UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EQUIL IP HOLDINGS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2023-00332
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S PRE-INSTITUTION REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELMIINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii 
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. iii 
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iv 
`A.  PO’s Purported Inventorship Correction Does Not Affect Samaniego’s
`Prior Art Status in This IPR Because the ’745 Is Not the Patent “In Which
`Such [Purported] Error Occurred” ........................................................................ 1 
`B.  The Cited Prior Art Presents Unconsidered Teachings ........................................ 4 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.,
`488 U.S. 204 (1988) .............................................................................................. 2
`Ecobee Techs. v. Causam Enterprises, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01339, Pap. 20 ...................................................................................... 7
`Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovs. Ltd.,
`IPR2022-01197, Pap. 12 ....................................................................................... 7
`Pannu v. Iolab Corp.,
`155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 2
`Sony v. MZ Audio Scis., LLC,
`IPR2022-01544, Pap. 12 ....................................................................................... 7
`Sw. Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc.,
`226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 3
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§120 ....................................................................................................................... 1
`§102(f) ............................................................................................................... 2, 3
`§318(a) .................................................................................................................. 1
`§254 ....................................................................................................................... 3
`§255 ....................................................................................................................... 3
`§256 ....................................................................................................................... 2
`§256(b) .......................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`§311(b) .................................................................................................................. 2
`§314(a) .................................................................................................................. 4
`§325(d) .......................................................................................................... 1, 4, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`MPEP 1402 II ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,964,009 (Ex. 2006)
`’009
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745 (Ex. 1001)
`’745
`Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`Claims
`Certificate of Correction
`COC
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,576 (Ex. 1005)
`Huang
`Information Disclosure Statement
`IDS
`Inter Partes Review
`IPR
`U.S. Patent No. 6,483,851 (Ex. 2011)
`Neogi
`Pet./Petition Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 2)
`Petitioner
`Petitioner Akamai Technologies, Inc
`PO
`Patent Owner Equil IP Holdings LLC
`POPR
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 8)
`PTAB
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`RHI
`Receiver Hint Information
`Samaniego U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0078093 (Ex. 1007)
`Tso
`U.S. Patent No. 6,421,733 (Ex. 1004)
`Tso-PCT
`PCT Publication WO 98/43177 (Ex. 2007)
`USPTO
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745 (“’745”)
`
`Ex. 1002 File History of U.S. Application No. 13/752,110 (“’745 FH)
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Vijay K. Madisetti in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`Ex. 1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,421,733 (“Tso”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,438,576 (“Huang”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,905,522 (“Lawler”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0078093
`(“Samaniego”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 5,420,967 (“Delp”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,716 (“Davis”)
`
`Ex. 1010 File History of U.S. Application No. 11/269,916 (“’916 FH)
`
`Ex. 1011 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,792,575 (“’575”)
`
`Ex. 1013 Redline Comparison of specifications from Samaniego and the ’745
`patent
`
`Ex. 1014 Loralee Stevens, Internet Video Startup Gets $3.5 Million, N. Bay
`Bus. J. (Apr. 14, 2008),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080421191837/www.northbaybusiness
`journal.com/article/20080414/BUSINESSJOURNAL/19773530/1207
`/BUSINESSJOURNAL02
`
`Ex. 1015 LinkedIn Profile for Chris Samaniego,
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-samaniego-18b6a01
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1016 Equil IP Holdings LLC v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 1:22-cv-00677
`(D. Del. 2022) First Amended complaint (Aug. 3, 2022)
`
`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`Ex. 1017 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1018 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1019 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1020 Docket Report for Berger-Great South Ventures LLC v. Equilibrium
`Techs.
`
`Ex. 1021 Redline Comparison of specifications from Samaniego and
`Publication No. 2006-0265476 of Application No. 11/269,916
`
`Ex. 1022 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1023 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1024 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1025 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1026 File History of U.S. Application No. 12/173,747 (“’046 FH”)
`
`Ex. 1027 File History of U.S. Application No. 12/238,842 (“’110 FH)
`
`Ex. 1028 Redline Comparison of specifications from Samaniego and
`Publication No. 2009-0070485 of Application No. 12/173,747
`
`Ex. 1029 Redline Comparison of specifications from Samaniego and
`Publication No. 2009-0089422 of Application No. 12/238,842
`
`Ex. 1030 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1031 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1032 (Reserved)
`
`Ex. 1033 Gerald Graef, Graphics Formats for Linux, 23 LINUX J., March 1996,
`https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.5555/325530.325533
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`Ex. 1034 File History of U.S. Application No. 09/425,326 (“’575 FH”)
`
`Ex. 1035 File History of U.S. Application No. 09/929,904 (“’009 FH”)
`
`Ex. 1036 Luca Delgrossi et al., Media Scaling in a Multimedia Communication
`System, 2 MULTIMEDIA SYS. 172 (1994),
`https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01210448
`
`Ex. 1037 Armando Fox and Eric A. Brewer, Reducing WWW latency and
`bandwidth requirements by real-time distillation, COMPUT.
