Netflix, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00041 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00041 (Patent 8,407,609)
`
`Uniloc’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Charles J. Boudreau, Daniel J. Galligan, & Juliet Mitchell Dirba,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`December 3, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,609
`
`L‘WYM
`III IIIII IIII
`
`.; United States Patent
`Thur
`SI SIS")! \‘l!w‘nm FDR mum.
`\‘II 'luIIViWI lunlwunywm:
`.\\D\ llllu Pukhlllnfll \l\ \
`( ("Willanu
`in u
`IMKJ-I Nu— .DMLIM
`
`~
`
`US ”07.699 B:
`-|In Punt Nm:
`Mar. 26. 2013
`aw Dale ot Punt:
`I'M VIII-ll human-n um.
`VIr.
`TI! T.“ 13,114. V1I.
`, 1‘7"
`20K.
`
`‘01:”.2}:
`m qua.- m l: mu"..- m u",
`an...“ I...
`
`m)
`
`I;
`
`n 1; .Wlaim
`_
`‘
`n...“ mum-nu Una mun-"u...
`..u m... u
`. an».- a...“
`
`w. 4'“...
`‘
`WW I... m
`“mun
` -')
`
`m ”I...“ I...
`A nth-I mm...
`mun. Mum "“qu
`“Imp-.1... ..mp...-
`>.\-I‘nlmlp'n-u m
`|“-‘l““’5“"'- U
`R-
`I:MIK1‘"\\I rum-u .mum A
`-
`rm. "and" Jun-1...... II .-
`.m.
`
`
`mu, .m- uni-zinc “1.“qu .m. .Ilu. Ila-m
`Autumnal-unnum-
`an mum mmra.m(m~om1mauu mum
`Mu. Ann:IoumnuIn-vuwunlu-qmln
`,,
`|
`_
`“
`
`:Ҥ;"""
`"" ""‘”""“"“‘""
`um. my...
`lulu-xuufivylmdlnllsh-u:
`
`
`a“, a,
`mm,”
`mm max-u... . luau-ml u I. u. Ina-1d»-
`(yarn/M
`[mun
`mun-.mnmmfihmu
`:zmsm-«mm mm
`uu-nmmmum.
`«: mu
`"swo- 1|\“II,‘I:\7:I vrwtr
`
`“'
`
`Inventor:
`
`Tod C. Turner
`
`Assignee:
`
`LINQware Inc.
`
`FIling Date:
`
`August 21, 2009
`
`Provisional Date: August 21 , 2008
`
`
`
`NETFLIX. INC. EXHIBIT IDOI
`
`Ex. 1001, Cover.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’609 Patent
`
`1. A method for tracking digital media presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network comprising:
`[a] providing a corresponding web page to the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system;
`[b] providing identifier data to the user’s computer using the first computer system;
`[c] 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;
`[d] 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
`[e] storing data indicative of the received at least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system;
`[f] 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;
`[g] 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
`[h] wherein each stored data is together indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page was
`displayed by the user’s computer.
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`Section
`
`References
`
`1-3
`
`1-3
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Pre-AIA § 103(a)
`
`Davis (Ex. 1003)
`
`Choi (Ex. 1004)
`
`Siler (Ex. 1005)
`
`Davis (Ex. 1003)
`
`Pet. at 5; Inst. Dec. at 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`The “Receiving” Step
`
`[d] 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;
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:17-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
`
`
`Choi
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶47, Appendix C, ¶97.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`The Hulu Precedential Opinion
`
`The opportunity to submit additional evidence does not allow a
`petitioner to completely reopen the record, by, for example, changing
`theories after filing a petition. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(affirming Board discretion to deny entry of petitioner’s reply brief
`that contained an improper new unpatentability theory and evidence,
`citing, among other things, § 312(a)(3)); see also CTPG at 74
`(“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean
`proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the
`positions taken in a prior filing.”).
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039,
`Paper 20, at 15-16 (Dec. 20, 2019) (Precedential).
`
`POSR at 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against “Gap-Filling”
`
`It is also improper for a reply to present new evidence (including
`new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior
`filing, for example newly cited prior art references intended to “gap-
`fill” by teaching a claim element that was not present in the prior art
`presented with the petition.
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74.
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Prohibition Against Hindsight Reconstruction
`
`Not only must the claimed invention as a whole be evaluated, but so also
`must the references as a whole, so that their teachings are applied in the
`context of their significance to a technician at the time — a technician
`without our knowledge of the solution. The defendants propounded and the
`district court appears to have followed an analytical method that well
`illustrates the “mosaic” analogy discussed in W.L. Gore Assocs., 721 F.2d at
`1552, 220 USPQ at 312, where this court said: [T]he claims were used as a
`frame, and individual, naked parts of separate prior art references were
`employed as a mosaic to recreate a facsimile of the claimed invention.
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`POSR at 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
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
