Trials@uspto.gov Paper # 21
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 11, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`__________________________
`
`Record of Remote Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, April 23, 2020
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D.
`BAER, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 11, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`__________________________
`
`Record of Remote Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, April 23, 2020
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and GARTH D.
`BAER, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER APPLE, INC.:
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`JEREMY J. MONALDO, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`202.783.5070
`renner@fr.com
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER UNILOC 2017 LLC:
`
`
`BRETT MANGRUM, ESQUIRE
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`2600 East Southlake Boulevard
`Suite 120
`Southlake, Texas, 76092
`469.401.2659
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`MATT CLEMENTS, APPLE
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 23,
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE BAER: All right. Good afternoon,
`everyone. I think we're ready to go. We have,
`this afternoon, our hearing for both
`IPR 2019-00251 and 2019-00510, between Petitioner,
`Apple, and Patent Owner, UNILOC. I'm Judge Baer,
`and Judges Medley and Smith are here as well. So
`the way this is going to work is we're going to
`start with the 2019-00251 case, which is the case
`addressing the '049 patent. We'll do that full
`hearing, and then what we'll do is we'll take a
`short break, and we'll then pick up, then, with
`the 2019-00510 case, which is patent -- the
`'079 patent.
` For the record, let's go ahead and get the
`party's appearances if we could. Who do we have
`for Petitioner Apple?
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. This
`is Karl Renner, and I'm joined by Jeremy Monaldo,
`as well as Matt Clements, from Apple.
` JUDGE BAER: Great. And, Mr. Renner, will
`you be presenting argument in both cases?
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, Jeremy Monaldo
`and I will be dividing the responsibilities and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`the presentations.
` JUDGE BAER: So will you be splitting the
`cases, one doing one case and the other doing the
`other; is that correct?
` MR. RENNER: He and I will both be
`splitting the case in the first instance, the 251
`proceeding; and the second proceeding, it will
`likely be Mr. Monaldo only.
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. Great.
` And who do we have for Patent
`Owner, Uniloc?
` MR. MANGRUM: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`This is Brett Mangrum, counsel for Patent Owner.
`I will be speaking in both cases, and I believe I
`am the only person on the line for Patent Owner
`today.
` JUDGE BAER: Great. Thank you,
`Mr. Mangrum. Welcome to you all. It's good to
`have you here. We certainly appreciate everybody
`making the effort to be here and to accommodate
`these sort of unusual circumstances and doing this
`video conference. We appreciate everybody being
`flexible with that.
` So we set forth the procedure in our trial
`order, but just a quick reminder: The parties
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`will have 45 minutes of total time to present
`their argument in each proceeding. So 45 minutes
`total time for the 251 case, and 45 minutes of
`total time for the 510 case. We do have the full
`record and the slides that you-all sent to us, and
`we will be following along.
` It will be helpful, just to keep things
`clear, if you would, please, to reference where
`you are, reference the exhibit and the page
`number, or reference the slide number. That will
`also help keep our transcript clear.
` Two things that will help, since we're
`doing this via video, the first is, if you're not
`speaking, if you would please mute your line,
`which I think everybody is already doing. Also if
`it's been a while since you've been speaking, if
`you would identify yourself so we make sure our
`court reporter knows who is speaking. I think
`that's about it. Let's make sure we're ready to
`go.
` Does counsel for Petitioner Apple have any
`questions?
` MR. RENNER: No, Your Honor. We'll just
`mention we're planning to reserve 15 minutes of
`the time for our redirect, though.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` JUDGE BAER: Understood. We'll get that.
` And, Mr. Mangrum, any questions on behalf
`of the patent owner?
` MR. MANGRUM: No. Just a comment. I
`might be testing the limits of my headset. At
`some point, I might need to switch to the audio of
`my phone, and I've used that before, but it just
`doesn't come in as clear. But we'll see how far I
`can get.
` JUDGE BAER: Understood. We can hear you
`clearly at this point. I don't know how well you
`hear us, but we hear you well. So all right, with
`that, we're ready to begin.
