UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB, SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS, (USA), INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`x
`
`Civil Action No. 19-1703 (CFC)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Court’s Scheduling Order of September 16, 2020
`
`(D.I 24) (“Court’s Scheduling Order”), Defendants Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony
`
`Mobile Communications, Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications, (USA), Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants” or “Sony”), hereby serve these Invalidity Contentions (“Invalidity Contentions”)
`
`and accompanying document production on Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Ancora”).
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART ..................................................................................6
`
`PRIOR ART CLAIM CHARTS ..........................................................................................8
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 AND 103 ........................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds of Invalidity under §§ 102 and 103 .........................................................11
`
`Motivation to Combine ..........................................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 ...........................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 .............................................................14
`
`Lack of Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 .......................................16
`
`Lack of Enablement Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 ...................................................17
`
`VI.
`
`ADDITIONAL RELEVANT PRIOR ART .......................................................................18
`
`VII.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...........................................................................19
`
`VIII. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTIONS ......................................................20
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ancora has asserted claims 1–3, 6–14, 16 (“asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,411,941
`
`(“the ’941 patent”) against Defendants. See Ancora’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions served on Defendants on October 16, 2020 (“Infringement
`
`Contentions”).
`
`This Court has not yet construed any of the terms in the ’941 patent in this case.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are based on Defendants’ present understanding
`
`of the asserted claims and any apparent construction of the claims used by Ancora in its
`
`Infringement Contentions. Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, including the attached invalidity
`
`claim charts, may reflect alternative positions dependent upon claim construction and scope.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are not an admission by Defendants that the accused products,
`
`including any current or past versions of these products or Defendants’ technology, are covered
`
`by or infringe the asserted claims. Further, by including prior art that anticipates or renders
`
`obvious claims based on Ancora’s apparent claim constructions or any other claim constructions,
`
`Defendants are not adopting Ancora’s apparent claim constructions or any other claim
`
`constructions. Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are made in a variety of alternatives and do
`
`not represent Defendants’ agreement with Ancora’s apparent applications or views as to the
`
`meaning, definiteness, written description support for, or enablement of any claim contained
`
`therein.
`
`To the extent that any of the prior art discloses the same or similar functionality, feature,
`
`or features of any of the accused products, Defendants reserve the right to argue that said feature
`
`or functionality does not practice any limitation of any of the asserted claims, and to argue, in the
`
`alternative, that if said feature or functionality is found to practice any limitation of any of the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘941 patent, then the prior art reference discloses the limitation and that the
`
`claim is not patentable.
`
`The prior art references in the accompanying invalidity claim charts disclose, either
`
`expressly or inherently, each limitation of each asserted claim and/or render obvious, either alone
`
`or in combination with other prior art references, each asserted claim of the ’941 patent. In the
`
`claim charts, Defendants have attempted to identify the most relevant portions of the references.
`
`However, the references may contain additional support for claim limitations. Defendants may
`
`rely on uncited portions of the references, other documents, and expert testimony to provide
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`context or to aid in understanding the disclosures of the references.
`
`Where Defendants cite to a particular figure in a reference, the citation should be
`
`understood to encompass the caption and any corresponding description of the figure. Conversely,
`
`where Defendants cite to particular text referring to a figure, the citation should be understood to
`
`include the corresponding figure as well.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to amend these disclosures in the event that Ancora
`
`supplements or amends its Infringement Contentions in any way. At this time, Ancora’s specific
`
`infringement theories are unclear, vague, ambiguous, and unsupported by specific evidence even
`
`in view of its infringement contentions.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to amend these disclosures in accordance with the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joint Scheduling Order, and any other orders of the Court.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to amend these Invalidity Contentions in response to discovery
`
`of information potentially impacting the priority date of any asserted claim.
`
`Defendants may rely on the ’941 patent itself, its file history, its reexamination, inventor
`
`admissions concerning the scope of prior art relevant to the ’941 patent; and any deposition
`
`testimony of any named inventor on the ’941 patent. Defendants reserve the right to assert that
`
`the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event Defendants obtains evidence
`
`that the named inventors did not invent the subject matter claimed in the ’941 patent.
