, with
`
`its largest user-bases coming from Europe and North America. Most of
`
`ResearchGate’s users are involved in medicine, biology, engineering, computer
`
`science, agricultural sciences, and psychology.
`
`6 https://www.researchgate.net/
`
`13
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 014
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Semantic Scholar.7 A project developed at the Allen Institute for
`
`Artificial Intelligence and publicly released in November 2015, Semantic Scholar
`
`is designed to be an AI-backed search engine for scientific journal articles which
`
`uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing, and machine
`
`vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the traditional methods of citation
`
`analysis, and to extract relevant figures, entities, and venues from papers. Semantic
`
`Scholar is designed to highlight important, influential papers, and to identify the
`
`connections between them.
`
`28. As of January 2018, following a 2017 project that added biomedical
`
`papers and topic summaries, the Semantic Scholar corpus included more than 40
`
`million papers from computer science and biomedicine. In March 2018, Doug
`
`Raymond, who developed machine learning initiatives for the Amazon
`
`Alexa platform, was hired to lead the Semantic Scholar project. As of August
`
`2019, the number of included papers had grown to more than 173 million after the
`
`addition of the Microsoft Academic Graph records, already used by Lens.org.
`
`D.
`
`Indexing
`
`29. A researcher may discover material relevant to his or her topic in a
`
`variety of ways. One common means of discovery is to search for relevant
`
`7 https://www.semanticscholar.org
`
`14
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 015
`
`
`
`information in an index of periodical and other publications. Having found
`
`relevant material, the researcher will then normally obtain it online, look for it in
`
`libraries, or purchase it from the publisher, a bookstore, a document delivery
`
`service, or other provider. Sometimes, the date of a document’s public
`
`accessibility will involve both indexing and library date information. However,
`
`date information for indexing entries is often unavailable. This is especially true
`
`for online indices.
`
`30.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The formats in which these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`31. Before the widespread development of online databases to index
`
`articles in journals, magazines, conference papers, and technical reports, libraries
`
`purchased printed volumes of indices. Graduate library school education mandated
`
`that students learn about the bibliographic control of disciplines, the prominent
`
`indexing volumes, and searching strategies required to use them effectively and
`
`efficiently. Half of the courses that I studied in library school were focused on the
`
`bibliography and resources in academic disciplines.
`
`32.
`
`Librarians consulted with information seekers to verify citations,
`
`check availability in union catalogs, printed books catalogs, and the OCLC
`
`15
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 016
`
`
`
`
`
`database, and make formal requests for materials, e.g., books, conference
`
`proceedings, journal articles. Requests were transmitted using Telex machines,
`
`rudimentary email systems, and the United States Postal Service. During my
`
`career, I have performed and supervised staff who handled these resource sharing
`
`tasks.
`
`33. Online indexing services commonly provide bibliographic
`
`information, abstracts, and full-text copies of the indexed publications, along with
`
`a list of the documents cited in the indexed publication. These services also often
`
`provide lists of publications that cite a given document. A citation of a document
`
`is evidence that the document was publicly available and in use no later than the
`
`publication date of the citing document.
`
`IV. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`A. Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) Standard
`I am fully familiar with the library cataloging standard known as the
`34.
`
`MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method of storing and
`
`organizing library catalog information. 8 MARC was first developed in the 1960s
`
`by the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`
`
`8 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`16
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 017
`
`
`
`
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for each of its items. Today, MARC is the
`
`primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic
`
`metadata in libraries. 9
`
`35. Since at least the early 1970s and continuing to the present day,
`
`MARC has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage
`
`of bibliographic metadata in libraries. 10 As explained by the Library of Congress:
`
`You could devise your own method of organizing the
`bibliographic information, but you would be isolating your library,
`
`
`
`9 Almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible. See, e.g., MARC
`Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Library of Congress,
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html (last visited September 29, 2022) (“MARC is
`the acronym for Machine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data format that
`emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly forty years
`ago. It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (reaffirmed
`2016) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`10 A complete history of the development of MARC can be found in MARC: Its
`History and Implications by Henrietta D. Avram (Washington, DC: Library of
`Congress, 1975) and available online from the Hathi Trust
`(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034388556;view=1up;seq=1; last
`visited September 29, 2022).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 018
`
`
`
`limiting its options, and creating much more work for yourself. Using
`the MARC standard prevents duplication of work and allows libraries
`to better share bibliographic resources. Choosing to use MARC
`enables libraries to acquire cataloging data that is predictable and
`reliable. If a library were to develop a “home-grown” system that did
`not use MARC records, it would not be taking advantage of an
`industry-wide standard whose primary purpose
`is
`to
`foster
`communication of information.
