Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Sling TV L.L.C. and Vudu, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`IPR2019-01367*
`December 3, 2020
`
`* Vudu, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2020-00677, has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding
`
`1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Sling TV L.L.C. and Vudu, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`IPR2019-01367*
`December 3, 2020
`
`* Vudu, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2020-00677, has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’609 Patent
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 2-4
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 13:43-48
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), Fig. 10
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 12:67-13:9
`
`2
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`1-3
`1-3
`
`Basis for Challenge
`35 U.S.C. § 103: Jacoby in view of Bland
`35 U.S.C. § 103: Mcternan in view of Robinson
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ground 2
`
`Ground 2
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Identification of Disputes
`
`Claim Dispute
`1[f]
`Whether Mcternan discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`1[h]
`Whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the
`teachings of Mcternan and Robinson
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[f]
`
`Ground 2
`Ground 2
`Claim Element 1[f]
`
`6
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using
`the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first computer
`system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`1[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 8-9
` Patent Owner’s argument that the prior art does not disclose two distinct computer
`systems would require construing the term “distinct” to mean “not under common
`operation or control”
`
`Paper 13, POR, 33.
` Neither party has proposed construing the term “distinct” to mean “not under
`common operation or control.”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 8.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 8-9
`Paper 13, POR, 12-14
`Paper 15, Reply, 3-5 and 8-9
` Neither Party construes “computer system” to prevent two distinct computer systems
`from having a common operator or being under common control.
`
`Petitioner
`A “computer system” refers to “one or
`more computing devices having a common
`operator or under common control.”
`
`Patent Owner
`The Board need not expressly construe any
`claim term.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
` Petitioner construed “computer system” based on language in the specification
`• The specification only uses the phrase “common operator or common control” to
`describe a collection of computing devices, not to define the word “distinct”
` Patent Owner states that the language is non-limiting
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 8-9
`Paper 13, POR, 14
`Paper 15, Reply, 8-9
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 3:52-55
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
` Petitioner’s proposal does not prevent two distinct computer systems
`from having a common operator or being under common control
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 3-5 and 8-9
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Paper 7, Inst. Decision, 21-22
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 3-5 and 8-9
` Patent Owner admits its interpretation does not prevent two distinct computer
`systems from having a common operator or being under common control.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Paper 13, POR, 14
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 3-5 and 8-9
` Patent Owner admits its interpretation does not prevent two distinct computer
`systems from having a common operator or being under common control.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`13
`
`Ex. 2001 (Claim Construction Order, CD Cal), 14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
` The ’609 Patent indicates that the first and second computer systems (i.e., the two
`“distinct” computer systems in the claims) can have a common operator or control.
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 9
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 12:46-50
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
` The’609 Patent uses the term “distinct” in only three instances
` Each instance recites the claim language without further context or explanation
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 5-6
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), Abstract
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 2:10-33
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), Claim 1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`15
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “Computer System”
`
`Paper 15, Petitioner’s Reply, 5-6
` Based on the surrounding claim language, a second computer system that streams “directly to the user’s
`computer independent of the first computer system” is “distinct” from the first computer system.
` The ’609 Patent accomplishes this by using separate servers with separate functionality.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 4:57-62
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), Fig. 1
`
`Ex. 1001 (’609 Patent), 5:20-25
`
`
`
`Mcternan discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 41-45
`Paper 15, Reply, 7-8
`
` Mcternan discloses two distinct computer
`systems made up of separate servers with
`separate functionality:
`• Mcternan’s first computer system collects
`heartbeat data and serves webpages to
`client 108.
`• Mcternan’s second computer system
`provides content directly to client 108 via
`a media path 107a-c that does not include
`servers of the first computer system.
`
`Pet. at 42, annotating Ex. 1007 (Mcternan), Fig. 1
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`17
`
`
`
`Mcternan discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`
` Even if the claim term “distinct” requires the computer systems be operated or
`controlled by different entities, the combination teaches this.
`• Dr. Storer testified that Mcternan’s two computer systems are not under common control.
`• Patent Owner did not provide any rebuttal evidence, nor did it cross examine Dr. Storer.
`• Dr. Storer’s testimony stands as unrebutted and admitted
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 10
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Ex. 1002 (Storer Declaration) , para. 183
`
`18
`
`
`
`Mcternan discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 10-11
` Even if the claim term “distinct” requires the computer systems be operated or
`controlled by different entities, the combination teaches this.
