throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Date: June 21, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GAMELOFT, S.A.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROTHSCHILD DIGITAL MEDIA INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Joinder; Denying Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Gameloft, S.A., (“Petitioner” or “Gameloft”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 6–9, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,101,534, as amended by U.S. Patent Reexamination Certificate
`6,101,534 C1, (Ex. 1001, “the ’534 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a).
`Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder (“Motion”) with
`Sony Entertainment America LLC, (“Sony”) v. Rothschild Digital Media
`Innovations, LLC, IPR2015-01364 (the “Sony IPR”). Paper 4 (“Mot.”).
`
`Patent Owner, Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC, filed a
`paper, stating that it waives filing a preliminary response and does not
`oppose joinder. Paper 8, 2.
`
`For reasons explained below, we grant joinder, dismiss the Motion as
`moot, and deny the Petition.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following cases as related matters: Rothschild
`Digital Media Innovations, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America
`LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-03928 (N.D. Cal.) (pending); Rothschild Digital
`Media Innovations, LLC v. G5 Entertainment, AB, Case No. 1:15-cv-23301
`(S.D. Fla.) (pending); Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC v.
`Gameloft, S.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-23302 (S.D. Fla.) (pending); Supercell Oy
`v. Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-1119
`(W.D. Wash.) (pending); ORB Networks v. Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC,
`Case No. 3:07-cv-400 (N.D. Cal.) (terminated); Rothschild Trust Holdings,
`LLC v. ORB Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-22921 (S.D. Fla.)
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`(terminated); Rothschild Trust Holdings, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Case
`No. 1:06-cv-21359 (S.D. Fla.) (terminated). Pet. 40–41; Paper 7, 2–3.
`
`Petitioner alone identifies the following additional cases as related
`matters: Trust Licensing, LLC v. Interactual Technologies, Inc., Case No.
`1:03-cv-20672 (S.D. Fla.) (terminated); Trust Licensing, LLC v. Disc
`Publishing, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-21192 (S.D. Fla.) (terminated); In re
`Intracorp Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 96-16276 (S.D. Fla.) (terminated).
`Pet. 41. Likewise, Petitioner alone identifies the Sony IPR as a related
`matter. Id.
`
`Patent Owner alone identifies Reexamination Control No. 90/008,591,
`which was a third party-requested ex parte reexamination of the ’534 patent
`(the “reexamination”) resulting in U.S. Patent Reexamination Certificate
`6,101,534 C1, as a related matter. Paper 7, 3.
`
`B. The ’534 Patent
`
`The ’534 patent relates to an interactive remote computer interface
`system. Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. In general, it describes a system in which local
`data and remote data are combined for local use. Id. at Abstract. The use of
`local data on, for example, a CD-ROM reduces the amount of data required
`to be downloaded in order to render desired data on a display, while the use
`of remote data allows for providing updated data from a centralized source.
`Id. at 6:41–46, 7:4–8.
`
`The system includes a remote server, a local processor, and a data
`storage assembly associated with the local processor. Ex. 1001, 5:20–42.
`The remote server includes primary site data and at least one primary site
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`address that includes at least a portion of the primary site data. Id. at 5:20–
`25. The data storage assembly may be a hard drive, but is preferably a
`compact, portable, and interchangeable computer readable medium such as a
`CD-ROM. Id. at 5:40–45. The data storage assembly includes auxiliary site
`data associated with the primary site data and is encoded with a plurality of
`remotely accessible auxiliary site addresses, each of which includes select
`portions of auxiliary site data. Id. at 5:46–53.
`
`Petitioner fairly describes operation of an embodiment of the ’534
`patent as follows:
`a user at a local computer, having access to a CD-
`ROM or
`the
`like
`that has been previously
`distributed and stored at a local computer, is able
`to go online to access primary site information
`(e.g., through a website). See, e.g., [Ex. 1001] at
`Col. 13:43-14:32. When the interaction calls for
`interactive video, downloading is not necessary
`because the system accesses the CD-ROM, and
`initiates utilization of auxiliary data stored thereon.
