`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TAASERA LICENSING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00704
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,850,517
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List ......................................................................................... viii
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. Requirements for Inter Partes Review .............................................................. 2
`A. Certification ................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Identification of Challenges ........................................................................... 3
`III. The ’517 Patent .................................................................................................. 3
`A. Effective Filing Date ...................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 3
`C. Overview of the ’517 Patent .......................................................................... 4
`D. Relevant Prosecution History ........................................................................ 7
`IV. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 10
`V. Detailed Discussion of the Grounds for Unpatentability ................................. 10
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ............................................................................ 11
`1. Alperovitch (Ex. 1004) ............................................................................. 11
`2. Yeh (Ex. 1005) ......................................................................................... 16
`3. Chien (Ex. 1006) ...................................................................................... 17
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-24 Are Rendered Obvious by Alperovitch in
`View of the Knowledge of a POSITA ................................................................. 18
`1. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 18
`a. Preamble ................................................................................................ 18
`b. Limitation 1[a] ...................................................................................... 19
`c. Limitation 1[b] ...................................................................................... 23
`d. Limitation 1[c] ...................................................................................... 25
`e. Limitation 1[d] ...................................................................................... 27
`f. Limitation 1[e] ...................................................................................... 30
`g. Limitation 1[f] ....................................................................................... 30
`2. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 32
`3. Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`4. Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 34
`5. Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 35
`6. Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 35
`a. Limitation 6[a] ...................................................................................... 35
`b. Limitation 6[b] ...................................................................................... 36
`c. Limitation 6[c] ...................................................................................... 37
`7. Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 37
`a. Limitation 7[a] ...................................................................................... 37
`b. Limitation 7[b] ...................................................................................... 38
`c. Limitation 7[c] ...................................................................................... 38
`8. Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 39
`a. Limitation 8[a] ...................................................................................... 39
`b. Limitation 8[b] ...................................................................................... 39
`c. Limitation 8[c] ...................................................................................... 39
`9. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 40
`a. Limitation 9[a] ...................................................................................... 40
`b. Limitation 9[b] ...................................................................................... 41
`c. Limitation 9[c] ...................................................................................... 41
`d. Limitation 9[d] ...................................................................................... 42
`e. Limitation 9[e] ...................................................................................... 43
`f. Limitation 9[f] ....................................................................................... 43
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 44
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 45
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 46
`a. Limitation 12[a] .................................................................................... 46
`b. Limitation 12[b] .................................................................................... 47
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 50
`a. Preamble ................................................................................................ 50
`b. Limitation 13[a] .................................................................................... 50
`c. Limitation 13[b] .................................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`d. Limitation 13[c] .................................................................................... 51
`e. Limitation 13[d] .................................................................................... 52
`f. Limitation 13[e] .................................................................................... 53
`g. Limitation 13[f] ..................................................................................... 53
`h. Limitation 13[g] .................................................................................... 53
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 53
`15. Claim 15 ................................................................................................... 54
`16. Claim 16 ................................................................................................... 54
`17. Claim 17 ................................................................................................... 54
`18. Claim 18 ................................................................................................... 55
`a. Limitation 18[a] .................................................................................... 55
`b. Limitation 18[b] .................................................................................... 55
`c. Limitation 18[c] .................................................................................... 55
`19. Claim 19 ................................................................................................... 55
`a. Limitation 19[a] .................................................................................... 55
`b. Limitation 19[b] .................................................................................... 56
`c. Limitation 19[c] .................................................................................... 56
`20. Claim 20 ................................................................................................... 56