`Using the MARC standard also enables libraries to make use of
`commercially available library automation systems to manage library
`operations. Many systems are available for libraries of all sizes and
`are designed to work with the MARC format. Systems are maintained
`and improved by the vendor so that libraries can benefit from the
`latest advances in computer technology. The MARC standard also
`allows libraries to replace one system with another with the assurance
`that their data will still be compatible.
`
`Why Is a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2 (last visited September 29,
`
`2022).
`
`36.
`
`Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
`
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html (last visited September 29, 2022) (“MARC is
`
`the acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data format that
`18
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 019
`
`
`
`
`
`emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly fifty years ago.
`
`It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret
`
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 standard
`
`(reaffirmed in 2016) for Information Interchange Format. The full text of the
`
`standard is available from the Library of Congress. 11
`
`37. A MARC record comprises several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique,
`
`three-digit code corresponding to the type of data that follow. For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in field 245, the primary author or creator of the work is
`
`recorded in field 100, an item’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) is
`
`recorded in field 020, an item’s International Standard Serial Number (“ISSN”) is
`
`recorded in field 022, an item’s Library of Congress call number is recorded in
`
`field 050, and the publication date is recorded in field 260 under the subfield “c.”
`
`Id. 12 If a work is a periodical, then its publication frequency is recorded in field
`
`
`
`11 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`12 In some MARC records, field 264 is used rather than field 260 to record
`publication information. See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
`(last visited September 29, 2022) (“Information in field 264 is similar to
`19
`
`
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 020
`
`
`
`
`
`310, alternate publication frequency is recorded in field 321, and the publication
`
`dates (e.g., the first and last publication) are recorded in field 362, which is also
`
`referred to as the enumeration/chronology field. 13
`
`38. MARC records also include several fields that include subject matter
`
`classification information. An overview of MARC record fields is available
`
`through the Library of Congress website. 14 For example, 6XX fields are termed
`
`“Subject Access Fields.”15 Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the
`
`“Subject Added Entry – Topical Term” field. 16 The 650 field is a “[s]ubject added
`
`entry in which the entry element is a topical term.”17 These authenticated subject
`
`entries “are assigned to a bibliographic record to provide access according to
`
`
`
`information in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is
`useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies make a
`distinction between functions”).
`13 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html
`14 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`15 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html
`16 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html
`
`17 Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 021
`
`
`
`generally accepted thesaurus-building rules (e.g., Library of Congress Subject
`
`Headings (LCSH), Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)).”18
`
`39.
`
`Further, MARC records include call numbers, which themselves
`
`indicate a subject and physical location within the library collections. For
`
`example, the 050 field is the “Library of Congress Call Number.”19 A defined
`
`portion of the Library of Congress Call Number is the classification number, and
`
`“source of the classification number is Library of Congress Classification and
`
`the LC Classification-Additions and Changes.”20 Thus, included in the 050 field is
`
`a subject matter classification. Each item in a library has a single classification
`
`number. A library selects a classification scheme (e.g., the Library of Congress
`
`Classification scheme just described or a similar scheme such as the Dewey
`
`Decimal Classification scheme or the National Library of Medicine Classification
`
`scheme) and uses it consistently. When the Library of Congress assigns the
`
`classification number, it appears as part of the 050 field. If a local library assigns
`
`the classification number, it appears in a 090 field. In either scenario, the MARC
`
`18 Id.
`19 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html
`20 Id.
`
`21
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 022
`
`
`
`
`
`record includes a classification number that represents a subject matter
`
`classification.
`
`40. For MARC records created by libraries other than the Library of
`
`Congress (e.g., a university library or a local public library), the classification
`
`number may appear in a 09X (e.g., 090) field. 21
`
`41. OCLC provides its members online access to MARC records through
`
`its OCLC bibliographic database. When an OCLC member institution acquires a
`
`work, it creates a MARC record for this work in its computer catalog system in the
`
`ordinary course of its business. MARC records created at the Library of Congress
`
`were initially tape-loaded into the OCLC database through a subscription to
`
`MARC Distribution Services daily or weekly. Once the MARC record is created
`
`by a cataloger at an OCLC member institution or is tape-loaded from the Library
`
`of Congress, the MARC record is then made available to any other OCLC
`
`members online, and therefore made available to the public. Accordingly, once the
`
`MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member institution or is tape-
`
`loaded from the Library of Congress or another library anywhere in the world, any
`
`publication corresponding to the MARC record has been cataloged and indexed
`
`according to its subject matter such that a person interested in that subject matter
`
`
`
`22
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`Exhibit 1035
`Page 023
`
`
`
`
`
`could, with reasonable diligence, locate and access the publication through any
`
`library with access to the OCLC bibliographic database or through the Library of
`
`Congress.
`
`42. When an OCLC member institution creates a new MARC record,
`
`OCLC automatically supplies the date of creation for tha
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
