Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 100 PageID #:
`3808
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 100 PageID #:
`3809
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`Issued: Oct. 11, 2016
`Application No.: 14/529,978
`Filing Date: Oct. 31, 2014
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice
`Networks
`
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 100 PageID #:
`3810
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 3
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 5
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 5
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 7
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) ..................................... 7
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The ’838 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 7
`1.
`Brief Description ......................................................................... 7
`2.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1004, “’838 FH”) ........................ 9
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 10
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`1.
`“georeferenced map data” ......................................................... 11
`2.
`“georeferenced map”................................................................. 11
`The ’838 Patent’s Earliest Effective Filing Date Is October 31, 2014 .......... 12
`A.
`Legal Background ............................................................................... 12
`1.
`Burden of production ................................................................ 12
`2.
`Priority to an earlier-filed application ....................................... 14
`The ’838 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain ............................................ 15
`
`B.
`C.
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 100 PageID #:
`3811
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`C.
`D.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’410 Application Does Not Incorporate The ’724 patent ............ 19
`The ’838 Patent Claims Lack Written Description Support in
`the ’410 Application ............................................................................ 21
`1.
`The ’410 application lacks support for retrieving second
`georeferenced map data from a server ...................................... 21
`The ’410 application lacks written description support for
`the full scope of “network corresponding to a group” .............. 29
`The ’410 application lacks support for server-mediated
`remote control actions of other devices .................................... 34
`The ’410 application lacks support for anonymous
`communications between devices ............................................. 35
`VI. AGIS Cannot Swear Behind Because The ’838 Patent Is Post-AIA ............ 38
`VII. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are Obvious Over The ’724 Patent ........ 39
`A.
`Independent claims 1 and 54 ............................................................... 39
`1.
`Overview ................................................................................... 39
`2.
`Preambles and initial clause ...................................................... 42
`3.
`1[a] joining a group’s network .................................................. 43
`4.
`1[b] participating in the group by exchanging location via
`a first server ............................................................................... 44
`1[c] presenting a georeferenced map and symbols ................... 44
`1[d], 1[e] requesting and receiving second georeferenced
`map data from a second server.................................................. 45
`1[f] presenting second georeferenced map and second set
`of symbols ................................................................................. 45
`1[g] selecting symbols and sending data .................................. 47
`8.
`Independent claims 55 and 84 ............................................................. 48
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 100 PageID #:
`3812
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Preambles and initial clause ...................................................... 48
`55[a-b] receiving group identifier and permitting first
`device to join ............................................................................. 48
`55[c-d] receiving and sending first device’s location ............... 48
`55[e-f] receiving and sending other device’s location
`information for display on georeferenced map ......................... 48
`55[g-h] receiving request and sending second
`georeferenced map data ............................................................ 48
`55[i] the device presents the second georeferenced map
`and second set of symbols ......................................................... 49
`55[j-k] receiving from the device selected symbols and
`data, and sending the data to the entities corresponding to
`the symbols ............................................................................... 49
`Dependent claims ................................................................................ 49
`1.
`Claims 51, 52, 82: first and second devices, server the
`same ........................................................................................... 49
`Claim 2: transmit message to server ......................................... 50
`Claims 3, 59: group is a plurality of members permitted
`to communicate with each other ............................................... 50
`Claims 4, 9, 60, 64: using IP ..................................................... 51
`4.
`Claim 5: no access to IP address ............................................... 51
`5.
`Claims 6, 61: send SMS, text, image, or video ......................... 51
`6.
`Claims 7, 62: send video clip .................................................... 52
`7.
`Claims 8, 63: send voice recording ........................................... 52
`8.
`Claim 10: initiating phone call .................................................. 52
`9.
