`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 26
`EXHIBIT 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLELLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 43
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 10
`571-272-7822
`Date: October 7, 2022
`
` ÿÿ
`
`
` ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` !ÿ" # !"ÿ# ! ÿ#ÿ $#!%#$&ÿ'' (!ÿ
`)!'$!ÿ *!ÿ# ! ÿ $ #+ÿ#ÿ#!#+ÿ)#$ÿ
`,,+!ÿ++(ÿ
`
`- ÿ ÿ
` (*" $!#%ÿ !(*+, !"ÿ (ÿ
` - ÿ.- ÿ
` $/0ÿ
` - ÿÿ)ÿ
`)1
` ÿ!)$#ÿ&ÿ" !*!"ÿ# !+ÿ2ÿ,#++ ,#ÿ -3ÿÿ
`#%)!$ÿ+ÿ*#,4ÿ567898:;<=;8>?ÿA=;?9;ÿBC6D?:Eÿ
`" !*!"ÿ567898:;<=;8>?ÿA=;?9;ÿBC6D?ÿÿ
`!( " ÿ
`, - -
`-ÿ
`1ÿF9;?<ÿA=<;?:ÿ$ .ÿ
`GHÿIEJEKEÿLÿGMNÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN,and
`AMBERL. HAGY,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 3 of 43
`
` ÿ
`
`
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ !"#$%&ÿ%&ÿ($))"*ÿ
`+,,-.
`ÿ8
`0
`8
`..
`2CDÿ@Eÿÿ@@ÿ@ ÿ@Fÿ@ÿ ÿ
`
` 7ÿ ÿ,6ÿGÿ
`
`
`,KABD3
`Cÿ
`
`ÿ 3
`3Lÿ
`
`8
`KB,32O
`2, ÿ
`62.
`ÿ
`
`3Lÿ
`8
`,ÿ 455ÿ
` 7ÿ
`
`ÿGK33
`3Lÿ
`
`8
`B
` 7
`37ÿ6,3ÿ2 D2K2 -ÿ
` ÿ9%:;"ÿ<":;=ÿ3
`ÿGÿQÿ@F0
`5ÿ?B2ABÿ83,>27
`Dÿ6,..,?DRÿ
`0
`5ÿSHGS/TB
`Lÿ ,ÿ
`KB,32O
` ÿ2
`3
`3
`ÿB
`2 6,3C
`2, ÿ83
` 7ÿ
`
`
` Lÿ3
`ÿB
`ÿ
`3
`D,
`U.
`ÿB
`2.ÿ?2Bÿ
`3
`ÿ.
`Dÿ@ÿ,6ÿB
`2CDÿAB
`..
`
`..
`2CDÿ@Eÿÿ@@ÿ@ ÿ@Fÿ@ÿ ÿ
` 7ÿ ÿ
`Dÿ
`K 8
`
`U.
`
`U2.2Lÿ
`0
`..Lÿ
`
`ÿB
`7
`Dÿ,ÿ
`..ÿAB
`..
`2CDÿ0=;;ÿ 3
`D
`,6ÿB
`ÿ
`D,
`U.Lÿ.2V
`2.ÿ2 ÿ
`7
`2 -ÿB
`ÿ
`ÿ.
`Dÿ,
`..
`2CDÿ2Dÿ ,ÿ8
`
`U.
` ÿW832.ÿ Fÿ @ÿB
`ÿ
`ÿ62
`.ÿ?32
`7
`5ÿCKDÿ7
`
`U2.2Lÿ,6ÿ
`..ÿA.
`2CDÿ
`AB
`..
`=;;ÿ\=#ÿÿ]ÿQÿF @0
`5ÿ01NB
`37ÿ?2..ÿ
` ÿ
`
`
`
`authorize the review to proceed onall of the challenged claims andonall
`
`groundsof unpatentability asserted for each claim” ). Accordingly, we
`
`institute inter partes review onall of the challenged claims based onall of
`
`the groundsidentified in the Petition.
