Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 75
`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 75
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 75
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`ROKU, INC. AND VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B1
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities .............................................................................................. iii
`
`List of Exhibits ..................................................................................................... vi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Standard for Granting Inter Partes Review .................................................. 3
`
`III. Overview of the ’941 Patent ........................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`2.
`
`The Key Innovation of the ’941 Patent Is Use of an OS-Level
`Software Agent To Interact With BIOS Memory Without Requiring
`Additional or Specialized Hardware .................................................. 4
`1.
`The Patentee Disclaimed Methods Requiring Use of Additional
`Hardware ................................................................................. 6
`Another “Key Distinction” Over the Prior Art Was Using an
`OS-Level Software Agent to Store Verification Structures and
`License Records in BIOS Memory........................................... 9
`The ’941 Patent Has Survived Four Separate Challenges to Its
`Validity and Patentability ................................................................. 12
`Recent IPRs That Were Instituted (But Terminated) Based on
`Hellman and Chou Did Not Address Key Claim Construction Issues
`......................................................................................................... 14
`IV. Claim Construction .....................................................................................16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`“a computer” .................................................................................... 17
`“using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-
`volatile memory of the BIOS” ......................................................... 20
`1.
`“agent” ................................................................................... 20
`2.
`“to set up a verification structure” .......................................... 31
`3.
`“memory of the BIOS” .......................................................... 35
`The Asserted Prior Art ................................................................................40
`
`V.
`
`A. Hellman ........................................................................................... 40
`B.
`Chou ................................................................................................ 44
`C.
`Schneck ........................................................................................... 47
`VI. The Asserted Combinations Fails To Disclose Key Elements of Claim 1 of
`the ‘941 Patent ............................................................................................48
`
`A.
`
`The Only “Agent” Petitioner Identifies is Hellman’s “Update Unit
`36,” which Requires “Add-on Hardware” and Thus Fails to Disclose
`the “Using an Agent…” Limitation .................................................. 48
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Does Not “Set Up A Verification
`Structure” and Petitioner Fails to Disclose How it is “Set Up” by the
`“Agent” ............................................................................................ 52
`The Proposed Combination Fails to Teach Using “Memory of the
`BIOS” for Storing a “Verification Structure” or “License Record” .. 57
`Petitioner Does Not Assert That Schneck Discloses Either Claim 1
`Limitation at Issue ........................................................................... 63
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................64
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Certificate of Service ........................................................................................... 65
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24 ...................................... 66
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................18
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........... 5, 7, 9-14, 16, 22, 23, 25-30, 35, 39, 51
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............. 4-7, 12, 14, 23, 25, 30-34, 36, 39, 63
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................... 2, 55
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 4
`
`Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc.,
`
`643 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 2
`
`Elbit Systems of America, LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................56
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 2
`
`HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., No. CBM2017-00054,
`
`Decision Denying Institution (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) .............................. 12, 14
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, nc.. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2021-00570 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2021) .......................................................15
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 4, 57, 64
`
`Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab’ys, S.A.,
`
`930 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................27
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 3
`
`Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc.,
`
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................27
`
`Samsung v. Ancora,
`
`IPR2020-01184, Paper 1 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2021) ............................................38
`
`SciMed Life Systems v. Advanced CardioVascular,
`
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................27
`
`Sony Mobile Commc'ns AB v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2021-00663 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2021) ......................................................15
`
`Sony Mobile Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`
`No. IPR2021-00663, Paper 17 (PTAB June 10, 2021) .................... 40, 44, 49
`
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc. v. Ancora Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-01609 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2021) .........................................................15
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Nokia Sols. & Networks Oy,
`
`15 F.4th 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................. 22, 25
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................55
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
`
`232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .....................................................................26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 .....................................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. §103 ...................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. §314 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012)............................................... 3
`
`PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims,
`
`85 Fed. Reg. 79,120, 79,121 .......................................................................51
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. §2.108 .................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 .................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Request for Ex Parte
`Reexamination Image File Wrapper, Control No.
