`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 DISCLOSURE
` OF INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS AND SUBJECT ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 001
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Reservations .................................................................................................................... 3 
`
`III. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033 (“the ’033 Patent”) ............................................................... 7 
`
`A. 
`
`Identification of Prior Art ................................................................................... 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Prior Art Patents ...................................................................................... 7 
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications .......................................................... 9 
`
`Prior Art Systems .................................................................................. 14 
`
`Primary References ........................................................................................... 15 
`
`Secondary References ....................................................................................... 17 
`
`Obvious Combinations...................................................................................... 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Exemplary Combinations ...................................................................... 18 
`
`Motivations to Combine ....................................................................... 24 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`IV. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922 (“the ’922 Patent”) ............................................................. 51 
`
`A. 
`
`Identification of Prior Art ................................................................................. 51 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Prior Art Patents .................................................................................... 52 
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications ........................................................ 53 
`
`Prior Art Systems .................................................................................. 58 
`
`Primary References ........................................................................................... 59 
`
`Secondary References ....................................................................................... 61 
`
`Obvious Combinations...................................................................................... 61 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Exemplary Combinations ...................................................................... 62 
`
`Motivations to Combine ....................................................................... 64 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`V. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678 (“the ’678 Patent”) ............................................................. 85 
`
`A. 
`
`Identification of Prior Art ................................................................................. 85 
`
`
`
`
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 002
`
`

`

`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Prior Art Patents .................................................................................... 86 
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications ........................................................ 88 
`
`Prior Art Systems .................................................................................. 90 
`
`Primary References ........................................................................................... 91 
`
`Secondary References ....................................................................................... 93 
`
`Obvious Combinations...................................................................................... 93 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Exemplary Combinations ...................................................................... 94 
`
`Motivations to Combine ....................................................................... 98 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`VI. 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,085 (“the ’085 Patent”) ......................................................... 128 
`
`A. 
`
`Identification of Prior Art ............................................................................... 128 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Prior Art Patents .................................................................................. 128 
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications ...................................................... 130 
`
`Prior Art Systems ................................................................................ 132 
`
`Primary References ......................................................................................... 133 
`
`Secondary References ..................................................................................... 135 
`
`Obvious Combinations.................................................................................... 135 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Exemplary Combinations .................................................................... 136 
`
`Motivations to Combine ..................................................................... 141 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`VII. 
`
`Invalidity Contentions Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................... 168 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ..................................................... 169 
`
`Lack of Enablement/Lack of Written Description Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 1 ......................................................................................................... 179 
`
`VIII.  SUBJECT MATTER INELIGIBILITY ..................................................................... 187 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`’033 Patent ...................................................................................................... 188 
`
`’922 Patent ...................................................................................................... 190 
`
`IX. 
`
`DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ................................................................................... 193
`
`
`
`
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Defendants” or “Samsung”) make the following Patent Local Rule
`
`3-3 Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions and Subject Eligibility Contentions (“Invalidity
`
`Contentions”) to Plaintiff Slyde Analytics LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Slyde”) for Case No. 2-23-cv-
`
`00083-RWS-RSP.
`
`Plaintiff has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,804,678 (“the’678 Patent”); 10,198,085 (“the
`
`’085 Patent”); 8,588,033 (“the ’033 Patent”); and 9,651,922 (“the ’922 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`“the Asserted Patents” or “the Patents-in-Suit”) against Defendants. Complaint (E.D. Tex. 2:23-
`
`cv-00083-RWS-RSP, Dkt. 1). In Plaintiff’s Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”), served on August 22, 2023, Plaintiff has asserted the
`
`following claims against Defendants:
`
` Claims 1 through 15 of the ’678 Patent;
`
` Claims 1 through 10 of the ’085 Patent;
`
` Claims 1 through 19 of the ’033 Patent; and
`
` Claims 1 through 24 of the ’922 Patent.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions address only those claims asserted in Plaintiff’s
`
`Infringement Contentions. Defendants submit these Invalidity Contentions without waiving any
`
`argument about the sufficiency or substance of Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`Based on its investigation to date, Defendants hereby: (a) identify each item of prior art
`
`that anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious; (b) specify whether each such item of
`
`prior art anticipates each asserted claim and/or renders it obvious and, if a combination of items
`
`of prior art makes a claim obvious, identify each such combination and the motivation to combine
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 004
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`such items; (c) submit a chart identifying where specifically in each item of prior art each element
`
`of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`¶ 6, the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs
`
`the claimed function; and (d) identify any grounds of invalidity of the asserted claims based on
`
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 or enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 ¶ 1. Defendants also provide their contentions pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order
`
`Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions.