` Petitioner, you'll go first; and, again,
`we'll start with the 251 case. And you said you
`wanted to reserve 15 minutes, correct?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE BAER: And do you want any sort of
`warning, time warning?
` MR. RENNER: No, I think we're fine.
`Thank you for that, though.
` JUDGE BAER: Great. We'll put 30 minutes
`on the clock, and you may begin when you're ready.
` MR. RENNER: All right. As I mentioned,
`Karl Renner for the petitioner. This afternoon
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`I'll address a few legal issues before asking my
`colleague, Jeremy Monaldo, to speak to a
`substantive claim construction issue and prior art
`sufficiency. Specifically, I plan to speak to
`three legal issues, the first of which relates
`to Uniloc's challenge with regard to Petitioner's
`demonstrated public availability of the applied
`references. The first is the IrOBEX reference,
`the Exhibit 1006 reference, and that was applied
`in Ground 3. It was applied alone, just the
`obviousness of Claims 11 and 12.
` The second piece of this is the public
`availability issue that relates to the Bluetooth
`BT Core document that's Exhibit 1014, and that was
`applied in combination, as we saw, with Larsson;
`and Ground 2 is where the BT Core showed up. And
`there -- it was put in for purposes of
`demonstrating some of the technological features
`that are in Larsson and complimenting those in
`greater detail, the purposes for which were
`authored. Those were never challenged in Larsson,
`so we're going to focus our attention here in the
`hearing, and we expect to focus on the IrOBEX
`documents and its public availability, given the
`implication. Clearly, we'll address any questions
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`we have otherwise, but that was our intention.
` If we could have slide 56 in the
`presentation materials that were put forward,
`there you can find the first slide that deals with
`the public accessibility issue, and with respect
`to each reference in question, here we inventory
`the significant amount of evidence that was
`brought to bear in the public accessibility.
`Here, in slide 56, it shows that evidence was
`brought to bear with regard to the IrOBEX document
`and, as mentioned, there were the challenges with
`regard to BT Core. Those are set forth and
`inventoried in slide 64.
` So here's slide 56. It shows that there
`is a variety of pieces of evidence that were set
`forward, and we're going to step through those to
`make sure we've got a firm understanding together
`of what has been put here forward.
` In slide 56, you can see, first, there are
`three declarations listed that were devoted to
`public availability and accessibility. The first
`was given with the petition. It's Exhibit 1008,
`and it's a declaration by Charles Knutson. He was
`a test and operability chair of an organization
`called "IrDA," and that's the Infrared Data
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`Association, and that was filed, again, with the
`petition, and demonstrates that he accessed the
`document in a variety of ways, and he also
`testified to the distribution of the document with
`the e-mail blast by the organization, as well as
`referencing third-party documents that timely
`reference this document, the documents that,
`themselves, were prior art and would demonstrate
`through their reference that this was a timely and
`publicly accessible document.
` There were questions raised from the
`language that was put forth in his declaration,
`and so two pages of his supplemental declaration
`filed with the Petitioner's reply, Mr. Knutson
`actually put forward clarifications on his
`statements, just to make very clear in the record
`what he had testified to.
` And we'll get into that in a little more
`detail, but that is the second declaration that's
`listed, the Apple 1035 document, and it's a very
`short submission there that relates to this. But
`he's clarifying -- I'll mention he's clarifying
`when he said he referenced a document, the
`document after March 18, '99, it's in conjunction
`with the statement where he made clear that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`document was the prior art.
` So he clarifies in his supplemental
`declaration that what he was saying there is,
`before June 1st -- after March 18th, before
`June 1st, he had specifically accessed the
`document in question, the IrOBEX document, giving
`forth the other part of this declaration.
` The third declaration we put in is also
`submitted with the petitioner's reply because,
`again, there were questions raised as to the
`accessibility under Hulu. We have the ability to
`confront those with evidenced argument. This was
`Lawrence Faulkner, he's an executive director of
`that same organization, IrDA, and he was
`personally involved in the release of the IrOBEX
`document. He also noted that he was familiar with
`the procedures of that organization, as was
`Mr. Knutson, and could also speak to the
`distribution by the e-mail blast, as well as other
`forms of availability that existed.
