Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01919 -RAJ
`
`
`DEFENDANTS HTC AMERICA, INC.
`AND HTC CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY NON-INFRINGEMENT
`AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington
`Corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a
`Taiwanese corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 1 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 121 and the March 11, 2019 Scheduling Order (Dkt.
`No. 56), Defendants HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively, “HTC”) hereby
`provide their Preliminary Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions.
`I. GENERAL STATEMENTS
`Response to Ancora’s Identification of Asserted Claims
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s March 26, 2019 infringement contentions assert that HTC infringes Claims 1
`and 2 (“the Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”). HTC contends
`that each of the Asserted Claims is not infringed and is invalid for at least the reasons set forth
`herein.
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The Court has not yet construed the Asserted Claims. HTC’s position on the non-
`infringement and invalidity of the Asserted Claims will depend on how the claims are ultimately
`construed by the Court. While HTC’s position on the non-infringement of the Asserted Claims
`may depend on claim construction, HTC believes that entire claim limitations are absent from
`the accused devices. HTC’s Preliminary Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions should not
`be taken as an indication of HTC’s position with regard to the proper claim construction of any
`claim term. Instead, HTC has made reasonable assumptions, to the extent necessary and
`appropriate, with respect to the meaning of claim terms for the purpose of these Preliminary
`Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions only in the preparation of these contentions. If
`HTC determines that a different meaning is appropriate for any claim term, HTC will assert that
`construction in connection with claim construction procedures and proceedings, and reserves its
`right to update these Preliminary Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions as a result of the
`claim construction hearing, or any subsequent clarification or alteration of the meaning of claim
`terms, or as otherwise authorized or permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
`Rules, or this Court’s orders. HTC reserves all rights to further supplement or modify the
`positions and information in these non-infringement and invalidity contentions, including
`without limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein.
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 2 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Reservation of Rights
`
`HTC has prepared these Preliminary Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions based
`on information and discovery currently available to HTC. The contentions set forth herein are
`based on HTC’s present understanding of the asserted claims and Ancora’s infringement
`contentions. Discovery in this case is in its early stages and HTC's investigation, including
`HTC’s search for prior art and understanding of the Android OS, is ongoing. HTC reserves the
`right to further supplement or alter the positions taken and information disclosed in these
`contentions including, without limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein,
`to take into account information or defenses that may come to light as a result of these
`continuing efforts. Accordingly, HTC reserves the right to assert other bases for invalidity.
`HTC also reserves the right to amend or supplement these Preliminary Noninfringement and
`Invalidity Contentions as a result of any amendments to Ancora’s infringement contentions,
`validity theories, or litigation positions, any new information disclosed through the Parties’
`experts, or in light of any claim constructions positions taken or orders issued. HTC further
`reserves the right to supplement these contentions as otherwise allowed by the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or this Court’s orders.
`Except where expressly admitted, nothing in HTC’s Preliminary Noninfringement and
`Invalidity Contentions should be construed to be an admission that HTC agrees with Ancora
`regarding either the scope of any of the asserted claims or any positions that Ancora may
`advance with respect to its infringement contentions, validity positions, or elsewhere. Nor
`should any inferences be drawn by the absence of any statements in these Preliminary
`Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions. HTC’s contentions may be in the alternative and
`do not constitute any concession by HTC for purposes of invalidity or noninfringement. HTC
`expressly reserves all claim construction and invalidity arguments.
`HTC provides these Preliminary Noninfringement and Invalidity Contentions without
`waiver of any privilege or other doctrine of protection, including but not limited to the attorney-
`client privilege and work product doctrine. To the extent HTC inadvertently discloses
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 3 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`information that may be protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, work
`product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity, such inadvertent disclosure does
`not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or immunity.
`D.
`Prior Art Identification and Citation
`
`In these preliminary invalidity contentions, HTC has identified specific combinations of
`primary and secondary prior art references upon which it may rely to show invalidity. However,
`HTC could not feasibly provide written explanations of every possible combination that renders
`the asserted claims invalid, given the volume of highly relevant prior art. Accordingly, HTC
`expressly reserves the right to rely on combinations not expressly set forth herein.
`HTC has also attempted to identify the most relevant portions of each prior art reference
`upon which it presently intends to rely. Given the volume of prior art and the number of relevant
`passages within each prior art reference, HTC could not feasibly identify every possible passage
`that may be relevant to the invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Accordingly, HTC expressly
`reserves the right to rely upon additional portions of the cited prior art references.
`If a reference incorporates another reference, the two disclosures and their respective
`disclosures should be read together. In addition, the claim charts provided include exemplary
`descriptions and citations of where a particular claim element may be found based on Plaintiff’s
`infringement contentions. However, the citations do not necessarily represent every place where
`a particular claim element may be found in the prior art reference. Therefore, HTC reserves the
`right to rely on additional, or different, portions of the prior art references and on other
`publications and expert testimony to provide context and as aids to understanding and
`interpreting the portions cited.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`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
`
`27
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 4 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`II. NONINFRINGEMENT CLAIM CHART
`See Exhibit A, attached hereto.
`III. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART
`At least the following prior art references anticipate or render obvious, either alone or in
`combination, the Asserted Claims. Because investigation and discovery in this case is ongoing,
`and because the Court has not yet construed the claims of the patents, HTC reserves the right to
`supplement or amend this disclosure. For example, HTC may seek to supplement or amend this
`disclosure if its investigation reveals additional prior art.
`Prior Art Patent
`First Named
`Country
`Inventor
`Hasebe
`
`Issue/Publication
`Date
`2/4/1997
`
`EP0766165A2
`
`EPO
`
`US6,138,236
`
`US6,269,392
`
`US5,724,425
`
`US5,579,522
`
`US5,748,084
`
`WO97/36241
`
`EP0824233A2
`
`US4,658,093
`
`US5,379,342
`
`US4,908,861
`
`US6,078,909
`
`US5,844,986
`
`US5,933,498
`
`US6,128,605
`
`US6,233,567
`
`Mirov
`
`Cotichini
`
`Chang
`
`Christeson
`
`Isikoff
`
`Shipman
`
`Angelo
`
`Hellman
`
`Arnold
`
`Brachtl
`
`Knutson
`
`Davis
`
`Schneck
`
`Saito
`
`Cohen
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`
`EPO
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`10/24/2000
`
`7/31/2001
`
`3/3/1998
`
`11/26/1996
`
`5/5/1998
`
`10/2/1997
`
`2/18/1998
`
`4/14/1987
`
`1/3/1995
`
`3/13/1990
`
`6/20/2000
`
`12/1/1998
`
`8/3/1999
`
`10/3/2000
`
`5/15/2001
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 5 of 229
`
`

