`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00581
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`III.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’772 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Purported Invention ............................................................................... 8
`C.
`Exemplary Claim ................................................................................. 12
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 16
`VII. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ................... 16
`A.
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) is Inapplicable ....................................................... 18
`B. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) is Unwarranted ........ 19
`VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 19
`A. Ground 1: Angelot Anticipates Claims 2-6, 11, 14 and 16. ................ 20
`1.
`Claim 1 (cancelled) ................................................................... 20
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 43
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 46
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 48
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 49
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 50
`7.
`Claim 10 (cancelled) ................................................................. 51
`8.
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 52
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Claim 12 (cancelled) ................................................................. 53
`9.
`10. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 54
`11. Claim 15 (cancelled) ................................................................. 54
`12. Claim 16 .................................................................................... 55
`B. Ground 2: Angelot Renders Obvious Claims 2-6, 11, 14, 16. ............ 55
`C. Ground 3: Angelot in view of Zakurdaev Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-6, 11, 14, 16. ........................................................................ 67
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 19
`Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`926 24 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 56
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ......................................... 19, 20
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, et al.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00282-JRG .................................................................................. 1, 11
`Koninklijke KPN NV v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.,
`2-14-cv-01165 (EDTX) ........................................................................................ 1
`Koninklijke KPN NV v. Xiaomi Corporation et al.,
`1:21-cv-00041 (DDE) ........................................................................................... 1
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 56
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 61, 63, 66, 72
`Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 56
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (2013) .......................................................................................... 56
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Koninklijke KPN NV,
`PTAB-IPR2016-00808 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015- 00633 .................................................................................................. 13
`Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 58
`Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. v. Koninklijke KPN NV,
`PTAB-IPR2022-00025 ..................................................................................... 1, 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 16, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 18
`35 USC 103 .............................................................................................................. 56
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ex. 1001
`Declaration of Daniel J. Blumenthal, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1002
`Curriculum Vitae of Daniel J. Blumenthal, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1003
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005 Markman Order from Koninklijke KPN NV v. Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. et al., 2-14-cv-01165-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0201830 to Angelot
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0073182 to Zakurdaev
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0061315 to Jin
`Joint Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 57) filed in KPN v. Xiaomi,
`21-cv-00041-GBW-CJB (D. Del. June 10, 2022)
`TR-069 (“CPE WAN Management Protocol v.1.1”, Broadband
`Forum, Issue 1 Amendment 2, December 2007)
`Excerpts of Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, dated
`2002 (ISBN 0-7356-1495-4)
`RFC 2131 (“Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol”, R. Droms,
`March 1997)
`RFC 2132 (“DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions”, S.
`Alexander et al., March 1997)
`Joint Request for Stay Pending Settlement (Dkt. No. 105) filed in
`KPN v. Xiaomi, 21-cv-00041-GBW-CJB (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2022).
`An Introduction to Packet Switching (Nick McKeown)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Next Generation Optical Networks, Peter Tomsu, dated 2002
`(ISBN 0-13-028226-X)
`Optical Fiber Telecommunications, Ivan Kaminow, dated 2008
`(ISBN 978-0-12-374172-1)
`A Quick Tutorial on IP Router Design, Nick McKeown, dated
`October 10, 2000.
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,256
`
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ericsson Inc. ( “Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 2-6, 11, 14, and 16 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,886,772 (“the ’772 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which, according to PTO records, is
`
`assigned to Koninklijke KPN N.V. (“KPN” or “Patent Owner”). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, the Challenged Claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies the following as the real
`
`parties-in-interest: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.
`
`Related Matters: The ’772 patent is asserted against Ericsson in Koninklijke
`
`KPN N.V. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, et al., No. 2:22-cv-00282-JRG.
`
`The ’772 patent was previously at issue in:
`
`• Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., and Xiaomi Communications Co.,
`
`Ltd. in Koninklijke KPN NV v. Xiaomi Corporation et al., 1:21-cv-
`
`00041 (DDE) (stayed pending settlement).
