Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: May 21, 2020
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES (ONLINE):
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`James Heintz, Esquire
`Brian Erickson, Esquire
`Jeff Cole, Esquire
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`
`Marc Breverman, Esquire
`Apple, Inc.
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`Brett Mangrum, Esquire
`Etheridge Law Group
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May 21,
`2020, commencing at 3:00 p.m., by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`
`
`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
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes. On the record, please. Good afternoon.
`This is the hearing for IPR2019-00702 involving U.S. Patent No. 7,969,925.
`At this time, we'd like the parties to please introduce counsel for the record
`beginning with the Petitioner.
`MR. HEINTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Jim Heintz from
`DLA Piper on behalf of Petitioner Apple. With me is Brian Erickson, and
`by telephone Marc Breverman and Jeff Cole. Marc Breverman is from
`Apple. Jeff Cole is from DLA Piper.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And Mr. Heintz, will you be presenting
`today?
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor, I will.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. All right. And for Patent
`Owner?
`MR. MANGRUM: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Brett
`Mangrum with the Etheridge Law Group representing the Uniloc Patent
`Owner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MANGRUM: And I will be speaking on behalf of Patent Owner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Each party will have 45
`minutes total time to present arguments. Petitioner will proceed first and
`may reserve some of its argument time to respond to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner. Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's
`presentation and may reserve argument time for surrebuttal. Mr. Heintz, you
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`may proceed. Do you wish to reserve some of your time to respond?
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to reserve 20 minutes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And please keep abreast of your own time.
`I might not stop you.
`MR. HEINTZ: I will do that, Your Honor. Thank you.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. HEINTZ: Your Honor, may it please the Board, I'd like to start
`my discussion today by reviewing a few background facts about the '925
`Patent at issue in this IPR. And then I'll discuss claim construction which
`largely will resolve the issues raised by Patent Owner. And I'll finish up by
`discussing a few issues raised by Patent Owner with respect to Ground 1.
`So if the Board would, please turn to Slide 3 of Petitioner's
`demonstrative. On Slide 3, we've reproduced Figure 1 of the '925 Patent.
`And the point I want to make to the Board here is that there are two mobile
`phones, that's 105 and 110, and those are colored in yellow. And those
`phones can communicate with other devices using two paths. The first path
`to the voice communication Path F-170, and that's highlighted in green on
`the left-hand side of the figure. And that path is used by using the other
`device's telephone number. Of course, we're talking about things like voice
`communications and SMS communications. The second path is through the
`IP network 165 that's shown in blue on the slide. Mobile phones 105 and
`110 can communicate with other devices on the internet via the second path,
`and they can also communicate with each other if they know each other's IP
`address. And the '925 Patent discusses a technique for allowing that to
`happen.
`Now, on Slide 4, Your Honor, we show that the '925 Patent is directed
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`toward peer-to-peer mobile data transfers. Peer-to-peer means the devices
`are able to communicate with each other. And there are two aspects about
`this technique that's disclosed in the '925 that I want to highlight for the
`Board. In the first highlighted passage, the peer-to-peer technique means the
`data can be exchanged directly between the phones, that's 105 and 110, via
`the internet path without the need for an intermediate server to store any
`data. And then the second aspect I want to highlight for the Board's
`attention is addressed in the second passage on Slide 4. And in that passage,
`the point that's being made is this technique that the '925 discloses does not
`require the mobile devices to know each other's IP addresses prior to a
`method performed according to those IP's being started. And that's
`important because unlike a phone number, the mobile devices often don't
`know each other's IP addresses on the IP network.
`Now, I'd like to move to Slide 5, Your Honor. And I'll briefly review
`how the '925 Patent discloses its method being performed. This is Figure 2
`of the '925 Patent. And we're going to focus like we did on the earlier -- in
`the earlier proceeding on the steps that are being performed by the initiating
`mobile device. This is the device that wants to start a data transfer section.
`It's what's called a target mobile device.
