Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 12
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`Google LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251
`Filing Date: September 26, 2011
`Issue Date: January 15, 2013
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00795
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2
`II.
`III. THE ’251 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`A. Overview of the ’251 Patent .................................................................. 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6
`IV. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 6
`A. Muthukumarasamy ................................................................................ 6
`B. Hayward .............................................................................................. 11
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`VII. GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN
`VIEW OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 14
`A.
`Summary of Grounds I and II ............................................................. 14
`1.
`Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9 ..................................................... 14
`Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would
`Have Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 5-9 ........................... 15
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 20
`1.
`Element 1(pre) ........................................................................... 20
`2.
`Element 1(a) .............................................................................. 27
`3.
`Element 1(b) .............................................................................. 31
`4.
`Element 1(c) .............................................................................. 33
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`5.
`Element 1(d)(i) .......................................................................... 34
`Element 1(d)(ii) ......................................................................... 35
`6.
`Element 1(d)(iii) ........................................................................ 42
`7.
`Element 1(e)(i) .......................................................................... 48
`8.
`Element 1(e)(ii) ......................................................................... 53
`9.
`10. Element 1(f) .............................................................................. 58
`C. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 64
`1.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 64
`a.
`Element 2(a) - The method of claim 1 including:
`checking, in the server system, the identity of the
`media player identified in the one or more signals
`from the personal computing device .............................. 64
`Element 2(b) - loading an appropriate set of
`protocols or application programming interfaces
`from a library based on the identity of the media
`player .............................................................................. 68
`Element 2(c) - converting the command from the
`personal computing device into corresponding
`code to control the media player..................................... 71
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 71
`2.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 72
`5.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 73
`6.
`VIII. DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 74
`IX. DENIAL UNDER § 314(a) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 75
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Factor 1: Whether the district court granted a stay or a stay may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted ............................................... 75
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date ........................................ 75
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding .................................. 76
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues ........................................................ 77
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 77
`Factor 6: Other circumstances ............................................................. 78
`F.
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 79
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 79
`B.
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 79
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 80
`XI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 80
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ............................................. 78
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc.,
`949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 17
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00862, Paper 35 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 (PTAB July 31, 2020), aff’d,
`859 F. App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 17
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 75, 76, 77
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................. 76
`AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00167, Paper 16 (PTAB May 14, 2019), aff’d,
`825 F. App’x 909 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..............................................................passim
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 74
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 17
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00133, Paper 15 (J. Crumbley dissenting) (PTAB May
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 77
`Ex parte Huppenthal,
`No. 2009-010115, 2011 WL 1826813 (B.P.A.I. May 10, 2011)........................ 18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`
`In re Fisher,
`427 F.2d 833 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ............................................................................ 18
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 38
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01251, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) ............................................... 74
`Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann,
`IPR2020-00915, Paper 29 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2021) ............ 19Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 13
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 38
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 75, 76, 77
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 77
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 2, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 2, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph ............................................................................. 14
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 75
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 74, 78
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 8 of 12
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`USS. Patent 8,356,251
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 to Strober(“the ’251 Patent”
`
`Redacted Motion to Transfer Venue (W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021
`
`Ex-1010
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-6247-
`PGG-KNEF (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
`4,
`
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Joint Claim Construction Statement
`(W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Scheduling Order (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2021
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`
`Ex-1016
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 9 of 12
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 5-9 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,356,251 (“the ’251 Patent”). The claims recite a system that includes a
`
`personal computing device, a server, and a display device. ’251 Patent, Abstract.
`
`When the personal computing device sends a request to the server identifying media
`
`content to play in a media player running on the display device, the server sends a
`
`message to the display device, causing the content to be played by the media player.
`
`Id., 6:30-46. The server mediates the personal computing device’s control of content
`
`presented on the display device. Id., 5:2-31, 6:47-58.
`
`Server-mediated control of content presentation was known before the
`
`earliest-claimed priority date of the ’251 Patent. Muthukumarasamy describes a
`
`system that includes a personal computing device, a server system, and a display
`
`device. Muthukumarasamy, [0044]-[0045]. In Muthukumarasamy, the personal
`
`computing device sends a message to the server system identifying content for
`
`presentation on the display device, and the server system sends a message to the
`
`display device, causing the content to be presented at the display device. Id.
`
`Presentation of content through specified media players was likewise known.
`
`Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and
`
`controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a
`
`media type of the selected media content.” Id., [0048], [0057]-[0058]. Hayward also
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 10 of 12
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`USS. Patent 8,356,251
`
`presents internet-received media content having different formats using media
`
`players. Hayward, Abstract, 3:53-63. Hayward teaches a media player that is
`
`transferred to a client based on a user’s selection of the media content. Jd., 3:53-63,
`
`Abstract, 5:38-66, FIG. 2.
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute review and cancel the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`If.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and cancellation of the
`
`challenged claims in view of the following references, which are prior art underat
`
`least one of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e):
`
`U.S. Pat./Pub.
`Number
`Muthukumarasamy|2010/0241699 Al|March 22,2010|September
`
`Publication Date
`
`Filing Date
`
`2000
`
`
`
`8,918,812 B2 24,|June 20, 2002October
`
`
`
`The following proposed obviousness groundsrenderthe challenged claims obvious.
`
`1-2oeds9|5-9
`
`
`
`|1|obviousoverMuthukumarasamy|over Muthukumarasam
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 11 of 12
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`USS. Patent 8,356,251
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`
`Erika H. Arner (Reg. No. 57,540)
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-6023
`Tel: 571-203-2700
`Fax: 202-408-4400
`
`Kara A. Specht (Reg. No. 69,560)
`kara.specht@finnegan.com
`Neal Larson (Reg. No. 72,949)
`neal.larson@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`Tel: 404-653-6400
`Fax: 404-653-6444
`Gracie K. Mills (Reg. No. 66,946)
`gracie.mills@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Tel: 202-408-4000
`Fax: 202-408-4400
`
`Petitioner consents to e-mail service at Google-Touchstream-
`
`IPRs@finnegan.com.
`
`XI. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies the °251 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`XI. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner requests the Board institute infer partes review and cancel the
`
`challenged claimsas unpatentable.
`
`80
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`IPR2022-00795 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,356,251
`
`The Office may charge any required fees for this proceeding to Deposit
`
`Account No. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`Date: April 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Erika H. Arner/
`Erika H. Arner, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 57,540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`81
`
`