`10. Claims 11, 12, 65: VoIP and data call ...................................... 52
`
`C.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 100 PageID #:
`3813
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`11. Claims 13, 14: PDA, PC, smartphone ...................................... 53
`12. Claim 15: touch screen .............................................................. 53
`13. Claim 16: update location based on time or distance ............... 53
`14. Claims 17, 66: sending GPS location using IP ......................... 53
`15. Claims 18, 67: sending location via Internet ............................ 54
`16. Claims 19, 68: exchanging status ............................................. 54
`17. Claims 20, 69: satellite image or aerial photograph ................. 54
`18. Claims 21, 70: latitude and longitude ....................................... 54
`19. Claim 22: identify user-selected symbol based on spatial
`coordinates ................................................................................ 55
`20. Claim 23: location database to identify symbol ....................... 55
`21. Claims 24, 25, 71: adding new entity with user-specified
`symbol ....................................................................................... 56
`22. Claims 26-30, 72-76: new entity information (category,
`image, etc.) ................................................................................ 56
`23. Claim 31: display selected symbol’s information .................... 57
`24. Claims 32, 77: transmit new symbol using IP .......................... 57
`25. Claims 33, 78: entity’s spatial coordinates in database ............ 58
`26. Claim 34: determine new entity’s spatial coordinates .............. 58
`27. Claims 35, 36: entity database .................................................. 59
`28. Claims 37, 38: new entity’s symbol and information ............... 59
`29. Claims 39–43, 79–81: remotely play audio message ............... 59
`30. Claims 44-48: selecting symbol ................................................ 60
`31. Claims 49, 50: sub-nets, teleconferences, or sending data ....... 60
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 100 PageID #:
`3814
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`32. Claims 53, 83: identifier corresponds to the first device .......... 60
`33. Claim 56: server pushing location information ........................ 61
`34. Claim 57: server’s IP address is accessible .............................. 61
`35. Claim 58: server stores device’s IP address for
`forwarding ................................................................................. 61
`VIII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 61
`IX.
`Institution Is Appropriate ............................................................................... 62
`A.
`The Prior Apple IPR and Ex Parte Reexamination ............................ 62
`B.
`Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under Advanced Bionics ......... 63
`C.
`Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under General Plastic ............ 66
`D. Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under Fintiv ............................ 68
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 68
`
`
`
`X.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 100 PageID #:
`3815
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El Elektronimeizinishce Gerate
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................ 63
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2018-00070, Paper 14 (PTAB May 10, 2018) ............................................. 67
`D Three Enters., LLC v. Sunmodo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 35
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 12, 13, 14
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ...................................................... 63
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................... 66
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 14, 20
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 20
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 30, 35
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim
`Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00208, Paper 14 (PTAB June 1, 2021) ............................................... 13
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 100 PageID #:
`3816
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 20
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 13
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 14, 63
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 13
`Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01554, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019) ................................................ 68
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................ 14, 32, 33, 64
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................... 67
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (PTAB May 1, 2019) ............................................... 67
`W. Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) ............................................. 68
`Zenon Env’t Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 19, 20
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 100 (2015) ............................................................................................ 38
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ......................................................................................... 15, 39
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 100 PageID #:
`3817
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(post-AIA) ............................................................................. 12
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................ 13, 14, 65
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 100 PageID #:
`3818
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (“’838 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (“Bederson”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (“Bederson CV”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (“’838 FH”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (“’251 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 ( “’410 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“’728 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“’724 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 ( “’441 patent”)
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/615,472
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/761,533
`1013-1016 Reserved
`
`1012
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648
`GeoTIFF Format Specification, GeoTIFF Rev. 1.0, Specification
`version 1.8.1, October 31, 1995 (“GeoTIFF Specification”)
`Hornbaek and Bederson, “Navigation Patterns and Usability of
`Zoomable User Interfaces with and without and Overview,” ACM
`Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 4,
`December 2002, pages 362-389.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 100 PageID #:
`3819
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`MapInfo, “Spatially Enhancing Business Data with Geocoding
`Solutions, A MapInfo White Paper (1997) (“MapInfo White Paper”)
`MapInfo Professional User’s Guide Version 7.0 (“MapInfo User
`Guide”)
`Python Documentation 2.0 Homepage (Oct. 16, 2000), available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/ (“Python Homepage”)
`Python Documentation 2.0, Section 7.2 Socket, available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/lib/module-socket.html (“Python
`Documentation”)
`
`1024
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1034, Domain Names –
`Concepts and Facilities (November 1987), available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1034 (“Domain Names”)
`1025-1027 Reserved
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Excerpts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/014,510 for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,467,838 (“’838 Reexam”)
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., C.A.
`No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`dated October 10, 2018.
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 2:19-cv-
`361-JRG, Claim Construction Memorandum and Order dated
`December 8, 2020.
`Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-00819,
`Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018)
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 100 PageID #:
`3820
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”) requests inter partes review of claims 1-84 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838, “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected
`
`Digital and Voice Networks,” Ex. 1001, owned by AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`The ’838 patent claims recite a detailed series of steps: joining a
`
`communication network corresponding to a group, sharing location information with
`
`other participants, presenting an interactive display of a “georeferenced map” with
`
`the participants’ locations represented by symbols on the map, requesting and
`
`retrieving another, different georeferenced map from a server, displaying a second
`
`set of symbols on that second map, and then selecting at least one of those symbols
`
`to send data via a server.
