`
`Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Jason W. Balich, Reg. No. 67,110
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`HP INC., DELL INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS GLOBAL PTE. LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00457
`Patent No. 9,880,715
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. THIS PETITION IS TIME-BARRED .............................................................. 2
`A. Factual Background ..................................................................................... 3
`1. The Microsoft-Lenovo Relationship ..................................................... 3
`2. Microsoft’s Privy Relationships with HP, Dell, and ASUS
`Confirm Microsoft’s Privy Relationship with Lenovo ......................... 4
`B. Privity Law .................................................................................................. 6
`C. Lenovo Was Microsoft’s Privy Under §315(b) ........................................... 7
`1. Lenovo and Microsoft’s Pre-Existing Substantive Legal
`Relationship ........................................................................................... 7
`a.
` Establishes Such a Relationship ................................... 7
`b. The Microsoft-Lenovo Relationship Is Central to
`Lenovo’s Infringement .................................................................. 8
` Is an Agreement to Be Bound ............................................. 10
` Establish Microsoft’s
`Agreement to Be Bound .............................................................. 10
`b. Microsoft’s Interpretation of §315(b) Renders “Privy”
`Superfluous ................................................................................. 12
`III. ’715 PATENT .................................................................................................. 13
`IV. LENOVO’S ’715 PATENT CHALLENGES ................................................. 17
`V. DISCRETIONARILY DENIAL UNDER §325(d) ......................................... 17
`A. Advanced Bionics Step 1 Is Met ................................................................ 18
`1. Substantially the Same Art .................................................................. 20
`a. Pröll and Lane are Substantially the Same ................................. 20
`b. Martinez and Preppernau Are Substantially the Same as
`Pogue ........................................................................................... 22
`2. Lenovo Made Substantially the Same Argument as Petitioners ......... 30
`3. Petitioners’ Conclusory Assertion Fails .............................................. 31
`B. Advanced Bionics Step 2 Is Met ................................................................ 31
`
`a.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. PETITIONERS FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PROVING ANY CLAIM UNPATENTABLE................ 32
`A. Petitioners Admit that a Plurality of Views Requires a Plurality of
`Ways of Organizing Content ..................................................................... 34
`B. None of Petitioners’ Prior Art Discloses Selecting a View in
`Response to a Detected Computer Configuration ..................................... 35
`1. Petitioners Admit Pröll Does Not Disclose Selecting Among a
`Plurality of Views ................................................................................ 35
`2. Martinez Does Not Select a View in Response to a Detected
`Computer Configuration ..................................................................... 36
`3. Preppernau Does Not Select a View in Response to a Detected
`Computer Configuration ..................................................................... 37
`C. The Board Denies Institution when the Prior Art Fails to Disclose a
`Claim Limitation ........................................................................................ 37
`1. Petitioners Rely on Expert Testimony to Supply a Missing
`Limitation ............................................................................................ 38
`2. Expert Testimony Can Supply a Missing Limitation Only in
`Rare Circumstances Absent Here ........................................................ 38
`3. The Board Denies Institution Where the Petition Fails to Justify
`Reliance on Expert Testimony to Supply a Missing Limitation ......... 40
`D. Grounds 1-3 Fail ........................................................................................ 42
`1. POSAs Motivated to Modify Pröll Based on Martinez Would
`Not Have Arrived at Any Challenged Claim ...................................... 43
`2. The Petition Does Not Adequately Explain the Contemplated
`Workings of its Pröll-Martinez Combination ..................................... 44
`3. Petitioners Establish No Reason to Select Different Views
`Based on the Computer’s Configuration Rather Than a User
`Shake as Martinez Teaches ................................................................. 47
`a. Petitioners’ Modification is Not Required to “Allow”
`Pröll’s Device to be Used in Mobile Environments ................... 48
`b. Alleged Improved Usability Based on Relative Window
`Sizes Between Martinez’s Tile and Cascading
`Arrangements Fails ..................................................................... 49
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`i. The Assertion About Window Size Is Unsupported