`

`First Named
`Inventor
`Labatte
`
`Albrecht
`
`Jablon
`
`Osborn
`
`Ishiguro
`
`Gharda
`
`Country
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Issue/Publication
`Date
`5/4/1999
`
`11/10/1998
`
`5/30/1995
`
`2/15/2000
`
`7/3/2001
`
`12/28/1999
`
`Publication Date
`
`Author
`
`Publisher
`
`March 7, 1997
`
`William A. Arbaugh
`David J. Farber
`Jonathan M. Smith
`
`March 6, 1996
`
`
`
`of
`
`University
`Pennsylvania
`Distributed Systems
`Laboratory
`
`American Megatrends
`Inc.
`Award Software Int’l
`Inc.
`Dell Computer Corp.
`Intel Corp.
`Phoenix Techs. Ltd.
`SystemSoft Corp.
`
`
`
`Prior Art Patent
`
`US,5901,311
`
`US5,835,594
`
`US5,421,006
`
`US6,026,293
`
`US6,256,391
`
`US6,009,520
`
`
`
`Non-Patent
`Literature
`A Secure and Reliable
`Bootstrap
`Architecture
`(“Arbaugh”)
`
`Desktop Management
`BIOS
`Specification
`Version 2.0
`(“DMI
`Specification”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 6 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`WO94/07204A1
`
`In addition to the foregoing prior art references, HTC may further rely on the following
`references to evidence the state of the art, including software anti-piracy measures, software
`licensing schemes, the storage of BIOS on ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, and the storage of
`data other than the BIOS code on such devices, and types of system startup code available as of
`the priority date of the ’941 Patent:
`Prior Art Patent
`First Named
`Inventor
`Richardson
`
`Country
`
`WIPO
`
`Issue/Publication
`Date
`3/31/1994
`
`US6,243,468
`
`US6,122,733
`
`US5,790,664
`
`US5,745,568
`
`US5,734,819
`
`US5,675,645
`
`US5,671,412
`
`US5,541,991
`
`US5,109,413
`
`Pearce
`
`Christeson
`
`Coley
`
`O’Connor
`
`Lewis
`
`Schwartz
`
`Christiano
`
`Benson
`
`Comerford
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`6/5/2001
`
`9/19/2000
`
`8/4/1998
`
`4/28/1998
`
`3/31/1998
`
`10/7/1997
`
`9/23/1997
`
`7/30/1996
`
`4/18/1992
`
`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
`
`27
`
`US4,903,296
`
`US4,888,798
`
`US4,791,565
`
`US4,688,169
`
`US4,644,493
`
`US5,901,285
`
`US5,913,057
`
`US6,125,392
`
`US6,128,694
`
`Chandra
`
`Earnest
`
`Dunham
`
`Joshi
`
`Chandra
`
`Labatte
`
`Labatte
`
`Labatte
`
`Decker
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`2/20/1990
`
`12/19/1989
`
`12/13/1988
`
`8/18/1987
`
`2/17/1987
`
`5/4/1999
`
`6/15/1999
`
`9/26/2000
`
`10/3/2000
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 7 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`Prior Art Patent
`
`WO97/31315
`
`WO98/41916
`
`
`
`Non-Patent
`Literature
`Desktop Management
`BIOS
`Specification
`Version 2.00.1
`
`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
`
`27
`
`August 1997
`
`September 1997
`
`May 1997
`
`AL440LX
`Motherboard
`Technical
`Specification
`
`Product
`
`ASUS P2L97 Pentium
`II Motherboard User’s
`Manual
`
`ASUS VX97 Pentium
`Motherboard User’s
`Manual
`
`Atlantis Pentium
`
`II
`
`November 1997
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`First Named
`Inventor
`Bizzarri
`
`Rakavy
`
`Country
`
`WIPO
`
`WIPO
`
`Issue/Publication
`Date
`8/28/1997
`
`9/24/1998
`
`Publication Date
`
`Author
`
`Publisher
`
`July 18, 1996
`
`
`
`American Megatrends
`Inc.
`Award Software Int’l
`Inc.
`Dell Computer Corp.
`Intel Corp.
`Phoenix Techs. Ltd.
`SystemSoft Corp.
`
`Intel Corporation
`
`ASUSTeK Computer
`Inc.
`
`ASUSTeK Computer
`Inc.
`
`American
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 8 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`Non-Patent
`Literature
`PCI ISA Motherboard
`Guide
`
`P/E-P55T2P4D
`Motherboard User’s
`Manual
`
`VS440FX
`Motherboard
`Technical
`Specification
`
`Product
`
`spec
`Updated
`provides standard for
`remotely managing
`computers
`
`Partnership Aims to
`Plug Long Neglected
`PC System Security
`Gap
`
`Publication Date
`
`Author
`
`Publisher
`
`August 1996
`
`October 1996
`
`
`
`
`
`Megatrends, Inc.
`
`ASUSTeK Computer
`Inc.
`
`Intel Corporation
`
`March 18, 1996
`
`Paul Ruocchio
`
`Network World, Vol.
`13, No. 12
`
`January 12, 1998
`
`
`
`Times
`
`Financial
`Information
`Global News Wire
`PR Newswire
`
`