` Speaking of which, in the same document,
`the same slide, you can see the evidence was
`provided to corroborate each witness. There's
`third-party citation here to a variety of
`different third-party documents, including patents
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`that reference the documents in question, the
`IrOBEX in particular here, and publications as
`well.
` If we could turn to slide 58, we thought
`we would show a few clips here from the IrDA
`website that were spoken to in the original
`declaration that Knutson put forward. He
`demonstrates the publication no later than
`October 11, '99, that's referenced on the website,
`that he remembers and he testified to that
`personal recollection of his website, and the
`distribution e-mail reflectors is also
`demonstrated here.
` And, finally, a reference to IrOBEX 1.2,
`and when you look into the documentation, you'll
`see that is the document we're talking about with
`Exhibit 1006.
` JUDGE BAER: Mr. Renner, you said this is
`information that came in in the reply, and just to
`be clear, this is information that -- the evidence
`itself was evidence that you submitted in your
`motion for supplemental information, right, under
`37 CFR 42.123(a). It's just that you referenced it
`in your reply, correct?
` MR. RENNER: Not quite. Let me step
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`through that a little more clearly. My apologies
`for not being more clear in the first instance.
` Mr. Knutson put forward a very complete
`declaration in the petition itself, with the
`petition itself, alongside it. He put two
`declarations forth, the second of which is the one
`that spoke to the public accessibility to the
`documents, and it's quite comprehensive.
` The only thing that he complimented that,
`within the reply, was just two more pages of
`another declaration put forward that addressed
`technical features. So what we have is, his
`testimony stands as it was originally put forward
`with the petition itself, and he clarifies just a
`couple of things. And the clarification made was
`in his original writing. He'd mentioned that he
`referenced or had accessed the document after
`March 18, 1999, and we saw Uniloc take issue with
`that. They said, Well, we don't know when after.
`It could have been 10 years after. You know,
`"after" isn't good enough.
` He had intended that statement to be
`combined with an earlier paragraph, one paragraph
`earlier, where he said, This document is timely
`and accessible in the public domain in a timely
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`fashion. So in his supplemental declaration, he
`clarified that his access that he's speaking to
`wasn't only after March 18th, it was before
`July 11th, 2000. So the supplemental declaration
`on this point is quite narrow.
` As to the supplemental information that
`you reference, and you're correct, there's a
`motion for that pending, that goes to the
`Bluetooth core. And there's, in the Bluetooth
`core -- and I don't want to get too deep into that
`necessarily -- but in the Bluetooth core, there
`were web pages again that were believed to be
`accessible and were put forward with the petition
`and declaration evidence, and it ends up they
`disappeared in the interim. So we wanted to make
`sure the record is complete, and in the spirit of
`getting it to be complete, we put forward
`additional information. We noted that and we put
`it in the supplemental information, and then we
`went ahead and cited it as exhibits to our reply.
`So that relates to the Bluetooth core, primarily.
` JUDGE BAER: So again, the IrOBEX
`information was not -- and in particular those
`references that cite -- the references that
`predate the critical date, that cite IrOBEX, were
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`not submitted with the motion for additional
`evidence, they were just submitted with the reply;
`is that correct?
` MR. RENNER: That is right, Your Honor.
`There are patents and other documents that
`references our original declaration that came in
`in a third party. Correct.
` JUDGE BAER: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RENNER: Sure.