`90010560
`
`
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Mar. 3, 2014
`
`Deposition Excerpts of Jon Weissman, Ancora
`Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., Case
`No. 2:16-cv-01919
`
`Sept. 9, 2019
`
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Technologies,
`Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`01919
`
`Aug. 26, 2019
`
`Brief of Appellees HTC America, Inc. and HTC
`Corporation, Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC
`America, Inc., HTC Corporation, Case No. 18-
`1404
`
`Apr. 23, 2018
`
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ancora
`Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., Case
`No. 2:16-cv-01919
`
`Sept. 4, 2019
`
`Terplan, Kornel, Morreale, Patricia, The
`Telecommunications Handbook, CRC Press,
`2000
`
`Computer User’s Dictionary, Microsoft Press,
`1998
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fourth Edition,
`Microsoft Press,1999
`
`PC Magazine Encyclopedia, definition of
`“Agent,” https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 File History with
`Beeble White Paper
`
`Sept. 2001
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Description
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Ancora
`Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc.,
`Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.,
`and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology
`Co., Ltd., Case No. 8:19-cv-02192 (Dkt. #49,
`49-1, 49-2)
`
`Declaration of Dr. David Martin, Ph.D., Sony
`Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile
`Communications, Inc., Sony Electronics Inc.,
`and Sony Corporation v. Ancora Technologies,
`Inc., IPR2021-00663, Ex. 2015
`
`2014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,189,146 (Misra)
`
`2015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,639 (Ewertz)
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`Review, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ancora
`Technologies, Inc., IPR2020-01184
`
`Declaration of Ian Jestice, Ancora Technologies
`Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics
`U.S.A. Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
`1:20-cv-00034 (Dkt. # 44-8)
`
`Date
`
`July 17, 2020
`
`Apr. 23, 2021
`
`Feb. 13, 2001
`
`Dec. 26, 1995
`
`Jan. 5, 2021
`
`Mar. 20, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board should decline to institute Roku’s and Vizio’s (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the
`
`’941 Patent”). See Petition, IPR2021-01406. Petitioners have simply copied the
`
`Petition of Nintendo in IPR2021-01338 practically verbatim including the exhibits
`
`and expert declaration presented. Like Nintendo, Petitioners fail to consider the
`
`proper scope of the claim presenting arguments that fail to teach fundamental aspects
`
`of the claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent. The Petition raises only obviousness challenges
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on three references: Hellman, Chou, and Schneck.
`
`Ground 1 asserts a combination of Hellman and Chou; Ground 2 asserts a
`
`combination Hellman, Chou, and Schneck.
`
`This Petition, like Nintendo IPR2021-01338, should be denied because
`
`Petitioners have not shown how any asserted reference discloses or teaches key
`
`limitations of independent Claim 1—the only independent claim challenged—when
`
`its terms are properly construed. Specifically, none of the asserted prior art discloses
`
`the limitations “a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a
`
`BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area” or “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 license record.”
`
`Petitioners’ only argument that such limitations are disclosed relies on
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`leveraging the absence of any construction to “expand[] the meaning of [each]
`
`term … beyond its plain meaning without any supporting evidence.” Cutsforth, Inc.
`
`v. Motivepower, Inc., 643 F. App’x 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular,
`
`Petitioners argue that it “do[es] not believe that any claim constructions are needed
`
`for the purposes of this review.” (Pet. at 21.) This is wrong.
`
`Only by divorcing Claim 1’s key limitations from their meaning to a skilled
`
`artisan can Petitioners argue that such limitations are taught in the asserted art. But
`
`“obviousness require[s] the [Board] to compare the properly construed claims1 to
`
`the available prior art.” Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`
`655 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And when any of the terms identified above
`
`is given its proper construction (as Patent Owner proposes below) the Petition fails.
`
`Furthermore, even if the Board were to decline to construe any of the above
`
`terms, the Petition still fails because Petitioners cannot show how any of its
`
`references or combinations discloses at least “set[ting] up a verification structure in
`
`the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” That is because Petitioners collapse
`
`the meaning of two distinct terms—“verification structure” and “license record”—
`
`even though the specification shows, and binding precedent holds, that “the use of
`
`two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings....” Applied Med.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`For these reasons, Petitioners fail to establish a likelihood of prevailing and
`
`the Petition should not be instituted.
`
`II.
`
`Standard for Granting Inter Partes Review
`
`A petition for inter partes review may be granted only when “the information
`
`presented in the petition ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. §314(a); 37 C.F.R. §2.108(c). Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`showing that this statutory threshold has been met. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) [hereinafter “Practice Guide”]
`
`(“The Board ... may institute a trial where the petitioner establishes that the standards
`
`for instituting the requested trial are met ....”).
`
`For a claim of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, Petitioner must show where
`
`in the prior art each claim limitation (as properly construed) is found. See, e.g.,
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Failure to do so defeats a claim of obviousness. Id.; accord Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764 (explaining that “potential patent owner preliminary
`
`responses” include showing that “[t]he prior art lacks a material limitation in all of
`
`the independent claims”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Further, a Petitioner cannot rely on the Board to substitute its own reasoning
`
`to remedy the Petition’s deficiencies, because the Board may not “raise, address, and
`
`decide unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner.” In re Magnum Oil
`
`Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, “a challenge can fail
`
`even if different evidence and arguments might have led to success.” Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`III. Overview of the ’941 Patent
`
`A. The Key Innovation of the ’941 Patent Is Use of an OS-
`Level Software Agent To Interact With BIOS Memory
`Without Requiring Additional or Specialized Hardware
`
`The ’941 Patent relates to a specific technique for “identifying and restricting
`
`an unauthorized software program’s operation.” (Ex.1001 at 1:6-8.)