`
`A.
`
`IV. INVALIDITY GROUNDS
`Invalidity Claim Charts
`
`HTC’s invalidity claim charts are attached as Exhibits B1-B20. HTC has made a
`preliminary identification of specific combinations of primary and secondary prior art references
`upon which it may rely to show invalidity. However, HTC could not feasibly provide written
`explanations of every possible combination that renders the asserted claims invalid, given the
`volume of highly relevant prior art. Exhibit B20 sets forth where in each alleged item of prior art
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 9 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`each element of each Asserted Claim may be found. HTC expressly reserves the right to rely on
`combinations not expressly set forth herein.
`Exhibit
`Identification of Prior Art
`Combinations
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification
`
`Invalidity Based on
`Anticipation or Obviousness
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`B1
`
`B2
`
`B3
`
`B4
`
`B4
`
`B5
`
`B6
`
`B7
`
`B8
`
`B9
`
`B10
`
`B11
`
`B12
`
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification and Chang
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Hasebe in view of Christeson
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Mirov
`
`Anticipation of Claim 1
`
`Mirov in view of Hasebe
`
`Obviousness of Claim 2
`
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification and Arbaugh
`
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification and Isikoff
`
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification, Shipman,
`and
`Angelo
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Hasebe in view of Cotichini
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`in view of DMI
`Hasebe
`Specification and Cotichini
`
`Hellman
`
`in view of DMI
`Hellman
`Specification
`
`Arnold in view of Brachtl
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Anticipation of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Claim1,
`of
`Anticipation
`Obviousness of Claim 2
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 10 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`B13
`
`B14
`
`B15
`
`B16
`
`B17
`
`B18
`
`B19
`
`Exhibit
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`Combinations
`Arnold in view of Brachtl
`
`Arnold in view of Brachtl and
`Knutson
`
`Invalidity Based on
`Anticipation or Obviousness
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Davis
`
`Schneck
`
`in view of DMI
`Schneck
`Specification
`
`Anticipation/Obviousness
`Claims 1 and 2
`
`Anticipation/Obviousness
`Claims 1 and 2
`
`of
`
`of
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Schneck in view of Gharda
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`Hellman in view of Gharda
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2
`
`
`
`B. Means Plus Function Claim Terms – 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6
`
`“Agent”
`HTC contends that the term “agent” is a means-plus-function limitation under § 112(6).
`Though the claim does not use the term “means,” the term “agent” is a nonstructural word that
`lacks any definite meaning. The claim term is so devoid of structure that the drafter
`constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming. The recited function for the “agent” of
`Claim 1 is “set[ting] up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS.” However, the specification for the ’941 Patent does not describe any corresponding
`structure for this function. At most, the specification describes two functional steps for setting
`up the verification structure (i.e., (1) “establishing or certifying the existence of a pseudo- unique
`key in the first non-volatile memory area,” and (2) “establishing at least one license-record
`location in the first or the second nonvolatile memory area.”). (’941 Patent at 6:18-22).
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 11 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`However, the ’941 Patent does not describe any structure—algorithm or otherwise—that
`performs these steps.
`Accordingly, HTC contends that the term “agent” is indefinite for failing to recite