`
`Prior art not included in this disclosure, whether known or unknown to Defendants, may
`
`become relevant. In particular, Defendants are currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which
`
`Ancora will contend that limitations of the Asserted Claims are not disclosed in the prior art
`
`identified by Defendants. To the extent that such an issue arises, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`identify additional references, including other references that would render obvious the allegedly
`
`missing limitations. Further, Defendants reserve the right to revise, amend, and/or supplement the
`
`information provided herein, including identifying, charting, and relying on additional references,
`
`should Defendants’ further search and analysis yield additional information or references.
`
`Additionally, because discovery is not yet complete, Defendants reserve the right to present
`
`additional items of prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g), and/or § 103,
`
`located during the course of such discovery or further investigation such as learning of prior art
`
`from other related litigations, and to assert invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(c), (d), or (f), to the
`
`extent that such discovery or investigation yields information forming the basis for such invalidity.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`Defendants may issue subpoenas to third parties with knowledge of prior art. These third parties
`
`include, without limitation, the authors, inventors, or assignees of the references listed in these
`
`disclosures, and entities and persons familiar with products, systems, and software that anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious the asserted claims.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to amend these disclosures and associated document
`
`production, should Ancora provide any information that they failed to provide in its Infringement
`
`Contentions, should Ancora amend its disclosures in any way, should the Court’s claim
`
`construction order in this case make amendment necessary, or should additional prior art come to
`
`light.
`
`To the extent that Ancora’s Infringement Contentions lack the specificity required to
`
`inform Defendants of the specifics of certain aspects of Ancora’s infringement positions,
`
`Defendants provide these Invalidity Contentions consistent with the case schedule currently in
`
`place but do so without waiving any right to receive from Ancora such full and complete specific
`
`infringement disclosures as should have been provided from the outset. Defendants’ compliance
`
`with the current schedule should not be viewed as waiver of any rights in regard to Ancora’s
`
`Infringement Contentions. Furthermore, if Ancora revises its Infringement Contentions to
`
`address any deficiencies that may be identified by Defendants, Defendants reserve the right to
`
`amend these Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Moreover, Defendants reserve the right to revise their ultimate contentions concerning
`
`the invalidity of the asserted claims, which may change depending upon the Court’s construction
`
`of the asserted claims in this case, any findings as to the priority date of the asserted claims,
`
`and/or positions that Ancora may take concerning claim construction, infringement, and/or
`
`invalidity issues. Defendants hereby provide disclosures and related documents pertaining only
`
`to the asserted claims as identified by Ancora in its Infringement Contentions. Defendants also
`
`reserve the right to rely on discovery and papers and evidence filed, served, or submitted by
`
`Ancora in connection with this litigation.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are limited to Defendants’ current positions regarding the
`
`grounds of invalidity called for in Paragraph 5 of the Court’s Scheduling Order. Defendants
`
`reserve the right to assert and pursue all other defenses that may be available, including all of the
`
`affirmative defenses pled in any of Defendants’ answers, or any other grounds.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`In addition to the prior art and grounds of invalidity identified below, Defendants
`
`additionally identify and rely on the prior art and invalidity contentions identified by, or that will
`
`be identified by, the defendants or petitioners in other the Ancora lawsuits and proceedings
`
`involving the ’941 patent, all of which prior art and invalidity contentions are, or will be, in the
`
`possession of Ancora. This includes but is not limited to the prior art and invalidity contentions
`
`raised in the following actions and proceedings:
`
` U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware:
`
`o Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Lenovo Group Limited et al., 1-19-cv-01712
`
` U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
`
`o Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al., 8-19-cv-02192
`
` U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:
`
`o Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 1:20-cv-0034
`
`o Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 1:20-cv-
`
`0034
`
` U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington:
`
`o Ancora Technologies, Inc v. HTC America, Inc et al., 2-16-cv-01919
`
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
`
`o TCT Mobile (US) Inc. v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., IPR2020-01069
`
`o Samsung Electronics v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., IPR2020-01184
`
`o Apple v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., CBM2016-00023
`
`o HTC v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., CBM2017-00054
`
`
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuant to § 5(a) of Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendants identify the prior art in the
`
`attached Appendix A as each item of prior art that Defendants allege anticipates each asserted
`
`claim or renders each asserted claim obvious for the ‘941 patent.
`
`For references listed in Appendix A that are not identified as prior art that anticipate or
`
`render obvious an asserted claim, Defendants intend to rely on these references as background and
`
`as evidence of the state of the art at the time of Ancora’s alleged invention and the level of skill in
`
`the art and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time.