` If we move to slide 59, we'll note that
`the IrDA, as the website goes, and part of his
`evidence was his familiarity, of course, as an
`officer in the organ- -- or chair in the
`organization, that he interfaced with the
`documents that the organization handled, including
`the IrOBEX 1.2 spec. And here you can see they
`took the web page from the IrDA at the time, and
`shows the 150-member consortium he speaks to. It
`shows he was, indeed, a chair, it shows that
`Faulkner -- from whom we put in a second
`declaration, a new declaration with the reply --
`was the executive director, and it shows a third
`interface, which we think is quite important
`because it was able to be used, according to them,
`to easily access documents like this one.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` So it is there to demonstrate that this is
`a -- the organization is public. It's widely
`known, it's -- these documents are available to
`the public, and there's even search interfaces, so
`they're not hidden in a way, we've seen some of
`the cases give concern to documents in the past.
` Slide 60 is where you'll encounter two of
`the third-party documents that you mentioned, two
`patents here, one from October 22nd, 1999, and the
`other May 10, 2000, each referencing the IrOBEX
`document as well. So there are patents here that
`are shown by 60.
` Slide 61 shows three more patents, and
`they were referenced in the sur-reply, and these
`ones show reference to the IrDA website, from with
`the IrOBEX document could be searched for and
`found and otherwise was posted. Again, just
`trying to be complete here in giving you a full
`picture.
` Slide 62, we've got yet another
`third-party document. Not a patent at this time,
`but it was a paper. We thought this was
`interesting because not only is it February 2000,
`and therefore timely in its reference to the
`document, but also it explains that the IrOBEX
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`protocol was used in third generation smartphones.
`This was prolific technology. This was not
`technology that was in the back shelf somewhere in
`a hidden library or something. It's not obscure
`at all. It's something that's well-known to the
`parties, and you can see that through the
`third-party reference here.
` Slide 63, we see the BT Core references
`this document. So just, you know, this is over
`and over again we're going through, but I just
`want to give you a flavor for what the record
`shows us here. And on the other side, you know,
`there's a balancing act, of course, to be done.
`There's been no evidence submitted by Uniloc that
`suggests that there is a lack of public
`accessibility.
` There's been no depositions with any of
`the parties that offered testimony here to call
`into question the veracity of what they said;
`rather, there's corroboration of the documentation
`that corroborates the affidavits.
` JUDGE BAER: Mr. Renner, you're free,
`obviously, to spend your time how you like. I
`don't understand Patent Owner to be contesting
`that the information -- with the later added
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`information that you've got enough there. What I
`understand Patent Owner to be saying, particularly
`in their sur-reply, they're saying that's
`too late, and that information, in particular with
`IrOBEX, shouldn't be considered. So maybe you
`could address why we should allow that additional
`evidence, because I think that's, maybe, the
`fundamental disagreement here.
` MR. RENNER: I agree, that's part of it.
` I think that, frankly, even without -- I
`want to be very clear, even without the
`supplement, there's a variety of pieces of
`information that were put forward in the petition,
`with the petition, that we believe are sufficient
`to show public accessibility. So I want to be
`clear on that.
` They're focused on one specific statement,
`one of those proofs, and that was the statement
`that Knutson made that he had accessed that
`document after May 18th. But he also testified,
`keep in mind, to the notion of e-mail blasts that
`went out to public members, the public nature of
`the organization itself that he shared to, the
`third-party documents referenced, none of those
`are at issue when we talk about what came in with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`the supplemental -- or the information in the
`reply. So again, in being complete as to the
`statement, that was them accessing after
`March 18th, there we did offer testimony and we
`believe that testimony to be perfectly aligned
`with the Hulu case, which was cited by the patent
`owner, actually.
` In Hulu, what we had was the copyright
`that was offered, and it was in context and
`further information came into the record, and the
`question was whether or not that further
`information was untimely.
` In Hulu they -- there was a clear
`articulation that we have to be very careful with
`the evidence we allow in after the petition's
`filing, for a variety of reasons, but, at the same
`time, Hulu tells us there are instances where it's
`perfectly acceptable, and, in fact, very
`appropriate to put in evidence at that stage of
`the proceeding. One of those instances, the
`second enumerated one in slide 69 of our deck,
`should have information on them. It's just a
`quote from Hulu, but the second articulated factor
`speaks to replying to arguments that were put
`forward in the patent owner reply.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` And that's exactly what we have here. For
`the first time we have an argument comes up in the
`patent owner reply, and as soon as that argument
`is surfaced and that language is called into
`question, a very, very specific offering of
`evidence is given in reply. And we believe that
`to be perfectly congruent with Hulu, and not some
`sort of a, you know, improper evidence reach out.
