throbber
Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLELLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00795
`Patent 8,356,251 B2
`
`
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of5
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 10
`571-272-7822
`Date: September 30, 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
`!$0ÿ
` . ÿ1ÿ*ÿ
`*2
` ÿ"*$#ÿ& ÿ"+" ÿ# !",ÿ3 ÿ-#,,!-# ÿ .4ÿÿ
`#%*"$ÿ, ÿ+#-5ÿ6789:9;<=><9?@ÿB><@:<ÿCD7E@;Fÿ
`"+" ÿ6789:9;<=><9?@ÿB><@:<ÿCD7E@ ÿÿ
`")!!' ÿ
`- . .
ÿ!.   
`.ÿ
`2ÿG:<@=ÿB>=<@;ÿ$ /ÿ
`HIÿJFKFLFÿMÿHNOÿ
`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 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3of5
`IPR2022-00795
`Patent 8,356,251 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`ÿ !"#$%&'(ÿ '(ÿ*&++ $,ÿ
`-../0
ÿ11ÿ23
4 4.
567ÿ840
9ÿ
`ÿ:
4 4. ÿ8.5ÿ;'<=$ÿ> $<=?ÿ5
@4
Aÿ
`2
`:
5ÿÿ23
6ÿ.5ÿ3
4 4. 677ÿBC
`00
/4 /ÿB0
`4DEÿÿ ÿ
` 9ÿFÿ.8ÿGÿ
`
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ2HIÿÿ23JKLMÿ
`
677ÿÿ.NBCE 5

`Dÿ
`
BC .0./4
Eÿ Bÿ23
`
ÿA
567ÿ 4D
0Oÿ840
9ÿ
`ÿ 5
04D4
`5Oÿ
E:. E
ÿ
`2
`:
5ÿÿ23 5
04Dÿ
E:677ÿÿP4 Cÿ.N5ÿ
`N C.54Q
` 4. ÿ
4 4.
5ÿ840
9ÿ
`ÿ
:0Oÿ
` .ÿ
`
ÿA
5REÿ 5
04D4
`5Oÿ
E:. E
ÿ2
`:
5ÿÿ23
ÿ
:0Oÿ .ÿ  677ÿ
`
` 9ÿ
`
ÿA
5ÿ840
9ÿ
`ÿGN55
:0Oÿ .ÿ
4 4.
5REÿ 5
04D4
`5Oÿ
:0Oÿ2
`:
5ÿ
`ÿ23 ÿGN55
:0Oÿ .ÿ
ÿ
:0O677ÿ
`C
ÿE
` 9
`59ÿ8.5ÿ4 E 4 N 4 /ÿ
` ÿ;'<=$ÿ> $<=?ÿ5
@4
Aÿ4EÿE
ÿ8.5 Cÿ4 ÿ
`ÿGÿSÿT2
`7ÿAC4BCÿ:5.@49
Eÿ
`Eÿ8.00.AEUÿ
`2
`7ÿVHGV1WC
ÿ45
B .5ÿD
`Oÿ . ÿ
`N C.54Q
ÿ
` ÿ4
5ÿ:
`5
Eÿ
`5
@4
Aÿ .ÿX
ÿ4 E 4 N
9ÿN 0
EEÿ C
ÿ45
B .5ÿ9
5D4
Eÿ C
` ÿ C
ÿ
`4 8.5D
` 4. ÿ:5
E
9ÿ4 ÿ C
ÿ:
4 4. ÿ840
9ÿN 9
5ÿE
B 4. ÿÿ
` 9ÿ
`
`
` Oÿ5
E:. E
ÿ840
9ÿN 9
5ÿE
B 4. ÿÿEC.AEÿ C
` ÿ C
5
ÿ4Eÿ
`ÿ
`5

`E.
`X0
ÿ04Y
04C..9ÿ C
` ÿ C
ÿ:
4 4.
5ÿA.N09ÿ:5
@
`40ÿA4 Cÿ
`5
E:
B ÿ .ÿ
` ÿ0

`E ÿÿ.8ÿ C
ÿB0
`4DEÿBC
`00
/
9ÿ4 ÿ C
ÿ:
4 4. ÿ
`
4 4.
5ÿBC
`00
/
EÿB0
`4DEÿÿ ÿ
` 9ÿFÿ
`EÿN :
`

`X0
ÿN 9
5ÿÿ
`GÿSÿÿ4 ÿ A.ÿ/5.N 9Eÿ.8ÿN :
`

`X404 Oÿ2
ÿ F7ÿÿ-
5
`00Oÿ
`
ÿ
`A
5ÿB.
9Eÿ C
` ÿ C
ÿ
4 4. ÿEC.N09ÿX
ÿ9
4
9ÿ
`Eÿ .ÿ
`00ÿBC
`00
/
9ÿ
`B0
`4DEÿ2?==ÿ 5
04Dÿ
E:7ÿÿ
`E
9ÿ. ÿ.N5ÿ5
@4
Aÿ.8ÿ C
ÿ5
B.59ÿA
ÿB. B0N9
ÿ
` C
` ÿ
4 4.
5ÿ4Eÿ5