`
`Before the ’941 Patent, there were two basic methods of verifying and
`
`restricting the operation of a program on a computer. The first approach involved
`
`“software-based methods” that “require[d] writing a license signature on the
`
`computer’s hard drive.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1344
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“HTC”). A key “flaw in those methods,” however, “is that such a
`
`signature can be changed by hackers without damaging other aspects of computer
`
`functionality.” Id. (citing Ex.1001 at 1:19-26.)
`
`The second approach involved hardware-based methods that required the use
`
`of additional hardware not found in a conventional computer. For example, such
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`techniques “require[d] inserting a dongle into a computer port to authenticate the
`
`software authorization.” Id. (citing Ex.1001 at 1:27-32.) As the patent explained,
`
`such hardware-based “methods [we]re costly, inconvenient, and not suitable for
`
`software sold and downloaded over the internet.” (Ex.1001 at 1:29-32.)
`
`The ’941 Patent thus disclosed a better solution—one that disclaimed the need
`
`for additional hardware because it instead “makes use of the existing computer
`
`hardware” by “using the memory space associated with the computer’s basic
`
`input/output system (BIOS), rather than other memory space, to store appropriately
`
`encrypted license information to be used in the verification process.” Ancora Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 733 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Ex.1001 at 1:46-2:5,
`
`4:45-48, 5:19-24). As the Federal Circuit recognized, such BIOS memory space was
`
`and “is typically used for storing programs that assist in the start-up of a computer.”
`
`HTC, 908 F.3d at 1345.
`
`The ’941 Patent thus proceeded against the conventional wisdom in the art to
`
`do something “the closest prior art, singly or collectively,” never contemplated:
`
`using “programs running at the OS level interacting with a program verification
`
`structure stored in the BIOS to verify [a] program using the verification structure”—
`
`that is, “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory of the BIOS” as Claim 1 requires. (Ex.2011 at 155; HTC, 908 F.3d at 1348-
`
`49 (stating that “[t]he claimed method here specifically identifies how that
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected way: a
`
`structure containing a license record is stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile
`
`portion of the computer’s BIOS, and the structure in that memory location is used
`
`for verification”).)
`
`As the Federal Circuit explained, using BIOS memory in this unexpected
`
`manner was a critical innovation that “improves computer security” in a number of
`
`ways, including “because successfully hacking BIOS memory (i.e., altering it
`
`without rendering the computer inoperable) is much harder than hacking the memory
`
`used by the prior art to store license-verification information.” HTC, 908 F.3d at
`
`1345. Equally important, by making use of conventional “existing computer
`
`hardware,” Apple, 744 F.3d at 733, the invention avoided the need for the
`
`“expensive, inconvenient” additional hardware that prior art hardware-based
`
`approaches required. HTC, 908 F.3d at 1344.
`
`1.
`
`The Patentee Disclaimed Methods Requiring Use of
`Additional Hardware
`
`In the course of the ’941 Patent’s two separate trips to the Federal Circuit, the
`
`Federal Circuit has twice recognized—and repeatedly emphasized—that the
`
`patentee expressly disclaimed the need for additional hardware to perform the
`
`claimed methods, explaining:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`Thus, the inventors stated that their method makes use of the existing
`
`computer hardware (eliminating the expense and inconvenience of
`
`using additional hardware), while storing the verification information
`
`in a space that is harder and riskier for a hacker to tamper with than
`
`storage areas used by earlier methods.
`
`Apple, 744 F.3d at 733-34; accord HTC, 908 F.3d at 1345.
`
`The Federal Circuit is not alone in identifying the patentee’s disclaimer of
`
`methods that require use of additional hardware. The Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“Patent Office”) recognized this same disclaimer of hardware-based methods
`
`during examination. Specifically, the Examiner initially rejected the invention over
`
`the Ginter reference, which utilized additional or specialized hardware.
`
`In response, the patentee argued that Ginter “suffers from the deficiency” that
`
`was expressly called out in the specification: it required “add-on hardware” that was
`
`“not part of the PC.” (Ex.2011 at 87-88.) As the applicant explained in detail:
`
`[I]n col. 70, line 23 – col. 71, line 25 Ginter et al. describe the
`
`architecture as add-on hardware which is named “SPU”…. Col. 64,
`
`lines 16-21 explicitly detail[s] the fact that the SPU is a hardware, add-
`
`on not part of the PC.
`
`(Ex.2011 at 88.) The applicant emphasized this point again when explaining:
`
`There is no mention whatsoever in Ginter et al. … referred to by the
`
`Examiner of a process where a software program verifies its
`
`authenticity using a license (verification structure) stored in the second
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 17 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`volatile non-volatile memory. The functionality described in these
`
`portions of Ginter et al. is the different functionality that add-on
`
`hardware, referred to as SPU, can perform.