` So any questions on that? Because I can
`certainly talk more about it; otherwise, I would
`move to the second issue that I was planning to
`address in terms of the future, and it relates to
`slide 43.
` When we move to slide 43, we see that we
`switch from the patent owner's sur-reply, and
`we've noted in the March 3rd e-mail to Your Honors
`that we believe that these contain improper
`evidence at this stage. The rules that were put
`forth in the [indistinguishable] trial practice
`guidelines in 2019, page 73, tells us that a
`sur-reply, and I quote, "Sur-reply may not be
`accompanied by new evidence other than the
`deposition transcript and the cross-examination of
`any reply witness." And these were neither of
`those two things, and yet they are, for the first
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`time referenced, quoted as if they were evidence.
`Either -- they're not evidence and argument, but
`they're quoted as if they are evidence, and we
`believe it to be improper.
` Your Honors are in full command of this
`issue, you wrote that, in paper 16, you did give
`it consideration, so we don't want to belabor this
`point at all. But you did ask whether -- or you
`offered for the parties to talk about it, and I
`would offer just one thing, and that is that, the
`rule being an unambiguous one, and that this
`being, a really clear violation of that rule, we
`do think it would send the wrong message to the
`community to allow that evidence.
` And we're not asking for a total striking
`of the entire sur-reply, I think that would be
`overdone, frankly; but we want to make the rule
`have its effect. And the rule's effect would be
`that you can't offer evidence at that time. But
`again, I don't want to belabor the point, but I
`want to make sure it was understood, you know,
`where we were coming from in the e-mail.
` The last and third point as to questions
`on that relates to slide 11, and this is just
`where I've prepared to ask Jeremy to come on and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`talk about the plain construction themselves and
`prior art. I wanted to make the point and just
`remind us, because so many of our cases are under
`the plain construction standard, and this was not
`one of them.
` This case is governed by BRI, so one of
`the old guard, if you will. And that matters
`here. It matters -- I think either way you would
`get to where we're going to be, but certainly,
`under BRI, what we'll see is that the record has
`Patent Owner taking position A prior to
`institution, and then after institution, not only
`changing that position, but actually augmenting
`the claims with superfluous language that's not
`apparent and not in the claims themselves. And we
`think under BRI that's really quite clearly
`outside the scope of the claim.
` So I just want to make sure we understood
`the framework here being a BRI framework, and with
`that, I would have some questions and turn it over
`to my colleague. But are there any questions
`about the public accessibility or the other points
`that I addressed?
` JUDGE BAER: Not at this point.
` Any from my colleagues?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` (No response.)
` JUDGE BAER: Great. I think we're ready
`to move on.
` MR. RENNER: Thanks so much.
` Jeremy?
` MR. MONALDO: Thank you, Karl.
` Thank you, Your Honors, for taking the
`time today. So I'm going to start our
`presentation on side 11. As Karl mentioned, claim
`construction is a major issue in this proceeding,
`and there are three terms that are up for
`construction: The term, "additional data field";
`the term, "broadcasting"; and the term, "inquiry
`message."
` As Karl mentioned, and as we'll discuss,
`the claim construction standard is actually very
`important in this case as it is useful to consider
`whether constructions that have been previously
`advanced by the patent owner and previously
`adopted by the PTAB, whether those constructions
`are actually reasonable and encompassed within the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms.
` So moving to the first term, "additional
`data field," I'll transition through slide 12, and
`moving to slide 13. On slide 13 you can see the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`construction of "additional data field" that have
`been offered in this proceeding. First, in the
`preliminary response for institution, Uniloc asked
`for construction of, quote, "an extra data field
`appended to an inquiry message."
