Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 91 PageID #:
`3908
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 91 PageID #:
`3909
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`Issued: Aug. 29, 2017
`Application No.: 14/633,764
`Filing Date: Feb. 27, 2015
`
`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. 9,749,829
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 91 PageID #:
`3910
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................... 2
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 5
`D.
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ............................. 5
`E.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review .................................................................. 6
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) ..................................... 6
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The ’829 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 6
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1026, “’829 FH”) .................................. 8
`C.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 10
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 11
`1.
`“georeferenced map data” ......................................................... 11
`2.
`“georeferenced map”................................................................. 12
`The ’829 Patent’s Earliest Effective Filing Date Is October 31, 2014 .......... 12
`A.
`Legal Background ............................................................................... 13
`1.
`Burden of Production ................................................................ 13
`2.
`Priority to an earlier-filed application ....................................... 14
`The ’829 Patent’s Broken Priority Chain ............................................ 16
`The ’410 Application Does Not Incorporate The ’724 Patent ............ 20
`
`B.
`C.
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 91 PageID #:
`3911
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The ’410 Application Lacks Support for a Device Joining a
`Group Via a Server-Mediated Invitation Message From a
`Device .................................................................................................. 22
`1.
`The ’410 application discloses only one way to join the
`network: manually entering the server’s IP address and
`the network name ...................................................................... 23
`The ’728 patent is directed to peer-to-peer networks and
`does not mention any servers .................................................... 26
`The ’410 Application Lacks Support for Server-Mediated
`Remote Control Operations of Other Devices .................................... 27
`The ’410 Application Lacks Support for Obtaining Geo-
`Referenced Map Data From a Server .................................................. 29
`1.
`The ’410 application includes only a single reference to
`“georeferenced map” that has no relation to a server ............... 30
`The ’728 patent is directed at peer-to-peer networks and
`does not mention any servers or georeferenced map data ........ 34
`The ’410 Application Lacks Support for Anonymous
`Communications Between Devices ..................................................... 34
`VI. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are Obvious Over the ’724 Patent
`(Ex. 1008) Alone or in Combination with Borghei (Ex. 1027) ..................... 38
`A.
`Independent Claims 1 and 34 .............................................................. 39
`1.
`Overview ................................................................................... 39
`2.
`Borghei describes the conventional request-acceptance-
`confirmation process for joining a location-sharing group....... 40
`Preambles and initial clause ...................................................... 41
`[a-b] invite another device to join a group (via server),
`and based on device’s acceptance, a server joins device
`to the group including authorizing repeated location-
`sharing and remote control operations ...................................... 42
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 91 PageID #:
`3912
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`B.
`
`[c-f] second device requests and receives updated
`location of first device via server .............................................. 46
`[f] second device receiving georeferenced map data from
`server ......................................................................................... 47
`[g] second device presents a georeferenced map based on
`the georeferenced map data with a symbol for the first
`device correctly positioned on the georeferenced map ............. 48
`[h] second device receives a second updated location of
`the first device and updates its location on the map ................. 49
`[i-k] user interacts with second device’s display to
`specify a remote-control action, second device sends a
`message, via server, to remotely control the first device .......... 49
`Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 50
`1.
`Claim 4: remote control action is displaying information ........ 50
`2.
`Claims 7-11: status information ................................................ 51
`3.
`Claim 12: sending location information based on request........ 52
`4.
`Claim 13: user-selectable symbol ............................................. 52
`5.
`Claims 15-16: messages via Internet Protocol .......................... 53
`6.
`Claim 30: anonymous communications .................................... 53
`7.
`Claims 31-32: IP communications with servers ....................... 54
`VII. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 54
`VIII. Institution is Appropriate ............................................................................... 55
`A.
`The Prior Apple IPR and Ex Parte Reexamination ............................ 55
`B.
`Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under Advanced Bionics ......... 56
`C.
`Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under General Plastic ............ 60
`D. Discretionary Denial Is Unwarranted Under Fintiv ............................ 62
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 91 PageID #:
`3913
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 63
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 91 PageID #:
`3914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El Elektronimeizinishce Gerate
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................ 56
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2018-00070, Paper 14 (PTAB May 10, 2018) ............................................. 61
`Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Paice LLC,
`IPR2020-01386, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2021) ................................................ 62
`D Three Enters. LLC v. SunModo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 28
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 13, 14
`Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2020-2141, __ F. App’x __, 2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July
`14, 2021) ............................................................................................................. 57
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ............................................... 60
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 21
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 15, 21
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 28
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 91 PageID #:
`3915
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co.,
`IPR2020-00208, Paper 14 (PTAB June 1, 2021) ............................................... 14
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 21
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................passim
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 14
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 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) ............................................................... 15, 57
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 14
`Samsung Elec. Co. v. Iron Oak Techs., LLC,
`IPR2018-01554, Paper 9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019) ................................................ 62
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................. 15, 23, 56
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................... 61
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (PTAB May 1, 2019) ............................................... 61
`W. Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) ............................................. 62
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 41
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 91 PageID #:
`3916
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`Zenon Env’t, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 20, 21
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 12, 16, 38
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................ 12, 15, 59
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................ 14, 15, 59
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ................................................................................................... 5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 91 PageID #:
`3917
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson (“Bederson Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 FH”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 (the “’441 patent”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’724 to ’728 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/615,472 (“’441 to ’724 Comparison”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/761,533 (“’129 to ’441 Comparison”)
`
`1013-1016 RESERVED
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’410 to ’724 Comparison”)
`
`GeoTIFF Format Specification, GeoTIFF Rev. 1.0, Specification
`version 1.8.1, October 31, 1995 (“GeoTIFF Specification”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 91 PageID #:
`3918
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Hornbaek, Bederson and Plaisant, “Navigation Patterns and
`Usability of Zoomable User Interfaces with and without an
`Overview,” ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction,
`Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2002, pages 362-389
`
`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 Documentation 2.0, Section 7.2 Socket, available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/lib/module-socket.html
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1034, Domain Names –
`Concepts and Facilities (November 1987), available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1034
`
`RESERVED
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0008526 to Borghei
`(“Borghei”)
`
`Excerpts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/014,629 for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 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
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 12 of 91 PageID #:
`3919
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-01471,
`Paper 10 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2019)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”)
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 13 of 91 PageID #:
`3920
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”) requests inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 7-
`
`13, 15-16, 30-32 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829, “Method to Provide Ad Hoc
`
`and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks” (the “’829 patent”) (Ex. 1001),
`
`owned by AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”).
`
`The ’829 patent claims are invalidated by its own ancestor patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”) (Ex. 1008), via a long chain of continuations-in-
`
`part, alone or in combination with well-known techniques taught by Borghei (Ex.
`
`1027). To be entitled to the ’724 patent’s earlier filing date, the ’829 patent claims
`
`must be supported by each application down the priority chain. They are not, and
`
`therefore the ’724 patent and Borghei are prior art.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’829 patent family, AGIS adopted a strategy of
`
`filing wholesale rewrites as continuations-in-part, adding and deleting disclosure to
`
`change the focus of the purported invention and failing to incorporate the deleted
`
`disclosure by reference. See infra family tree p. 17. The ’829 patent’s immediate
`
`parent is the first in its family to incorporate all of its ancestors, including the ’724
`
`patent. The ’829 patent’s grandparent failed to expressly include or incorporate the
`
`subject matter of the ’724 patent, and as a result, lacks the necessary disclosure to
`
`support the ’829 patent claims. The ’829 patent claims are therefore entitled to an
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 14 of 91 PageID #:
`3921
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`effective filing date no earlier than the filing date of its parent—rendering the ’724
`
`patent invalidating prior art.
`
`This petition sets forth in detail the lack of written description support for the
`
`’829 patent claims in its grandparent. It also details how the prior art ’724 patent
`
`invalidates the ’829 patent claims. The Board should therefore institute review of all
`
`claims of the ’829 patent and find them unpatentable.
`
`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 ’829 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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 15 of 91 PageID #:
`3922
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`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 ’829 patent is asserted against third parties in the following
`
`litigations: 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
`
`Software Development, LLC, 3:21-cv-03677-BLF (N.D. Cal.); AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. Google LLC, 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’829 patent was asserted in the following district court cases that are no
`
`longer pending: AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., 2:17-
`
`cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics,
`
`Inc., 2:17-cv-00515-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE
`
`Corp., 2:17-cv-00517-JRG (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC
`
`Corp., 2:17-cv-00514-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’829 patent is subject to inter partes review petitions (IPR2020-00871
`
`and IPR2020-00870) (“Google IPRs”) filed on May 22, 2020, by Google LLC f/k/a/
`
`Google Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`On December 28, 2020, the Google Petitioners submitted a Request for Rehearing,
`
`which is pending before the Board as of the filing of this petition.
`
`The ’829 patent was subject to inter partes review petition (IPR2018-01471)
`
`(“Apple IPR”) filed on July 31, 2018, by Apple, Inc. (“Apple Petition”). The Apple
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 16 of 91 PageID #:
`3923
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`Petition challenged claims 1-68. The PO’s Preliminary Response was filed on
`
`November 28, 2018 and a Petitioner Reply to the Preliminary Response was filed on
`
`January 10, 2019. The Apple IPR was instituted on February 27, 2019. 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.
`
`The ’829 patent was also subject to an ex parte reexamination proceeding
`
`(U.S. Serial No. 90/014,629) (“’829 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 and determining that the ’829 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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 17 of 91 PageID #:
`3924
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`C. Grounds for Standing
`WhatsApp certifies that the ’829 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:
`
`• 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).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 18 of 91 PageID #:
`3925
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`
`• 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).
`
`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, 4, 7-13, 15-16, 30-32, and 34 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (Ex. 1008) alone or in
`
`combination with Borghei1 (Ex. 1027).
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’829 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’829 patent’s specification is generally 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). ’829 patent Title, Abstract, 4:4-
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0008526 to Borghei.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 19 of 91 PageID #:
`3926
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`7 (devices sign in with “the same ad hoc event name and password”). Once logged
`
`on, the user’s devices exchange each other’s 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. Id. 6:58-7:51, Fig. 1.
`
`Users may communicate or send data to another user by selecting the user’s symbol
`
`and the desired action. Id.
`
`In contrast, the ’829 patent’s claims are directed to a long and specific
`
`sequence of steps: a second device sends an invite via a server to a first device, the
`
`first device accepts, the server joins the first device to the group by authorizing
`
`repeated location sharing and remote control operations with each of the devices in
`
`the group, the second device sending a request via the server to the second device
`
`for its location, the second device responding via the server with its location, the
`
`second device receiving georeferenced map data, the second device displaying a map
`
`with the first device’s symbol, the second device receiving a second updated location
`
`from the first device, the second device repositioning the first device’s symbol using
`
`the second location information and georeferenced map data, the second device
`
`identifying a user interaction and remotely controlling the first device via the server.
`
`E.g., ’829 patent cl. 1.
`
`Two of the independent claims (1 and 34) recite these steps from the server’s
`
`point of view. One is a method claim and the other recites one or more servers
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 20 of 91 PageID #:
`3927
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`programmed to perform the steps. The two other independent claims (35 and 68)
`
`recite essentially the same steps from the device’s point of view, once as a method
`
`and again as a device programmed to perform the steps.
`
`B.
`The Prosecution History (Ex. 1026, “’829 FH”)
`AGIS filed the application that issued as the ’829 patent on February 27, 2015.
`
`’829 FH 600-39. After filing two preliminary amendments, AGIS amended its first
`
`claim set extensively once more in response to office actions. Id. 503-07.
`
`Importantly, AGIS also amended its specification at this time in recognition that the
`
`’829 patent’s immediate parent, Application No. 14/529,978 (which issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,467,838) (the “’838 patent”) (Ex. 1032), was a continuation-in-part, not
`
`a straight continuation, of U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 (“the ’410 application”)
`
`(Ex. 1006). Id. 502, 508.
`
`This is significant because the only difference between the ’838 patent and its
`
`parent ’410 application is that the following statement was added to the ’838 patent:
`
`“All of the [preceding] applications are incorporated herein by reference in their
`
`entirety.” Compare ’410 application ¶ 1 (Ex. 1006), with ’838 FH 746 (Ex. 1004).
`
`In other words, the ’838 patent’s parent ’410 application did not incorporate all of
`
`its ancestors, including the primary prior art reference subject to this petition—the
`
`’724 patent. Rather, the ’724 patent was incorporated for the first time in the ’838
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 21 of 91 PageID #:
`3928
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`patent, introducing new subject matter and requiring the continuation-in-part
`
`designation.
`
`Back to the pending claims, in response to the next Office Action (where the
`
`Examiner rejected AGIS’s thrice-amended claims), AGIS cancelled all pending
`
`claims and replaced them with 66 new claims numbered 53-118. ’829 FH 313-25.
`
`AGIS pointed solely to the ’724 patent as support for these new claims. Id. 326-27.
`
`AGIS justified using the ’724 patent by stating it was “incorporated by reference in
`
`the present application at the time of the present application’s filing.” Id. 326.2 That
`
`may be sufficient for written description, but AGIS did not mention its priority claim
`
`or point out that the ’724 patent was not incorporated in the pending application’s
`
`grandparent, the ’410 application.
`
`In the next Office Action, the Examiner rejected the new claims. Id. 279-98.
`
`In response, AGIS amended its claims to require the location-sharing to be in
`
`response to a message sent by one of the devices. Id. 237-67. The Examiner rejected
`
`the amended claims (id. 199-220), and in response, AGIS amended its independent
`
`claims into their final form. It added the first steps that recite joining the group:
`
`sending/receiving messages inviting a device to join the group, accepting the
`
`
`2 All emphases are added and internal citations and quotations omitted unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 22 of 91 PageID #:
`3929
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`invitation, and authorizing remote-control operations. Id. 160-73 (adding, e.g.,
`
`elements [a] and [b]3 to pending claim 53, which issued as claim 1). AGIS also added
`
`the step of repositioning a symbol using geo-referenced data from a server and the
`
`second location information received from the other device. ’829 FH 160-73
`
`(adding, e.g., element [h] to pending claim 53).
`
`For support for these new steps, AGIS again pointed solely to the ’724 patent.
`
`Id. 174-75. It also provided an “Overview of Some Embodiments,” where it asserted
`
`that its claimed embodiments are described in the cited portions of the ’724 patent.
`
`Id. 176-78.
`
`According to AGIS, the Examiner’s art did not teach these new steps (id. 175-
`
`88), and the Examiner apparently agreed, issuing a notice of allowance after a
`
`subsequent interview and terminal disclaimer over the ’838 patent. Id. 54, 64-73.
`
`C. The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical or
`
`computer engineering, or a related field, and at least two to three years’ experience
`
`in mobile development, including designing and implementing software applications
`
`
`3 See Claim Listing in attached Appendix.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 144-6 Filed 09/07/21 Page 23 of 91 PageID #:
`3930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,749,829
`
`
`for mobile communications systems. The POSA would have been capable of
`
`implementing mobile applications, including those that displayed maps.
`
`This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may
`
`make up fo