`
`• Koninklijke KPN NV v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., 2-14-
`
`cv-01165 (EDTX) (terminated).
`
`• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Koninklijke KPN NV, PTAB-
`
`IPR2016-00808 (not instituted).
`
`• Koninklijke KPN NV v. u-blox AG et al., 1:21-cv-00046 (terminated).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`• Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. v. Koninklijke KPN NV,
`
`PTAB-IPR2022-00025 (claims 1, 7-10. 12. 13 and 15 disclaimed; not
`
`instituted).
`
`Counsel and Service Information:
`
`Petitioners identify lead and backup counsel below. A Power of Attorney is
`
`filed currently herewith under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`Lead Counsel
`Scott W. Hejny (Reg. No. 45,882)
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.978.4241
`Facsimile: 214.978.4044
`shejny@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Petitioners consent to email service at:
`Ericsson_KPNII_IPRs@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Nicholas Mathews
`(Reg. No. 66,067)
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.978.4241
`Facsimile:214.978.4044
`nmathews@McKoolSmith.com
`
`John S. Holley (Reg. No. 65,683)
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`1999 K Street, NW Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.370.8300
`Facsimile: 202.370.8300
`jholley@McKoolSmith.com
`
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’772 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Challenged Claims are drawn to nothing more than a known system and
`
`technique for providing a consumer device with configuration data. The purportedly
`
`novel feature in the claims is relaying information from a device to a server and from
`
`the server back to the device—“wherein the ACSMD [device] is further configured
`
`to relay the request to the identified ACS [server]” and wherein the ACSMD is
`
`further configured to “relay the reply to the manageable electronic device.” (Ex.
`
`1001, cl. 1, 2; see also cl. 10, 11, 12, 14-16 (reciting similar features))
`
`But relaying requests and replies was not innovative at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. See, e.g., §§IV.A, VIII. The ’772 patent even concedes that relaying a
`
`request is “known in the art.” (Ex. 1001, 5:56-61 (emphasis added)) In a co-pending
`
`district court litigation against another target, KPN argued that “relay” means
`
`“send.” (Ex. 1009, 52 fn. 10.) Accordingly, as detailed below, the prior art discussed
`
`herein anticipates and/or renders obvious each of the Challenged Claims, either
`
`alone or in combination.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’772 PATENT
`A. Background
`Consumer devices, such as routers, cable set-top boxes, and IP phones, are
`
`produced on a production line that gives each device the same operation image. (Ex.
`
`1008 at ¶2.) The devices must undergo a configuration procedure before they can
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`be fully used by an end user. (Id.) In the early 2000s the configuration methods
`
`could be “classified as either (a) sending a trained technician to customer sites to do
`
`the manual configuration for each customer device” or “(b) shipping a detailed
`
`configuration manual with each broadband-based customer device and asking the
`
`end user to perform the configuration by reading the User’s Manual.” (Ex. 1008 at
`
`¶3.)
`
`Early innovations around improving configuration involved automatic
`
`configuration without any user intervention, e.g., plug and play. (See generally Ex.
`
`1008; see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶69-83.) One early 2000’s disclosure “completely
`
`eliminate[d] the need to do any manual configuration on the client side for
`
`broadband-based customer devices….” (Ex. 1008, ¶10.) In that system, the
`
`administrator uses an auto configuration server (ACS) to configure all of the
`
`consumer devices (ACC). (Id.; see also id., Fig. 2.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`(Id., Fig. 2 (annotated)0F
`1.)