`
`On October 9, 2023, Defendants filed IPR2024-00002 before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board at the U.S.P.T.O. challenging the validity of every claim of the ’922 Patent. Defendants
`
`incorporate herein by reference IPR2024-00002 in its entirety.
`
`On October 16, 2023, Defendants filed IPR2024-00006 before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board at the U.S.P.T.O. challenging the validity of every claim of the ’033 Patent.
`
`Defendants incorporate herein by reference IPR2024-00006 in its entirety.
`
`On November 2, 2023, Defendants filed IPR2024-00040 before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board at the U.S.P.T.O. challenging the validity of every claim of the ’678 Patent.
`
`Defendants incorporate herein by reference IPR2024-00040 in its entirety.
`
`On November 2, 2023, Defendants filed IPR2024-00041 before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board at the U.S.P.T.O. challenging the validity of every claim of the ’085 Patent.
`
`Defendants incorporate herein by reference IPR2024-00041 in its entirety.
`
`In addition, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-4, and based on its investigation to date,
`
`Defendants have produced or are producing documents concurrently with these Invalidity
`
`Contentions.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Reservations
`
`Defendants reserve the right to amend these Invalidity Contentions. The information and
`
`documents that Defendants produce are based on information available to date and are subject to
`
`further revision.
`
`The information and documents that Defendants produce are based on Defendants’
`
`present understanding of Plaintiff’s infringement theories as advanced by Plaintiff in its
`
`Infringement Contentions. Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions are deficient in numerous
`
`respects. For example, Plaintiff has failed to identify specifically where each element of each
`
`asserted claim is found within each accused instrumentality. If Plaintiff attempts or is permitted
`
`to cure such deficiencies, amends its contentions, or provides additional information regarding
`
`its infringement theories, doing so may lead to further grounds for invalidity, and thus Defendants
`
`specifically reserve the right to amend, or supplement its Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Further, because discovery (including third party discovery) is at an early stage,
`
`Defendants reserve the right to amend or supplement these Invalidity Contentions. For example,
`
`Plaintiff has not produced prior art known to it, including information regarding any known prior
`
`art products. As discovery proceeds, Defendants may serve subpoenas on third parties believed
`
`to have knowledge, documentation, and/or corroborating evidence relating to invalidity and/or
`
`prior art, including, for example, the prior assignee of the Asserted Patents. It is therefore likely
`
`that Defendants will discover additional prior art or additional information relating to known
`
`prior art, and Defendants reserve the right to supplement these contentions after becoming aware
`
`of additional prior art or information. Defendants further reserve the right to introduce and use
`
`such supplemental materials at trial.
`
`Defendants’ claim charts in Exhibits A-D cite particular teachings and disclosures of the
`
`prior art as applied to limitations of the asserted claims. However, persons having ordinary skill
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 006
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in the art may view an item of prior art generally in the context of other publications, literature,
`
`products, and understanding. Accordingly, the cited portions are only exemplary, and
`
`Defendants reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references and on other
`
`publications and expert testimony as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`
`providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that a claim limitation is known or
`
`disclosed. Defendants reserve the right to establish what was known to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art through other publications, products, and/or testimony. Defendants also reserve
`
`the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references, other publications, and testimony
`
`to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been motivated to
`
`combine certain of the cited references so as to render the claims obvious. Citations to figures
`
`are inclusive of all discussion of those figures.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to argue that the asserted claims are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(f) if discovery reveals that the named inventor of the Asserted Patents did not invent
`
`the subject matter recited in the asserted claims. If Defendants assert invalidity under Section
`
`102(f), Defendants will provide the name of the person(s) from whom, and the circumstances
`
`under which, the invention or any part of it was derived.