`E.
`X0Oÿ04Y
0Oÿ .ÿ:5
@
`40ÿ4 ÿ9
D. E 5
` 4 /ÿ C
` ÿ
` ÿ0

`E ÿ
`.
ÿ.8ÿ C
ÿBC
`00
/
9ÿB0
`4DEÿ4Eÿ . ÿ:
`

`X0
ÿ
` ÿZ:540ÿ Tÿ ÿ C
ÿGN:5
D
ÿ.N5 ÿC
09ÿ C
` ÿ
`ÿ84
`0ÿA54
ÿ
`9
B4E4. ÿN 9
5ÿÿGÿSÿ2
`7ÿDNE ÿ9
B49
ÿ C
ÿ:
`

`X404 Oÿ.8ÿ
`00ÿB0
`4DEÿ
`BC
`00
/
9ÿ4 ÿ C
ÿ:
4 4. ÿ2**ÿ['?<\ÿ['!ÿ]ÿ[ '!&ÿÿGÿ ÿTÿ2 77ÿÿ
` ÿ
`
`(a) THRESHOLD.—TheDirector may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`(Paper 1 (“Pet.”or “Petition’’)) challenging claims 1, 2 and 5—9 of U.S.
`
`Patent 8,356,251 B2 (Ex. 1001 (251 Patent”)). Touchstream
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”)). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper7 (“Pet. Reply to POPR”)),
`
`and Patent Ownerfiled a Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply (Paper
`
`9 (“PO Sur-reply to Pet. Reply”)).
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2 and 5—9 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 in two groundsof unpatentability (Pet. 2-3). Generally, Patent
`
`Ownercontendsthat the Petition should be deniedasto all challenged
`
`claims (see Prelim. Resp.). Based on our review of the record, we conclude
`
`that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least
`
`one of the challenged claims is not patentable.
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a final written
`
`decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) must decide the patentability of all claims
`
`challengedin the petition (SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)).
`
`

`

`media player” (Pet. 56—58 (citing Ex. 1005 J 126-129; Ex. 1008 7¥ 85,
`
`117; Ex. 1009, 1:11-13, 1:26—30; 3:53-63, 5:51-28, 5:54-6:8)).
`
`Petitioner relies on Haywardto teach “identifies the particular media
`
`player for playing the video content, and .
`
`.
`
`. control playing of the video
`
`content on the display device by the particular media player” (Pet. 62-63
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¢ 136; Ex. 1009, Fig. 2)).
`
`Patent Owner doesnotdispute, at this stage, Petitioner’s arguments
`
`and evidenceas to these limitations. Based on our review ofthe record
`
`before us, we determine Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Muthukumarasamy and Haywardteachesthe remaining
`
`limitations recited in independentclaim 1.
`
`4. Dependent claims 2 and 5-9
`
`Petitioner contends the combination of Muthukumarasamy and
`
`Haywardrenders obviousclaims 2 and 5—9 (Pet. 64—74 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`5:62-6:3; Ex. 1005 J 137-162; Ex. 1008 JJ 31, 44, 45, 48, 50, 56, 68, 83,
`
`134, Figs. 5, 14, 19; Ex. 1009, 3:53-63, 5:24-47)).
`
`Patent Owner,at this stage, does not offer any arguments specific to
`
`these limitations (see Prelim. Resp.). Upon our review ofPetitioner’s
`
`asserted contentions, we are persuadedbased onthe record before us,
`
`Petitioner has madea sufficient showing that the combination of
`
`Muthukumarasamy and Haywardteaches or suggests claims 2 and 5-9.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4of5
`IPR2022-00795
`Patent 8,356,251 B2
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`

`ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿÿ  ÿ!"ÿÿ##ÿ  $ÿ!"ÿÿ##ÿÿ
`$ÿ!"ÿÿ%ÿ% $ÿ%ÿ% ÿ%&%''ÿ
`
 (
ÿ

)ÿ( ÿ*
`+
`ÿ (ÿ

`,ÿ-
.
)ÿ ,
ÿ
` /
`ÿ

`ÿ
`
`
ÿ.(ÿ
` ÿ ,
ÿ0
(ÿ(
ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿ( (ÿ
` ÿ(.ÿ ,
ÿ0
(ÿ
`(
ÿ( ÿ ,
ÿ)
`ÿ
0
ÿ1ÿ ,
ÿ
` /
`ÿ

`ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
`  ÿ!"ÿÿ#ÿ$ÿ!"ÿÿ2 ÿ ''ÿ
`
`
ÿ3+
ÿ(
)ÿ ( ÿ)/
ÿ
` ÿ ,)ÿ)
`
ÿ
 (
4)ÿ
` /
)ÿ
`
` ÿ
0