`
`As shown in Figure 2, when a consumer device (ACC) connects to the
`
`network it sends a message (red) to a Relay Server (SRA) (id., ¶47), the Relay Server
`
`relays that message (blue) to an auto-configuration server (ACS) (id., ¶¶48-49), the
`
`ACS replies to the Relay Server with a message (green) carrying the configuration
`
`data from a configuration database (id., ¶¶51-52), the Relay Server relays the
`
`message with configuration data (purple) the consumer device (id., ¶53), and the
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Throughout this petition, Petitioner uses the same color-coding to show that the
`
`claimed signal flow is not innovative.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`consumer device configures itself (id., ¶54). (Id., Fig. 2 (annotated above); see also
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶80-81.)
`
`Another known end-to-end architecture for configuring devices is shown in
`
`documentation related to the TR-069 communication protocol. (Ex. 1010, 9.)
`
`
`
`(Id.; see also Ex. 1001, Fig. 1 (showing this figure in box form with multiple ACSs).)
`
`In this system, the CPE is preloaded with the IP address of the ACS server that
`
`provides the configuration information.
`
`The ’772 patent admits that the above-described end-to-end architecture for
`
`remote device management (reproduced in Figure 1) is from the prior art. (Ex. 1001,
`
`3:61-62.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 1.) In this architecture, the “ACS is a server that resides in the network and
`
`manages devices in or at the subscriber premises.” (Ex. 1010, 9.)
`
`The ’772 patent describes a drawback with known configuration
`
`technology—it requires each CPE to be pre-configured with the address for the
`
`proper ACS. (Ex. 1001, 1:46-53.) The ’772 patent explains that there are two known
`
`techniques for providing the CPE with the appropriate ACS contact information.
`
`First, the CPE is “pre-programmed” with either a specific IP address or a
`
`specific URL for the ACS. (Id. 1:53-56.) Second, the CPE is configured with the
`
`ACS’s address or URL during installation. (Id., 1:56-60.) As discussed above, it
`
`was also known to “eliminate the need to do any manual configuration on the client
`
`side for broadband-based customer devices” by using a Relay Server to relay
`
`messages and replies between the CPE and the ACS. (Ex. 1008, ¶10.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`Purported Invention
`B.
`To overcome the “pre-configuration” problem where the CPE must know the
`
`ACS’s address or URL beforehand, the ’772 patent provides a management device
`
`between the ACS and CPE to facilitate communication between the ACS and CPE.
`
`The ’772 patent calls this management device the “auto-configuration server
`
`managing device” (“ACSMD”). (Ex. 1001, Abstract). By virtue of this ACSMD,
`
`the ’772 patent purports to improve upon prior art systems by allowing configuration
`
`of “any type of manageable electronic device … without pre-configuring a dedicated
`
`address for configuration.” (Id. at 2:22–25.)
`
`As shown in Figure 2 of the ’772 patent, reproduced below, there is an
`
`ACSMD 25 between the CPE (1 to 4) and ACS1, ACS2, and ACS3.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 2.) As depicted in Figure 2, CPE 1 is communicatively coupled to
`
`the ACSMD 25. ACSMD 25, in turn, is arranged for controlling CPE 1’s access to
`
`the ACSs, e.g., ACS1, ACS2, ACS3. (Id., 5:8–10.)
`
`As depicted in annotated Fig. 5 (below), the CPE 1 sends a first message M1
`
`(red) to the default IP address/URL provided in the CPE 1’s memory. (Id., 7:53-63.)
`
`This default IP address/URL points to the ACSMD 25. (Id.) The first message M1
`
`“comprises a request for configuration data from the dedicated auto-configuration
`
`server.” (Id., 7:63-64.) “Further the first message M1 comprises at least the IP
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`address (or URL) of the [CPE 1] as identification on the wide area network, an
`
`identification of the type or function of the [CPE 1] and optionally additional
`
`identification, for example the identity of the supplier/manufacturer of the device.”
`
`(Id., 7:65-8:3.)