`• Mcternan describes separating the server functionalities and applying encryption
`at the security servers because of the different interests of the entities involved.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Ex. 1007 (Mcternan) 18:18-21
`
`Ex. 1007 (Mcternan) 8:20-22
`
`19
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[h]
`
`Ground 2
`Ground 2
`Claim Element 1[h]
`
`20
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using
`the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first computer
`system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`1[h]
`
`21
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-16
` A POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Mcternan and
`Robinson under obviousness rationales set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`
`“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
`the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).
`
`“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
`challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`22
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 52-53, 61-62, 70-73
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-16
`
`Petitioner has provided evidence that a POSA would have been motivated
`to combine the references for at least three reasons, each of which is
`sufficient on its own:
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to apply a known technique to a
`known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`2. A POSA would have been motivated to combine prior art elements
`according to known methods to yield predictable results.
`3. A POSA would have been motivated to perform a simple substitution of
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`23
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine #1
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 52-53, 61-62, 70-73
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-16
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply a known technique to a known system
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`Element
`Known System
`Known Technique
`Improvement
`
`Predictable Results
`
`Description
`Mcternan’s system that uses heartbeats to track time spent viewing a show.
`Robinson’s known technique of using heartbeats to track time spent on a page.
`• More effective tracking of the use of content by consumers.
`•
`Improved security.
`The results are predictable because of the substantial similarities between
`Robinson’s and Mcternan’s tracking methods.
`Each provides a client with software that causes the client to regularly send
`heartbeats comprising identifiers that can be tracked.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`24
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine #1
`
` Effective Tracking
`McTernan:
`
`Robinson:
`
`Improvement:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 71-72
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-16
`
`Ex. 1007 (Mcternan), 9:10-11
`
`Ex. 1007 (Mcternan), 19:10-12
`
`Ex. 1008 (Robinson), para. 9, 18, 21
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 15
`
`25
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine #1
`
` Improved security
`McTernan:
`
`Robinson:
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 71-72
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-16
`
`Ex. 1007 (Mcternan), 9:8-9
`
`Improvement:
`
`Ex. 1008 (Robinson), para. 21
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 16
`
`26
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine #2
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 52-53, 61-62, 70-73
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-13
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine prior art elements according to known
`methods to yield predictable results.
`
`Element
`Prior art elements
`
`Known Methods
`
`Predictable Results
`
`Description
`• Mcternan’s system that uses heartbeats to track time spent viewing a show.
`• Robinson’s use of heartbeats to track time spent on a page.
`Providing the client with software for generating heartbeats, as disclosed by both
`Mcternan and Robinson.
`The results are predictable because of the substantial similarities between
`Robinson’s and Mcternan’s tracking methods.
`Each provides a client with software that causes the client to regularly send
`heartbeats comprising identifiers that can be tracked.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`27
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine #3
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 52-53, 61-62, 70-73
`Paper 15, Reply, 11-13
`A POSA would have been motivated to perform a simple substitution of one known
`element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`Element
`Known element 1
`Known element 2
`Predictable Results
`
`Description
`Mcternan’s use of heartbeats to track time spent viewing a show.
`Robinson’s use of heartbeats to track time spent on a page.
`The results are predictable because of the substantial similarities between
`Robinson’s and Mcternan’s tracking methods.
`Each provides a client with software that causes the client to regularly send
`heartbeats comprising identifiers that can be tracked.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`28
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 13-14
` Patent Owner’s analysis requires the prior art to disclose the same motivation as the
`’609 Patent, but the law has no such requirement
`
`* * *
`
`Paper 13, POR, 38-39
`“In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
`the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What
`matters is the objective reach of the claim.”
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (emphasis added).