`
`Defendants further intend to rely on inventor admissions concerning the scope of the
`
`asserted claims or of the prior art relevant to the asserted claims found in, inter alia, the patent
`
`prosecution history and/or reexamination history for the Asserted Patents and related patents
`
`and/or patent applications; any deposition testimony of a named inventor of the Asserted Patents;
`
`and the papers filed and any evidence submitted by Plaintiff in conjunction with this litigation.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to contend that the asserted claims are invalid for failure to name
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`the correct inventor(s), and/or to contend that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this litigation with
`
`respect to such patents.
`
`Furthermore, nothing stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that
`
`Defendants agree with Plaintiff regarding the scope of any asserted claim or the claim
`
`constructions in its Infringement Contentions. To the extent that Defendants’ Invalidity
`
`Contentions reflect claim constructions consistent with or suggested by Plaintiff’s Infringement
`
`Contentions, no inference is intended nor should any be drawn that Defendants agree with
`
`Plaintiff’s claim constructions. By applying any of Plaintiff’s apparent claim constructions and
`
`interpretations, Defendants do not concede in any way that those constructions and
`
`interpretations are correct, but rather assert the fundamental principle that whatever infringes a
`
`claim if later in time anticipates if earlier in time. Defendants expressly reserve the right to
`
`propose alternative constructions to those that have been or may be advocated by Plaintiff.
`
`Nor shall anything in these Invalidity Contentions be treated as an admission that
`
`Defendants’ accused products meet any limitation of any asserted claim. Defendants deny that
`
`it infringes any claim of the Asserted Patents. To the extent that any prior art contains a claim
`
`element that is the same as or similar to an accused product, inclusion of that prior art in
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions shall not be deemed a waiver by Defendants of any claim
`
`construction or non-infringement position. Defendants expressly reserve the right to contest any
`
`claim construction asserted by Plaintiff and expressly reserve all non-infringement arguments.
`
`In its Infringement Contentions, Plaintiff contends that the asserted claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents are entitled to the following priority dates:
`
` The ’678 Patent: October 18, 2011
`
` The’085 Patent: October 18, 2011
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 008
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
` The’033 Patent: March 30, 2010
`
` The’922 Patent: July 3, 2009
`
`Defendants reserve the right to challenge Plaintiff’s alleged priority dates or any alleged dates of
`
`conception or reduction to practice. Based on information gathered to date, Defendants
`
`specifically contend that the ’085 Patent is entitled to a priority date no earlier than 10/12/12 (the
`
`filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/352,727). The ’085 Patent is not entitled to the priority
`
`date of Swiss Patent Application No. 1689/11 (10/18/2011) (“’911 Application”). The ’085
`
`Patent’s claims are all directed to detecting a “wristturn.” But the ’911 Application contains no
`
`such disclosure and never uses the term. The ’085 Patent discusses wristturn detection
`
`exclusively with respect to Figures 7a-7c, which it refers to as “another method for switching the
`
`wristwatch 1 from a first power mode to a second power mode.” See, e.g., ’085 Patent at 3:41-
`
`43, 9:29-36. However, the ’911 Application does not include Figures 7a-7c or any description
`
`of this second method. Thus, the ’085 Patent is not entitled to this earlier priority date.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to seek discovery regarding conception and reduction to
`
`practice, as appropriate, and to demonstrate earlier invention by other parties under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(g), public use and/or the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and/or applicants’ failure
`
`to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112. In addition, Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s alleged priority dates
`
`in forming these Invalidity Contentions, and to the extent Plaintiff later argues, or it is determined
`
`that, any different priority date applies, Defendants reserve the right to amend these contentions
`
`accordingly.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 009
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033 (“the ’033 Patent”)1
`A.
