Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 1532
`Case 2:l5—cv—0l274—JRG—RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 68 Page|D #: 1532
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 68 PageID #: 1533
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,155,342
`Issue Date: April 10, 2012
`Title: MULTIMEDIA DEVICE INTEGRATION SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00118
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 1534
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE
`UNIFIED PATENTS FAILED TO NAME ALL REAL PARTIES IN
`INTEREST .......................................................................................................................4
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE
`PETITIONER'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ARE INCORRECT IN
`LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS ..........................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction of Integration Subsystem is
`Incorrect ...............................................................................................................11
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction of Multimedia Device
`Integration System is Incorrect ......................................................................14
`
`IV. PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A REASONBLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS FOR ANY OF GROUNDS 1-19 AND
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED. .............................................................14
`
`A.
`
`Requirements for Showing Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`and Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103....................................................14
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 49 Are Not Anticipated by Ohmura (Ground 1) ..........17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Integration subsystem ..........................................................................17
`
`Instructs the portable device to play the audio file in
`response to a user selecting the audio file using controls
`of the car audio/video system, and [transmits/receives]
`audio generated by the portable device . . . ....................................19
`
`Ground 1 Also Fails with Respect to Claim 49 Because
`Petitioner’s Argument Consists of Impermissible
`Incorporation by Reference ................................................................22
`
`4.
`
`The Dependent Claims 2-4 Are Valid over Ohmura ...................22
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-4, 19, and 49 Are Not Obvious Over Owens in View
`of Ahn (Grounds 2 and 15) .............................................................................23
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 1535
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`Ground 2 Fails to Specify Any Differences Between the
`Claims and the Cited References. .....................................................24
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Grounds 2 and 15 Fail to Articulate with Particularity
`Where Each Element of Claims 1-4 or 49 are Allegedly
`Found. ......................................................................................................26
`
`The Petition Does Not Explain Why a Person of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art Would Have Had Reason to Modify
`Owens and/or Ahn to Render Obvious Claims 1-4, 19, or
`49 ...............................................................................................................29
`
`Because Claim 1 is Valid in View of Ground 2, Its
`Dependent Claims Are Also Valid in View of Grounds 2
`and 15. ......................................................................................................35
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claims 25 and 73 are Not Obvious Over Ohmura in View of
`Ahn (Ground 3) .................................................................................................36
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of Flick (Ground 4) or
`Owens and Ahn in View of Flick (Ground 5) Do Not Render
`Claims 5 and 97 Obvious ................................................................................37
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of Tranchina (Ground 6) or
`Owens and Ahn in View of Tranchina (Ground 7) Do Not
`Render Claims 6 and 120 Obvious ...............................................................40
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of Coon (Ground 8) or
`Owens and Ahn in View of Coon (Ground 9) Do Not Render
`Claims 7-10 Obvious ........................................................................................43
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of Lutter (Ground 10) or
`Owens and Ahn in View of Lutter (Ground 11) Do Not Render
`Claim 11 Obvious .............................................................................................46
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of McConnell (Ground 12)
`or Owens and Ahn in View of McConnell (Ground 13) Do Not
`Render Claims 12-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 Obvious ...................................48
`
`The Combination of Ohmura in View of Beckert (Ground 14)
`Does Not Render Claim 19 Obvious ............................................................51
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 1536
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of McConnell and Further in
`View of Tranchina (Ground 16) or Owens and Ahn in Further
`View of Tranchina (Ground 17) Do Not Render Claim 22
`Obvious ................................................................................................................52
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Combinations of Ohmura in View of Eiche (Ground 18) or
`Owens and Ahn in View of Eiche (Ground 19) Do Not Render
`Claim 121 Obvious ...........................................................................................54
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................57
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 1537
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00355, Paper 9 (PTAB June 26, 2015) ......................................... 15, 23
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 22, 35
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................. 16
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, No. 15-446, 2016
`WL 205946 (Jan. 15, 2016) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Google Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ............................................... 24
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .........................................................................................passim
`
`In re Guan, et al. Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding,
`Control No. 95/001,045, 2008 WL 10682851
`(TMGI Aug. 25, 2008) ...................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Kinetic Concepts v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 24
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ...................................... 24, 25
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 1538
`
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Par Pharm. Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Plant Science, Inc. v. The Andersons, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00939, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2014) ............................................... 16
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Tasco, Inc v. Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103, Paper 6 (PTAB May 23, 2013) ............................................... 26
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00418, Paper 1 (Dec. 30, 2015) ...................................................... 9, 10
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`IPR2016-00419, Paper 1 (Dec. 30, 2015) ...................................................... 9, 10
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`IPR2014-01252, Paper 20 (Dec. 5, 2014) .................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectural Property, LLC,
`IPR2014-01252, Paper 37 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) ................................................ 7
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. iMTX Strategic, LLC,
`IPR2015-01061, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015) .................................................. 7
`
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Whole Space Indus. v. Zipshade Indus.,
`IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (PTAB July 24, 2015) ........................................ 16, 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 1539
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................... 23, 26, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 41
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. 1.75(c) ................................................................................................ 22, 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .................................................................................... 3, 16, 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .......................................................................................... 3, 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 ........................................... 7
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 1540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Reference Name
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Unified Patents Website’s Frequently Asked Questions – “How
`does Unified achieve its goals?”
