Filed: May 26, 2017
`
`
`Filed on behalf of HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`By:
`Irfan A. Lateef
`
`Brian C. Claassen
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Email: BoxHTC57@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2017-00054
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page No.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1 
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................ 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1 
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1 
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................. 2 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 3 
`
`IV.  PAYMENT OF FEES ...................................................................................... 3 
`
`V. 
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’941 PATENT ............................................................. 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Specification .......................................................................................... 4 
`
`Prosecution History of the ’941 patent .................................................. 6 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Original Application Prosecution ............................................... 6 
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Prosecution ......................................... 8 
`
`VI.  REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ......... 8 
`
`A.  Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ..................................... 8 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Eligibility Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ......................... 9 
`
`Timing Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303 .............................. 9 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’941 Patent Is Directed to a Covered Business Method ................ 9 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Claims of the ’941 Patent Are Financial in Nature ................... 10 
`
`The ’941 Patent Does Not Include a Technological
`Invention ................................................................................... 14 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Page No.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`The ’941 Patent Does Not Solve a Technical
`Problem Using a Technical Solution .............................. 14 
`
`Claims 1, 2, and 10 Do Not Recite a Novel and
`Non-Obvious Technological Invention .......................... 16 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(5)) ............................... 20 
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................... 21 
`
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“License Record” ................................................................................ 22 
`
`Indefinite Limitations .......................................................................... 23 
`
`VIII.  THERE IS MORE THAN A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`THE
`CHALLENGED
`’941
`PATENT
`CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 24 
`
`A.  Ground 1: The ’941 Patent Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 .................................................................................................... 26 
`
`1. 
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Cover the Abstract Idea of
`Controlling Software Access Based On Data Stored in a
`Particular Location .................................................................... 27 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Data Storage and Manipulation Claims Have Been
`Found to Constitute Abstract Ideas ................................ 29 
`
`The Claims Do Not Provide A Specific Technical
`Solution To A Technical Problem .................................. 31 
`
`Any Novelty In Implementing The Abstract Idea Is
`Considered Only In Alice Step Two ............................... 32 
`
`2. 
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims Do Not Provide An
`“Inventive Concept” .................................................................. 34 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Page No.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Setting Up a Verification Structure in BIOS Does
`Not Transform the Abstract Idea .................................... 34 
`
`The Other Claim Limitations Also Recite Well-
`Known, Conventional Computer Technology ................ 37 
`
`The Ordered Combination of Limitations Provides
`No Inventive Concept ..................................................... 40 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-18 Are Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`¶ 2 ........................................................................................................ 42 
`
`1. 
`
`“An Agent To Set Up a Verification Structure . . . ”
`Renders Claims 1-19 Indefinite ................................................ 42 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`“Agent” Is a Means-Plus-Function Limitation ............... 44 
`
`“Agent” Lacks Corresponding Structure in the
`Specification and Thus Is Indefinite ............................... 46 
`
`2. 
`
`Other Indefiniteness Issues with Respect to Dependent
`Claims 5, 8, 16, and 17.............................................................. 49 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`Claim 5—“The Unique Key” Is Indefinite ..................... 50 
`
`Claim 8 Is Indefinite ....................................................... 51 
`
`Claim 16—“Second Non-Volatile Memory” Is
`Indefinite ......................................................................... 52 
`
`Claim 17—“The License Record” Is Indefinite ............. 52 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-19 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶ 1 for Lack of Written Description ............................................ 53 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Hasebe in View of DMI Specification Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-17 ................................................. 57 
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Page No.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 60 
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 69 
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 69 
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 72 
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 72 
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 73 
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 75 
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 77 
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 78 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`10.  Claim 11 .................................................................................... 78 
`
`11.  Claim 12 .................................................................................... 79 
`
`12.  Claim 13 .................................................................................... 79 
`
`13.  Claim 14 .................................................................................... 80 
`
`14.  Claim 16 .................................................................................... 81 
`
`15.  Claim 17 .................................................................................... 82 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 5: Hasebe in View of the DMI Specification and Chang
`Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-17 ................................... 82 
`
`Ground 6: Hasebe in View of the DMI Specification and
`Arbaugh Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-17 .................... 86 
`
`G.  Ground 7: Hasebe in View of the DMI Specification and Isikoff
`Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-14, an 16-17 ..................................... 88 
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Page No.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d.)
`
`H.  Ground 8: Hasebe in View of the DMI Specification, Shipman
`and Angelo Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-17 ............... 90 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 92 
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Page No.