`a. Limitation 20[a] .................................................................................... 56
`b. Limitation 20[b] .................................................................................... 56
`c. Limitation 20[c] .................................................................................... 57
`21. Claim 21 ................................................................................................... 57
`a. Limitation 21[a] .................................................................................... 57
`b. Limitation 21[b] .................................................................................... 57
`c. Limitation 21[c] .................................................................................... 57
`d. Limitation 21[d] .................................................................................... 58
`e. Limitation 21[e] .................................................................................... 58
`f. Limitation 21[f] ..................................................................................... 58
`22. Claim 22 ................................................................................................... 58
`23. Claim 23 ................................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`24. Claim 24 ................................................................................................... 59
`a. Limitation 24[a] .................................................................................... 59
`b. Limitation 24[b] .................................................................................... 59
`C. Grounds 2-4: Claims 1-24 Are Rendered Obvious by Alperovitch in
`View of Yeh (Ground 2), Alperovitch in View of Chien (Ground 3), and
`Alperovitch in View of Yeh and Chien (Ground 4) ............................................ 60
`1. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 60
`a. Limitation 1[a] ...................................................................................... 60
`b. Limitation 1[e] ...................................................................................... 65
`2. Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 65
`a. Limitation 13[a] .................................................................................... 65
`b. Limitation 13[f] ..................................................................................... 65
`D. No Secondary Considerations Exist ............................................................ 66
`VI. The Parallel District Court Proceeding Does Not Warrant a Discretionary
`Denial ............................................................................................................... 66
`VII. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 67
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest ................................................................................. 67
`B. Related Proceedings ..................................................................................... 67
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel ........................................................................... 67
`D. Electronic Service ........................................................................................ 68
`VIII. Fees .............................................................................................................. 68
`IX. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 68
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC,
`No. 1-22-cv-02306 (S.D.N.Y.) ........................................................................... 67
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC,
`No. 2-22-cv-00314 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`In re: Taasera Licensing LLC Patent Litig.,
`No. 2-22-md-03042 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 67
`Taasera Licensing LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2-22-cv-00062 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Taasera Licensing LLC v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`No. 2-21-cv-00441 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Trend Micro Inc v. Taasera Licensing LLC,
`No. 2-22-cv-00303 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Trend Micro Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC,
`No. 3-22-cv-00477 (N.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Trend Micro, Inc. v. Taasera Licensing LLC,
`No. 3-22-cv-00518 (N.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Taasera Licensing LLC v. Musarubra US, LLC,
` No. 2-22-cv-00427 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Taasera Licensing LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc.,
` No. 6-22-cv-01094 (W.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 67
`Taasera Licensing LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc.,
` No. 2-22-cv-00468 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................... 67
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Brief Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517 File History
`
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0254880 to Alperovitch et al.
`(“Alperovitch”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,117,075 to Yeh (“Yeh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,117,078 to Chien et al. (“Chien”)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-24 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517 (the
`
`“’517 patent”). All claims of the ’517 patent relate to “assessing the runtime risk of
`
`an application or device in a computer system using cognitive behavior recognition.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:7-10. Specifically, the claimed invention purports to identify “an action
`
`sequence and assess[] a runtime risk and subsequent behavior score based on the
`
`identified action sequence.” Id., 2:19-22.
`
`To assess runtime risk of an application or device in a computer system, every
`
`claim of the ’517 patent involves using an assessment policy that includes at least
`
`one rule that identifies an action sequence to identify a runtime risk for an application
`
`program. The identified runtime risk indicates a risk or threat of an identified action
`
`sequence of the application, and a behavior score for the application program that
`
`executes on the device is identified based on the identified runtime risk. As shown
`
`below and in the declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay (Ex. 1003), all claims of the ’517
`
`patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0254880 to Alperovitch et al.
`
`(“Alperovitch”), which was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ’517
`
`patent. Alternatively, all claims of the ’517 patent would have been rendered
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`obvious by Alperovitch in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,117,075 to Yeh (“Yeh”) and/or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,117,078 to Chien et al. (“Chien”).
`
`As explained in this Petition, the claims of the ’517 patent would not have
`
`been allowed if the primary reference Alperovitch had been substantively evaluated
`
`by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’517 patent. Alperovitch discloses a
`
`materially identical method and system for assessing the probability that a mobile
`
`application is malicious software based on attributes involving the mobile
`
`application and calculating a reputation score for the mobile application. Therefore,
`
`the Challenged Claims should be found unpatentable given the strength of the prior
`
`art as shown herein.