`
`Unified Patents Website’s Frequently Asked Questions – “How
`is Unified organized?”
`
`Unified Patents Website’s Frequently Asked Questions – “What
`control do members have over Unified’s use of IPR at the
`USPTO?”
`
`Unified Patents Website’s Frequently Asked Questions – “Would
`Unified consider terminating an IPR?”
`
`Unified Patents Website showing product and services
`“Protected Zones”
`
`Unified Patents Twitter Feed from July 16, 2015 to January 12,
`2016
`
`Membership Agreement and Subscription Form for Automotive
`Zone, dated May 13, 2015, between Unified Patents Inc. and
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`Membership Agreement and Subscription Forms, dated May 7,
`2015, between Unified Patents Inc. and Honda Patents &
`Technologies
`
`Membership Agreement and Subscription Form for Automotive
`Zone, dated November 18, 2015, between Unified Patents Inc.
`and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
`
`Membership Agreement and Subscription Form for Automotive
`Zone, dated September 25, 2015, between Unified Patents Inc.
`and Denso Corporation
`
`Email from Kevin Jakel to Peter Lambrianakos dated January 25,
`2016
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 68 PageID #:
` 1541
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On September October 30, 2015, Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`submitted a Petition to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,155,341 (Ex. 1001, “the ’342 Patent”), challenging claims 1-25, 49, 73, 97, 120,
`
`and 121, 9, 22, 23, 29 and 35 (“the Challenged Claims”). Blitzsafe Texas, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) requests that the Board deny institution of inter partes review
`
`because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the grounds
`
`asserted in its Petition as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`The ’342 Patent generally discloses systems for wirelessly integrating a
`
`portable device to a car audio/video system such that audio generated on the
`
`portable device is heard through the car audio/video system. The system allows
`
`the user to control the portable device using the controls of the car audio/video
`
`system and to view information regarding the audio being generated by the
`
`portable device on the display of the car audio/video system. See Ex. 1001 (’342
`
`Patent) at Abstract, Claim 1. An integration subsystem converts the control
`
`commands of the car audio/video system into a format recognizable by the portable
`
`device, and it converts information from the portable device into a format
`
`recognizable by the car audio/video system for subsequent display. See id.,
`
`Abstract, Claims 5, 6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 68 PageID #:
` 1542
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`The ’342 Patent is valid over Petitioner’s asserted prior art references for
`
`
`
`
`
`many reasons, including that none of the references disclose a multimedia
`
`integration system in which the audio is generated by the portable device as
`
`required by all of the independent claims of the ’342 Patent. Petitioner implicitly
`
`concedes this deficiency in the prior art references because none of the claim
`
`charts in the Petition cite to any such teaching in the prior art. The Petition thus
`
`fails to show where each element of the claims is found in the cited prior art
`
`references and should not be instituted.
`
`Even if the Board were to analyze the prior art references, it would find that
`
`the references fail to disclose generating audio in a portable device. For instance,
`
`the Ohmura reference discloses a system in which the audio is generated by the
`
`audio control unit in the car’s head unit from music data transmitted wirelessly by
`
`the portable device to the head unit. See, e.g., Ohmura, ¶¶ 0068-0069. The music
`
`data is converted by the audio control unit into “reproduction signals” and
`
`outputted from the speakers as music. See id., ¶ 0069. Similarly, the Owens
`
`reference discloses that the head unit includes a dedicated integrated circuit, the
`
`“CDC IC,” that processes input from an external CD changer (which Petitioner
`
`contends is the portable device of the claims). See, e.g., Owens, ¶0033, Fig. 9.