`NETWORKS & ISDN SYS., PROCS. 5TH INT’L WORLD WIDE WEB CONF.
`(May 1996), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/-
`pii/016975529600027X
`
`Ex. 1038 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,996 (“Starnes”)
`
`Ex. 1039 Declaration of Jonathan Bradford
`
`Ex.1040 PTAB Email dated May 18, 2023
`
`Ex.1041 Madstad Engineering, Inc. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla., Tampa Div.
`2012) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support
`(Sep. 18, 2012)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`PO’s inventorship and §325(d) arguments, which are addressed in this Reply
`
`(see Ex. 1040), lack merit. IPR should be instituted.
`
`A.
`
`PO’s Purported Inventorship Correction Does Not Affect
`Samaniego’s Prior Art Status in This IPR Because the ’745 Is Not
`the Patent “In Which Such [Purported] Error Occurred”
`
`There is no dispute that, if Samaniego (Ex. 1007) is prior art, it anticipates the
`
`’745’s challenged claims. See Pap. 8 (“POPR”), 13-19 (“Petitioner, the Examiner,
`
`and [PO]’s expert all agree that … the written description[ of Samaniego] disclose[s]
`
`claims 1-7”). And, there is no dispute that Samaniego shared no common inventors
`
`with the ’745—and therefore qualified as prior art—when the ’745 expired and the
`
`Petition was filed. See Exs. 1001, 1007; §120. PO’s sole substantive argument
`
`addressing Samaniego (Grounds 3-6) is that PO’s recently-secured Certificate of
`
`Correction for
`
`the ’009 (“’009 COC”) somehow disqualifies Samaniego
`
`retroactively.1 POPR 1. But no statute or case supports PO’s position.
`
`PO argues that the ’009 COC petition retroactively removes the ’009 from
`
`serving as prior art to the ’745, but §256(b), which authorizes the ’009 COC, limits
`
`its effects to only inventorship errors in the patent being corrected, i.e., the ’009:
`
`
`1 Petitioner disputes the propriety of the ’009 COC, but will address this and related
`
`inequitable conduct issues in litigation due to the scope of IPR jurisdiction here. See
`
`§318(a). Section references are to 35 U.S.C. Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`“The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not
`
`invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided
`
`in [§256].” §256(b). The section does not authorize retroactive impact on the ’745.2
`
`Rather, §256(b) is a “savings provision” to avoid invalidity under §102(f)—
`
`which renders a patent invalid if the named inventor “did not himself invent the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented.” §102(f); Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This section is a savings provision. … When a party asserts
`
`invalidity under §102(f) … a patentee may invoke section 256 to save the patent
`
`from invalidity.”).3 The IPR Petition here addresses prior art unpatentability of the
`
`’745’s claims, not §102(f) inventorship challenges—nor could it. See §311(b).
`
`Moreover, any retroactive effect of a COC must be explicitly authorized by
`
`Congress: as a general matter, “[r]etroactivity is not favored in the law,” and
`
`“congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have
`
`retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.” Bowen v. Georgetown
`
`Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). It is well-established that COCs for USPTO
`
`and clerical errors therefore have only a prospective effect on “the trial of actions
`
`
`2 §256(b) also does not provide for any impact on Samaniego.
`
`3 The ’745 is pre-AIA, but even post-AIA, the same inventorship challenges continue
`
`to apply. See Ex. 1041, 9-10.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`for causes thereafter arising.” See §§254-255. §256(b) similarly expressly limits the
`
`effect of COCs to only the patent “in which such error occurred,” and therein only
`
`to errors of inventorship implicating §102(f). And unlike §254 corrections, §256(b)
`
`COCs are not “considered as part of the original patent.” But even if the correction
`
`had been made under §§254-255, there are no further “causes thereafter arising”
`
`because the ’745 expired on 7/20/2020. Ex. 1001. By statute, the ’009 COC therefore
`
`has only a confined effect that does not retroactively impact the ’745.