`by any Credible Evidence ................................................... 49
`ii. Petitioners’ Assertion About Window Size is
`Demonstrably False ............................................................ 52
`iii. Petitioners Rely on Their Expert’s Naked Say-So to
`Meet a Limitation Missing from the Art ............................ 54
`c. The Petition’s Remaining Reasons to Combine Fail to
`Yield a Computer Meeting Any Challenged Claim.................... 55
`i. Alleged Similarities Between Pröll and Martinez
`Provides No Reason to Combine Their Teachings in
`the Claimed Manner............................................................ 55
`ii. That POSAs Could Have Implemented a Computer
`Meeting the Claims Provides No Reason Why
`POSAs Would Have Done So ............................................ 56
`iii. Even if POSAs Had Been Motivated to Combine
`Martinez with Pröll, that Would Not Have Resulted
`in a Computer Meeting Any Challenged Claim ................. 57
`4. The Expert Declaration Cannot and Does Not Cure the
`Petition’s Failures ................................................................................ 58
`a. The Evidence Relied Upon Needed to Be Cited and
`Explained in the Petition ............................................................. 58
`b. The Expert Declaration Fails to Cure the Petition’s Fatal
`Deficiencies ................................................................................. 59
`i. Dr. Houh’s Assertion that Pröll Discloses Different
`Views Warrants No Weight ................................................ 60
`ii. Martinez Does Not Select Among Window
`Arrangements Based on the Computer’s
`Configuration ...................................................................... 61
`iii. Dr. Houh’s Assertion that POSAs Would Have
`Selected Among Views Based on a Detected
`Computer Configuration is Unsupported ........................... 63
`5. Conclusion: Ground 1 Fails ................................................................. 65
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`E. Grounds 2-3 Inherit Ground 1’s Failures .................................................. 66
`F. Ground 4 Fails ........................................................................................... 66
`1. POSAs Motivated to Modify Pröll Based on Preppernau Would
`Not Have Arrived at a Computer Meeting Any Challenged
`Claim ................................................................................................... 67
`2. The Petition Fails to Explain the Contemplated Workings of the
`Pröll-Preppernau Combination ............................................................ 68
`3. The Petition Never Alleges a Reason to Combine Pröll and
`Preppernau in a Manner Meeting the Challenged Claims .................. 69
`a. Petitioner’s “Motivation to Combine” Section Alleges No
`Such Reason ............................................................................... 69
`b. The Petition’s Addressing Limitation 1[f] Similarly
`Alleges No Reason to Combine Pröll and Preppernau in
`the Manner Claimed .................................................................... 71
`4. The Expert Declaration Cannot Save Ground 4 .................................. 72
`a. Incorporation by Reference is Prohibited ................................... 72
`b. If Considered, the Expert Declaration Fails ................................ 73
`i. Windows Vista Running on Pröll’s Computer Does
`Not Meet Any Challenged Claim ....................................... 73
`ii. Dr. Houh Provides No Reason Why POSAs Would
`Have Modified Windows Vista .......................................... 73
`c. Dr. Houh Fails to Explain the Contemplated Workings of
`the Pröll-Preppernau Combination ............................................. 75
`d. Dr. Houh’s Assertion that Pröll Discloses Different Views
`is Unsupported in Pröll and Refuted by Dr. Houh’s Own
`Admission ................................................................................... 76
`5. Conclusion: Ground 4 Fails ................................................................. 76
`G. Ground 5 Fails ........................................................................................... 76
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 77
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerärte,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ................................ 17, 18, 31
`Amerigen Pharms. Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmBH,
`913 F.3d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 48
`Apple v. Mullen Indus.,
`IPR2023-00087, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 3, 2023) .......................... 33, 38, 41, 42
`Applications in Internet Time v. RPX,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 6, 7, 10, 13
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... passim
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc.,
`962 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 40
`Cook Grp. v. Boston Sci. Scimed,
`IPR2017-00131, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2017) .................................... 51, 59
`Darfon Elecs. v. Shipman,
`IPR2022-01008, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2022) ...................................... 18, 31
`DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 38, 39