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`Additionally, Defendants identify prior art references that are related to other prior art
`
`references that may contain the same or substantially the same subject matter (e.g., Defendants
`
`may identify a prior art patent that had an earlier published application, was a continuation of an
`
`earlier filed application, etc.). Where Defendants provide a citation to or quotation from any of
`
`the identified prior art references, Defendants intend to rely on any parallel disclosure to the same
`
`subject matter in such related or corresponding prior art references.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to later rely upon all references or portions of references in
`
`Appendix A to supplement or amend these disclosures. Defendants incorporate by reference (1)
`
`any and all prior art contained or identified in documents products thus far by Ancora in this or
`
`any other proceeding, (2) any and all additional materials regarding or bearing upon invalidity in
`
`Ancora’s possession or control that have not been produced to date, if any exist, and (3) any and
`
`all prior art cited by or invalidity contentions served by any of the defendants in any prior case or
`
`current case.
`
`Each disclosed item of prior art describing a product, system or other implementation made
`
`in the United States is evidence of a prior invention by another under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), as
`
`evidence by the named inventors, authors, organizations, and publishers involved with each of
`
`these references.
`
`Defendants are still investigating the system and product references and may take third
`
`party discovery to obtain further information about this prior art. Defendants reserve the right to
`
`amend these contentions in accord with applicable local rules and orders of the Court to further
`
`address invalidity of the ’941 patent based on these prior art products and systems.
`
`To the extent that further information is needed to qualify a prior art patent as 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) prior art under the Court’s Scheduling Order, the patent was published by the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office on its issue date, or the patent application was published at some
`
`other date pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 122. Each prior art publication is identified by its title,
`
`author, publisher (where feasible), and date of publication. The date of each prior art patent
`
`or publication qualifies it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. The alignment of
`
`these contentions with particular sections of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 is based upon
`
`currently available information and subject to revision as further information becomes available
`
`in discovery. For example, Defendants contend that the references identified herein qualify as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), § 102(e), § 102(g)(2) and/or § 103, to the extent that they do
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART CLAIM CHARTS
`
`Pursuant to §§ 5(b) and (c) of Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendants provide claim
`
`charts in Appendix B identifying where and how in each alleged item of prior art each limitation
`
`of each asserted claim is found.
`
`The claim charts of Appendix B identify how the asserted claims are either anticipated by
`
`the prior art under at least one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and (g), either expressly or
`
`inherently, or are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 either alone or in combination with (i)
`
`applicant admitted prior art, (ii) the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and (iii)
`
`other references identified herein. Each asserted claim is anticipated by, or obvious in view of,
`
`one or more items of prior art identified in these disclosures, alone or in combination.
`
`Much of the prior art identified in the attached claim charts reflects common knowledge to
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art and the state of the relevant art at the time of the earliest filing
`
`date of the ’941 patent. Defendants may rely on additional citations, references, expert testimony,
`
`and other material to provide context or to aid in understanding the cited portions of the references
`
`or cited features of the systems. Defendants may also rely on expert testimony explaining relevant
`
`portions of references, relevant hardware or software products or systems, and other discovery
`
`regarding these subject matters. Additionally, Defendants may rely on other portions of any prior
`
`art reference for purposes of explaining the background and general technical subject area of the
`
`reference.
`
`Where an individual reference is cited with respect to all limitations of an asserted claim,
`
`Defendants contend that the reference anticipates the claim under one or more of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g) and also renders obvious the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, both by
`
`itself in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art and in combination
`
`with the other cited references to the extent the reference is not found to disclose one or more claim
`
`limitations. A single prior art reference, for example, can establish obviousness where the
`
`differences between the disclosures within the reference and the claimed invention would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. For example, “[c]ombining two embodiments
`
`disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.”
`
`Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`If Ancora contends that an embodiment within a particular item of prior art does not fully
`
`disclose all limitations of a claim, Defendants reserve the right to rely on other embodiments in
`
`that prior art reference, or other information, to show single reference obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). Where an individual reference is cited with respect to fewer than all limitations of an
`
`asserted claim, Defendants contends that the reference renders obvious the claim under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) by itself in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art or in
`
`view of admitted prior art in the ’941 patent and further in view of each other reference and
`
`combination of references that discloses the remaining claim limitation(s), as indicated in the claim
`
`charts submitted herewith.