`So on Figure 2, the first step, which is 210 and which we've annotated
`as Step 1.a, the initiating mobile device opens a TCP port. And that's -- and
`in particular, it opens a listening port. And that limitation that we'll see in a
`few minutes in the claim that is directed toward this step is really the subject
`of almost the entire dispute between the parties. After the TCP port is
`opened, listening TCP port, in Steps 1.b, or 210 in the original figure, the
`device -- the initiating mobile device transmits an SMS invitation message to
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`the target mobile device. Again, this method is transmitted using target
`mobile device's phone number. And included in this invitation message is
`the initiating device's IP address. And that's, again, Your Honor, of course
`because these mobile devices don't have each other's IP addresses.
`Now, the third step for the method is at 1.c, or Step 270. Here, the
`target device receives -- the target device has sent and the initiating device
`received a TCP IP response to this invitation. This response is sent by the
`target device over using a TCP IP connection because now, through the SMS
`invitation message, the target device knows the initiating device's IP address.
`And because IP messages always come with both source and destination
`addresses, it's also the case that the initiating mobile device knows the target
`device's IP address. So at this point at Step 1.c, the devices, the target
`device and the initiating device, have now exchanged IP addresses. And that
`enables the last step, Step 1.b, or Step 280, to be performed. And there, a
`TCP IP connection is opened in the conventional way between the two
`mobile phones.
`I'd ask the Board to turn to Slide 6 now. Here on Slide 6, we've
`reproduced Claim 1 of the '925 Patent. And the point I want to draw the
`Board's attention to here is that the only dispute on Claim 1 raised by Patent
`Owner concerns the highlighted language that raised opening a listening
`software port. There are two other independent claims in the '925 Patent,
`Claims 8 and 15, and this same issue is raised for both of those claims.
`Other words, the issues are identical for Claims 1, 8 and 15.
`I'll ask the Board to turn now to Slide 7. And here, I reproduced
`Claim 2 of the '925 Patent. This comes from Claim 1. And the highlighted
`limitation, opening a second listening software port, is once again the only
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`limitation in Claim 2 that's disputed by Patent Owner. Claim 2 has
`corresponding dependent claims in Claims 9 and 16. And the same issues
`are raised with respect to those claims. The other point I want to make is of
`all the dependent claims in the '925 Patent, Patent Owner only raises
`separate issues with respect to Claims 2, 9, and 16.
`The other point I want to note at the outset is other than these two
`claim construction issues for Claims 1 and 2, the Patent Owner raises no
`other arguments with respect to Grounds 5 and 6. And, therefore, if these
`claim construction disputes are resolved in favor of Petitioner Apple, Patent
`Owner has put forth no argument as to why Claims 5 and 6 don't render all
`challenge claims unpatentable. All right. I'm going to ask the Board to go
`to Slide --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question.
`MR. HEINTZ: -- 9 now.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask you a question? You said that Patent
`Owner disputes some of the dependent claims. I'm looking at page 21 of
`their -- of their Patent Owner response. Doesn't seem to me that they're
`individually addressing any dependent claims. Where is it that they argue?
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. It's the discussion of Claim 2, and I
`think that's at page -- one moment here. It's on page 10 of the Patent Owner
`response, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is that -- isn't that with respect to claim
`construction?
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes. That's my point. The only argument that pertains
`to any dependent claim is the claim construction argument about what
`second means and whether second implies some kind of order in Claim 2
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`and the other two claims that are like Claim 2 (indiscernible).
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So why would we need to construe the order,
`what the scope of the claims, the order of the steps? In other words --
`MR. HEINTZ: So --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- is that in dispute? We don't generally construe
`things that aren't in dispute.
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. So the petition states that there is
`no implied order between the steps of Claim 1 and the steps of Claim 2.
`And, in particular, the fact that Claim 2 recites opening a second listening
`software port doesn't mean that the second listening software port can only
`be opened after the first listening software port is opened. So that is the
`theory in the petition. Patent Owner says that the petition fails with respect
`to Claim 2 because there is, in fact, an order. And so for that reason, I think
`there is a dispute that needs the Board's resolution.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. But they didn't raise it with respect to the
`grounds. It's just sort of nested into this argument regarding claim
`construction.