`
`29
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`Ex. 1002, Storer Declaration, para. 237-243
`Paper 15, Reply, 16-17
`
` Petitioner has provided testimony of its expert, Dr. Storer, as
`evidence that:
`• A POSA would have been motivated to combine the references
`• A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
` Patent Owner has not introduced any evidence to counter
`Petitioner’s evidence
` Dr. Storer’s testimony stands as unrebutted and admitted
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`30
`
`
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 1
`
`31
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Identification of Disputes
`
`1[c]
`
`Claim Dispute
`1[a]
`Whether Jacoby provides a corresponding web page for each
`digital media presentation
`Whether the Jacoby-Bland combination provides a timer applet
`for “each” digital media presentation
`Whether Jacoby discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`Whether Jacoby discloses stored data indicative of an amount
`of time the digital media presentation data is streamed
`
`1[f]
`1[g]
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`32
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[a]
`
`Ground 1
`Ground 1
`Claim Element 1[a]
`
`33
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered
`using the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first computer
`system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`1[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`34
`
`
`
`Jacoby discloses providing a web page for each presentation
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 16-18
` Jacoby’s mediaframe servers 140 deliver a media player to present a particular media
`file requested by a user, this includes publishing a web page on the user’s browser
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 36
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 44
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`35
`
`
`
`Jacoby discloses providing a web page for each presentation
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 17-18
` Patent Owner’s analysis, which requires the web page to include “corresponding ads,”
`is incorrect because it imports an embodiment from the specification into the claims
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`36
`
`Paper 13, POR, 29-30
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[c]
`
`Ground 1
`Ground 1
`Claim Element 1[c]
`
`37
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using
`the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first
`computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`1[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`38
`
`
`
`The combination teaches a timer applet for each presentation
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 18-23, 64-66
`Paper 15, Reply, 18-20
` Jacoby prepares a presentation that includes delivering a media player to the user for
`each media file that the user requests to stream
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`39
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 44
`
`
`
`The combination teaches a timer applet for each presentation
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 18-23, 64-66
`Paper 15, Reply, 18-20
` Jacoby’s media player is delivered with metering software that is operative by the
`user's computer as a timer
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 49, 51, 52, 53
`
`40
`
`
`
`The combination teaches a timer applet for each presentation
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 18-23, 64-66
`Paper 15, Reply, 18-20
` A POSA would understand Jacoby’s metering software to teach an applet (an “applet”
`refers to “a software component that runs in the context of another program”)
` Alternatively, a POSA would have found it obvious to deliver Jacoby’s metering
`software using the applet disclosed by Bland
`
`Bland does not require the applet
`(extensions 131)
`to always be
`present,
`such that
`the same
`applet would be used for multiple
`presentations. To the contrary,
`Bland states that its extensions
`may be sent to the client with a
`data collection request.
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`41
`
`Ex. 1009 (Bland) , 5:24-37
`
`
`
`The combination teaches a timer applet for each presentation
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 18-23, 64-65
`Paper 15, Reply, 18-20
` Patent Owner incorrectly argues that the proposed combination would change
`Jacoby’s principle of operation because Jacoby somehow requires metering events to
`be strategically placed at different points of a streaming media file
` Jacoby discloses embodiments that place metering events according to regular time
`intervals
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 29
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[f]
`
`Ground 1
`Ground 1
`Claim Element 1[f]
`
`43
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using
`the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first computer
`system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`1[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`44
`
`
`
`Jacoby discloses two “distinct” computer systems
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 12-16
`Paper 15, Reply, 20-21
`
` Jacoby discloses two distinct computer
`systems made up of separate servers with
`separate functionality:
`• Jacoby’s first computer system facilitates
`administrative functionality (e.g.,
`metering, billing, authenticating access to
`content)
`• Jacoby’s second computer system
`facilitates content delivery functionality
`(e.g., streaming directly to the user’s
`computer independently of the first
`computer system)
`
`Pet. at 13, annotating Ex. 1006 (Jacoby), Fig. 1
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`45
`
`
`
`Claim Element 1[g]
`
`Ground 1
`Ground 1
`Claim Element 1[g]
`
`46
`
`
`
`The ’609 Patent – Claim 1
`
`[1b]
`[1c]
`
`1. [pre] A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user's computer via a
`network comprising:
`[1a]
`providing a corresponding web page to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using
`the first computer system;
`providing identifier data to the user's computer using the first computer system;
`providing an applet to the user's computer for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the first computer
`system, wherein the applet is operative by the user's computer as a timer;
`receiving at least a portion of the identifier data from the user's computer responsively to the timer applet each time a
`predetermined temporal period elapses using the first computer system; and
`storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer system;
`wherein each provided webpage causes corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed from a second
`computer system distinct from the first computer system directly to the user's computer independent of the first
`computer system;
`[1g] wherein the stored data is indicative of an amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed from the
`second computer system to the user's computer; and
`1[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user's computer.
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`[1d]
`
`[1e]
`[1f]
`
`47
`
`
`
`Jacoby discloses stored data that indicates streaming time
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 35-36
`Paper 15, Reply, 22
` Jacoby stores account information that is indicative of an amount of time the digital
`media presentation data is streamed
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 42
`
`Ex. 1006 (Jacoby) , para. 37
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`48
`
`
`
`Jacoby discloses stored data that indicates streaming time
`
`Paper 15, Reply, 22
`
` Patent Owner argues that it is unclear whether the Petition maps the “stored data” to
`Jacoby’s “decrement amount” or to a user meter itself/user account itself
` The Petition is sufficiently clear:
`
`Demonstrative Exhibit – Not Evidence
`IPR2019-01367 – U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`49
`
`Paper 2, Petition, 35
`
`
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