`
`
`
`(Id., Fig. 5 (annotated).) The “first message M1 [red] is received by the [ACSMD]
`
`25,” which carries out actions “to identify the dedicated auto-configuration server”
`
`and subsequently relays “a first relayed message M5 [blue] to the dedicated auto
`
`configuration server … if the first message M1 contains a valid request.” (Id., 8:4-
`
`12.) “The first relayed message M5 [blue] comprises at least the request from the
`
`requesting manageable electronic device 1.” (Id., 8:12-14.) “Next, the dedicated
`
`auto-configuration server ACS1 … receives the first relayed message M5.” (Id.,
`
`8:20-21.) “In response, the dedicated auto-configuration server ACS1 transmits a
`
`reply M6 [green] to the first relayed message to the auto configuration server
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`manager 25.” (Id., 8:21-24.) “The reply M6 [green] to the first relayed message M5
`
`comprises the configuration data requested by the manageable electronic device”
`
`and the ACSMD 25 “receives the reply” and “relays that reply M6 to [CPE] 1 as a
`
`second relayed message M7 [pink].” (Id., 8:25-31.) “The second relayed message
`
`M7 [pink] comprises the configuration data requested by the manageable electronic
`
`device.” (Id., 8:32-33.)
`
`The ’772 patent describes the communication flow in Fig. 5 as advantageously
`
`allowing any type of CPE to be configured “without pre-configuring a dedicated
`
`address for configuration” because the “addresses of the auto-configuration servers
`
`only need to be maintained in a central database.” (Id., 2:22-32.).
`
`During prosecution, Applicant overcame prior art by arguing that “relaying”
`
`a message is different from “forwarding” a message. (Ex. 1004, 21-62, 85-87). In
`
`another litigation, however, KPN argued that “relay” means “send.”
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1009, 52 fn. 10.) KPN provided the following annotated figure to support its
`
`assertion that “relay” means “send.” In KPN’s view, the issue is “no more
`
`complicated than … the message is passed from one device to another….” (Id., 55
`
`(emphasis added).) As detailed below, sending/passing/relaying a message or reply
`
`is not innovative.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`Patent Owner previously cancelled independent claims 1, 10, 12, and 15.
`
`Patent Owner also cancelled dependent claims 7-9, and 13. Claim 2 is exemplary of
`
`claims 11, 14 and 16, and recites:
`
`1. A system for remote device management comprising:
`a plurality of auto-configuration servers (ACSs);
`a manageable electronic device;
`an auto-configuration server managing device (ACSMD) for
`controlling access to the ACSs communicatively coupled
`intermediately between the plurality of ACSs and the managed
`electronic device; and
`at least one database communicatively coupled to the ACSM
`and storing information for the identification of electronic
`devices,
`wherein the manageable electronic device is configured to send
`a request for configuration data to the ACSMD,1F
`2
`wherein configuration data comprise data for configuring the
`manageable electronic device, and
`wherein the ACSMD is configured, responsive to receiving the
`request, to:
`identify the manageable electronic device by comparing at
`least a portion of the request with the information for the
`identification of electronic devices of the at least one
`database, and
`identify an ACS from the plurality of ACSs in accordance
`with the identification of the manageable electronic device
`to provide configuration data to the manageable electronic
`device, and
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
` This request is “M1” in Fig. 5.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`wherein the ACSMD is further configured to relay the request
`3
`to the identified ACS.2F
`2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the ACSMD is
`further configured to receive a reply from the identified ACS,3F
`4
`and relay the reply to the manageable electronic device.4F
`5
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For IPR proceedings, the Board applies the claim construction standard set
`
`forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under
`
`Phillips, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meanings, as
`
`would have been understood by a POSITA, at the time of the invention, having taken
`
`into consideration the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution
`
`history of record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also Id. at 1312-16. The Board,
`
`however, only construes the claims when necessary to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015- 00633, Paper
`
`11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Several claim terms have previously been construed
`
`by a district court, as summarized in the following table:
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`Preamble
`
`limiting
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The relayed request is “M5” in Fig. 5.
`4 This reply is “M6” in Fig. 5.