`corresponding structure as required by § 112(6). Further arguments relating to the indefiniteness
`of the term “agent” may be found in Exhibit C, attached hereto.
`C.
`Other Grounds for Invalidity
`
`Failure to Meet 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Written Description
`Claims 1 and 2 are invalid for lack of written description support for the term “agent.”
`Claim 1 recites an “agent” that “set[s] up a verification structure.” During prosecution, the
`Examiner allowed issued Claim 1 because an “agent” performed the function of setting up a
`verification structure. See March 28, 2002 Notice of Allowance at 4. However, the specification
`for the ’941 Patent does not contain any description of the claimed “agent.” The term “agent”
`does not appear in the specification or originally filed claims at all. The term was added to
`Claim 1 only after the Examiner’s prior art rejections during prosecution, and with no discussion
`regarding how the specification actually discloses an agent. Accordingly, there is no written
`description support in the specification for the “agent.” Further arguments relating to the lack of
`written description for the term “agent” may be found in Exhibit E, attached hereto.
`Claim 2 depends from Claim 1 and also includes the “agent” limitation without any
`written description support. Thus, Claim 2 is also invalid for lack of written description support.
`Failure to Meet 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for Lack of Enablement
`Claims 1 and 2 are invalid because the ’941 Patent specification does not enable the
`claimed “agent” limitation. Specifically, Claim 1 recites “using an agent to set up a verification
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” Claim 2 depends from Claim 1 and
`also includes this limitation.
`However, the’941 Patent fails to disclose information that would allow one skilled in the
`art to practice the claimed inventions without undue experimentation. In particular, the
`’941 Patent provides no direction or guidance in the specification regarding the “agent.” This
`
`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
`
`27
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 12 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`weighs heavily in favor of finding that undue experimentation would be required. There is no
`explanation in the ’941 Patent for the “agent” whatsoever. The only explanation for “erasing or
`modifying” the non-volatile memory of the BIOS states that a person of ordinary skill would do
`so “using E2PROM manipulation commands.” ’941 Patent at 2:3-4.
`The quantity of experimentation required to make and use the full scope of the invention
`also weighs in favor of undue experimentation. The ’941 Patent explains that “An important
`advantage in utilizing non-volatile memory such as that residing in the BIOS is that the required
`level of system programming expertise that is necessary to intercept or modify commands,
`interacting with the BIOS is substantially higher than those needed for tampering with data
`residing in volatile memory such as hard disk.” ’941 Patent at 3:4-9. Thus, the quantity of
`experimentation needed to make and use the full scope of the invention would be significant.
`V. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 122, HTC is producing herewith copies of the references
`identified herein, as well as additional references upon which HTC may rely. HTC reserves the
`right to identify and produce additional documents.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2019
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian C. Claassen
`Colin B. Heideman (SBN 44,873)
`colin.heideman@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Phone: (206) 405-2000
`Facsimile: (206) 405-2001
`
`Craig S. Summers (Pro Hac Vice)
`craig.summers@knobbe.com
`Irfan A. Lateef (Pro Hac Vice)
`Irfan.lateef@knobbe.com
`Brian C. Claassen (Pro Hac Vice)
`brian.claassen@knobbe.com
`Daniel C. Kiang (Pro Hac Vice)
`daniel.kiang@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 13 of 229
`
`