`
`Our preliminary findings of fact and conclusions discussed below are
`
`based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This Decision to
`
`institute trial is not a final decision as to the patentability of any challenged
`
`claim. Any final decision will be based on the full record developed during
`
`trial.
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Patent Ownerstates that Touchstream Technologies,Inc., is the real-
`
`party-in-interest (Paper 5, 1).
`
`Petitioner states that Google LLCis the real-party-in-interest
`
`(Pet. 78).!
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 4 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 4 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`
`ÿÿ
`
` !ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`
` !ÿÿ
`
`"#ÿ
`!!
`ÿ
` $ÿ&'ÿÿ( #ÿ
` !
`ÿÿ
`
` !ÿ"
`!
`ÿÿ
`
`1ÿ
`#ÿ !ÿÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ! !ÿ!!!
`
`"
`!
`#ÿ
`'ÿÿ2!ÿ3
` !
`ÿ!ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`!ÿÿ
`
`"#ÿÿ
` #ÿ
`
`
` 'ÿÿ( #ÿ
`ÿ
`!
`
`'ÿ
`45ÿ7,/8ÿ9/-+),0ÿ)*ÿ:*+,-,0+ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿ2!
` ÿ2
`
`
`#
`
`
`
`ÿ=
`
`#
`;
`@5ÿ7,8/+,AÿB/++,-0ÿ
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`!ÿ
`!!
`
`OO@ÿP'ÿQ <Qÿ;R'3'ÿ2
`
`
`
`ÿ
`
`!ÿ
`!!
`ÿ
`Q Xÿ;Y'3'P'Z'&ÿ;
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`<ÿ=
`ÿ!"!
`#ÿÿ[[\ ÿ] !ÿ 'ÿÿ!ÿ
`ÿ!"!
`#ÿ
`ÿ(
`"
`
`ÿ[[\ ÿ] !ÿ 'ÿ
` ÿ
`(
`"
`
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`Petitioner and Patent Ownerindicate the 528 Patent was asserted in
`
`the following district court proceeding: Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google,
`
`LLC, No. 6-21-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex.) (Pet. 78; Paper 5, 1). Petitioner
`
`further indicates that the ’528 Patent was asserted in the followingdistrict
`
`court proceeding: Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No, 1-17-cv-
`
`06247 (S.D.N.Y.) (Pet. 78).
`
`' Google LLCis a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary
`of Alphabet Inc (Pet. 78, n.4). Petitioner states that XXVI Holdings Inc. and
`AlphabetInc. are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding (id.).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 5 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 5 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`D. The ’528 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The *528 Patent, titled “Play Control of Content on a Display
`
`Device,” issued July 15, 2014 (Ex. 1001, codes (45), (54)). The ’528 Patent
`
`describes a system that “allow[s] a personal computing device,”e.g., a
`
`mobile phone,“to be used to select different content to be played on a
`
`remote display,” e.g., a television set, and “allow[s] the user to control how
`
`the content is displayed on the display device using the personal computing
`
`device”(id. at 2:11—15, 2:20-2:26). Figure 1, reproduced below,is a block
`
`diagram illustrating an exemplary system (id. at 2:35—36).
`
`0o~,
`24
`
`Server System
`
`26
`
`API Adapter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿÿ ! ÿ"#$ÿ%&&%'ÿ
`()
`
`/ÿ01 21,ÿ13ÿ01
`ÿ4+56,
`/ÿ
`4
`
`-
`ÿ5/5
`ÿ.
`,,1DE5Fÿ
`ÿ6
`,ÿ81C6:+ Gÿ-
`ÿ
`C1B+,
`/
`ÿ
`2
`/9ÿ
`ÿ
` -ÿ.