`MR. HEINTZ: Yeah. I do believe that's correct, Your Honor. You're
`
`right.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you for clarifying that.
`MR. HEINTZ: Certainly, Your Honor. All right. I'd like to go to
`Slide 9 now. So, here, I'll address the first listening port limitation.
`Petitioner's construction is associating a port identifier with a process.
`Before I get into explaining why that construction is correct, I should point
`out to the Board that although Patent Owner takes issue with the associating
`part of that construction, Patent Owner never explains why construing the
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`term to be associating a port identifier with a process leads to any mistake,
`leads to any problem. In other words, Patent Owner disagrees with the
`construction but doesn't explain why adopting that construction or not
`adopting that construction would lead to the theories in the petition failing
`and not demonstrating unpatentability. So although the Petitioner's
`construction is correct, as I'll demonstrate, the only point that really needs
`resolution in this proceeding is whether Patent Owner's construction that
`requires a listening port to be opened for a specific target mobile device is
`correct. And we'll also show that it is not.
`So I'd like to turn to Slide 10. Here, Your Honor, we just demonstrate
`that when we replaced the words of the claim with Petitioner's construction,
`the construction is linguistically correct, and it makes sense in the context of
`the surrounding claim language. And on Slide 11, I also note, again, that
`Petitioner's construction is supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Houh.
`That's in sharp contrast to all of Patent Owner's unsupported attorney
`argument that they rely on and rely on solely for their construction.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question about --
`MR. HEINTZ: And I'll --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I just point out on that paragraph 51?
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: It seems like that there have been -- what you
`have highlighted there at the very last is also part of the meaning of that. In
`other words, in order to -- if you open a listening port, you need to open a
`listening port to enable a device to receive messages at that port.
`MR. HEINTZ: Yeah. And to be perfectly precise here, Your Honor,
`it's not so much that it enables the device to receive messages at that port,
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`and in particular, it's the device can receive the messages and then route
`them to the particular process that the port is associated with. So as
`discussed in the previous proceeding, there are many possible ports that
`could be used by a process for communicating. The real question is, and
`we're talking about a software port now, how is that used? Well, the device
`can receive a message from another device. But the question is how does
`the operating system on that device know which process to send the data
`from the message to? And it knows this because when you open a port, you
`just create an association. Port 369 is this particular process we're talking
`about for allowing this peer-to-peer communication.
`So you can see in Dr. Houh's testimony here that this is all about --
`these ports are all about routing. It's almost like a channel number in a
`multi-plex if we were talking about a hardware device. But, again, this is all
`software. So it's a simple association.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. HEINTZ: Does that answer your question, Your Honor?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, sir. Thank you.
`MR. HEINTZ: I'll turn now to Slide 12, Your Honor. And we can see
`that not only is Dr. Houh's testimony in accord with Petitioner's
`construction, so, too, is the documentary evidence. And, here, we show part
`of RFC 793 which is the specification for TCP. And you can see that what's
`going on here is a port serves the function of specifying which logical input,
`again, it's a logical input if they're talking about a software port, is associated
`with a particular process on the device. And that's all this port number is.
`It's just simply an identifier. And the identifier is used so when the
`incoming communication is received at a device, the device knows which
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`process that's running on that device gets that communication.
`Your Honor, I'll also point out that when Patent Owner gives its
`presentation, on Slide 6, you will see that it looks to the identical language
`about associating processes with port numbers that they quote. And, again,
`that's on their Slide 6. So I'll ask the Board to pay particular attention when
`that slide as shown up.
`So I'm going to ask, now, the Board to turn to Slide 16. So, again, as I
`mentioned earlier, while Petitioner believes that its construction is fully
`correct, the Board doesn't actually need to decide that in order to resolve this
`dispute. What the Board needs to decide is whether or not Patent Owner's
`construction that requires some sort of specificity in the way that this port is
`opened is correct.