`See id. The auxiliary data is stored at specific
`auxiliary site addresses on the CD-ROM so that
`the data is readily accessible. See id.
`Pet. 3–4. Lastly, it is clear from the specification that a focus of the ’534
`patent is on application of the invention to a real estate context. See, e.g., id.
`at 7:30–35 (“the present invention is directed towards a system for the
`display of a three dimensional space, generally 10, and preferably, a real
`estate display system 10 structured to provide for the remote exhibition of
`real estate space”). But, the challenged claims, which are discussed below,
`are not limited to such an application.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`C. The Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 6–9, and 21–24, which are the same
`claims involved in the Sony IPR. Pet. 1; Mot. 2; IPR2015-01364, Paper 8.
`Claims 1, 23, and 24 are independent, and the remaining challenged
`claims—claims 6–9, 21, and 22—ultimately depend from claim 1. Claim 1
`is illustrative and reproduced below.
`1.
`An interactive, remote, computer interface system
`comprising:
`a remote server assembly, said remote server assembly
`including a quantity of primary site data;
`said remote server assembly including at least one
`primary site address, said primary site address including at least
`a portion of said primary site data and being distinct so as to
`identify a location thereof on a computer network;
`a local processor assembly;
`said local processor assembly being coupled in data
`transmitting and receiving communication with said remote
`server assembly;
`said local processor assembly being structured to access
`said primary site address so as to achieve said data transmitting
`and receiving communication with said remote server
`assembly;
`at least one data storage assembly associated with said
`local processor assembly and structured to contain a quantity of
`auxiliary site data thereon, said auxiliary site data being
`associated with said primary site data;
`said data storage assembly including a compact, portable
`and interchangeable computer readable medium;
`said compact, portable and interchangeable computer
`readable medium including a plurality of remotely accessible,
`auxiliary site addresses encoded therein, each of said remotely
`accessible, auxiliary site addresses including select portions of
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`said quantity of auxiliary site data; and
`said remotely accessible, auxiliary site addresses being
`structured to be remotely accessed by said remote server
`assembly so as to initiate utilization of said select portions of
`said quantity of auxiliary site data by said local processor
`assembly in conjunction with said primary site data.
`Ex. 1001, 16:41–17:9.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following as grounds of unpatentability:
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Mages (Ex. 1005)1 and
`§ 103(a)3
`1, 6–9, 21, 23, 24
`Batchelor (Ex. 1004)2
`Mages, Batchelor, and Hughes
`(Ex. 1008)4
`Pet. 2. These grounds are the same as those on which trial was instituted in
`the Sony IPR. Pet. 2; Mot. 2; IPR2015-01364, Paper 8.
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`22
`
`Gameloft’s claim construction and unpatentability arguments for these
`grounds are the same as those presented by Sony in the Sony IPR. Mot. 4–
`5; compare Pet. 16–40, with IPR2015-01364, Paper 3, 16–35 and 53–58.
`Gameloft relies on the same declarant, Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D., as Sony.
`Dr. Madisetti’s declaration here differs from his declaration in the Sony IPR
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,892,825, filed Nov. 25, 1996, issued Apr. 6, 1999.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,103, filed Nov. 13, 1995, issued Mar. 3, 1998.
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took
`effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’534
`patent issued was filed before that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`and 103 are to their pre-AIA version.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,736,977, filed Apr. 26, 1995, issued Apr. 7, 1998.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`only in that the former “was amended to remove discussion of those grounds
`not instituted in the Sony IPR” (and not presented in Gameloft’s Petition).
`Mot. 5, n.4.
`
`JOINDER
`
`II.
`The Motion, on its face, seeks joinder of this “pending inter partes
`review with the pending inter partes review concerning the same patent
`brought by Petitioner Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Case
`No. IPR2015-01364 (“Sony IPR”), which was instituted on December 15,
`2015 (Paper 8).” Mot. 1. However, this is not a pending inter partes
`review, and we are denying the Petition to institute one.