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 2, 5, 22
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC,
`CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) ......................................... 10
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs.,
`No. CBM2013-00021, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) ........................... 13
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`No. CBM2015-00016, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2015) ................................ 50
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`No. CBM2015-00033, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ......................... 14
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 53
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 34, 41
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 36
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 39
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 31
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Facebook, Inc., v. TLI Commc’ns, LLC,
`No. IPR2015-00778, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2015) ........................... 44
`
`Google Inc. v. Content Guard Holdings, Inc.,
`No. CBM2015-00040, Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2016) ......................... 11
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 50
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. YYZ LLC,
`No. CBM2015-00049, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2015) ........................... 15
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc.,
`No. CBM 2014-00052 .................................................................................... 8, 22
`
`Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Dev., LLC,
`No. CBM2014-00069, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014) ........................ 13
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`No. CBM2015-00021, Paper No. 38 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2016) ................... 12, 39
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`No. 2016-1077, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017) ................................... 33, 41, 42
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`No. 2016-1128, -1132, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017) ........................... passim
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-134-LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109187
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015) ................................................................................. 45
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 53, 54
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l Co. Ltd.,
`CV14-03009, 2016 WL 4205356 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) ............................. 36
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. v. Progressive Casualty Ins.,
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) .......................................... 9
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................... 54, 57
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 43, 44, 46
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC,
`No. CBM2015-00004, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015) .......................... 16
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig, Instruments Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 569 (2015) .............................. 50
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................................ 39
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`No. CBM2012-00001, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) ................................ 23
`
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`848 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2017) ............................................................ 10
`
`-viii-
`
`

`

`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`No. CBM2014-00183, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2015) ........................ 12
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2016-1059, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017) (Ex. 1030) ....................... 30, 36
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`No. IPR2015-00634, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2015) ....................... 43, 44
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 32, 38, 40
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc,
`841 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Versata Dev. Group v. SAP America, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 42, 43, 44, 46
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 66, 74, 80
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 25, 26, 93
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 21
`
`-ix-
`
`

`

`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d.)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................... 8, 20, 24, 26
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—
`Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological
`Invention; Final Rule,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 9, 14
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................ 17, 18, 20
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 to Mullor et al. (“’941 patent”)
`
`October 1, 1998 Application (App. No. 09/164,777)
`
`March 28, 2002 Notice of Allowance (App. No. 09/164,777)
`
`May 28, 2009 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination (App.
`No. 90/010,560)
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`August 3, 2009 Reexamination Determination (App. No. 90/010,560) 1005
`
`March 9, 2010 Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate (App.
`No. 90/010,560)
`
`October 15, 2015 Deposition of Miki Mullor (“Mullor Dep.”)
`
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ph.D (“Weissman Decl.”)
`
`Claim Construction Order, Case No. 11-CV-06357, Dkt. No. 107
`
`Ancora Techs. v. HTC, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Statement Case No. 11-
`CV- 06357, Dkt No. 100
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 766 165
`A2 (“Hasebe”)
`
`Desktop Management BIOS Specification Version 2.0, March
`6, 1996 (“DMI Specification”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (“Chang”)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Arbaugh, W.A et al., “A secure and reliable bootstrap architecture,”
`1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 4-7 May 1997,
`pp. 65-71, (“Arbaugh”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,748,084 (“Isikoff”)
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 97/36241 (“Shipman”)
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 824 233
`A2 (“Angelo”)
`
`Dictionary of Computer Science, Engineering, and Technology,
`12 (2000)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,552 (“Davis”)
`
`Christopher Butler Affidavit
`
`Network World, vol. 13, no. 12, March 18, 1996
`
`Computer World, vol. 30, no. 14, April 1, 1996
`
`Desktop Management BIOS Specification Version 2.00.1, July
`18, 1996
`
`System Management BIOS (SMBIOS) Reference
`Specification Version 3.0.0, February 12, 2015
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Ancora’s First Supplemental Infringement Contentions, Exhibit A
`
`1026
`
`1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Table of Contents
`
`1027
`
`IEEE Explore Abstract – A secure and reliable bootstrap architecture 1028
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,901,311 (“Labatte”)
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2016-1059 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)
`(nonprecedential)
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., No. 2016-1128, -
`1132 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., No.
`2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Table of Exhibits, Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC” or
`
`“Petitioners”) request Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,411,941 (the “’941 patent,” Ex. 1001) claims 1-19, purportedly owned by
`
`Ancora Technologies Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`
`The ’941 patent is a CBM patent that is financial in nature and does not
`
`claim a technological invention. Its claims are directed to patent ineligible subject
`
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, lack written
`
`description under § 112, ¶ 1, and are anticipated by and obvious in light of the prior
`
`art, as discussed below.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. are the real parties-in-interest for
`
`this CBM.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`HTC identifies the following matters related to the ’941 patent:
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-1919 (W.D. Wash.)