`
`II. Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements, as well as 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.104, 42.105, and 42.15, and should be accorded a filing date pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.106. The required fee is being paid electronically through PTAB E2E.
`
`A. Certification
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’517 patent is
`
`available for IPR, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenges
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`institute this IPR on all claims of the ’517 patent and cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Reference
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-24
`
`1-24
`
`1-24
`
`1-24
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Alperovitch (Ex. 1004)
`
`Alperovitch in view of Yeh (Ex. 1005)
`
`Alperovitch in view of Chien (Ex. 1006)
`
`Alperovitch in view of Yeh and Chien
`
`
`III. The ’517 Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date
`The ’517 patent issued from Application No. 13/741,878 (the “’878
`
`Application”), filed January 15, 2013. For the purposes of this Petition, Petitioner
`
`assumes that the Challenged Claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`January 15, 2013.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`As of January 15, 2013, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in
`
`the ’517 patent’s technical field would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science or computer engineering, or an equivalent field and at least two to three years
`
`of experience in computer and network security. Ex. 1003, ¶22. Someone with less
`
`or different technical education but more relevant practical experience, or more
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`relevant education but less practical experience, could also be considered a POSITA.
`
`Id. This level of skill in the art is reflected by the reference cited in this Petition, the
`
`state of the art, and the experience of Dr. Kevin Jeffay, as described in his
`
`declaration.
`
`C. Overview of the ’517 Patent
`The ’517 patent is titled “Runtime Risk Detection Based on User, Application,
`
`and System Action Sequence Correlation.” Ex. 1001, cover. It relates to “assessing
`
`runtime risk for an application or device.” Id., abstract. The ’517 patent purports to
`
`address “[e]merging cyber threats, commonly referred to as advanced persistent
`
`threats (APT)” that “remain undetected using traditional security programs and
`
`approaches. As a result, many harmful threats and infections can attack a system
`
`that includes these security programs unbeknownst to the user and system operator,
`
`which could have devastating results. For example, it can place companies at risk
`
`for the theft of proprietary information, such as confidential information, trade
`
`secrets, etc., and individuals at risk for identify theft.” Id., 1:26-35. The alleged
`
`invention of the ’517 patent supposedly addresses these threats by “assessing the
`
`runtime risk of an application or device in a computer system using cognitive
`
`behavior recognition.” Id., 1:8-10.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`Figure 1 below shows a high-level architecture of the ’517 patent’s system for
`
`assessing the runtime risk for an application or device in accordance with exemplary
`
`embodiments.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1. “[C]omputing system 100 [is] configured to assess the runtime risk of an
`
`application or device and identify a behavior score based on the assessed runtime
`
`risk.” Id., 2:40-43.
`
`In assessing the runtime risk of an application or device, computing system
`
`100 includes in memory unit 106 “a runtime monitor 108, a rules database 110, and
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`a policy database 112.” Id., 3:38-39. The runtime monitor 108 uses at least one
`
`assessment policy stored in policy database 112 that comprises one or more rules to
`
`identify the runtime risk for an application program. Id., 6:14-17. Furthermore,
`
`“[t]he rules database 110 may be configured to store a plurality of rules, wherein
`
`each rule identifies an action sequence. An action sequence … may include a
`
`sequence of at least two performed actions, wherein the performed actions may be
`
`one of a user action, an application action, and a system action.” Id., 4:12-17.
`
`The ’517 patent has two independent claims. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method for assessing runtime risk for an application
`program that executes on a device, comprising:
`storing, in a rules database, a plurality of rules, wherein each rule
`identifies an action sequence;
`storing, in a policy database, a plurality of assessment policies,
`wherein each assessment policy includes at least one rule of the
`plurality of rules;
`identifying, using at least one assessment policy, a runtime risk for
`an application program that executes on a device, wherein the
`identified runtime risk indicates a risk or threat of the identified
`action sequence of the application; and
`identifying, by a runtime monitor including a processing device, a
`behavior score for the application program that executes on the
`device based on the identified runtime risk, wherein
`the action sequence is a sequence of at least two performed actions,
`and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`each performed action is at least one of: a user action, an
`application action, and a system action.