`
`PO’s arguments about the ’009 COC and its alleged retroactive effect also
`
`conveniently overlook PO’s failure to timely raise the alleged inventorship defect.
`
`See Sw. Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., 226 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`(finding that requiring a patentee to “check a patent when it is issued” is not “asking
`
`too much”). PO has known of this purported inventorship issue since at least 2008—
`
`before the ’745 was filed—when it filed a related application removing Samaniego’s
`
`inventors and replacing them with an entirely new set of inventors. See Ex. 1026,
`
`79-87. Yet, PO never sought to correct the ’009’s inventorship during the entire life
`
`of the ’745. During that span, the public has been on notice that the ’745 was invalid
`
`over Samaniego given the discontinuity in inventorship. Petitioner relied on this
`
`discontinuity and filed a petition seeking to invalidate these claims based on this
`
`deficiency. See Sw. Software, 226 F.3d at 1295–96 (refusing to allow patent holder
`
`to sue for pre-COC activities when “a claim would appear invalid to the public”
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`because it would have been “an illogical result”). The ’745 should be analyzed
`
`through that same lens pre-COC. And even if the ’009 COC could have had an
`
`impact on Samaniego’s inventorship for causes of action going forward, that is of
`
`no moment here because the ’745 expired years before the COC.4
`
`For each of these reasons, PO’s COC does not change the fact that Samaniego
`
`remains prior art to the ’745—as it was throughout the life of the ’745.5
`
`B.
`
`The Cited Prior Art Presents Unconsidered Teachings
`
`Initially, the Board should not exercise discretion in light of Samaniego’s
`
`anticipatory and unconsidered teachings (Grounds 3-6) as explained above.
`
`PO’s §325(d) arguments for Grounds 1-2 also fail. PO disputes only whether
`
`Tso and Huang or similar teachings were previously considered and whether the
`
`examiner erred. Huang was not before the USPTO, and PO does not contend that
`
`the examiner considered similar arguments during prosecution because the Notice
`
`of Allowance issued without rejections. See POPR 26-29; Pet. 8.6 Under Advanced
`
`
`4 While a correction of inventorship through reissue (MPEP 1402 II) would have
`
`provided public notice through a republished revised inventive entity, PO did not
`
`avail itself of this vehicle and cannot now because the ’009 has expired.
`
`5 PO’s §314(a) argument based on Grounds 3-6 is therefore inapposite.
`
`6 PO’s argument that §325(d) findings based on “arguments previously before the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`Bionics, Huang’s teachings, applied to Tso, differ from what the examiner
`
`considered—and it was error to overlook any similarity that might have existed.
`
`Huang’s
`
`teachings of creating and reusing previously-created
`
`intermediate content items were not previously considered. As the Petition
`
`explained, the Claims recite “creating” “intermediate media content” using “content
`
`generation” operations, and creating “optimized media content” by “performing”
`
`“transformation operations” on a previously-generated “intermediate media content”
`
`that is “available for reuse.” Pet. 1, 7-8, 26-36 ([1.c]-[1.e]); see also POPR 8.
`
`Grounds 1-2 rely on Huang for its teachings of caching and reusing “intermediate
`
`media content.” See, e.g., Pet. 26-36 ([1.c]-[1.e]); see also id. 16-18. Specifically,
`
`Huang teaches using “RHI” information to track “partially rendered” and cached
`
`content. Huang, 4:24-39, 6:9-23, 6:63-67, 7:42-8:11; Pet. 30-32. When another
`
`request for content arrives, a server uses RHI to retrieve a cached partially-rendered
`
`version of content, and further renders that partially-rendered version to “complet[e]
`
`the entire rendering process.” Id.; Pet. 33. As the Petition explains, applying these
`
`teachings to Tso yields a system in which, when selection criteria in a request specify
`
`the transcode operations dictating the invoked transcode service providers (e.g., Tso,
`
`4:19-29, 6:64-8:9, Pet. 13, 24-26, 33-34), the “partial” transcoding output from each
`
`
`Office” also support §314(a) discretion are therefore irrelevant. Cf. POPR 23.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`service provider is cached as intermediate content so it can be reused—and is reused
`
`for subsequent requests specifying those transcoding steps. E.g., Huang, 6:63-67,
`
`5:42-44, 7:36-41; Pet. 29-33, 35-36.