`So on Slide 16, we show another instance, and this is from our reply,
`too, where we attempted to specify what Patent Owner's construction is.
`Just like Alicate (phonetic) in the previous proceeding, here, the Patent
`Owner never really specified what exactly the correct construction of Claim
`1 is supposed to be. And so we're stuck making a guess. We think it's
`something like what's on Slide 16. It may also be what's on Slide 9. But the
`particular point that's relevant here is that one way or another, what Patent
`Owner's construction is doing is reading words from the specification into
`the claim rather than actually construing the claim itself. When the Board
`looks at the language of the claim and then looks into the spirit of Patent
`Owner's construction, there's no word in the claim that Patent Owner
`contends means for a specific target mobile device. This is just a wholesale
`importation of the limitation that Patent Owner believes, incorrectly, I might
`add, is in the specification. And so because it's not a construction, in other
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`words, an interpretation of a word that's actually in the claim, it's wrong for
`at least that reason. I'd ask the Board now to turn to Slide 17. And here,
`again, I'm just making the point on the slide --
`JUDGE SMITH: Can I ask you -- can I ask you a question before we
`go to Slide 17? Can I ask you a question --
`MR. HEINTZ: Yes.
`JUDGE SMITH: -- about Slide 16? So when you say it's being
`imported from the specification, does the specification disclose any kind of
`technical difference between a port that's opened to receive messages
`generally and a port that is opened that will only receive messages from a
`specific target device? Is that technology disclosed in this -- well, when you
`say it's imported, is that disclosed in the specification?
`MR. HEINTZ: It is not, Your Honor. What the specification discloses
`is that the port is open to receive messages from a target mobile device. It
`says nothing in particular about how the port is opened. And, in fact, what
`we believe is the case is that when the specification says the port is open to
`receive messages from a target mobile device, all that means is the purpose
`that the port is being opened, not the manner in which it's being opened.
`So you can imagine, Your Honor, if you were to say, I'm going to turn
`on my cell phone because I want to receive -- I'm expecting to receive a call
`from my daughter, let's say. That doesn't mean that I have done something
`to my phone that restricts calls to only from my daughter. All that's saying
`is the reason I'm opening my phone up, I'm turning my phone on, is so I can
`receive a call. There is no description in the patent specification of exactly
`how one of these software ports is opened. And so it's been clear to us that
`they're relying on what's known in the industry such as RFC 793, which is
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`the specification for the TCP port. So just to be clear, the answer to your
`question is there are no technical details in the specification about just how
`this listening port is actually open.
`JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
`MR. HEINTZ: Certainly, Your Honor. On Slides 17 and 18, we just
`make the point, again, that all of the arguments you see in Patent Owner's
`briefing is attorney argument. There is no support from any expert. And
`this is despite the warning in your institution decision at page 18 that
`attorney argument cannot take the place of records and evidence. Here, the
`Patent Owner has decided to ignore that and continue on its path of
`supporting its argument -- supporting its position with simple attorney
`argument.
`I'll ask the Board to turn now to Slide 19. So another interesting issue
`that's arisen is it appears, and, again, I have to say appears because Patent
`Owner is not being specific in its briefing, that their position has shifted on
`exactly what their construction is, what exactly it needs to open a port for a
`specific target mobile device. So on Slide 19, I show a portion of Patent
`Owner's response at 7. And, here, they seem to be saying that the support --
`that the support has got to be opened in a way that only messages from the
`target mobile device and no other device are going to be received via that
`port and sent to the process.
`And, again, as the Board may recall in our petition, our theory is that
`when a person of ordinary skill in the art sees that limitation opening
`listening software ports, that person of ordinary skill would understand that
`that's going to be accomplished by making an open call to the TCP process.
`And that open call is going to have an unspecified foreign socket. The
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`foreign socket here means the combination of the target mobile device's IP
`address and the port number of the port that's on the target mobile device.