`Ecofasten Solar v. Unirac,
`IPR2021-01379, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2022) ................................ 17, 18, 31
`Exec. Risk Indem. v. Jones,
`171 Cal. App. 4th 319 (2009) ............................................................................... 12
`Game & Tech. v. Wargaming Grp.,
`942 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 2
`Instrumentation Lab’y v. Hemosonics,
`IPR2017-00855, Paper 55 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2019) .................................... 51, 59
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 10
`King v. Burwell,
`576 U.S. 473 (2015) ............................................................................................... 6
`Lenovo v. LiTL,
`IPR2021-00786, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. October 21, 2021) ....................................... 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 56
`Ortega-Maldonado v. Allstate,
`519 F. Supp. 2d 981 (D. Minn. 2007) .................................................................. 12
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 40
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... passim
`Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Lynk Labs, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00101, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. May 25, 2023) ........................................... 46
`Sisvel Int’l. S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc.,
`82 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 47
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ..................................................................................... passim
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... passim
`Trend Micro v. Open Text,
`IPR2023-00692, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2023) .............................................. 55
`Ventex v. Columbia Sportswear,
`IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019) ................................... 7, 8, 9
`WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical,
`889 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 13
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom,
`887 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 6
`Xerox v. Bytemark,
`IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2022) .................................... passim
`RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ...................................................................................... 46, 51, 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(3)-(4) ................................................................................... 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ....................................................................... 51, 58, 59, 61
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .............................................................................................. 46, 61
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 58
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) ........................................................................................... 46, 51
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 59
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .......................................................................................... 51, 64
`37 C.F.R. §104(b)(5) ................................................................................................ 46
`REGULATIONS
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ..................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................. 1, 17, 18, 31
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) .....................................................6, 7
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`[No Author Listed], The Litl webbook. European Consumers Choice.
`URL=https://www.europeanconsumerschoice.org/hi-
`tech/litlwebbookcomputer-
`test-and-reviews/ [last accessed June 25, 2021]
`[No Author Listed], Litl Webbook Beats ChromeOS, Becomes First
`Cloud Computer. CoolThings. November 16, 2009.
`URL:https://www.coolthings.com/litl-webbook-
`beatschromeosbecomes-
`first-cloud-computer/ [last accessed June 25, 2021]
`Noe, The Litl Webbook: A more social computing device. November
`5, 2009. Corr77. URL:https://www.core77.com/posts/15122/The-Litl-
`Webbook-A-more-social-computing-device [last accessed June 25,
`2021]
`Saxena, CES 2010: All New Litl Webbook Makes Its Debut
`Appearance. Elite Choice. URL:https://elitechoice.org/luxury/ces-
`2010-all-new-litl-webbook-makes-its-debut-appearance [last accessed
`June 25, 2021]
`McDonald, LiTL Webbook Review. Little Tech Girl. August 31, 2010.
`URL:https://littletechgirl.com/2010/08/31/litl-webbook-review/ [last
`accessed June 25, 2021]
`Strauss, Litl Webbook Re-Defines Computing. ABC News. December
`14, 2009.
`URL:https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GadgetGuide/litlwebbookde
`fines-
`computing/story?id=9311095 [last accessed June 25,
`2021]
`Scinto, Introducing The Litl WebBook. The Gadgeteer. November 19,
`2009. URL:https://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/11/19/introducing-
`thelitlwebbook/
`[last accessed June 25, 2021]
`[No Author Listed], All-New Litl Webbook Debuts at 2010 CES.
`Cision. January 5, 2010.