`
`Huang’s teachings of these elements markedly differ from those considered
`
`during prosecution. PO contends that Neogi (Ex. 2011) and Huang have
`
`substantially similar “partitioned” processing teachings (POPR 28), but Neogi does
`
`not teach creating and reusing previously-created intermediate content. Neogi
`
`teaches transcoding content in “stages,” e.g., by “filtering” and “interpolating”
`
`multimedia in stages. Neogi, 1:56-60, 3:18-39. Neogi does not discuss caching,
`
`storing, or reusing such transcoded content at all. PO cites Neogi’s “buffer pooling,”
`
`but these buffer pools are part of a single “adaptive pipeline” for a “transcoding
`
`service” to stage a transcoding process, and are not used to store and reuse
`
`previously-created intermediate content. Neogi, 2:52-3:4, Fig. 3. These “buffer
`
`pools” are different from Huang’s teachings discussed for [1.c]-[1.e].
`
`As to Tso, while Tso-PCT (Ex. 2007) has substantially the same disclosures,
`
`the Petition relies on Huang, not Tso, for the [1.c]-[1.e] creating and reusing
`
`intermediate content as discussed above. While the POPR notes that the petition did
`
`not discuss Tso-PCT, this is of no moment to the presented combination. In any
`
`event, Tso-PCT was only identified in an IDS, nothing more. Tso does not identify
`
`Tso-PCT and, due to a typo, Tso-PCT does not identify Tso. See POPR 27-28 n.9.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`Even if the existence of Tso-PCT on an IDS were enough to trigger §325(d), and it
`
`is not, the Director recently held that, in these circumstances, it was “not reasonably
`
`foreseeable for Petitioner to have anticipated this connection since the references
`
`themselves do not point to each other.” Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovs. Ltd.,
`
`IPR2022-01197, Pap. 12, *5 (Director sua sponte vacating exercise of §325(d)
`
`discretion). Because Huang’s teachings, applied to Tso, are not substantially similar
`
`to any cited art, §325(d) discretion should not apply here. Sony v. MZ Audio Scis.,
`
`LLC, IPR2022-01544, Pap. 12, *7 (§325(d) discretion improper where “Examiner
`
`did not consider the specific combination of references asserted”).
`
`Even if any art or arguments were substantially the same, failure to
`
`consider such art was material error. The Examiner did not issue rejections before
`
`allowing the ’745. See Pet. 8. In such circumstances, it is “impossible … to
`
`determine the consideration the Examiner gave” to any cited reference and, at the
`
`second part of Advanced Bionics, “the absence of further evidence of the Examiner’s
`
`consideration of” the art supports finding that “the Office erred in a manner material
`
`to patentability.” Ecobee Techs. v. Causam Enterprises, Inc., IPR2022-01339, Pap.
`
`20, *20-21 (declining to exercise §325(d) discretion). Such error exists here, as
`
`summarized above for Huang and in §IX of the Petition.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Scott McKeown/
` Name: Scott McKeown
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S PRE-
`
`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`INSTITUTION REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`and EXHIBIT 1041 was served in its entirety by filing these documents through
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) as well as
`
`providing a courtesy copy via e-mail to the following attorneys of record for the
`
`Patent Owner listed below:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Christopher T. Bovenkamp, Reg. No. 44,551
`cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com
`PTAB@sternekessler.com
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, P.L.L.C.
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel.: (214) 521-6400
`Fax: (214) 764-8392
`
`Back-Up Counsel:
`Ararat Kapouytian, Reg. No. 40,044
`akapouytian@mkwllp.com
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`450 Sansome Street, Suite 1005
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel.: (415) 738-6369
`Fax: (415) 738-2315
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Reg. No. 65,367
`jfitzsimmons-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`Tel.: (202) 772-8701
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00332
`U.S. Patent No. 9,158,745
`
`
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`rbemben-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`Tel.: (202) 772-8549
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`Michael D. Specht, Reg. No. 54,463
`mspecht-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3932
`Tel.: (202) 772-8756
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`
`Dated: May 30, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____
`
`
`By: /Dara Del Rosario/
`Name: Dara Del Rosario
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`