`
`As explained in the Prosecution History section, AGIS obtained these claims
`
`by distinguishing them over prior art that, for example, downloaded “maps” rather
`
`than “georeferenced maps,” and obtained other maps from a CD/DVD rather than a
`
`server. For written description support, AGIS did not point to the express disclosure
`
`of the ’838 patent’s application because it lacks sufficient disclosure. Instead, it
`
`pointed to an ancestor patent via a long chain of continuations-in-part (“CIP”), U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 7,630,724. See infra family tree p. 16.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 100 PageID #:
`3821
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`This might have been sufficient for supporting the disclosure of the ’838
`
`patent as of its filing date. But because AGIS adopted a strategy of filing wholesale
`
`rewrites as CIPs, adding and deleting disclosure to change the focus of the purported
`
`invention, and also failed to incorporate the parent applications by reference, it fails
`
`to support a priority claim dating back to the ’724 patent.
`
`Indeed, the ’838 patent is the first in its family to incorporate all of its
`
`ancestors, including the ’724 patent. So while AGIS told the Examiner that its claims
`
`had written description support in the ’724 patent “which was incorporated by
`
`reference in the present application at the time of the present application’s filing”
`
`(’838 Patent File History 69 (“’838 FH”) (Ex. 1004)), it failed to note that the ’838
`
`patent’s immediate parent did not incorporate the ’724 patent by reference. Because
`
`the ’838 patent’s immediate parent also lacked the necessary express disclosure, the
`
`’838 patent’s claims are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than its actual
`
`filing date—rendering the ’724 patent invalidating prior art by AGIS’s own
`
`admissions.
`
`This petition sets forth in detail the lack of written description support for the
`
`’838 patent claims in the ’838 patent’s immediate parent. It also details how the prior
`
`art ’724 patent invalidates the ’838 patent claims. The Board should therefore
`
`institute review of all claims of the ’838 patent, and find them unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 100 PageID #:
`3822
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`The real parties in interest are WhatsApp LLC and its parent, Facebook Inc.
`
`No other parties exercised or could have exercised control over this petition, or
`
`funded or directed this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’838 patent is asserted in the following cases that may be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: AGIS Software Development LLC v. WhatsApp Inc.,
`
`2:21-cv-00029-JRG (E.D. Tex.); WhatsApp LLC v. AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC, 5:21-cv-03076-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
`
`In the related litigation against WhatsApp filed in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, WhatsApp filed a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, concurrently
`
`filing a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California. In the
`
`Eastern District of Texas case, the claim construction hearing has been set for
`
`October 26, 2021 and trial has been set for March 7, 2022. A schedule has not yet
`
`been set in the Northern District of California case.
`
`In addition, the ’838 patent is asserted in the following litigations involving
`
`third parties: AGIS Software Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile
`
`US, Inc., 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (E.D. Tex.); Smith Micro Software, Inc., et al. v. AGIS
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 16 of 100 PageID #:
`3823
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`Software Development, LLC, 3:21-cv-03677-JD (N.D. Cal.); AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. Google LLC, 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’838 patent was asserted in the following district court cases that are no
`
`longer pending: AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al.,
`
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC
`
`Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00514-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00515-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D.Tex.); AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al., No. 2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’838 patent was subject to an inter partes review petition (“Apple
`
`Petition”) (Ex. 1031) filed on March 22, 2018, by Apple, Inc. (IPR2018-00819)
`
`(“Apple IPR”). The Apple Petition challenged claims 1-84, which are the same
`
`claims challenged in the instant petition. The PO’s Preliminary Response was filed
`
`on August 9, 2018 and a Petitioner Reply to the Preliminary Response was filed on
`
`September 6, 2018. The Apple IPR was instituted on November 7, 2018. On March
`
`22, 2019, the parties file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. On April 2,
`
`2019, the Apple IPR was terminated. A few months later, PO initiated another wave
`
`of patent litigation against additional third parties. The current wave of litigation was
`
`initiated in January 2021.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 17 of 100 PageID #:
`3824
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`The ’838 patent was also subject to an ex parte reexamination proceeding
`
`(U.S. Serial No. 90/014,510) (“’838 Reexam”) (Ex. 1028), which resulted in a
`
`reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of all claims. The Requester
`
`submitted the reexamination request citing to several grounds that raised a
`
`substantial new question of patentability, including a ground based on the ’724
`
`patent asserted here. During the reexamination, AGIS submitted an expert
`
`declaration in an attempt to show that the ’410 application (without the ’724 patent)
`
`has sufficient written description support for the scope of the claimed invention. The
`
`Examiner erred in finding written description support for the scope of the claims in
`
`the ’410 application, determining that the ’838 patent is entitled to an effective filing
`
`date of April 17, 2006 (the filing date of the ’724 patent) without examining the
`
`entire priority chain, and allowing AGIS to swear behind to a priority date of April
`
`4, 2005.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`WhatsApp certifies that the ’838 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that WhatsApp is not barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`D. Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), WhatsApp
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 18 of 100 PageID #:
`3825
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`• Lisa K. Nguyen (Reg. No. 58,018): lisa.nguyen@lw.com; Latham &
`
`Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025; 650.470.4848
`
`(Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`Petitioner also designates the following backup counsel:
`
`• Richard G. Frenkel (Reg. No. 47,578): rick.frenkel@lw.com;
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025;
`
`650.463.3080 (Tel.); 650.463.2600 (Fax).