`
`Independent claim 13 restates the same steps in the context of a “system.”
`
`The dependent claims add the concept of identifying a behavior score for the
`
`application program based on different identified specific examples (claims 2-4, 14-
`
`16) or combinations (claims 5-9, 17-21) of performed actions or based on different
`
`correlations between performed actions (claims 10-12, 22-24).
`
`D. Relevant Prosecution History
`The Examiner issued a non-final office action rejecting pending claims 1-5,
`
`10-17, 22-24 of the ’517 patent as, inter alia, anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub.
`
`No. 2013/0096980 to Basavapatna et al. (“Basavapatna”) and rejecting pending
`
`claims 6-9, 18-21 as, inter alia, rendered obvious by Basavapatna. Ex. 1002, 61, 65.
`
`In response, Applicant amended some of the claims, including the
`
`independent claims, to overcome § 112 rejections. Id., 96-97. Applicant further
`
`argued that Basavapatna did not anticipate the pending claims because the claims of
`
`the present application are directed to assessing the runtime risk of an application
`
`program that executes on a device, whereas Basavapatna is directed to testing
`
`potential countermeasures against known vulnerabilities of systems. Id., 97.
`
`Applicant argued that “Basavapatna does not identify action sequences as part of the
`
`risk assessment, but instead uses countermeasures that have been deployed.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`Basavapatna also does not identify or predict specific types of threats, but instead
`
`assesses risk associated with known vulnerabilities.” Id.
`
`The Examiner subsequently issued a final office action maintaining, inter alia,
`
`the rejections of pending claims 1-5, 10-17, 22-24 of the ’517 patent as anticipated
`
`by Basavapatna and pending claims 6-9, 18-21 as rendered obvious by Basavapatna.
`
`Id., 113, 116.
`
`In response, Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 13 to recite
`
`“identifying [identify], using at least one assessment policy, a runtime risk for an
`
`application program that executes on a device, wherein the identified runtime risk
`
`indicates a risk or threat of the identified action sequence of the application identifies
`
`and predicts a specific type of threat” and to add “a runtime monitor.” Id., 130, 133.
`
`In an interview with the Examiner, Applicant explained how Basavapatna fails to
`
`teach or suggest claims 1 and 13’s “identifying, using at least one assessment policy,
`
`a runtime risk for an application program that executes on a device, wherein the
`
`identified runtime risk indicates a risk or threat of the identified action sequence of
`
`the application.” Id., 139. Applicant explained that “Basavapatna does not identify
`
`action sequences as part of the risk assessment, but instead uses countermeasures
`
`that have been deployed. Basavapatna also does not identify a risk or threat of the
`
`identified action sequence of the application, but instead assesses risk associated
`
`with known vulnerabilities.” Id., 140-141.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`Furthermore, Applicant explained that Basavapatna does not teach or suggest
`
`claims 1 and 13’s similar features of “identifying, by a runtime monitor including a
`
`processing device, a behavior score for the application program that executes on the
`
`device based on the identified runtime risk, wherein the action sequence is a
`
`sequence of at least two performed actions, and each performed action is at least one
`
`of: a user action, an application action, and a system action” because Basavapatna
`
`fails to disclose “a rules database including a plurality of rules that identifies an
`
`action sequence.” Id., 141 (emphasis in original). Applicant contended that the
`
`rules in Basavapatna merely define a countermeasure, which are designed to protect
`
`against known vulnerabilities. Id. Indeed, Applicant argued that not only does
`
`Basavapatna not teach or suggest action sequences, “Basavapatna does not teach or
`
`suggest any sequence of performed actions.” Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Accordingly, Applicant contended that while the claimed invention assesses risk of
`
`action sequences performed by the user, applications, or the system, and thus, can
`
`act as a runtime monitor for detecting real-time threats, Basavapatna only assesses
`
`risk for systems based on known vulnerabilities. Id., 141-142.