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`
`In addition to the prior art cited on the face of the ’033 Patent and related patents, the
`
`admitted prior art in the specifications of the ’033 Patent and related patents, the prior art cited
`
`in any file histories, reexaminations, inter partes review proceedings, reissue proceedings, or
`
`other examination or post-grant proceedings of the ’033 Patent and related patents, and the prior
`
`art cited in any invalidity contentions or expert reports submitted in any action or proceedings
`
`involving the ’033 Patent or related patents, Defendants identify the following prior art that
`
`anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious.
`
`1.
`
`Prior Art Patents
`
`The following patents and patent publications are prior art to the asserted claims under at
`
`least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and/or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
`
`identification of any patent or patent publication shall be deemed to include any counterpart
`
`patent or application filed, published, or issued anywhere in the world.
`
`Country of
`Origin
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`Japan
`
`Japan
`
`Filing Date
`
`01/31/2008
`
`01/20/2009
`
`02/02/1983
`
`02/24/2004
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication
`08/06/2009
`
`01/01/2013
`
`08/14/1984
`
`09/08/2005
`
`Patent or Publication
`Number
`US20090196124A1
`(“Mooring”)
`US8344998B2
`(“Fitzgerald”)
`JP59-120497
`(“Nakakuki”)
`JP2005/242456
`(“Satoshi”)
`JPH01-165492U
`JPS63-010481U
`JP2006284365A (“Kita”)
`KR2001-0010547
`
`Japan
`Japan
`Japan
`Korea
`
`1 Defendants further incorporate its IPR Petition IPR2024-00006 and accompanying exhibits.
`
`10/5/1988
`7/7/1986
`3/31/2005
`7/21/1999
`
`11/20/1989
`1/23/1988
`10/19/2006
`2/15/2001
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent or Publication
`Number
`US20080186808A1
`(“Lee”)
`US20080151700A1
`(“Inoue”)
`US20050122844A1
`(“Ruchonnet”)
`US20080168368A1
`(“Louch”)
`US7697376
`(“Ruchonnet”)
`US7859947 (“Kawai”)
`
`Country of
`Origin
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`US20080062207A1
`of America
`(“Park”)
`United States
`US8296684B2
`of America
`(“Duarte”)
`US8677285B2 (“Tsern”) United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`Europe
`
`US2005/0276164 A1
`(“Amron”)
`US2005/0278757
`(“Grossman”)
`US2002/0099452
`(“Kawai”)
`US6714486 (“Biggs”)
`
`US6449219 (“Hepp”)
`
`EP2120110A2
`(“Gruber”)
`US7751285 (“Cain”)
`
`US2005/0052953
`(“Kent”)
`US5455808 (“Grupp”)
`
`US2011/0026368
`(“Relyea”)
`
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication
`08/07/2008
`
`06/26/2008
`
`06/09/2005
`
`07/10/2008
`
`04/13/2010
`
`12/28/2010
`
`03/13/2008
`
`10/23/2012
`
`03/18/2014
`
`12/15/2005
`
`12/15/2005
`
`7/25/2002
`
`3/30/2004
`
`9/10/2002
`
`11/18/2009
`
`7/6/2010
`
`3/10/2005
`
`10/3/1995
`
`2/3/2011
`
`Filing Date
`
`02/06/2008
`
`12/19/2007
`
`01/06/2005
`
`01/07/2007
`
`07/09/2003
`
`10/30/2001
`
`09/11/2007
`
`05/23/2008
`
`01/26/2009
`
`06/12/2004
`
`5/28/2004
`
`10/30/2001
`
`6/29/2001
`
`7/4/1998
`
`3/31/2009
`
`3/28/2006
`
`9/5/2003
`
`11/10/1994
`
`4/22/2008
`
`- 8 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 011
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Country of
`Patent or Publication
`Origin
`Number
`United States
`US2006/0092769
`of America
`(“Demas”)
`US5931764 (“Freeman”) United States
`of America
`US7079452 (“Harrison”) United States
`of America
`United States
`US 2008/0048980
`of America
`(“Love”)
`United States
`US2010/0138766
`of America
`(“Nakajima”)