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724): jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2362 (Tel.); 202.637.2201
`
`(Fax).
`
`• Alan M. Billharz
`
`(Reg. No. 79,532): alan.billharz@lw.com;
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000,
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2226 (Tel.); 202.637.2201
`
`(Fax).
`
`• Tiffany C. Weston (Reg. No. 79,469): tiffany.weston@lw.com;
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000,
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304; 202.637.2197 (Tel.); 202.637.2201
`
`(Fax).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 19 of 100 PageID #:
`3826
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from WhatsApp is
`
`attached. WhatsApp consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`Ground 1: Claims 1-84 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,630,724.
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’838 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1.
`Brief Description
`The ’838 patent is directed to rapidly establishing an ad hoc network of
`
`devices (e.g., smartphones, PDAs, or personal computers) with users, such as first
`
`responders, logging onto a network using the network’s name and security key (a
`
`common “password” for everyone). ’838 patent, Title, Abstract, 4:1-11. Once
`
`logged on, the user’s devices exchange location information via a remote server, and
`
`each participant’s location is displayed as a user-selectable symbol positioned on an
`
`interactive display of a georeferenced map. ’838 patent 6:51-7:24; Fig. 1. Users may
`
`communicate or send data to another user by selecting the user’s symbol and the
`
`desired action. Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 20 of 100 PageID #:
`3827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`The ’838 patent has 84 claims, including four independent claims—claims 1,
`
`54, 55, and 84. These claims are generally directed to requesting, receiving, and
`
`displaying georeferenced maps. “[C]onventional mobile device interfaces for
`
`locating and communicating with entities (e.g., users, businesses, homes, etc.) were
`
`generally cumbersome to use.” ’838 FH 71. “[T]o communicate with other users and
`
`to view, enter, and share georeferenced information,” the user would have to
`
`“switch[] between different user interfaces.” Id. 72. The ’838 patent solved this
`
`problem by using a purportedly innovative “georeferenced map” that uses
`
`“georeferenced map data.”
`
`The georeferenced map is displayed in “an easy-to-use but powerful user
`
`interface.” ’838 FH 73. “[E]ntities are represented by interactive symbols displayed
`
`on [the] georeferenced map at positions corresponding to the entities’ locations.” Id.
`
`The georeferenced map allows a user “to view the locations of other users” and to
`
`communicate with them (initiate phone calls, send text messages, transmit images)
`
`simply by “selecting the symbol(s) corresponding to other user(s).” Id. The
`
`georeferenced map allows a user to coordinate “the retrieval of information
`
`associated with
`
`real-world entities” and conveniently communicate
`
`that
`
`“information between such entities.” Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-5 Filed 09/07/21 Page 21 of 100 PageID #:
`3828
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`
`
`
`2.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1004, “’838 FH”)
`The ’838 patent application was filed on October 31, 2014, with 58 claims.
`
`Id. 772-80. These 58 claims and dozens of added claims were eventually cancelled
`
`and replaced by an entirely new claim set that issued as-is.
`
`Before then, on December 18, 2015, AGIS amended the specification “to
`
`correct an error in the priority claim”—namely, the Applicant “corrected” the
`
`application to indicate that it was a CIP, not a CON, of its immediate parent ’410
`
`application. This change is significant given that the only difference between the
`
`’838 patent and its parent ’410 application was the addition of the following
`
`statement to the ’838 patent: “All of the preceding applications are incorporated
`
`herein by reference in their entirety.” Compare ’410 application 1 with ’838 FH 746.
`
`In other words, the parent ’410 application did not incorporate the subject matter of
`
`all its ancestor applications, including the primary prior art reference subject to this
`
`petition—the ’724 patent.1 Rather, the ’724 patent was incorporated for the