ÿ
`)ÿ (ÿ ,
)
ÿ
` ( )ÿÿ
`)
ÿ( ÿ(/ÿ
0
+ÿ(.ÿ ,
ÿ
(ÿ
`1
.(
ÿ/)ÿ+
ÿ

ÿ
 (
ÿ,
`)ÿ),(+ ÿ)/..
ÿ ,
` ÿ ,
ÿ
`(1
` ( ÿ(.ÿ5/ ,/6/
`
`)
`ÿ
` ÿ*
`+
`ÿ

`,
)ÿ ,
ÿ

`  ÿ
`
` ( )ÿ

ÿ ÿ 


ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`78ÿ:;<;=>;=?ÿABCDEFÿGÿC=>ÿHIJÿ
`
 (
ÿ(
)ÿ ,
ÿ(1
` ( ÿ(.ÿ5/ ,/6/
`
`)
`ÿ
` ÿ
`*
`+
`ÿ

)ÿ(10(/)ÿ
`)ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
ÿ&&ÿ  ÿ!"ÿÿ
`% %$ÿ!"ÿÿ##ÿ $ÿ!"ÿÿ##ÿÿ&&ÿ&ÿ&ÿÿÿÿÿ
`&ÿ2 )ÿÿ&ÿ$ÿ!"ÿÿ%ÿ% &&''ÿ
`
`
ÿ3+
ÿ
` ÿ ,)ÿ)
`
ÿ(
)ÿ ( ÿ(..
ÿ
` ÿ
` /
)ÿ)
.ÿ (ÿ
` ,
)
ÿ
` ( )ÿF;;ÿ 
ÿ
)'ÿÿK( ÿ(/ÿ
0
+ÿ(.ÿ
 (
4)ÿ
`
`))

ÿ(
( )ÿ+
ÿ
`
ÿ
)/
`
ÿ1
`)
ÿ( ÿ ,
ÿ
(ÿ1
.(
ÿ/)ÿ
`
 (
ÿ,
`)ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ)/..
ÿ),(+ ÿ ,
` ÿ ,
ÿ(1
` ( ÿ(.ÿ
`5/ ,/6/
`
`)
`ÿ
` ÿ*
`+
`ÿ

`,
)ÿ(ÿ)/
) )ÿ
`)ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
`ÿ
`H8ÿLM=ABNFDM=ÿ
`
`)
ÿ( ÿ ,
ÿ
(ÿ1
.(
ÿ/)ÿ+
ÿ

ÿ
 (
4)ÿ(..

ÿ
`
` /
)ÿ
0

ÿ
` ÿ)/(  ÿ
) ( ÿ
)
`1),ÿ
`ÿ

`)(
`1
ÿ
`6
,((ÿ ,
` ÿ
 (
ÿ+(/ÿ
0
`ÿ ÿ),(+ ÿ ,
` ÿ
`)ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`5. Conclusion
`
`Based on the record before us, we determinePetitioner’s proffered
`
`arguments, evidence, and supporting testimony establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showingthat claims 1, 2, and 5—9
`
`36
`
`

`

`would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and
`
`Hayward.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded
`
`that the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in showingthat at least one claim of the ’251 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5 of 5
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 149-4 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5of5
`IPR2022-00795
`Patent 8,356,251 B2
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ 
ÿ 
`  ÿ!ÿ" #
`
`
` $ÿ
` ÿ
`%
`$
`&ÿ
`&ÿ()*(+,-)*ÿ
`.ÿ 
ÿ!
/ /ÿ

` ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
ÿ
!
ÿÿ
ÿ
`
ÿ0

`
ÿ
` 
` ÿ 
ÿ
  ÿ

`
ÿ
`ÿ

`
`
ÿ#
ÿ 
` ÿ
 
ÿÿ
`0

`ÿ ÿ /ÿ 12ÿ12ÿ45162ÿ785ÿ941:;ÿ7<ÿ2=5ÿ>?@AÿB12582ÿ:6ÿ 0
`

`
&ÿ
`ÿ
`C&ÿ)DEÿ
`.ÿ 
ÿ

` ÿ/
ÿ ÿFÿ
`)DEEDÿ 
` ÿ0
` ÿ ÿÿ,&-&(&ÿGÿHI
`Jÿ
` ÿKLMNOÿQROMNSÿÿ
`KLSMKMTMNUÿ ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
`
/
ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
0
 ÿ ÿ
`ÿ/ ÿ
ÿ! ÿ ÿ
` 
ÿ
  Vÿ
` ÿÿ
`.,W%Eÿ)DEEDÿ 
` ÿ0
` ÿ ÿÿ,&-&(&ÿGÿHI
`JÿKLMNOÿ
`QROMNSÿ

ÿ!ÿ 
ÿX ÿ
`
ÿÿ   
ÿ
 /ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
$ÿ
`
ÿ
`!ÿ ÿ)
ÿ
` ÿ0
` ÿ ÿÿ,&-&(&ÿGÿHIJÿ
` ÿÿ(&.&&ÿGÿH &Hÿ
`  
ÿÿ/
ÿ!ÿ 
ÿ     ÿ!ÿ
`ÿ 
`&ÿ
`ÿ
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given,it is:
`
`ORDEREDthatpursuantto 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes is
`
`instituted on all the challenged claims with respectto all groundsset forth in
`
`the Petition; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’251 Patent is instituted commencingon the entry date
`
`of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4,
`
`notice is given ofthe institution ofa trial.
`
`37
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket