Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 11
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,904,289
`Filing Date: September 26, 2011
`Issue Date: December 2, 2014
`
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00794
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  THE ’289 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3 
`A.  Overview of the ’289 Patent .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 7 
`A.  Muthukumarasamy ................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`Hayward .............................................................................................. 12 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14 
`V. 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`VII.  GROUNDS I AND II: MUTHUKUMARASAMY ALONE OR IN
`VIEW OF HAYWARD RENDERS OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 15 
`A. 
`Summary of Grounds I and II ............................................................. 15 
`1. 
`Ground I: Muthukumarasamy Would Have Rendered
`Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8 ..................................................... 15 
`Ground II: Muthukumarasamy and Hayward Would
`Have Rendered Obvious Claims 1-2 and 6-8 ........................... 16 
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`Element 1(pre) ........................................................................... 20 
`2. 
`Element 1(a)(i) .......................................................................... 28 
`3. 
`Element 1(a)(ii) ......................................................................... 30 
`4. 
`Element 1(a)(iii) ........................................................................ 35 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`5. 
`Element 1(a)(iv) ........................................................................ 45 
`Element 1(b) .............................................................................. 53 
`6. 
`Element 1(c)(i) .......................................................................... 54 
`7. 
`Element 1(c)(ii) ......................................................................... 58 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 2 .............................................................................. 61 
`Independent Claim 6 ........................................................................... 62 
`1. 
`Elements 6(pre) through 6(b) and Element 6(d)(ii) .................. 62 
`2. 
`Element 6(c) .............................................................................. 63 
`3. 
`Element 6(d)(i) .......................................................................... 66 
`Dependent Claims 7 and 8 .................................................................. 71 
`E. 
`VIII.  DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 71 
`IX.  DENIAL UNDER § 314(a) IS IMPROPER ................................................. 72 
`A. 
`Factor 1: Whether the district court granted a stay or a stay may
`be granted if a proceeding is instituted ............................................... 73 
`Factor 2: Proximity of the court’s trial date ........................................ 73 
`Factor 3: Investment in the parallel proceeding .................................. 74 
`Factor 4: Overlap between issues ........................................................ 75 
`Factor 5: Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the
`parallel proceeding are the same party ................................................ 75 
`Factor 6: Other circumstances ............................................................. 75 
`F. 
`X.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 76 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 76 
`B. 
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 76 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`E. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ....................... 77 
`XI.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 77 
`XII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 6 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 (PTAB May 26, 2020) ............................................. 77
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc.,
`949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 18
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00862, Paper 35 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................. 73, 74, 76
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`IPR2019-00612, Paper 26 (PTAB July 31, 2020), aff’d, 859 F.
`App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 18
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (PTAB June 15, 2020) ............................................. 74
`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) ............................................... 72
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 18
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00133, Paper 15 (J. Crumbley dissenting) (PTAB May
`15, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 76
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC,
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 7 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`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) ............................................... 73
`Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann,
`IPR2020-00915, Paper 29 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2021) ............................................... 19
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 14
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ................................. 74, 75, 76
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................... 75
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................... 2, 12
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................. 2, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................. 72, 77
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 73
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 8 of 11
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 8 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,904,289 to Strober (“the ’289 Patent”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,782,528 to Strober (“the ’528 Patent’) Prosecution
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`
`Ex-1005
`
`Ex-1006
`
`Ex-1010
`
`Ex-1014
`
`Ex-1015
`
`”
`USS. Patent No. 8,918,812 (“Ha
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-6247-
`PGG-KNF (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
`
`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
`Touchstream Techs., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00569-ADA,
`Redacted Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 9 of 11
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 8,904,289 (“the ’289 Patent”). The claims recite a system including a personal
`
`computing device, a server, and a content presentation device. ’289 Patent, Abstract.
`
`When the personal computing device sends a request to the server identifying media
`
`content to play, the server causes the content to be played by the media player on the
`
`display device and controls content presented. Id., 6:41-46, 5:8-35, 6:51-62; Ex-
`
`1005 (“Bederson”), ¶49.
`
`Server-mediated control of content presentation was known before April 21,
`
`2011, the earliest-claimed priority date of the ’289 Patent. Muthukumarasamy
`
`describes a system that includes a personal computing device, a server system, and
`
`a display device. Muthukumarasamy, [0044]-[0045]. In Muthukumarasamy’s
`
`system, 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 describes presenting internet-received media content having different
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 10 of 11
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 10 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`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.
`
`Id., 3:53-63, Abstract, 5:38-74, FIG. 2: Bederson, 950.
`
`Because the claims of the ’289 Patent were knownbeforeits earliest priority
`
`date, they are invalid. Bederson, 948, 51
`
`I.
`
`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):
`
`Name
`
`Filing Date
`
`Publication
`U.S. Pat./Pub.
`Date
`Number
`
`Muthukumarasamy|2010/0241699 Al|March 22, 2010 September23,
`2010
`8.918.812 B2 October 24, 2000|June 20, 2002
`
`
`
`The following proposed obviousness groundsrenderthe challenged claims obvious.
`
`Combined References
`
`Claims
`
`
`of Hayward
`
`=ObviousoverMuthukumarasamy
`
`1-2and6-8
`
`Obvious over Muthukumarasamy in view|1-2 and 6-8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-3 Filed 01/12/23 Page 11 of 11
`
`IPR2022-00794 Petition
`
`U.S. Patent 8,904,289
`
`
`XII. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner requests the Board institute inter partes Review and cancel the
`
`challenged claims as unpatentable.
`
`The Office may charge any required fees to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`Date: April 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Erika H. Arner/
`Erika H. Arner, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 57,540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`78
`
`