`US7298364 (“Matsuda”) United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`United States
`of America
`WIPO
`
`US2008/0198701
`(“Lete”)
`US2008/0074955
`(“Golay”)
`US2005/0124306
`(“Cheng”)
`US2007/021395
`(“Ishida”)
`US2007/0263491
`(“Kim”)
`WO2009/031789
`(“Choi”)
`
`Filing Date
`
`10/30/2004
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication
`5/4/2006
`
`6/24/1998
`
`3/14/2003
`
`2/20/2007
`
`12/3/2008
`
`2/24/2004
`
`6/13/2006
`
`9/25/2007
`
`12/5/2003
`
`12/11/2006
`
`5/10/2007
`
`9/1/2008
`
`8/3/1999
`
`7/18/2006
`
`2/28/2008
`
`6/3/2010
`
`11/20/2007
`
`8/21/2008
`
`3/27/2008
`
`6/9/2005
`
`9/13/2007
`
`11/15/2007
`
`3/12/2009
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications
`
`The following non-patent publications are prior art to the asserted claims under at least
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and/or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Title
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`Physical-Based
`Simulation of Mechanical
`Watches and Clocks
`(“Tam”)
`
`L.C. Tam, Tom Kong, and R. Du,
`
`Date of
`Publication
`2007
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 012
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`Lam Chi Tam
`
`L.C. Tam, Y. Fu. and R. Du
`
`Nikon
`
`Peter Braun (Abbeville Press Publishers)
`
`Frank Edwards (Firefly Books)
`
`Geometry-Based
`Simulation of Mechanical
`Movements and Virtual
`Library, Chinese
`University of Hong Kong
`Master’s Thesis (“Tam
`Thesis”)
`Virtual Library of
`Mechanical Watch
`Movements (“Tam
`Virtual Library”)
`Nikon Coolpix S60,
`CNET
`Neonode N2 User Manual Neonode
`Collector’s Encyclopedia
`C. Jeanenne Bell (Collector Books)
`of Pendant and Pocket
`Watches 1500-1950
`(“Bell”)
`Wristwatch Annual 2004:
`The Catalogue of
`Producers, Models, and
`Specifications (“Braun”)
`Wristwatches: A
`Connoisseur’s Guide
`(“Edwards”)
`Pocketnow, LG GD910
`Hardware and Software
`Review | Pocketnow,
`YouTube (June 21, 2010),
`https://www.youtube.com
`/watch?v=_FAwzkc0gKo,
`(“Hardware and Software
`Review”)
`Stuff, LG GD910
`Watchphone Hands On,
`YouTube (Aug. 27,
`2009),
`https://www.youtube.com
`/watch?v=mGGRIQZvH3
`4, (“Watchphone Hands
`On”)
`
`YouTube
`
`YouTube
`
`- 10 -
`
`Date of
`Publication
`Aug. 2008
`
`2007
`
`Dec. 19,
`2008
`2007
`2004
`
`2004
`
`1997
`
`06/21/2010
`
`08/27/2009
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`YouTube
`
`GMSArena
`
`LG
`
`IBM
`
`IBM
`
`IGN, CES 2009: The LG
`Watch Phone, YouTube
`(Jan. 9, 2009), IGN, CES
`2009: The LG Watch
`Phone, YouTube (Jan. 9,
`2009),
`https://www.youtube.com
`/watch?v=vB4zT0I1pkM,
`(“LG Watch Phone”)
`LG GD910, Full Phone
`Specifications, (“Full
`Phone Specifications”)
`LG GD910, User Guide,
`(“User Guide”)
`Linux Watch
`(WatchPad™) 1998-2004,
`Overview, Linux Watch,
`https://researcher.watson.i
`bm.com/researcher/view_
`group.php?id=6101,
`(“Linux Watch,
`Overview”)
`Organic LED Watch
`2000-2001,
`https://researcher.watson.i
`bm.com/researcher/view_
`group_subpage.php?id=61
`03, (“OLED Watch”)
`Citizen Watch and IBM
`Research Collaboration –
`2001, Watchpad 1.5,
`https://researcher.watson.i
`bm.com/researcher/view_
`group_subpage.php?id=61
`04 (“Watchpad 1.5”)
`IBM’s Linux Watch: The
`Challenge of
`Miniaturization (“IBM’s
`Linux Watch”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of
`Publication
`01/09/2009
`
`No later than
`2009
`
`2009
`
`2004
`
`2001
`
`LinuxDevices Staff
`
`10/11/2001
`
`Chandra Narayanaswami, Noboru Kamijoh,
`Mandayam Raghunath, Tadanobu Inoue, Thomas
`Cipolla, Jim Sanford, Eugene Schlig
`
`01/2002
`
`- 11 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`IBM