`URL:https://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/
`all-new-litl-webbook-debuts-at-2010-ces-80716797.html [last
`accessed June 25, 2021]
`International PCT Publication No. WO 95/24007 (“Lane”)
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`2010
`David Pogue, Windows Vista: The Missing Manual, 1st edition, 2nd
`printing published February 2007 (“Pogue”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Lenovo Summons Returned Executed as to Original LiTL Complaint
`Against Lenovo (US)
`LiTL’s First Amended Complaint Against Lenovo
`CONFIDENTIAL AEO
`, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000001-14
`CONFIDENTIAL
`CONFIDENTIAL
` MSFT-LITL-IPR-000360-408
`LiTL’s ’715 Patent Infringement Contentions Against ASUS
`LiTL’s ’715 Patent Infringement Contentions Against Dell
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`LiTL’s Counterclaims against Microsoft (HP action)
`CONFIDENTIAL
` MSFT-LITL-IPR-000548
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`
`2021
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`2025
`
`2026
`2027
`2028
`2029
`2030
`2031
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`LiTL’s First Amended Complaint Against Dell
`LiTL’s First Amended Complaint against HP
`LiTL’s Amended Complaint against ASUS
`CONFIDENTIAL
`MSFT-LITL-IPR-000969
`CONFIDENTIAL
` MSFT-LITL-IPR-001047
`CONFIDENTIAL
`MSFT-LITL-IPR-001115
`Microsoft’s Intervenor Compliant against Plaintiff and Intervenor-
`Defendant HP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`2036
`Microsoft’s Intervenor Complaint against Plaintiff and Intervenor-
`Defendant Dell
`Microsoft’s Intervenor Complaint against Plaintiff and Intervenor-
`Defendant ASUS
`CONFIDENTIAL
`MSFT-LITL-IPR-000099
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`2041
`
`MSFT-LITL-IPR-000103
`
`Reserved
`Microsoft's Answer to Counterclaims in HP Action
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition should be denied for three independent reasons.
`
`First, like Microsoft’s petition in co-pending IPR2024-00456, this Petition
`
`is time-barred because Microsoft was in privity with Lenovo who was sued on the
`
`’715 Patent more than a year before this Petition was filed.
`
`Second, this Petition should be discretionarily denied because “substantially
`
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office” during a
`
`reexamination of the ‘715 Patent filed by Lenovo. 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Indeed, both
`
`the prior art and the arguments Petitioners advance are substantially the same as
`
`those presented by Lenovo. The Petition ignores the reexamination entirely. The
`
`Petition never even alleges that the prior art and arguments presented to the Office
`
`during Lenovo’s reexamination were not substantially the same as those the
`
`Petition presents, and never alleges that the reexamination Examiner erred in
`
`confirming the claims over substantially the same prior art and arguments.
`
`Third, Petitioners challenge the independent claims using the same two
`
`failed combinations (Pröll-Martinez and Pröll-Preppernau) Petitioners used in
`
`IPR2024-00458. None of Petitioners’ cited art discloses selecting one of a plurality
`
`of views “in response to the detected current computer system configuration” as
`
`claimed. Instead, Petitioners rely on the naked testimony of their expert to supply
`
`this limitation absent from the prior art. The Board should reject this argument just
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`like the reexamination Examiner did. Expert testimony can only supply a claim
`
`limitation missing from the prior art in rare circumstances that do not apply here.
`
`The Board routinely denies institution under these circumstances and should do so
`
`here because no credible evidence supports that POSAs would have combined the
`
`features of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`II. THIS PETITION IS TIME-BARRED
`The AIA time-bars an IPR if the petition is filed more than 1 year after a
`
`“privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`patent.” 35 U.S.C. §315(b).1
`
`Petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that §315(b) does not time-bar
`
`their Petition. Game & Tech. v. Wargaming Grp., 942 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019).
`
`Petitioners allege they are not barred because “Microsoft has never been
`
`served with a complaint” (Petition, 2), but ignore whether Microsoft was in privity
`
`with Lenovo. Petitioners assert Lenovo did not “request indemnity from
`
`Microsoft” for LiTL’s ’715 Patent infringement allegations and assert Microsoft
`
`“had no involvement” in Lenovo’s IPR2021-00786 challenging the ’715 Patent.