`What we said is an unspecified foreign socket, which means a foreign socket
`with all zeros for the IP address and the port means that the listening port, a
`passively opened port, is going to accept communications or messages from
`any foreign device and forward those messages onto the process on the local
`device, on the initiating device, with which that port is associated. So it's
`going to be up to the process on the initiating device to decide what to do
`with those messages.
`And so on 19, it appears that Patent Owner is taking issue with that
`argument or that theory in the petition. And we can see this even more
`clearly on Slide 20. Here, again, this is in Patent Owner's response at 12,
`they are making reference to the position in the petition that we would --
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is that we're going to
`have a passively opened TCP port, passively opened means it's open in the
`listening state, with an unspecified foreign host. Again, all zeros for the
`foreign socket. That's the foreign socket IP address. Sorry, the foreign
`device's IP address and the foreign device's port number.
`Now, on Slide 21, in our reply we respond to that argument as
`follows. First, Dr. Houh explained that if you're going to open a port using
`TCP and that port is going to be restricted to a particular foreign device, then
`you have to specify the foreign socket. You have to specify what the foreign
`IP address is going to be and the port for that process that's running on that
`foreign device being that's the target mobile device. There is simply no
`other way to do it. And that's, again, uncontroverted testimony from Dr.
`Houh as you see on Slide 21.
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`Now, on Slide 22, Dr. Houh then explained that in the '925 Patent, we
`are talking about a situation where the initiating mobile device does not
`know the target device's IP address. And when the Board thinks about it for
`a moment, that makes perfect sense. This is the very reason why the
`claimed method in the '925 Patent, the techniques, start by sending an SMS
`message because the initiating mobile device knows the target mobile
`device's telephone number, but it doesn’t know the IP address.
`Now, Your Honors, with respect to the Slide 23, Dr. Houh then
`explained that because the initiating mobile device doesn't know the target
`mobile device's IP address, it is impossible, simply not possible, for the
`initiating mobile device to open a port that's specific to the target mobile
`device. And, again, that's simply because in order to do that, the initiating
`device would have to know the target device's IP address. And that's simply
`not known when the TCP listening port is being open.
`Now, on Slide 24, after seeing that demonstration by Dr. Houh, it
`appears that Patent Owner has now shifted its position. In its surreply, what
`Patent Owner seems to indicate is that when they say that the listening port
`has got to be open for a specific target mobile device, what they really mean
`is that it's open for a specific target device because only the target device and
`no other devices know what the port number is on the initiating device,
`right? In other words, when the initiating mobile device sends its invitation
`message and tells the target mobile device its IP address and what port
`number on the initiating device to use because only one other device is
`receiving that message, then the only -- that other device knows what the
`right port number and IP address is. And so in that sense, the port has been
`opened in a way that's specific for a target mobile device.
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`But the point that should be recognized here is that's only relevant --
`the knowledge of what this port and IP address is on the initiating device is
`only relevant if the port were opened in such a way as described in the
`petition. In other words, if the port were opened in such a way, then
`communications from any device could be received, right? In other words,
`exactly as we said that in the petition, we did a passive open with an
`unspecified foreign socket. Because if that were not the case, if we had
`somehow been able to open the device that was particular to a specific target
`device, then only that target device could get through anyway. And that's
`because when a port is opened with a specified foreign socket, and messages
`that come from some other device are simply going to be ignored and not
`passed on to the application on the initiating device with the port.
`That's incredibly significant because what that means is the chief
`criticism that we saw in Patent Owner's response that the petition was all
`wrong when it says we would do a passive open for a TCP port with an
`unspecified -- I'm sorry. With an unspecified foreign host is wrong, and
`now they appear to abandon that position. That means that the theory in the
`petition now stands uncontroverted by Patent Owner.