`,,1DE5Fÿ)
`)
`/
`/ÿ-
`,ÿ81C6:+ Gÿ
`-
`ÿ J<<K<ÿ J K J LA@ÿÿM+G:2
`ÿB,18Nÿ
`-+
`G2
`Cÿ+,,:52
`+ Gÿ
` ÿ
`2/ÿ5/5
`ÿ JKLA@ÿ
`
`ÿ
`O5ÿ5)1D ÿ+ ÿ)
`G2
`Cÿ13ÿM+G:2
`ÿ6
`,ÿ
`81C6:+ Gÿ-
` -ÿ.
`85ÿ
`5ÿ
`ÿ81 21,,
`-
`ÿ
`ÿ-+56,
`/ÿ Aÿ)
`ÿ
`85ÿ
`5ÿ
`ÿ2
`ÿ
`
`Switchboard
`
`tek
`
`Content Providers
`
`FIG. 1
`
`As shown in the block diagram of Figure 1, “first device (e.g., a personal
`
`computing device) 20” connects to and “acts as a controller” for “second
`
`device(e.g., a television set 22 with a display 23) that acts as a receiver to
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 6 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 6 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`play content selected by a userofthe first device and .
`
`.
`
`. respond[s] to
`
`commandsthatoriginate at the personal computing device”(id. at 2:64—3:2).
`
`For example, television set 22 can be commanded“to access a content
`
`provider 30 through the Internet 21, load a specific media player, load the
`
`media player-specific content (e.g., a video) and play the content on the
`
`The message from the mobile phone 20 contains a transmission
`code that includes data regarding ... the secondary display it
`wants to connectto (e.g., television set 22 with display 23), the
`location and nameof the media player for the selected video the
`command (e.g., play, pause, rewind, etc.), and the video file to
`be acted upon
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`##
` ÿ
`ÿ$
`
`ÿ
`ÿ# $ÿ
`ÿ +,-.+ / ÿÿ
`0ÿ
`#
` ÿ
`
`
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`#
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ %ÿ&'()ÿ
`ÿ+3.3/ ÿ
`0
`ÿ# $ÿ
`
` ÿ
`
`4ÿÿ
`
`
` ÿ$ÿ
`ÿ+ .3/ ÿÿÿ
`5
`ÿ
` ÿ
` #ÿ
`ÿ#
`$
`
`ÿ-+ . / ÿÿÿ
`5
`$
` ÿ
`ÿ
` # ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
` $ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿ
`6
` ÿÿ
`ÿ /ÿ
`
` ÿ
` ÿ
`#
`ÿ
`
`##
` ÿ&
`ÿ
`
` ÿ
`
`
`&'()ÿ
`ÿ-+ .ÿ0$ ÿ/ ÿÿ5
`ÿ#
`$
` #
`
` ÿÿ
`ÿ-+./ ÿÿ7
`
` ÿ#ÿ
`
`
`
`7ÿ&ÿ
`## $/ÿ
` ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ+,-.,/ ÿÿ5
`ÿÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿÿ
`ÿ##
` ÿ&
`
`ÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
` $ÿ
`ÿ+./ ÿÿ5
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ÿ+,.,+ / ÿÿ5
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`television display 23”(id. at 3:13-18).
`
`Furthermore, personal computing device 20 controls the selection of
`
`and playback of content on television set 22 through server system 24, rather
`
`than through directly controlling television set 22 (id. at 3:2—10).
`
`The mobile phone 20 then formats and transmits a messageto the
`
`server system server system 24 (block 112) (id. at 4:22—23).
`
`(id. at 4:27-30, Fig. 3). That message “is transmitted over the Internet 21
`
`and is received by the server system 24”(id. at 4:35—37). Server system 24
`
`then “converts the incoming commandsfrom the mobile device 20 into the
`
`correct JavaScript (or other programming) code used bythe[television set]
`
`22 to control the specific player (block 120)”(id. at 5:64-67). Thatis, the
`
`server “interpret[s] and convert[s] a standard or universal command(e.g.,
`
`play, pause, etc.) into the specific command recognized by the media player”
`
`playing contenton the television set 22 (id. at 5:57-59). Then, server
`
`system 24 “copies the converted version of the message to the database 34
`
`associated with the [television set] 22” (id. at 5:67-6:2). The “display
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 7 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 7 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`device 22 receives a message from the server system 24 (block 126) [and]
`
`executes the message (block 128)”(id. at 6:26—28).