`5 This reply is “M7” in Fig. 5.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`(Ex. 1005, 38)
`
`“manageable electronic device”
`
`“electronic
`
`device
`
`that
`
`can
`
`be
`
`configured over a network”
`
`(Id., 42.)
`
`“plurality of auto-configuration servers
`
`“two or more systems of hardware
`
`(ACSs)”
`
`“auto-configuration server managing
`
`and/or software, each of which is
`
`capable of automatically configuring a
`
`manageable electronic device”
`
`(Id., 46.)
`“hardware and/or software that relays
`
`device (ACSMD)”
`
`configuration requests to the auto-
`
`configuration servers”
`
`(Id., 48.)
`
`“computer” and “processing unit”
`
`“plain meaning”
`
`(Id., 51.)
`
`“controlling access”
`
`“remaining
`
`in
`
`contact with
`
`the
`
`manageable electronic device and the
`
`ACS, and controlling whether
`
`the
`
`manageable electronic device gains
`
`access”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`(Id., 54.)
`
`“configuration data” and “configuration
`
`“plain meaning”
`
`data comprises data for configuring the
`
`(Id., 57.)
`
`manageable electronic device”
`
`“request for configuration data” and
`
`“plain meaning”
`
`“request from a manageable electronic
`
`(Id., 59.)
`
`device for configuration data”
`
`
`
`“relay”5F6
`
`“change, process, or otherwise manage
`
`a request based at least in part on its
`
`payload.”
`
`(Id., 61.)
`
`Here, given the close correlation and substantial identity between the
`
`references, the ’772 patent, and the terms listed in the above table, the Board need
`
`not construe any of the terms listed in the above table to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy, as any reasonable construction reads on the prior art. Nonetheless, out
`
`of an abundance of caution, Petitioner analyzes the Challenged Claims under the
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
` KPN contends that “relay” means “send” or “pass.” (Ex. 1009, 52 fn 10, 55; see
`also id., 13 (“the ACSMD enables information … to pass between the ACSs and
`the manageable electronic device”).)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`plain meaning of the terms listed in the above table, under the district court
`
`constructions discussed in this Section, and under KPN’s current understanding that
`
`“relay” means “send” or “pass.”
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’772 patent (“POSITA”), which for purposes of this proceeding is the late 2000s
`
`(including July 31, 2008), would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a
`
`related field with at least five years of experience in designing communication
`
`7 More education can supplement practical experience
`systems. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶34-39.)6F
`
`and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`Claims 2-6, 11, 14, and 16 should be cancelled based on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 2-6, 11, 14, and 16 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Angelot (U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2009/0201830) (Ex. 1006);
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
` Petitioner submits the declaration of Dr. Blumenthal (Ex. 1002), an expert in the
`
`field of the ’772 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-18, 40-84; Ex. 1003.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ground 2: Claims 2-6, 11, 14, and 16 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Angelot and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 2-6, 11, 14, and 16 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Angelot and Zakurdaev (U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2002/0073182) (Ex. 1007);
`
`The ’772 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/512,242 (“the ’242
`
`application”) filed July 30, 2009 and claims the benefit of European Patent
`
`Application EP 08013735.9, filed in the European Patent Office on July 31, 2008,
`
`and to European Patent Application EP08161850.6, filed in the European Patent
`
`Office on August 5, 2008. (Ex. 1001, Cover) For purposes of this proceeding,
`
`Petitioner assumes the earliest effective filing date of the ’772 patent is July 31,
`
`8
`2008.7F
`
`Angelot was filed on October 26, 2007, and claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on October 31, 2006. Angelot published on August 13, 2009. Thus,
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
` Petitioner does not concede that any challenged claim is, in fact, entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of July 31, 2008, and reserves the right to challenge any claim
`
`of priority in this or any other proceeding involving the ’772 patent.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Angelot qualifies as prior art to the ’772 patent at least under pre-AIA § 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Zakurdaev published on June 13, 2002. Thus, Zakurdaev qualifies as prior
`
`art to the ’772 patent at least under pre-AIA § 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). None of the
`
`references being relied upon in this petition were considered by the Patent Office
`
`during prosecution of the ’772 patent. (See generally Ex. 1001, References Cited.)