`
`Since neither Ohmura nor Owens discloses that audio is generated in the portable
`
`device as required by all of the independent claims, the Petition should not be
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 68 PageID #:
` 1543
`
`
`instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`In addition to this fundamental deficiency, Petitioner’s request for inter
`
`partes review should be denied for at least the following reasons addressed more
`
`fully in this Preliminary Response:
`
`(1) The Petition fails to name every real party in interest.
`
`(2) The Petition fails to properly construe the claim terms “integration
`
`subsystem” and “multimedia device integration system.”
`
`(3) The Petition does not “specify where each element of the claim is found
`
`in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4), because each Ground has at least one of the following deficiencies:
`
`(i) failing to map each claim term to a specific teaching from an asserted reference;
`
`(ii) providing citations to the asserted references that do not teach the claim
`
`elements against which such citations are applied; and (iii) mischaracterizing the
`
`citations to the asserted references.
`
`(4) The Petition fails identify the difference(s) between the claims and the
`
`asserted references as required by Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966).
`
`(5) The Petition supports its assertions of obviousness with mere conclusory
`
`statements and impermissible incorporation by reference of arguments from the
`
`Mohapatra Declaration (Ex. 1002) in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 13 of 68 PageID #:
` 1544
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`Due to at least these deficiencies, the Petition does not establish “a
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Patent Owner
`
`explicitly reserves the right to provide further distinctions between the prior art and
`
`the challenged claims. The deficiencies of the Petition noted herein, however, are
`
`sufficient for the Board to find that Petitioner has not met its burden to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE
`UNIFIED PATENTS FAILED TO NAME ALL REAL PARTIES IN
`INTEREST
`
`This Petition should not be instituted because the four entities whose
`
`payments to Petitioner were used to fund this Petition were not named as real
`
`parties in interest in this Petition.
`
`Petitioner exists for the sole purpose of challenging validity of patents
`
`asserted against its subscribers by non-practicing entities (NPE’s), and its only
`
`source of revenue is subscription fees that are paid to fund Petitioner’s post-grant
`
`proceedings on behalf of its subscribers. See e.g., Ex. 1019 (Petitioner’s Voluntary
`
`Interrogatory Responses); Ex. 2001, Ex. 2002, Ex. 2003, and Ex. 2004
`
`(screenshots of Petitioner’s webpage describing its business model, available at
`
`www.unifiedpatents.com/faq). Petitioner’s business is divided into several
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 14 of 68 PageID #:
` 1545
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`“zones,” including “Content Delivery,” “Cloud Storage,” “Electronic Payments,”
`
`
`
`
`
`“Wireless (Non Cellular),” “eRetail Zone,” and the recently formed “Automotive”
`
`zone. See e.g., Ex. 2005, (screenshots of Unified Patents’ webpage describing its
`
`“zones,” available at www.unifiedpatents.com/#zones). The funding for a petition
`
`in a particular zone comes directly from the subscription fees of subscribers to that
`
`zone. See Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`01252, Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Real Party In Interest, Paper 20 at 7, 10 (Dec.
`
`5, 2014) (“Petitioner’s Reply Brief”). This is the first petition that Petitioner has
`
`filed in the Automotive Zone. See Ex. 2006 at 4 (screenshot of Unified Patents’
`
`twitter feed stating on October 30, 2015 that the instant IPR is “1st IPR in
`
`Automotive Zone,” available at https://twitter.com/unifiedpatents/with_replies).
`
`As a preliminary matter, Petitioner’s suggestion that Patent Owner is an
`
`NPE is false. The inventor of the ’342 Patent, Ira Marlowe, has been selling car
`
`audio system interfaces through Petitioner and/or its related entity, Blitzsafe of
`
`America, Inc., since the mid-1990’s. These car audio system interfaces provided
`
`the capability of integrating portable devices with a car stereo long before the
`
`automobile manufacturers built this functionality into their cars.