`

`Irvine, CA 92614
`Phone: (949) 760-0404
`Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`27
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 14 of 229
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I am a citizen of the United States of America and I am employed in Irvine, California. I
`
`am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 2040 Main
`Street, Fourteenth Floor, Irvine, California. I certify that on April 25, 2019, I served the
`foregoing DEFENDANTS HTC AMERICA, INC. AND HTC CORPORATION’S
`PRELIMINARY NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS on the
`parties or their counsel shown below, via electronic mail addressed as follows:
`Attorneys for Plaintiff:
`Duncan E. Manville
`Sarah Gohmann Bigelow
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`dmanville@sbwllp.com
`sgohmannbigelow@sbwllp.com
`
`Mark A. Cantor
`John S. Le Roy
`Marc Lorelli
`John P. Rondini
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose
`
`direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`States of America that the above is true and correct.
`Executed on April 25, 2019, at Irvine, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30205781
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Consuelo Durand
`
`
`
`HTC’S NON-INFRING. & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Case No. 2:16-cv-1919-RAJ
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`925 Fourth Ave, Suite 2500, Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 405-2000
`
`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
`
`27
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 15 of 229
`
`

`

`Exhibit B2
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2 over EP0766165 (Hasebe) in view of DMI Specification, and
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,425 (Chang)
`
`Claim Limitation
`1. A method of restricting software operation
`within a license for use with a computer
`including an erasable, non-volatile memory
`area of a BIOS of the computer, and a
`volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`selecting a program residing in the volatile
`memory
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure
`in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS, the verification structure
`accommodating data that includes at least one
`
`Hasebe + DMI Specification + Chang
`HTC contends that the preamble is limiting.
`The preamble breathes life and meaning into
`the claim, recites essential structure used to
`perform
`the claimed method steps, and
`elements
`in
`the preamble serve as an
`antecedent basis for limitations in the claim.
`
`licensing system for
`Hasebe describes a
`restricting
`the use of software programs.
`Hasebe at Abstract. Hasebe’s licensing system
`makes use of a “CPU ID” residing
`in
`nonvolatile memory (e.g., nonvolatile memory
`of the CPU) (Hasebe at 1:58-2:3).
`
`As discussed below, Hasebe disclose a
`computer with a volatile memory.
`
`Hasebe does not disclose storing a licensing
`record in an erasable, non-volatile memory
`area of a BIOS. The DMI Specification
`explains
`that
`conventional
`BIOS
`implementations before the priority date of the
`’941 Patent had GPNV (general purpose
`nonvolatile) memory areas. These memory
`areas were erasable and accessible to user
`programs, and was secure. (DMI Spec. at 4,
`19-21).
`Hasebe discloses initiating a licensing check
`when a software program is loaded. (Hasebe at
`9:28-32). A POSITA would understand that an
`“actuated” program (id. 9:28-32) requires
`copying
`it
`into a computer’s RAM (the
`“volatile memory”).
` A POSITA would
`understand
`that Hasebe’s
`reference
`to
`“memory” is volatile memory such as RAM
`(Id. 4:39-44, 10:33-39).
`HTC contends that “agent” is a means-plus-
`function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`whose function is “to set up a verification
`structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory
`
` 
`
`1
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 16 of 229
`
`