`
`“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or non-obviousness of the
`
`subject matter is determined.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)). Motivations to combine
`
`references are discussed below and in Appendices C and D. Defendants reserves the right to rely
`
`upon any references or assertions identified herein in connection with Defendants’ contention that
`
`each Asserted Claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and to rely upon expert testimony addressing
`
`these references and assertions. The fact that prior art is identified to anticipate the Asserted
`
`Claims does not prevent Defendants from also relying on the same reference as rendering the
`
`Asserted Claims invalid as obvious. In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (holding
`
`that “a rejection for obviousness under § 103 can be based on a reference which happens to
`
`anticipate the claimed subject matter”). If any cited prior art item does not fully disclose a
`
`limitation of an Asserted Claim or is alleged by Ancora to not disclose a limitation, the limitation
`
`is present and identified in another prior art item, or is admitted prior art by the ’941 patent, as
`
`shown in the attached claim charts.
`
`As discussed below, Appendix C identifies all the patents and publications that anticipate
`
`and/or render the asserted claims obvious. Further, as set forth in Appendix D, numerous prior art
`
`references would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art as having similar or
`
`substantially the same disclosure with respect to particular claim elements. Accordingly,
`
`Appendix D lists various prior art patents and publications by subject matter and motivations to
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`combine such patents and publications or combination of references are identified that anticipate
`
`or render obvious the asserted claims.
`
`To the extent that Ancora contends that any primary reference does not contain a particular
`
`element, the references in each section of Appendix D could be combined with each primary
`
`reference with respect to the identified claim limitation. More specifically, as identified in
`
`Appendix D, groups of related references provide the similar or substantially the same disclosure,
`
`and any one of the identified references may substitute for any another in the group for present
`
`purposes of identifying and comparing claim elements and features, prior art teachings or
`
`suggestions in the art. Many of the cited references cite or relate to additional references or
`
`products, services, or projects. Many of the cited references also cite hardware or systems.
`
`Defendants may rely upon these cited additional references and copies or exemplars of the cited
`
`hardware or systems. Defendants will produce or make available for inspection any of these cited
`
`references, hardware, or systems that they intend to rely upon. Defendants may also rely upon the
`
`disclosures of the references cited or discussed during the prosecution of the ’941 patent or the
`
`assertions presented by the inventor about those references.
`
`Defendants reserves the right to reduce the number of anticipation or obviousness
`
`references relied upon with respect to a given asserted claim and to exchange or otherwise modify
`
`the specific references relied upon for anticipation and within each obviousness combination for
`
`each asserted claim.
`
`With respect to the claim charts, any reference to a figure in cited text incorporates by
`
`reference that figure itself, and any citation to a figure incorporates by reference any description
`
`of that figure in a reference. To the extent that any limitation is deemed not to be met exactly by
`
`an item of prior art, Defendants contend that the difference would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious both in light of the single
`
`reference alone and/or in light of combined references.
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 AND 103
`
`The ’941 patent is invalid as anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art identified in
`
`Appendix A. The references that anticipate and/or render the claims obvious are identified
`
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Grounds of Invalidity under §§ 102 and 103
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims is anticipated or would have been obvious based on each of
`
`the single prior art references as identified in the claim charts attached as Exhibits 1–53. Each of
`
`the Asserted Claims would have been obvious based on the combination of prior art references as
`
`identified in Appendices C and D.
`
`Nothing stated in this chart shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that Defendants
`
`agree with Ancora regarding either the scope of any of the asserted claims or the claim
`
`constructions advanced by Ancora in its infringement contentions, or that Defendants’ accused
`
`products meet any limitations of the claims Defendants apply the prior art in light Plaintiff’s
`
`improper assertions of infringement and improper application of the claims. Defendants do not
`
`agree with Plaintiff’s application of the claims, or that the claims satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Defendants’ disclosures herein apply claim constructions as asserted by Plaintiff but there has not
`
`yet been a claim construction decision from this Court, and these invalidity contentions should in
`
`no way be seen as, admissions or adoptions as to any particular claim scope or construction, or as
`
`any admission that any particular element is met in any particular way. Defendants’ disclosures
`
`are made in a variety of alternatives and do not represent Defendants’ agreement or view as to the
`
`meaning, definiteness, written description support for, or enablement of any claim contained
`
`therein.