`
`Date of
`Publication
`2001
`
`Linux on a Wrist Watch
`1998-2001,
`https://researcher.watson.i
`bm.com/researcher/view_
`group_subpage.php?id=61
`02, (“Linux on a Wrist
`Watch”)
`IBM Search Report, What
`Would You Do with a
`Hundred MIPS on Your
`Wrist? (“IBM Search
`Report MIPS”)
`IBM Search Report, A
`Wristwatch-Computer
`Based Password-Vault
`(“IBM Search Report
`Password-Vault”)
`Application design for a
`smart watch with a high
`resolution display
`(“Application Design”)
`Multi-Purpose Data
`Displays as Wrist Watch
`Replacement (“Multi-
`Purpose Displays”)
`User Interfaces for
`Applications on a Wrist
`Watch (“User Interfaces”)
`Energy trade-offs in the
`IBM wristwatch computer
`(“IBM Wristwatch
`computer”)
`An Interaction System for
`Watch Computers Using
`Tactile Guidance and
`Bidirectional Segmented
`Strokes (“Tactile
`Guidance and Segmented
`Strokes”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chandra Narayanaswami, M. T. Raghunath,
`Noboru Kamijoh, Tadonobu Inoue
`
`01/22/2001
`
`Gabor Blasko, Chandra Narayanaswami,
`Mandayam Raghunath
`
`03/10/2005
`
`Chandra Narayanaswami, M. T. Raghunath
`
`08/06/2002
`
`Peter Hutterer
`
`07/2004
`
`M. T. Raghunath, Chandra Narayanaswami
`
`2002
`
`N. Kamijoh, T. Inoue, C.M. Olsen, M.T.
`Raghunath, C. Narayanaswami
`
`08/07/2002
`
`Gábor Blaskó, Steven Feiner
`
`12/13/2004
`
`- 12 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Direct View Active
`Matrix VGA OLED-on-
`Crystalline-Silicon
`Display (“Active Matrix”)
`Watch Report, Tissot
`High-T Video Watch
`Review, YouTube (Jan. 9,
`2007),
`https://www.youtube.com
`/watch?v=SwgqV0Timh4,
`(“Tissot Video”)
`Tissot High T review:
`Tissot High T, CNET
`(“Tissot review”)
`Hight T User Manual
`(“User Manual”)
`The Tissot T-Touch
`Expert (“T-Touch
`Expert”)
`T-Touch Expert User’s
`Manual (“T-Touch User’s
`Manual”)
`IBM Research Report:
`A Wristwatch-Computer
`Based Password-Vault
`The Future of Watches
`It’s All on the Wrist
`New Concepts for Future
`Wristwatch Design
`
`Multi-Purpose Data
`Displays as Wrist
`Watch Replacement
`Unraveling Flexible
`OLED Displays for
`Wearable Computing
`User Interfaces for
`Applications on a Wrist
`Watch
`
`James L. Sanford, Eugene S. Schlig
`
`YouTube
`
`Patrick Houston
`
`Tissot
`
`James Stacey
`
`Tissot
`
`Gabor Blasko, Chandra Narayanaswami,
`Mandayam Raghunath
`
`Giovanni Flammia
`Michael Jay Geier
`Rachel Eardley, Richard Hull, Jenny Hyams,
`Michael Lamming,
`Rachel Murphy, Abigail Sellen
`Peter Hutterer
`
`Date of
`Publication
`03/13/2001
`
`01/09/2007
`
`02/15/2005
`
`No later than
`2009
`09/06/2008
`
`No later than
`2009
`
`3/10/2005
`
`2003
`August, 2005
`August 4,
`2004
`
`July, 2004
`
`Chandra Narayanaswami, M. T. Raghunath
`
`6/3/2005
`
`M. T. Raghunath and Chandra Narayanaswami
`
`2002
`
`- 13 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 016
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`The following systems are prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (g):
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Products, components, systems, and methods invented, designed, developed,
`reduced to practice, and/or in public use or on sale related to LG GD910, as
`exemplified in the claim chart in Exhibit C3. As part of these Invalidity
`Contentions, Defendants have produced documents relating to LG GD910. Based
`on information available to Defendants, Defendants believes that LG GD910 was
`conceived and/or reduced to practice by engineers at LG Electronics, including
`those identified in the claim chart and its cited publications, at least before March