`

`license record,
`
`
`
`of the BIOS” and that the term “agent” has no
`corresponding structure in the ’941 Patent
`specification.
`
`Hasebe Fig. 1 discloses license file compilation
`unit 23 (i.e., an agent). Unit 23 sets up license
`file 24 (i.e., verification structure), which
`accommodates license information (i.e., license
`record) for each licensed program. (Id. 9:3-5).
`License file 24 is a table with a row for each
`program’s
`license
`information.
` This
`information includes the “contents ID [for the
`software,] [the] user name, and signature
`information, which is information encoded
`using a signature key.” (Id. 9:6-10, Fig. 4).
`The license information further may include
`the software decoding key that decodes the
`program (Id. 7:54-56, 10:33-39). The license
`information may be
`in an encoded (i.e.,
`encrypted) or decoded (i.e., decrypted) format.
`(Id. 10:27-32).
`
`Hasebe does not disclose setting up the license
`file in an erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS.
` The DMI Specification, however,
`describes a BIOS with a GPNV area (i.e., an
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIO)
`(DMI Spec. at 17). User applications can both
`read and write to the GPNV area using
`functions defined in the DMI Specification.
`(DMI Spec. at 5, 20-22). In addition to BIOS
`functions, the DMI Specification discloses that
`the GPNV “can also be used by other services
`which require non-volatile storage.” (DMI
`Spec. at 17). It would have been obvious to a
`POSITA
`to
`implement Hasebe’s
`licensing
`system to store the license file in the GPNV
`BIOS memory, as described in the DMI
`Specification because the DMI Specification
`provides instructions on how to store data in
`the GPNV areas. Combining Hasebe’s and the
`DMI Specification’s known technologies using
`the techniques taught in the DMI Specification
`would have produced the predictable result of
`license files stored in the GPNV. Further, this
`combination would have been obvious because
`
` 
`
`2
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 17 of 229
`
`

`

`it involves substituting one known non-volatile
`storage technology (a hard disk) with another
`known storage technology (GPNV) to produce
`the exact, predictable results that are claimed in
`the ’941 Patent. Hasebe acknowledges that a
`skilled artisan would have had a level of skill
`that included programming at the BIOS level
`(Hasebe 2:41-50). Accordingly, combining
`Hasebe with the GPNV area of the DMI
`Specification would have been within the skill
`of a POSITA and produced predictable results.
`
` A
`
` POSITA would have been motivated to
`make
`this combination
`in order
`to
`take
`advantage of
`the BIOS security features
`explained in the DMI Specification. The DMI
`Specification explains “A BIOS might choose
`to ‘hide’ a GPNV area by defining a special
`lock value which is required to access the
`area.” (DMI Spec. at 17). It would have been
`common sense to store a license file in a secure
`location using already available security
`features.
`
`To the extent that Ancora argues that Hasebe
`and the DMI Specification in combination do
`not disclose that the license record is from the
`software program, and if such a limitation is
`required under the Court’s claim construction,
`Chang discloses a license record is included at
`the beginning of a software program. (Chang
`at 3:38-65, 6:46-67, Fig. 3).
`
`It would have been obvious to modify the
`license system of Hasebe to use a license
`record that is from the software program, as
`disclosed in Chang. This combination would
`have produced predictable and obvious results.
`Hasebe describes a licensing system with a
`server that ensures that a software program is
`licensed to a particular user and computer.
`Chang discloses a licensing system that ensures
`a software program is authentic and has not
`been modified with viruses or malware. A
`POSITA would have been motivated to modify
`the system of Hasebe with the teachings of
`
` 
`
`3
`
`Ancora's Exhibit 2005
`Samsung v. Ancora IPR2021-00583
`Page 18 of 229
`
`

`

`verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure from the erasable non-
`volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`
`acting on the program according to the
`verification.
`
`2. A method according to claim 1, further
`comprising the steps of:
`
`establishing a license authenticat