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine and/or
`
`modify the prior art references as identified in the respective claim charts, for at least the reasons
`
`set forth in Appendices C and D, and for the reasons discussed below.
`
`B. Motivation to Combine
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the identified prior
`
`art references as identified herein. As the Supreme Court emphasized in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
`
`Inc., inventions arising from ordinary innovation, ordinary skill, or common sense are not
`
`patentable. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406, 420-422 (2007). In addition,
`
`“the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
`
`it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. Because the asserted claims simply
`
`arrange old elements known in the field of computer software, software protection, and encryption,
`
`with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, and yielding no more than
`
`what one would expect from such an arrangement, the combinations are obvious.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`The identified prior art references also use those familiar elements for their primary or
`
`well-known purposes in a manner well within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In addition, the
`
`identified prior art addresses the same or similar technical issues relating to computer software,
`
`software protection, and encryption and suggest the same or similar solutions to those issues.
`
`Moreover, because there were a finite number of predictable solutions for computer software,
`
`software protection, and encryption, a person of ordinary skill in the art had good reason to pursue
`
`and/or combine known options and related applications. Id. Accordingly, common sense and the
`
`knowledge of the prior art render the claims invalid under either § 102 or § 103.
`
`The Supreme Court has held that, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars
`
`its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill . . . .” Id. at 417. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine or modify
`
`references using known methods that one of skill in the art would have recognized as offering
`
`improvements to solutions of that time. The references identified describe methods that were
`
`known to offer improvements, and, accordingly, one of skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine or modify combined references to include such improvements.
`
`Finally, as further described below, the motivation to combine the teachings of the prior
`
`art references disclosed herein is also found in the references themselves and in: (1) the nature of
`
`the problem being solved, (2) the express, implied, and inherent teachings of the prior art, (3) the
`
`knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art, (4) the fact that the prior art is generally directed
`
`towards methods and systems for computer software, software protection, and encryption, and/or
`
`(5) the predictable results obtained in combining the different elements of the prior art, particularly
`
`in light of the well-published and known evolution of computer software, software protection, and
`
`encryption.
`
`Defendants believe that, in addition to the motivation to combine identified above and in
`
`the claim charts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have inherently been motivation
`
`to combine the identified prior art references described herein and in the attached charts, as each
`
`combination of art would have no unexpected results and at most would simply represent a known
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art. See id. at 414-18 (rejecting the Federal Circuit’s
`
`“rigid” application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine test, instead espousing
`
`an “expansive and flexible” approach). Indeed, the Supreme Court held that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and “in many cases a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
`
`of a puzzle.” Id. at 421. Nevertheless, in addition to the information contained in these
`
`contentions, Defendants have identified additional motivations and reasons to combine the cited
`
`art below.
`
`The prior art references relate to the same field and technologies in that field. Many of the
`
`prior art references were also used for a similar purpose. A person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to be aware of all the relevant prior art. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus.,
`
`Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notwithstanding, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would naturally look to these references, related patents, patent applications, publications, and
`
`related commercial products to provide insight into how the industry/field as a whole, inventors,
`
`authors, or companies viewed and applied these inventions, teachings, and commercial products.
`
`Based on their related disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`have been motivated to apply the teachings from one reference to another in the same way.
`
`The ’941 patent describes known license record techniques and storage of records in
`
`known storage devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`storing a license record in a secure storage would have reduced the ability for a user to tamper
`
`with the license record. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`ROM, EEPROM, SMM memory and other storage devices that may contain BIOS instructions,
`
`were in some cases more secure than other storage devices like RAM, hard disks, and removable
`
`storage.
`
`Therefore, if two prior art references, for example, relate to methods of providing security
`
`of computer systems or computer programs, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
`
`to combine those references to achieve more robust security, increase the amount of security, and
`
`increase the likelihood that the system could not be tampered with. This motivation is expressly
`
`stated in several of the prior art references, including, as one example, Angelo ’821. Further, all
`
`prior art references—as well as the ‘941 patent—were part of the same fields of computer boot-
`
`up, computer memory, and computer programs running in memory. A person having ordinary
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00663
`ANCORA EX2002
`
`

`

`skill in any or all of these fields would be aware of all prior art in those fields, including but not
`
`limited to the identified prior art references and systems, and would have been motivated