`30, 2010, without being abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, and it was known
`or used by others in this country or in public use or on sale on by the dates
`identified in the claim chart, which are no later than March 30, 2010. See, e.g.,
`LG GD910 watch (made available and shown in SAMS366-0015320-21).
`
`Products, components, systems, and methods invented, designed, developed,
`reduced to practice, and/or in public use or on sale related to Linux Watch, as
`exemplified in the claim chart in Exhibit C4. As part of these Invalidity
`Contentions, Defendants have produced documents relating to Linux Watch.
`Based on information available to Defendants, Defendants believes that Linux
`Watch was conceived and/or reduced to practice by engineers at IBM, including
`those identified in the claim chart and its cited publications, at least before March
`30, 2010, without being abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, and it was known
`or used by others in this country or in public use or on sale on by the dates
`identified in the claim chart, which are no later than March 30, 2010.
`
`Products, components, systems, and methods invented, designed, developed,
`reduced to practice, and/or in public use or on sale related Tissot Watch, as
`exemplified in the claim chart in Exhibit C5. As part of these Invalidity
`Contentions, Defendants have produced documents relating Tissot Watch. Based
`on information available to Defendants, Defendants believes Tissot Watch was
`conceived and/or reduced to practice by engineers at Tissot including those
`identified in the claim chart and its cited publications, at least before March 30,
`2010, without being abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, and it was known or
`used by others in this country or in public use or on sale on by the dates identified
`in the claim chart, which are no later than March 30, 2010.
`
`Defendants’ investigation into publicly available prior art systems that teach and/or
`
`render obvious each element of any asserted claims is ongoing. Fact discovery is at an early
`
`stage, and Defendants may require discovery from third parties regarding publicly available prior
`
`art systems. Defendants reserve the right to amend its identification of prior art systems as
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Slyde Analytics Exhibit No. 2002, IPR2024-00041
`Page 017
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Defendants become aware of the existence, functionality, and/or characteristics of prior art
`
`systems as a result of its investigation and forthcoming discovery. In addition to the prior art
`
`products, components, systems, and methods described above, Defendants also reserve the right
`
`to rely on the documents and publications identified in the corresponding claim charts as prior
`
`art publications.
`
`B.
`
`Primary References
`
`Defendants contend that the primary prior art references identified below and described
`
`in the charts attached as Exhibits C1 to C5, by themselves, anticipate the asserted claims of the
`
`’033 Patent. To the extent that a primary reference is deemed not to anticipate a claim for failing
`
`to teach one or more limitations of that claim, Defendants contend that the claim would
`
`nonetheless have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention in view of the prior art
`
`reference itself, as described in the attached charts. Defendants’ prior art charts (attached as
`
`Exhibits C1 thru C6 set forth the particular claims that are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`and/or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 b