`Now, the other possibility is -- and, again, the briefing is not clear
`here at all. But the other possibility is that in the surreply what Patent
`Owner meant to say was that they were sticking with their position that the
`listening port -- the first listening port must be opened in a way that is
`specific to the target mobile device. And in that case, that construction is
`clearly wrong because it's just not possible to do it using TCP IP under the
`condition that is specified in the '925 Patent. Now --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What's in that caption -- in that caption by their
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`next sentence following your highlighted sentence?
`MR. HEINTZ: All that says, Your Honor, is the first device opens a --
`this is talking about telnet here. They say it's a passive open call, but then
`they say, "for a specific target device." Now, it's possible to open a passive
`port with a specified foreign host. With a -- sorry. Specified foreign port.
`So I can passively open a port, and that port is dedicated to a particular
`foreign device, a particular target device. Now, again, when they say, "for a
`specific target device," do they just mean that nobody else knows about this
`port or, you know, in other words, we have a passively opened port with an
`unspecified foreign host, or do they mean, no, I've done a passive open and
`I've given a IP address and the port number for which I want to receive
`communication? It's just not clear from that passage.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. HEINTZ: Certainly, Your Honor. I'll now go to Slide 26. Now,
`we come to the second claim --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You have approximately 15 minutes, is what I
`have. Is that what you have?
`MR. HEINTZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yeah.
`MR. HEINTZ: Yeah, it is. And I'll go quickly here now. So on Slide
`26, we talk about the second claim construction issue. That's the second
`listening port. And the issue here is pretty -- Petitioner's position is that
`there is no order required by the word second. And Patent Owner says the
`opposite, that when you see the second port, you must understand that the
`second port should only be (indiscernible) the first port.
`I'll turn to Slide 27, now, Your Honor. Here, again, we have solely
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`attorney argument that supports their position. They don't make any attempt
`to support that position that second means second in time with any expert
`testimony, no citations to the specification, nothing else. And as you see on
`Slide 27, we have cited case law in the petition. That's the 3M Innovative
`Properties case. We've also cited case law in the reply. And that position,
`the primary problem with it is that position ignores the basic principle that's
`well known in patent law that first and second is basically just a convention
`under which we use those terms to differentiate between instances of an
`element. So we have a first listening port. We have a second listening port.
`And the absence of anything in the specification that says there is something
`important about the order in which those ports are open, and then the
`absence of something in the claim language other than the words first and
`second that imply some kind of order, the courts will not imply an order and
`the order should be implied.
`And given that we're short on time here, Your Honor, I'm going to go
`very quickly now. Those two claim construction issues almost entirely
`resolve this dispute. I'm going to ask the Board to go to Slide 34 now. On
`Ground 1 -- and this is not true for Grounds 5 and 6. But on Ground 1,
`Patent Owner raises three arguments. The first argument as shown on Slide
`34 is based on the incorrect construction of the opening -- the first software
`listening port limitation. So that argument fails for that reason.
`On Slide 35, there is an argument they make that there's some
`problem in the petition's theory that relies on well-known ports. The Board
`rejected that theory in its institution decision on page 18. But I'll note the
`following two things. Here on Slide 36, the first flaw on this position is the
`petition doesn't just rely on well-known ports. It also relies on ports that are
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`IPR2019-00702
`Patent 7,969,925
`not known in advance, meaning that they're not well-known ports. And you
`can see that on Slide 36 where we show citations in the petition at 29 and 32
`and 33. So even if Patent Owner were right that well-known ports wouldn't
`work, it fails because we also rely in the petition on an unfortunate amount
`of well-known.
`And then very quickly, Your Honor, on Slide 37, the other problem
`with their argument is their own appeal brief in their parent application
`contradicts it. What their appeal brief says is that on mobile devices, which
`are unlike serves, these well-known ports are not open a priori. And so in
`that case, if you're on a mobile device, which is what's at issue here in the
`Alos reference which we're relying on in Ground 1, there is no opening well-
`known port. And then that means, of course, that the port must be open.
`And once again, on Slide 37, we also rely on Dr. Houh's uncontested
`testimony that any TCP port ha