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) is Inapplicable
`A.
`These references were not in an IDS filed during the prosecution of the ’772
`
`patent, and the Examiner never identified them or used them to reject claims during
`
`the prosecution. (See generally Exs. 1001 (cover), 1004.) The Examiner also never
`
`considered the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Blumenthal (Ex. 1002),
`
`regarding these references and the knowledge of a POSITA. The grounds in this
`
`petition are not cumulative of any prior art the Board considered and are not
`
`substantially the same as prior art or arguments the Office previously considered. In
`
`fact, the principal references disclose the claimed “relay” features the patentee used
`
`to distinguish the prior art cited by the Examiner. (Ex. 1004, 21-62, 85-87.) Neither
`
`the petition Samsung filed six years ago (IPR2016-00808) nor the petition Xiaomi
`
`filed last year (IPR2022-00025) asserted Angelot or Zakurdaev. Thus, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§325(d) is inapplicable to this case.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`B. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) is Unwarranted
`
`The co-pending district court litigation does not warrant the exercise of
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020). Petitioner intends to seek a stay of the district court
`
`litigation if the PTAB decides to institute this IPR. And the parties only recently
`
`had a scheduling conference, where jury selection was tentatively set for April 1,
`
`2024. The earlier Xiaomi and Samsung petitions also do not warrant the exercise of
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017). Patent
`
`Owner did not assert the ’772 patent against Petitioner until 2022, and that assertion
`
`is why Petitioner is now filing this petition. Thus, the Board should not deny
`
`institution of this petition under §314(a).
`
`VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`Notably, during prosecution of a subsequent and related patent application
`
`with substantially similar claims to those at issue here, the USPTO’s Office of Patent
`
`Quality Assurance (OPQA) identified a version of Angelot’s disclosure that resulted
`
`in an earlier Notice of Allowance being withdrawn. (Ex. 1019, 67; Ex. 1002, ¶¶98-
`
`100.) The Examiner subsequently rejected the nearly identical claims in view of
`
`Angelot and a secondary reference that was relied upon for the concept of relaying a
`
`message. (Id., 41-45.) In response, Applicant did not dispute the Examiner’s
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`characterizations of Angelot, which largely align to the mappings below. (Id., 28-
`
`31.) Instead, Applicant argued against the Examiner’s combination. (Id.) The
`
`primary difference between the Examiner’s mapping of Angelot and the mapping set
`
`forth below in Ground 1 is whether Angelot discloses the claimed relaying. At the
`
`time of the Angelot rejection in the subsequent application, the Examiner did not
`
`have the Eastern District’s construction of “relay” or KPN’s litigation read of
`
`“relay,” which is simply “send.” With the benefit of the construction and/or KPN’s
`
`litigation understanding of “relay,” the Examiner would have rejected the claims as
`
`anticipated as set forth below. And, in any event, relaying is not an inventive feature,
`
`as the ’772 patent admits, and (if necessary) it would have been obvious to modify
`
`Angelot to include relaying as set forth in Grounds 2 and 3.
`
`A. Ground 1: Angelot Anticipates Claims 2-6, 11, 14 and 16.
`Claim 1 (cancelled)
`1.
`[1pre] A system for remote device management
`a)
`comprising:
`Angelot discloses this feature. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶98-106; see also Ex. 1019, 41.)
`
`For instance, Angelot discloses a system for “configuring network entities with the
`
`requisite settings in order to participate within a network.” (Ex. 1006, ¶3.) This is
`
`an example of a “system for remote device management.” Angelot discloses that the
`
`remote configuration is automatic, unlike prior art systems where “the user is often
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`tasked to manually enter the configuration settings for t