`
`I.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Challenged claim 1, one of three challenged independentclaims,is
`
`reproducedbelow.
`
`1. A method of controlling presentation of content on a content
`presentation device that loads anyone ofa plurality of different media
`players, the method comprising:
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿ
`
` 'ÿ
`
`
`ÿ/ 0 %1ÿ
`ÿ
`2-ÿ4556789:8+;<ÿ=5:+>ÿ
`?
`""
`ÿ$ÿ
`""
`ÿÿ
`
`$1ÿCÿ
` ÿÿ
`ÿ
`@
` ÿ
`ÿ"
`ÿ
`
`ÿ@")
`"ÿÿ
`ÿ
`@"
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿ@
`"ÿ@) ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`
`
` ÿ
`
`
` ÿ
`
`
`#
` ")
` ÿ
`
`
`ÿ D
` ÿ
`
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`"
`
`ÿ@
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
`@"
` ÿ
`ÿ"
` ÿÿ
`@
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
` ÿ ")
` ÿ
` ÿ "ÿ
`
` ÿÿ@
` ÿÿ
`@
` ÿ
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
`
` ÿ "ÿ
` ÿ!
`@
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
`ÿ) ÿ
` ÿ
`
`
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
`!" ÿ
` ÿ
`
` ÿ!
`
`"ÿ@) ÿ
` ÿ
`
`@
` ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
` ÿ "ÿ
` ÿA
`@
` ÿ
` ÿÿ
`
` ÿ
`@
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
`ÿ!
` ÿ!ÿ
` ÿ
`@
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ@"
`
`)"
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from
`a personal computing device that is separate from the
`server system and separate from the content presentation
`device, wherein the one or more messages,taken together,
`include information associated with a synchronization
`code assigned to the content presentation device, specify a
`file to be acted upon,identify a particular media player for
`playing content from the file, identify a location of the
`particular media player, and include an action control
`command for presentation of the content on the content
`presentation device by the particular media player, the
`action control command being independent of the
`particular media player;
`
`using the information associated with the synchronization
`code to store a record establishing an association between
`the personal
`computing
`device
`and the
`content
`presentation device;
`
`identifying, by the server system, programming code
`corresponding to the action control command, wherein the
`programming codeis for controlling presentation of the
`content by the content presentation device using the
`particular media player;
`
`the
`obtaining, by the content presentation device,
`particular media player, wherein the particular media
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 8 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 8 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`player is obtained over a network from a content provider;
`
`loading the particular media player
`presentation device; and
`
`in the content
`
`to execute
`using the particular media player
`programming code with respect to the file.
`
`the
`
`(Ex. 1001, 11:17—-48).
`
`E. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the followingpriorart references:
`
`Reference
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Sept. 23, 2010 (“Muthukumarasamy’’) Hayward, US 8,918,812 B2, issued Dec. 23, 2014
`
`Muthukumarasamyet al., US 2010/0241699 A1, published
`
`”
`oe
`(“Hayward’’)
`
`1008
`
`1 009
`
`(Pet.vii).
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson,
`
`Ph.D., for support of its contentions in the Petition (Ex. 1005).
`
`F. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 are
`
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|_35 U.S.C.§
`
`1—5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15,
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 9 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 9 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny
`
`institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple
`
`Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential) (“Fintiv Order”), weigh in favor of denying institution
`
`(Prelim. Resp. 43-56). Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny
`
`institution (Pet. 75—78; Pet. Reply to POPR 4). For the reasons discussed,
`
`we do not exercise discretion to denyinstitution.