`(“HTC Litigation”), filed December 15, 2016;
`
`Petition for Covered Business Method Review No. CBM2016-00023,
`filed by Apple Inc. on January 8, 2016;
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir.
`2014);
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-3659
`(N.D. Cal.) (“Ancora II”), filed August 11, 2015;
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-6357
`(N.D. Cal.) (“Ancora I”), filed December 15, 2011;
`
`Ancora Techs. Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Information Sys. Inc.
`et al., No. 2:09-cv-270 (W.D. Wash), filed February 27,
`2009; and
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/010,560, filed by
`Microsoft Corp. on May 28, 2009.
`
`Petitioners are parties to HTC Litigation. Ancora served its Complaint on
`
`HTC America, Inc. on December 27, 2016. On January 13, 2017, Ancora and HTC
`
`Corporation agreed that HTC America, Inc. would accept service for HTC
`
`Corporation in exchange for an extension of time for both HTC Corporation and
`
`HTC America, Inc. to respond to the complaint. The case is in its early stages and
`
`no schedule or trial date has been set.
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`HTC identifies the following counsel and provides a power of attorney with
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Irfan A. Lateef (Reg. No. 51,922)
`2ial@knobbe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile:
`(949) 760-9502
`
`
`Brian C. Claassen (Reg. No. 63,051)
`2bcc@knobbe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile:
`(949) 760-9502
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. The above-identified Lead and Back-up Counsel are registered
`
`practitioners associated with Customer No. 20,995 listed in the Power of Attorney.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above. Petitioners hereby consent to
`
`service by email at the following email address: BoxHTC57@knobbe.com.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) for this Petition has been paid:
`
`$32,200 ($12,000 request fee; $18,000 post-institution fee, and $2,200 post-
`
`institution fee for requesting review of 19 claims). The undersigned further
`
`authorizes payment for any additional fees that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to be charged to Deposit Account No. 11-1410.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’941 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`The ’941 patent relates to determining whether a software program is
`
`licensed. (’941 patent at Abstract.) Software license verification methods were not
`
`new when the ’941 patent was filed on October 1, 19981; numerous prior art
`
`methods existed. (Id. at 1:12-14). Those prior art methods included “Software
`
`based products [] developed to validate authorized software usage by writing a
`
`license signature onto the computer’s volatile memory (e.g. hard disk).” (Id. at
`
`1:19-21). This “license signature” was similar to a key for unlocking access to
`
`software. According to the patent, however, the prior art was “very vulnerable to
`
`attack at the hands of skilled system’s programmers (e.g. “hackers”).” (Id. at 1:22-
`
`24).
`
`The ’941 patent proposes an alleged solution on a single page of detailed
`
`description supported with only two figures. (See id. at 5:1-6:57). Figure 2 shows
`
`four general claimed method steps:
`
`
`1 The ’941 patent claims May 21, 1998 foreign application priority, but that
`
`difference in date does not change status of any prior art in this Petition.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The supposed innovation is the setting up step (18). (See ’941 patent at 1:39-
`
`2:9.) For this step, the specification describes storing license information in
`
`computer’s BIOS (an acronym for “Basic Input/Output System”) memory space,
`
`rather than volatile memory. (See id. at 1:39-42, 1:59-2:9, 2:36-46, 3:4-17.) The
`
`specification explains that the level of programming expertise to interact with that
`
`BIOS memory space is high and therefore harder and riskier for a hacker to tamper
`
`with than the storage areas used by earlier methods. (Id. at 3:4-17); see also Ancora
`
`Techs. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 733 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The specification does
`
`not provide any new or innovative algorithm to interact with the BIOS memory
`
`space—in fact, it provides no algorithm or guidance on how to accomplish this.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`By storing license information in this BIOS memory space and later
`
`accessing it, the claimed method controls access to software. The ’941 patent
`
`therefore merely describes putting the license information in a well-known place
`
`that is more difficult to access.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’941 patent
`
`1. Original Application Prosecution
`
`Claim 1, as originally filed recited:
`
`A method of restricting software operation within a
`license limitation comprising; for a computer having a
`first non-volatile memory area, a second non-volatile
`memory area, and a volatile memory area; the steps of:
`
`[A] selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`
`[B] setting up a verification structure in the non-volatile
`memories,
`
`[C] verifying the program using the structure, and
`
`[D] acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`
`(Oct. 1, 1998 Application at 12, Ex. 1002.) After a series of amendments, the
`
`Examiner allowed the claims. Issued claim 1—with annotations showing deletions
`
`(strikethrough) and additions (underlines) compared to the originally filed
`
`claims—appears below:
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`A method of restricting software operation within a
`license limitation comprising; for use with a computer
`having a first including an erasable, non-volatile memory
`area of a BIOS of the computer, a second non-volatile
`memory area, and a volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:
`[A] selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`
`[B] using an agent to set setting up a verification
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory memories
`of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating
`data that includes at least one license record,
`
`[C] verifying the program using at least the verification
`structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS, and
`
`[D] acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`In his reasons for allowance, the Examiner found that each individual
`
`limitation of claim 1 was present in the prior art. (Mar. 28, 2002 Notice of
`
`Allowance at 3-4, Ex. 1003.) But the Examiner nevertheless allowed the claims
`
`because they included “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Id.)