`
`Petition, 11. But privity does not require a demand for indemnity or Microsoft’s
`
`“involvement” in Lenovo’s IPR.
`
`
`1 Emphasis is added and quotation marks and citations are omitted except as noted.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background
`1.
`The Microsoft-Lenovo Relationship
`Lenovo was served a complaint and amended complaint, both alleging that
`
`Lenovo computers running Microsoft’s software infringe the ’715 Patent, more
`
`than one year before Microsoft filed this Petition. EX1024 (“Compl.”), ¶¶142-158;
`
`EX2016; EX2017 (“FAC”), ¶¶237-277; id., 163-164 (certificate of service).
`
`Lenovo and Microsoft had a substantial relationship governed by
`
` (EX2018,
`
`). Lenovo was Microsoft’s
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The
`
` Lenovo’s computers that ran
`
`Microsoft’s Windows and were accused of infringing the ’715 Patent. EX2017,
`
`¶¶92-94, 96, 99-102, 238-45. As discussed infra §VI.A, every ’715 Patent claim
`
`covers a computer with a GUI having a plurality of views of displayed content and
`
`an execution component that selects one of those views in response to a detected
`
`configuration of the computer. In Lenovo’s accused products, that functionality
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`was implemented by Microsoft’s Windows. EX2017, ¶¶99-101, 238-45. Microsoft
`
`admits its Windows software is a “basis for [LiTL’s] infringement allegations”
`
`against co-petitioners HP, Dell, and ASUS. Petition, 1. Microsoft’s software was
`
`equally the basis for LiTL’s infringement allegations against Lenovo. Compare
`
`EX1024, ¶¶123-51; EX2017, ¶¶238-77; and
`
` with
`
`EX1016, ¶¶215-37; EX2021; EX1017, ¶¶228-47; EX2022; EX1018, ¶¶207-24;
`
`and EX2023 for the co-petitioner litigations. On May 10, 2021, LiTL put Microsoft
`
`on notice that Microsoft directly infringes the ’715 Patent. EX2024, ¶28 of
`
`counterclaims; EX2041, ¶28.
`
`Microsoft and Lenovo
`
`, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000554)
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id., MSFT-LITL-IPR-000548
`
`
`
`. Microsoft’s
`
`
`
`acknowledged
`
` Id. Lenovo and Microsoft had
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`2. Microsoft’s Privy Relationships with HP, Dell, and ASUS
`Confirm Microsoft’s Privy Relationship with Lenovo
`Lenovo’s accused computers used the same Microsoft software as the
`
`accused Dell, HP, and ASUS computers. Compare EX2017, ¶¶238-45 and EX2020
`
`with EX2029, ¶¶237-43, EX2022, EX2030, ¶¶233-239, EX2023, EX2031, ¶¶199-
`
`4
`
`

`

`205, EX2021. Microsoft’s relationship with each co-petitioner is governed by
`
`
`
` that has substantially similar or identical
`
`
`
`provisions as
`
` with Lenovo. Compare EX2018,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` with EX2032,
`
`; EX2033,
`
` and
`
`EX2034,
`
`
`
`Microsoft intervened in the co-petitioner litigations, representing that its
`
`agreements created “defense and indemnity obligations to [HP, Dell, and ASUS]
`
`relating to [their] use of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System.” EX2035, ¶8;
`
`EX2036, ¶8; EX2037, ¶8. Microsoft does not deny it is in privity with its co-
`
`petitioners. Petition, 1-2, 9-10. The provisions in Microsoft’s agreements with HP,
`
`Dell, and ASUS that Microsoft admits created “indemnity obligations” and rights
`
`for the ’715 Patent (EX2034,
`
` at MSFT-LITL-IPR-001154-
`
`55; EX2033,
`
`001111; EX2032,
`
`001041) are materially the same
`
` (EX2018,
`
` at MSFT-LITL-IPR-001064-65, -
`
` at MSFT-LITL-IPR-000986-87, -
`
`
`
`).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Privity Law
`The AIA does not define “privy.” To interpret an undefined statutory term,
`
`courts rely on the statutory scheme, Congressional intent, and the common law
`
`meaning. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015); Applications in Internet Time
`
`v. RPX, 897 F.3d 1336, 1345-47 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“RPX”); Wi-Fi One v.
`
`Broadcom, 887 F.3d 1329, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
` Congress used “real party in interest” and “privy” in “§315 to serve two
`
`related purposes: (1) to ensure that third parties who have sufficiently close
`
`relationships with IPR petitioners would be bound by the outcome of instituted
`
`IPRs under §315(e)…and (2) to safeguard patent owners from having to defend
`
`their patents against belated administrative attacks by related parties via
`
`§315(b).” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1350.
`
`Congress intended that a “‘privy’ is a party that has a direct relationship to
`
`the petitioner with respect to the allegedly infringing product or service” such as
`
`“customers of the petitioner” who “had been sued for infringement.” 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer’s statement). This legislative
`
`history of how “privy” is used in other AIA sections informs its meaning in
`
`§315(b). RPX, 897 F.3d at 1350 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 for the meaning of
`
`“privy” in 315(b)).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`The legislative history is consistent with the common law meaning of
`
`“privy.” In Taylor v. Sturgell, the Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive six
`
`factor framework for determining privity. 553 U.S. 880, 893-95, 893 n.6 (2008).
`
`“[A]ny one of the [Taylor] factors can support a finding of privity.” Ventex v.
`
`Columbia Sportswear, IPR2017-00651, Paper 148, 12 (Jan. 24, 2019)
`
`(precedential); see also RPX, 897 F.3d at 1363 (Reyna, J., concurring) (even a
`
`single factor can “independently establish[] privity under the Taylor framework”).
`
`C. Lenovo Was Microsoft’s Privy Under §315(b)
`The Microsoft-Lenovo relationship satisfies at least two Taylor factors
`
`establishing privity under the common law. Finding Lenovo to be Microsoft’s
`
`privy is also consistent with Congressional intent that “privy” cover “a party that
`
`has a direct relationship to the petitioner with respect to the allegedly infringing
`
`product or service.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1350 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily
`
`ed. Sep. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer’s statement)).
`
`1.
`
`Lenovo and Microsoft’s Pre-Existing Substantive Legal
`Relationship
`A pre-existing substantive legal relationship between the parties can
`
`establish privity. Taylor, 553 U.S. at 8994.
`
`a.
` Establishes Such a Relationship
` is a formal contract that establishes a “pre-existing substantive
`
`legal relationship” concerning
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`.
`
`Supra §II.A. That establishes common-law privity. Taylor, 553 U.S. at 893-94 &
`
`n.8.
`
`Finding Lenovo and Microsoft to be in privity is consistent with the Board’s
`
`finding in the precedential Ventex case that a “Supplier Agreement” and an
`
`“Exclusive Manufacturing Agreement,” both “directly relat[ing] to the product
`
`accused of infringing the patent at issue” in the IPR, supported a finding that the
`
`supplier and customer were in privity so the petition was time-barred. Ventex,
`
`IPR2017-00651, Paper 148, 12-13.
`
`b.
`
`The Microsoft-Lenovo Relationship Is Central to
`Lenovo’s Infringement
`First, the Challenged Claims all recite GUI functionality that, in Lenovo’s
`
`products, was implemented by Microsoft’s software. Supra §II.A. Lenovo and
`
`Microsoft’s
`
` (EX2025, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000554) confirmed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (EX2025, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000548).
`
`Second, Microsoft’s actions in the litigations against its co-petitioners
`
`confirm that Microsoft’s
`
` relationship with Lenovo concerns
`
`
`
`. Microsoft
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`admitted that LiTL’s litigation papers – which mirror those in the Lenovo litigation
`
`(Supra §II.A) – “identified Windows functionality as a basis for” the co-petitioners
`
`infringing the ’715 Patent. Petition, 1.
`
`Microsoft’s relationships with Lenovo, HP, Dell, and ASUS are the same in
`
`relevant respects – they all sell computers running Microsoft’s Windows software
`
`that results in infringement of the ’715 Patent in the same way. See supra §II.A.2.
`
`Microsoft’s co-petitioner relationships are governed by
`
` that are
`
`substantively the same in relevant respects to
`
` the Microsoft-
`
`Lenovo relationship. Supra §II.A. Thus, the “pre-existing substantive legal
`
`relationship” between Microsoft and Lenovo is substantively the same as the legal
`
`relationships between Microsoft and its co-petitioners with whom Microsoft admits
`
`it is in privity. Petition, 1-2 and 9-10.
`
`* * * * *
`
`The “pre-existing substantive legal relationship” between Microsoft and
`
`Lenovo that resulted in Lenovo’s infringement of the ’715 Patent establishes
`
`common-law privity. Taylor, 553 U.S. at 893-94, & n.8; Ventex, IPR2017-00651,
`
`Paper 148, 12 (“any one of the [Taylor] factors can support a finding of privity)
`
`and 15 (contractual relationship established privity). The Petition is time-barred
`
`under §315(b).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
` Is an Agreement to Be Bound
`Another independent way to establish privity under Taylor is via “an
`
`agreement between the parties to be bound.” RPX, 897 F.3d at 1360 (Reyna, J.,
`
`concurring), citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894-95.
`
` establish Microsoft’s agreement to be
`
`bound. EX2018,
`
`; Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d
`
`821, 839 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“an indemnification agreement…has alone been
`
`enough to find privity”).
`
`a.
`
`Agreement to Be Bound
`
` Establish Microsoft’s
`
`EX2018,
`
`.
`
`Microsoft’s Windows software is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Lenovo’s accused computers used the same Microsoft Windows
`
`software in the same manner as the accused computers from HP, Dell, and ASUS.
`
`Supra §II.A.2. Microsoft’s agreements with those co-petitioners had substantively
`
`the same
`
`
`
`. Supra §II.A.2. Microsoft
`
`represented to the Court that Microsoft was obligated to defend its co-petitioners
`
`10
`
`

`

`from LiTL’s infringement claims on the ’715 Patent. EX2035, ¶8; EX2036; ¶8;
`
`EX2037, ¶8. That is an admission that Microsoft’s Windows software
`
`
`
`. EX2034,
`
`; EX2033,
`
`EX2032,
`
`; EX2018,
`
`.
`
`Microsoft says Lenovo
`
`EX2019, 6-7.
`
`EX2018,
`
`.
`
` EX2018,
`
`.
`
`. EX1031.
`
`
`
`;
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX2038, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000099,
`
`11
`
`

`

`EX2039, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000103, EX2020, MSFT-LITL-IPR-000360-408).
`
`
`
` is immaterial2 to
`
` under Taylor.
`
`Microsoft’s admission that it was obligated to defend its co-petitioners from
`
`LiTL’s ’715 Patent infringement claims, pursuant
`
`
`
` puts that issue to rest.
`
`b. Microsoft’s Interpretation of §315(b) Renders
`“Privy” Superfluous
`Microsoft did not need to provide Lenovo with indemnification to be
`
`Lenovo’s privy. Finding otherwise would read “privy” out of §315(b) by equating
`
`a privy with a real party in interest (“RPI”).
`
`, Microsoft
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Where an indemnification agreement’s “express language” imposes an
`
`obligation, the duty to indemnify applies even where the indemnitor “had no notice
`
`of the underlying proceeding, thus depriving the [indemnitor] of any opportunity to
`
`defend the claim.” Exec. Risk Indem. v. Jones, 171 Cal. App. 4th 319, 331 (2009)
`
`(emphasis original) (collecting cases.); see also Ortega-Maldonado v. Allstate, 519
`
`F. Supp. 2d 981, 994 (D. Minn. 2007).
`
`