` This construction was not adopted in the
`institution decision as the term "additional data
`field" was found to already require the
`clarifications offered in the preliminary
`response.
` Now, because that construction was not
`adopted and not found to distinguish the prior
`art, Uniloc can change course in the Patent Owner
`response and now requests that a location
`requirement "to the end" be added and read into
`the term "additional data field."
` There's simply no basis under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard to rewrite the
`claim in this fashion. The claim language does
`not use the words, "to the end of," and Uniloc's
`first construction made on record does not use
`those words either. Because Uniloc has not shown
`that its first construction was unreasonable, the
`inquiry should end and Uniloc's first construction
`should be deemed part of and encompassed in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term,
`"additional data field." And the record confirmed
`that addition of the location requirement, "to the
`end," would simply be improper.
` Slide 15 of our demonstratives shows you
`the disclosure from the '049 patent. This
`disclosure confirms that addition at the end of an
`inquiry message is just an example. Nothing
`mandates that the additional data field come at
`the end of the inquiry message. There's no
`explicit disclaimer, no claim disavowal in the 049
`patent.
` Slide 16 shows you dictionary evidence,
`and Uniloc's own infringement contentions, neither
`which limit the term "additional data field" to
`the end on the inquiry message.
` And slide 17 shows you a claim
`differentiation argument that we put forward in
`the petitioner reply. You see here, claim 3
`clearly adds the very feature that Uniloc is
`contesting to import into the term "additional
`data field." If that were done, claim 3 would be
`rendered redundant and superfluous, and the law
`tells us that's just not proper.
` So for these reasons, there's simply no
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
`basis under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard to limit the term, "additional data
`field," to require a location requirement for
`where that message or data field is added, meaning
`[indistinguishable].
` So unless there's any questions on
`additional data fields, I'd like to transition to
`broadcasting.
` JUDGE BAER: Just one question for you,
`Mr. Monaldo. The piggybacking issue, is it your
`contention that piggybacking does -- okay, so what
`I don't -- let me start over.
` What I don't hear you saying, and I'm a
`little bit surprised I don't hear you saying, is
`their patent says "piggybacking," our prior art
`says "piggybacking." Whatever it is, if it's at
`the end, fine, we don't care. Whatever it is, if
`it's at the end, their piggybacking has to be at
`the end, and our prior art says piggybacking, so
`it's got to be at the end.
` So is it your contention that piggybacking
`does not mean appended to the end, or is it your
`contention that, fine, piggybacking can mean
`appended to the end, but our prior art shows
`piggybacking as well.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` Is my question clear?
` MR. MONALDO: Yes, Your Honor. It is very
`clear, and you actually jumped ahead to my
`presentation for me. That's a point we certainly
`agree with, and we certainly -- or fully intend to
`argue that the prior art and the patent uses the
`same term. They use the same thing. And we have
`the same disclosure.
` And you can see that from slide 41 of our
`demonstrative, you can see in the lower right
`corner, the '049, "possible to piggyback the
`broadcast channel." There's the same word,
`"piggyback the broadcast message" is used in
`Larsson.
` There's really no issue here as the claim
`construction. And we certainly agree that that
`disclosure would meet the term, even
`under Uniloc's construction. We don't think the
`construction is proper, one; and two, we still
`think it's met because our art discloses in the
`same way as the patent, as you mentioned,
`"piggybacking." So we 100 percent agree, and it's
`our intent to make that arrangement.
` Is that clear?
` JUDGE BAER: It is. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`Case IRP2019-00251
`Patent 6,933,049 B2
`
` MR. MONALDO: All right. Great.
` So turning back to broadcasting, which is
`slide 20 in our demonstrative, you can see on
`slide 20 is the constructions for broadcasting
`that have been offered. Again, pre-institution,
`Uniloc asked for construction, one message that is
`distributed to all stations, and this construction
`was adopted in an institution decision.
` And what happened was that that first
`construction was deemed too broad to distinguish
`the prior art, Uniloc has changed course again and
`offered a different construction o
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