`
`Following Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (id., 158), the
`
`Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance (id., 164), which was followed by an
`
`additional Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (id., 185) and a
`
`Supplemental Notice of Allowability issued by the Examiner (id., 212).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`As discussed below, the above limitations that Applicant argued are not taught
`
`or suggested in Basavapatna are taught by Alperovitch, Yeh, and Chien. Alperovitch,
`
`Yeh, and Chen, the prior art cited in this Petition, were not cited, nor are they
`
`cumulative of anything cited, during prosecution.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`The Board construes claims under the same standard used in civil actions in
`
`federal district court. Petitioner submits that for the purposes of this Petition, the
`
`Board does not need to explicitly construe any claim term, and there are no known
`
`claim construction disputes that affect the outcome of this Petition.1
`
`V. Detailed Discussion of the Grounds for Unpatentability
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on one primary ground and
`
`three alternative grounds. Ground 1 establishes that claims 1-24 are rendered
`
`obvious over Alperovitch in view of the knowledge of a POSITA. Grounds 2, 3, and
`
`4 establish that claims 1-24 are rendered obvious over Alperovitch in view of Yeh,
`
`Alperovitch in view of Chien, and Alperovitch in view of Yeh and Chien,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`1 This claim construction analysis is not a concession as to the scope of any claim
`
`term in litigation or a waiver of any argument in any proceeding that claim terms are
`
`indefinite, invalid, or unpatentable.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art
`1.
`Alperovitch (Ex. 1004)
`Alperovitch was filed on March 21, 2012 and published on September 26,
`
`2013, and is prior art under § 102(e). Ex. 1004, cover. Alperovitch is directed to a
`
`system and method for crowdsourcing of mobile application reputations that include
`
`“obtaining a collection of attributes of a mobile application, comparing one or more
`
`of the attributes with crowdsourced data associated with other mobile applications
`
`to determine one or more trustworthiness indicators, and calculating a reputation
`
`score based on the one or more trustworthiness indicators.” Id., abstract.
`
`Alperovitch’s approach provides “effective control and management of applications
`
`on mobile devices within computer and communication network environments” that
`
`prevents problems related to “unrestricted access to mobile resources and application
`
`programming interfaces by applications of an unknown or untrusted origin [that]
`
`could result in damage to the user, the device, and the network.” Id., [0002].
`
`Alperovitch’s Figure 1 below depicts an example implementation of its
`
`system for crowdsourcing mobile application reputations.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1. “The exemplary environment illustrates a network 12 connecting one or
`
`more mobile devices 14a, 14b, and 14c with a cloud 16.” Id., [0011]. Mobile
`
`devices 14a-c can include “mobile phones, smart mobile phones (smartphones), e-
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for IPR re U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517
`
`book readers, tablets, iPads, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptops or electronic
`
`notebooks, portable navigation systems, multimedia gadgets (e.g., cameras, video
`
`and/or audio players, etc.), gaming systems, other handheld electronic devices, and
`
`any other device, component, element, or object capable of initiating voice, audio,
`
`video, media, or data exchanges within system 10” of Figure 1. Id.
`
`Mobile devices 14a-c are permitted to access mobile applications from one or
`
`more application stores 18 located in cloud 16. Id., [0012]. Cloud 16 may also
`
`“comprise a reputation engine 20 for collecting and assessing mobile application
`
`reputations, also called herein as ‘reputation scores,’” where “[a] reputation score is
`
`a value (e.g., numeric, textual, pictorial, etc.) that denotes a relative level of
`
`trustworthiness of the mobile application on a spectrum (e.g., continuous or discrete)
`
`from be