`
`The statutory sub-section under which Gameloft seeks relief,
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), does not refer to joining two inter partes reviews to one
`another. Id.; but cf. id. § 315(d) (referring to “consolidation” of a pending
`inter partes review and “another proceeding or matter involving the patent”).
`Section 315(c) refers, rather, to joining a “person” “as a party” to an
`instituted inter partes review. It states the following:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311
`that
`the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). Hence, we consider Gameloft’s
`Motion under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) as seeking joinder of Gameloft as a party
`to the Sony IPR.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`Gameloft Motion’s is timely because it was filed on January 15, 2016,
`one month after our December 15, 2015, institution of the Sony IPR. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.122 (“Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under
`§42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes
`review for which joinder is requested.”).
`
`There is no right to joinder. It is relief that we grant or deny in our
`discretion. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). The statute does, however, require that the
`person to be joined must properly file a petition that warrants the institution
`of an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`Gameloft has done this; we have already determined that identical
`challenges to the same claims warranted institution in the Sony IPR.
`Accordingly, in our discretion, we may grant joinder of Gameloft as a party
`to the Sony IPR.
`
`Gameloft is represented by the same counsel as Sony. Mot. 8.
`Gameloft “waives the right to additional pages or time in which to file any
`papers and will completely agree to the schedule set forth in the Sony IPR,
`as it now stands or as amended in future.” Id. Also, Gameloft will not seek
`additional time for its counsel (which is also Sony’s counsel) to present oral
`arguments at any hearing that is requested and granted. Id.
`
`Under these circumstances, it is likely that joining Gameloft as a party
`to the Sony IPR will not unduly delay or detrimentally affect the Sony IPR.
`Also, Patent Owner does not oppose joinder. Paper 8, 2. Accordingly, we
`exercise our discretion to join Gameloft as a party to the Sony IPR. The
`Motion, which seeks additional relief not provided under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`(i.e., consolidation of two inter partes reviews, one of which has not been
`instituted), is dismissed as moot.
`
`III. GAMELOFT’S PETITION
`
`As discussed above, Gameloft’s Petition presents the same grounds
`against the same claims on which we instituted the Sony IPR, and it does so
`by making the same arguments and presenting the same evidence.
`Consistent with our December 15, 2015, decision to institute in the Sony
`IPR, there is a reasonable likelihood that Gameloft would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in its Petition. Hence, the
`Petition warrants institution of an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`However, there is no right to an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314 (governing institution of inter partes reviews but not mandating
`institution under any circumstances). Also, in determining whether to
`institute an inter partes review, we “may take into account whether, and
`reject the petition . . . because, the same or substantially the same prior art or
`arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).5
`
`The identical art and arguments have been raised in the Sony IPR, to
`which Gameloft is being joined. Granting the instant Petition and
`conducting a separate proceeding would be a waste of time and resources for
`all involved. Granting the instant Petition and consolidating the resulting
`proceeding with the Sony IPR would complicate the latter proceeding with a
`second set of papers that are wholly cumulative in substance of the papers
`
`5 Although section 325(d) refers only to determinations by “the Director,”
`she has delegated institution authority to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`already of record in the latter proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, in light of Gameloft joining as a party to the Sony IPR
`and to effect more efficient administration of the patentability challenges, we
`deny the Petition.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Gameloft, S.A., is joined as a party, on the petitioner
`side, to Case IPR2015-001364;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is dismissed as
`moot;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`in Case IPR2015-01364.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00472
`Patent 6,101,534
`
`For Petitioner:
`Eric A. Buresh
`Abran J. Kean
`Mark C. Lang
`Erise IP, P.A.
`Eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`Mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Thomas K. Landry
`Adam C. Underwood
`Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
`tlandry@careyrodriguez.com
`aunderwood@careyrodriguez.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11

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