`
`Most importantly, the documents produced and statements made by
`
`Petitioner confirm that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and Denso paid for this Petition
`
`and should have been named as real parties in interest. These four companies are
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 15 of 68 PageID #:
` 1546
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`the only paying members of the Automotive Zone, and, therefore, are the only
`
`
`
`
`
`entities that could have funded this Petition based on Petitioner’s business model.
`
`See Ex. 2007 (Toyota Membership Agreement); Ex. 2008 (Honda Membership
`
`Agreement); Ex. 2009 (Nissan Membership Agreement); Ex. 2010 (Denso
`
`Membership Agreement); and Ex. 2011 (Jan. 25, 2016 email from K. Jakel to P.
`
`Lambrianakos).
`
`Petitioner’s business is no different than the requester’s business in In re
`
`Guan, et al. Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding, Control No. 95/001,045,
`
`Decision Vacating Filing Date, 2008 WL 10682851 (TMGI Aug. 25, 2008)
`
`(terminating inter partes reexamination proceedings where the requester was
`
`nothing more than a “shill” intending to “shield the identity of the real party or
`
`parties in interest.”). In that case, the requester, Troll Busters LLC, filed a request
`
`for inter partes reexamination and identified itself as the only real party-in-interest.
`
`Id. at *1. However, Troll Busters promoted its business purpose as “secur[ing]
`
`freedom to operate for our customers (not clients)” and explained that it files
`
`reexamination requests “in our own name” so the patent owner “will never know
`
`who or how many are behind the ‘hit.’” Id. at *1-2. The Office vacated the filing
`
`date for a request for inter partes reexamination and terminated the proceedings
`
`because any entity that funds and/or controls an inter partes reexamination must
`
`be named as a real party-in-interest. Id. at *8. Whether a non-party is responsible
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 16 of 68 PageID #:
` 1547
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`for funding the proceeding is similarly relevant in an inter partes review
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, at 48760.
`
`(“[A] party that funds . . . an IPR or PGR petition or proceeding constitutes a ‘real
`
`party-in-interest,’ even if that party is not a ‘privy’ of the petitioner.”).
`
`Although the Board has addressed Petitioner’s scheme in other contexts, the
`
`facts here are acutely different because there is a direct link between the payments
`
`made by the Automotive Zone’s paying members and this Petition. In prior cases,
`
`patent owners had been unable to show a direct link between funding received by
`
`Petitioner and the filing of petitions. For example, in Unified Patents Inc. v. iMTX
`
`Strategic, LLC, there was no evidence linking the financing of the petition to any
`
`of Petitioner’s subscribers. IPR2015-01061, Institution Decision, Paper 9 at 6
`
`(PTAB. Oct. 15, 2015). Moreover, in the Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC proceeding, Petitioner argued that a redacted party
`
`(presumably Google) was not a real party-in-interest because it was a member of
`
`the “cloud storage zone,” but the petition was filed in the “content delivery zone.”
`
`See IPR2014-01252, Petitioner’s Reply Brief, Paper 20 at 10 (Dec. 5, 2014). In
`
`order to demonstrate that its members had not paid for the petition in the Dragon
`
`case, Unified stated that “fees from one zone are never used for another.” Id.
`
`Without an established funding trail, Dragon was unable to prove that anyone other
`
`than Petitioner was a real party-in-interest. See id., Institution Decision, Paper 37
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 17 of 68 PageID #:
` 1548
`
`
`at 13 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`Here, the funding of the Petition could not be clearer: Toyota, Honda,
`
`Nissan, and Denso paid subscription fees to Petitioner for membership in the
`
`Automotive Zone, and with those funds, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. The
`
`money simply could not have come from anywhere else because, as Unified
`
`Patents has previously admitted, “fees from one zone are never used for
`
`another.” Id., Petitioner’s Reply Brief, Paper 20 at 10 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner cannot accept funds from another group for this proceeding and fail to
`
`name the funders as the real parties in interest. See, e.g., In re Guan, 2008 WL
`
`10682851, at *8. Thus, even if the Automotive Zone’s paying members do not
`
`contribute arguments or prior art to Unified Patents’ inter partes review efforts,
`
`those members certainly fund the instant Petition and should have been named as
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`The nature of the relationship between Petitioner and its Automotive Zone
`
`members is not purely a business relationship, but borders on an attorney-client
`
`relationship. Petitioner's founder and CEO, Kevin Jakel, is an attorney, and
`
`Petitioner provides pure legal services to its members, such as the preparation and
`
`filing of Inter Partes Review proceedings before the PTAB, and “provid[ing]
`
`members with opinions of counsel regarding the invalidity of patents in the
`
`designated technology sector.” See Ex. 2007 at 4; Ex. 2008 at 4; Ex. 2009 at 4;
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 18 of 68 PageID #:
` 1549
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2010 at 6. If Unified Patents were a self-described law firm, there would be no
`
`
`
`
`
`doubt that it would have to identify its clients, in this case Toyota, Honda, Nissan,
`
`and Denso, as real parties-in-interest in any petition filed in the PTAB on their
`
`behalf. Petitioner should not be permitted to position itself as an intermediary
`
`entity between its lawyer-employees and outside counsel on one side, and its
`
`members, who are essentially the clients of these attorneys, on the other side in
`
`order to shield its members from identification as real parties-in-interest in this
`
`Petition.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner urges the Board to consider that one of the
`
`unnamed real parties-in-interest, Toyota, has filed its own Petitions for inter partes
`
`review of the ’342 Patent. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, IPR2016-
`
`00418, Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper 1 (Dec. 30, 2015); Toyota Motor
`
`Corp. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, IPR2016-00419, Petition for Inter Partes Review,
`
`Paper 1 (Dec. 30, 2015). In those petitions, Toyota pursues grounds of
`
`unpatentability over the same Ohmura reference cited in this petition. However,
`
`Toyota uses vastly different claim constructions. For example, here, Petitioner
`
`pursues an unreasonably broad construction of the term “integration subsystem,”
`
`as “a processor and associated software and memory,” while Toyota, in its own
`
`Petitions, argues that the same term is both invalid as indefinite, and can be
`
`construed as “a microcontroller or processor provided within the portable device or
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 19 of 68 PageID #:
` 1550
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`the car audio/video system and programmed to perform the method of FIG. 24.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet at 15; IPR2016-00418, Paper 1 at 10-15 ; IPR2016-00419, Paper 1 at 10-15.
`
`The dangers of Unified Patents’ scheme are brought to light from this
`
`inconsistency––Unified Patents and its Automotive Zone members are attempting
`
`to simultaneously advance conflicting arguments that would be impermissible if
`
`those members were deemed real parties-in-interest here.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition should be denied because Petitioner has not
`
`identified the real parties-in-interest
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE
`PETITIONER'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ARE INCORRECT IN
`LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS
`
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner’s constructions of
`
`“integration subsystem” and “multimedia device integration system” are incorrect.
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277-78 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, No. 15-446,
`
`2016 WL 205946 (Jan. 15, 2016). Under this standard, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See, e.g., In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 20 of 68 PageID #:
` 1551
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction of Integration Subsystem is
`Incorrect
`Petitioner’s construction of “integration subsystem”—“a processor and
`
`A.
`
`associated software and memory”—is incorrect because it does not require that an
`
`“integration subsystem” perform integration or be a subsystem. As such,
`
`Petitioner’s construction is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`of the term “integration subsystem” in light of the claims and specification and
`
`should be rejected.
`
`As an initial matter, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`able to understand that this term needs no additional construction. The ’342 patent
`
`specifies a definition for “integration” as follows:
`
`As used herein, the term “integration” or “integrated” is
`intended to mean connecting one or more external
`devices or inputs to an existing car stereo or video system
`via an interface, processing and handling signals, audio,
`and/or video information, allowing a user to control the
`devices via the car stereo or video system, and displaying
`data from the devices on the car stereo or video system.
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 8:64-9:3. Claim 1 recites that the integration subsystem is
`
`implemented as follows:
`
`(1) A multimedia device integration system, comprising:
`an integration subsystem in communication with a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 98-3 Filed 05/13/16 Page 21 of 68 PageID #:
` 1552
`
`
`IPR2016-00118
`
`PATENT NO. 8,155,342
`
`
`
`
`portable device, the portable device external to a car
`audio/video system; and
`
`
`
`
`
`a first wireless interface in communication with said
`integration subsystem, said first wireless interface
`establishing a wireless communication link with a second
`wireless interface in communication with the car
`audio/video system,
`
`wherein said integration subsystem obtains information
`about an audio file stored on the portable device,
`transmits the information over said wi