`
`The “agent” was not present in the originally filed claims. The applicants
`
`never explained how the specification supports or describes this “agent.” To the
`
`extent that an “agent” is supported in the specification and has a reasonably certain
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`meaning, the prior art in this Petition discloses it under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard. Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc., No. CBM 2014-00052,
`
`Paper No. 10 at 6 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2014) (explaining that broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation is appropriate).
`
`2.
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Prosecution
`
`Microsoft petitioned for ex parte reexamination on May 28, 2009 based on
`
`two references—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,153,835 (“Schwartz”) and 5,734,819 (“Lewis”).
`
`(May 28, 2009 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination at 3, Ex. 1004.) The Patent
`
`Office instituted reexamination based on Lewis, but not Schwartz. (Aug. 3, 2009
`
`Reexamination Determination at 9-10, Ex. 1005.) The Examiner subsequently
`
`confirmed the claims over Lewis without issuing an office action, finding that
`
`Lewis was directed to verifying hardware and not a software program, as claimed.
`
`(Mar. 9, 2010 Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate at 4-5, Ex. 1006.) The
`
`prior art in this Petition discloses verifying software and does not suffer from this
`
`alleged deficiency.
`
`VI. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
`
`The ’941 patent is eligible for CBM Review because Petitioners meet the
`
`eligibility requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302 and the ’941 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`Eligibility Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.302
`
`Patent Owner has sued Petitioners in the U.S. District Court for the Western
`
`District of Washington, alleging that certain HTC accused devices perform an over-
`
`the-air update process that infringes the ’941 patent. Thus, Petitioners meet the
`
`requirements of AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Petitioners are not
`
`estopped from challenging the ’941 patent on the grounds identified in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.302(b).
`
`2.
`
`Timing Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.303
`
`The ’941 patent has a filing date before March 16, 2013 and is therefore not a
`
`“first-to-file” patent eligible for post-grant review. A petition requesting CBM
`
`Review of the ’941 patent may be filed at any time, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.303.
`
`B.
`
`The ’941 Patent Is Directed to a Covered Business Method
`
`A patent having one or more claims directed to a covered business method is
`
`a covered business method patent, even if the patent includes additional claims.
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also Liberty Mutual Ins. v. Progressive
`
`Casualty Ins., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) (entire
`
`patent CBM eligible where “the subject matter of at least one claim is directed to a
`
`covered business method.”). At least claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’941 patent are
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM eligible because they are directed to financial products or services.
`
`The phrase “‘financial product or service’ should be interpreted broadly.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00020, Paper 14 at 11 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Oct. 8, 2013). The definition of CBM patents “covers a wide range of finance-
`
`related activities” and “is not limited to products and services of only the financial
`
`industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial
`
`institutions.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1325 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`The AIA defines a two-part test for CBM Review eligibility: (1) the patent
`
`must claim a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or
`
`other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a “financial
`
`product or service;” and (2) the claimed invention must not be a “technological
`
`invention[].” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). The alleged claimed
`
`inventions of the ’941 patent, including at least claims 1, 2, and 10, satisfy both
`
`parts of the test.
`
`1.
`
`Claims of the ’941 Patent Are Financial in Nature
`
`A CBM patent must be directed to a financial product or service and not
`
`merely incidental or complimentary to a financial activity. Secure Axcess, LLC v.
`
`PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 848 F.3d 1370, 1377-81 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2017); see also
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc, 841 F.3d 1376, 1379-82 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`However, the scope of “financial product or service should be interpreted broadly.”
`
`See Versata Dev. Grp., 793 F.3d at 1323-26. The Federal Circuit further explained
`
`in Secure Axcess that, “the claim need only require one of a ‘wide range of finance-
`
`related activities,’ examples of which can be found in the cases wh