`
`Under§ 314(a), the Director has discretion to deny institution of an
`
`inter partes review (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Boardinstitutes the trial
`
`on behalf of the Director.”); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d
`
`1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled,
`
`to institute an IPR proceeding.”)). In determining whetherto exercise
`
`discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board considers
`
`whether the circumstances ofa parallel district court proceeding are a basis
`
` ÿ
`
`
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ !"#$ÿ&$'! ÿ()ÿ&*+ÿ,ÿ(-./01ÿ
`
`
`456
`ÿ3
`> 7>6>9 ÿ6 ;
`FÿG
`67
`=947ÿ>;
`K$ÿLÿM$"LNÿK$ÿ Cÿ
`O
`4ÿ ÿ Fÿ
`EO4
`:FÿERM$"Lÿ24;
`T94ÿ9Hÿ;
`E 4
`456
`4>:?ÿ;
`> 7>6>9 ÿE
`79 7ÿ;>7=677
`3
`@ ;
`Fÿ8
`7ÿ;>7=4
` ÿ
`$"! ÿI0 "!ÿ4
`FÿERP8
`4;ÿ> 7>6
`:ÿ
`9 ÿG
`:Hÿ9Hÿ8
`CWÿCWÿEY
`9ÿ> 7>6
` ÿ ÿO49=
`;>7=4
`Fÿ8
`4;ÿ=9 7>;
`38
` =
`ÿO
`4
`::
`4
`ÿG
`7>7ÿ
`H94ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿQ
` ;6UÿH49UÿZ>4
`:ÿK$"! \ÿb #!'c !ÿd# ÿ
` !"#$0 eÿ!$0Jÿ$ÿKÿb#"fg 0$"ÿb #!!'$hÿi"^ÿb0 0JJ!Jÿ" "ÿ
`+#c "ÿj"h0"#$ÿE@ P2ÿk6
`Z>4
`8
` ÿ ÿ94ÿ lÿ6 ;
`E>Fÿ38
`ÿO
`6 O
`
`G>:>?XÿE>>Fÿ38
`ÿ4
`:ÿ6 ;
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿT
`>:
`G:
`ÿ
`8O7noo33367O959To7>
`6:oH>:
`
`4?p;
`:7p
`>
`pO
`4
`::
`>9 pU
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`2 Available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion
`arydenialsaiaparalleldistrictcourtlitigationmemo20220621_.pdf.
`
`for exercising such discretion (Fintiv Order 5-6).
`
`In a Memorandum from Director Vidal, Interim Procedurefor
`
`Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District
`
`Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)’, the
`
`Director sets forth
`
`the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv
`(i) when
`a petition presents
`compelling
`evidence of
`unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 10 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 10 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`(Interim Procedure 3, 9).
`
`Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation:
`
`Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this
`Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding
`“any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have
`raised” during this proceeding.
`
`(Pet. Reply to POPR 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v.
`
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18-19 (PTAB Dec.1, 2020);
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original)).
`
`Thus,in light of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not exercise discretion
`
`to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (111) where a petitioner
`stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the
`same groundsas in the petition or any grounds that could have
`reasonably beenraisedin the petition.
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`
`ÿ
`
`
`ÿ
`#
`
`ÿ
`
`
`
`$
`ÿ ÿ"
` %ÿ# ÿ"
`ÿ#ÿ"
`&
`
`
`%ÿ
`
`
`(
`ÿ)
`ÿ#
` *ÿ
`
`ÿ#
`
`ÿ)ÿ"
`ÿ #
`
`
`+
` %ÿ# ÿ"
`ÿ,
`
`
`%ÿ#ÿ"
`&
`
`
`
`B6;9C2ÿD25E@ÿ FFÿ
`
`ÿFGFÿ HÿI
`ÿJ'K''ÿLÿF ÿMN'ÿFF ÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ
` 'ÿ
`ÿ"#ÿ ÿ"ÿ)ÿ
` ÿ!
`ÿ
` 'ÿ
`ÿ
`P@ÿR4A4:ÿ2SÿT5U9>65Vÿ1W9::ÿ9>ÿ3X4ÿY53ÿ
`"
`ÿÿ
`ÿ)
`#
`ÿ
` ÿ"
`ÿ&
`ÿ
`$
`%ÿ#
`
`
` ÿ&#
`
`%ÿY:\1934ÿD25E@ÿA@ÿ
`]1=ÿ=>3^:ÿ=>?@ÿF0ÿ_'ÿFÿF 0ÿ_
`b4454ÿD2@ÿÿJ'K'ÿFÿFcFÿFdd ÿeVW2ÿBSf@ÿD2@ÿA@ÿgh\1365<ÿ=>?@ÿÿ
`_' ÿF0ÿFÿ_
`
`
`ÿ+
`ÿi /KHO ÿ!#ÿ"
`&
`"
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`"
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
` ÿ!ÿ%
`ÿ)ÿ
`$
`&
`ÿÿ$
`ÿ
`%
`Zÿ
`%
`
`+,!-"ÿ$
` ÿ)ÿ
`$
`#
`
` lÿ#%ÿ
`ÿ
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Thelevel of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousnessanalysis (Al-Site Corp.v.
`
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950
`
`F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991))).
`
`Petitioner asserts a “person of skill in the art (POSA’) would have
`
`had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science
`
`(or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or
`
`implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback
`
`systems”(Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 4] 45—49)). Petitioner further asserts
`
`“Tw]ith more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less
`
`
`
`experience is neededto attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly,
`
`more experience can substitute for formal education”(id.).
`
`Patent Owner doesnot dispute Petitioner’s assertion (see Prelim.
`
`Resp. 24).
`
`Based on the present record including the disclosure in the *528
`
`Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (see Pet. 12) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,”
`
`which expandsthe range of educational experience indefinitely without an
`
`upper bound,i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or
`
`implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback
`
`systems.” We determinethis level of skill comports with the qualifications a
`
`person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the
`
`528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf: Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the
`
`priorart itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in theart)).
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 11 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 11 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`
` ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ
`!ÿÿ"#
`ÿ
`#
` ÿ$%$
`ÿ
` &ÿ'()*+!ÿ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ'/00ÿ
`
`ÿ
`&ÿ
`- ÿ
` ÿ
` 3
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`$
`ÿ%
`
`ÿ
`
`
` ÿ-ÿ
`ÿÿ
`#
`
`ÿÿ#
`ÿ
`%
`ÿ
`
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
` ÿ
` ÿ#
` 3ÿÿ
`4 ÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿÿ'
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`
`++!ÿ
`ÿ
`A*ÿAC<(>ÿADE/FGH8F(DEÿ
`7
`#ÿ
` 3ÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`L*ÿMNOÿADGK*ÿ2ÿ@!ÿÿ Pÿ'@
` +ÿ
`'ÿQ!@!!ÿRÿ2 !'%+ÿ' ++!ÿÿS
`#ÿ
`
`
`5
`ÿ
` ÿ$#
`ÿ#
` 3&ÿ'IJ(CC(K/ÿ2ÿ@!ÿ
`ÿ +!ÿÿ
`5TUV
`ÿ
` ÿ$#
`ÿ#
` 3ÿÿ
`ÿ
`#ÿ
` 3ÿ
`ÿ
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ6$
`ÿ
`
`#
`ÿ+!ÿÿ5 #
` ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`#ÿ
`
`$
`ÿ
`#ÿ ÿ- ÿ
`
`ÿ%$ÿ ÿ
`
`
` &ÿ'()*+!ÿÿW ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Weconstrue claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021)). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded
`
`“their ordinary and customary meaning”(Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312).
`
`“T]he ordinary and customary meaning ofa claim term is the meaning that
`
`the term would haveto a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`
`time of the invention”(id. at 1313). “Importantly, the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
`
`particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent, including the specification” (id.). An inventor may rebutthat
`
`10
`
`
`
`presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification “with
`
`reasonableclarity, deliberateness, and precision” Un re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
`
`are not to be read from the specification into the claims Un re Van Geuns,
`
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`Petitioner asserts that we “need not construe any claims”to resolve
`
`this controversy andthatit “adopts” Patent Owner’s “proposed plain and
`
`ordinary meaningforall terms [from] the parallel district court action”
`
`(Pet. 12-13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¢ 50; Ex. 1014)).
`
`Patent Owner doesnotassert any particular claim construction at this
`
`stage in the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 24).
`
`On this record, we determine that no termsor phrases in the claims
`
`require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d
`
`1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those
`
`terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 12 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 12 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿ
` ÿ"# ÿ
`
`
`$
`ÿ
`
` ÿ
`3ÿ3ÿ&1
`
`ÿ
` ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ&'(ÿ*+ÿ6-(ÿ7+.(0ÿ
`ÿ12 ÿÿ3ÿ&1
`
`
`ÿ#
` ÿ!$
`%ÿÿ
` ÿ!
` ÿ
`ÿÿ"
`%ÿ
`
` ÿ
` ÿ
`
`ÿ
` ÿÿ
`$$ÿ
`
`$$
`! %ÿ
`&
`
`
`
` ÿ
`!$
`ÿ!$
`ÿ! ! ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`
`
`8 ÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`
`ÿ
`
`Mÿÿ&1
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ
`
` ÿ $ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`
`12ÿÿÿ&1
`ÿFKÿS00+*C+PÿZ[JD\.0(+00ÿ\J+*ÿ].CR.^.E-*-0-E_ÿ
`
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ<ÿÿÿ ÿ
`3ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ&
`M<Mÿ<352ÿbKÿ].CR.^.E-*-0-E_ÿcVdKÿbeefgÿ
`` a
`
`
`ÿÿ
`ÿhiÿ
`
`$!
` ÿ$!
` ÿ$
`"j
`
` ÿ$
`&=>2ÿÿ!
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ"j
`
`4 $ÿi
`ÿ
`$
` ÿ
`ÿ
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness over Muthukumarasamy
`
`Petitioner contends Muthukumarasamyrenders claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12,
`
`14, 15, 27, and 28 obvious(Pet. 13-14, 18—22, 25-36, 40-44, 47-51, 53-58,
`
`60-69, 71-74).
`
`I. Muthukumarasamy (Ex. 1008)
`
`Muthukumarasamyis a US patent application publication titled
`
`“Device-Based Control System,” and published September 23, 2010
`
`(Ex. 1008, codes (43), (54)). Muthukumarasamy describes a “Device-Based
`
`Control System (DBCS) .
`
`.
`
`. that enables consumers, through the use of an
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 13 of 43
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 131-5 Filed 12/29/22 Page 13 of 43
`IPR2022-00793
`Patent 8,782,528 B2
`
`internet-enabled device (IED),” e.g., a smartphone,“to navigate through
`
`media or entertainment content, control media components or equipmentto
`
`watch and/orlisten to media content” (id. J 26). Figure 1, reproduced
`
`below,is “a block diagram of the Device-Based Control System (DBCS)”
`
`(id. J 44).
`
`Ae
`a
`
`
`
` ÿ
`
`
`
`
`ÿ!"
`#$%
`
`
`"
`ÿ%ÿ
` "
`ÿ%"#%
`)
`$ÿ
` *%ÿ!
`ÿ%
`
`ÿ%2ÿ
`
`"ÿ%3ÿ$
`!
`+,-ÿ/ÿ77ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`8!ÿ!$%) ÿ ÿ$
`
`"ÿ%3ÿ$
` ÿ7ÿ9:'ÿ ÿ9;%
` ÿ
` "
`!ÿ
`ÿ
`+,-ÿÿ8ÿ'!
`!ÿ)$ÿ ÿ7ÿ%ÿ!
`6
`2ÿ
`$%!
`"#
`ÿ
`"
`ÿ"
`
`
`##
`% ÿ$
`ÿ#