`
`(Ex.2011 at 89.)
`
`
`
`After submitting these explanations to the Examiner, the patentee spoke with
`
`the Examiner. At that interview, “editing independent claim language [to
`
`encapsulate this distinction] was discussed,” (Ex.2011 at 112), and the claims
`
`thereafter were “amended as agreed during the interview” to add the “using an agent”
`
`limitation. (Ex.2011 at 120.)
`
`In short, the applicant added the “using an agent” portion of the limitation at
`
`issue to make clear what the invention encompassed and what was disclaimed—
`
`crystalizing that the invention did not encompass the use of “a hardware[] add-on
`
`not part of the PC.” (Ex.2011 at 88.) Rather, the claimed “agent” had to exist on and
`
`run from (at least in part) the conventional computer itself.
`
`The Examiner understood and accepted this express disclaimer—explaining
`
`in its Reasons for Allowance that the invention proceeded against the conventional
`
`wisdom in the art to do something “the closest prior art systems, singly or
`
`collectively,” never contemplated: “using an agent [i.e., software] to set up a
`
`verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Ex.2011
`
`at 155.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 18 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Another “Key Distinction” Over the Prior Art Was
`Using an OS-Level Software Agent to Store
`Verification Structures and License Records in BIOS
`Memory
`
`In addition to disclaiming the use of specialized or “add-on” hardware, the
`
`invention also improved over prior art software techniques by making use of BIOS
`
`memory, rather than other memory, to perform software-verification functions. As
`
`the Federal Circuit emphasized, the patentee distinguished its invention from prior
`
`software-based techniques, including the techniques disclosed by the two primary
`
`prior art references discussed during examination: Ewertz, which “disclosed storage
`
`in the BIOS memory area by the BIOS software itself,” and Misra, which disclosed
`
`“software implemented in or through an operating system.” Apple, 744 F.3d at 735–
`
`36. “The applicants explained that their invention differed from the[se] prior art
`
`[methods] in that it both operated as an application running through an operating
`
`system and used the BIOS level for data storage and retrieval – a combination that
`
`was not previously taught and that an ordinarily skilled application writer
`
`would not employ.” (Id., italics in original.)
`
`During prosecution, the patentee reinforced and expressly described how its
`
`invention “proceed[ed] against conventional wisdom in the art” because:
`
`BIOS is a configuration utility. Software license management
`
`applications, such as the one of the present invention, are operating
`
`system (OS) level programs…. [W]hen BIOS is running, the computer
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 19 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`
`is in a configuration mode, hence OS is not running. Thus, BIOS and
`
`OS level programs are normally mutually exclusive.
`
`(Ex.2011 at 146-147.) Thus, because of the prior art status quo of “mutual[]
`
`exclusiv[ity]” between BIOS and OS levels, “[u]sing BIOS to store application data
`
`such as that stored in Misra’s local cache for licenses [wa]s not obvious.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`The Examiner agreed. In its subsequent Notice of Allowance, the Examiner
`
`explained clearly that the claims recited licensed programs running at the OS level
`
`interacting with a verification structure at the BIOS level—an approach that was
`
`never previously contemplated or disclosed in the extensive art cited during
`
`examination. As the Examiner explained in its “Reasons for Allowance”:
`
`[T]he key distinction between the present invention and the closest
`
`prior art, is that the Misra et al., and Ginter et al. systems and the Ewertz
`
`et al. system run at the operating system level and BIOS level,
`
`respectively. More specifically, the closest prior art systems, singly or
`
`collectively, do not teach licensed programs running at the OS level
`
`interacting with a program verification structure stored in the
`
`BIOS to verify the program using the verification structure and having
`
`a user act on the program according to the verification. Further, it is
`
`well known to those of ordinary skill of the art that a computer BIOS is
`
`not setup to manage a software license verification structure. The
`
`present invention overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set up
`
`a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the
`
`BIOS.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 20 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`(Ex.2011 at 155.)
`
`The Federal Circuit also emphasized this precise point of novelty in observing
`
`that, prior to the ’941 invention, “[a]n ordinary skilled artisan would not consider
`
`the BIOS as a storage medium to preserve application data for at least two reasons.”
`
`Apple, 744 F.3d at 735-36. As it explained:
`
`First, … [a]n ordinary person skilled in the art makes use of OS features
`
`to write data to storage mediums. There is no OS support whatsoever
`
`to write data to the system BIOS. Therefore, an ordinary person skilled
`
`in the art would not consider the BIOS as a possible storage medium….
`
`Second, no file system is associated with the [prior art] BIOS…. This
`
`is further evidence that OS level application programmers would not
`
`consider the BIOS as a storage medium for license data.
`
`Id.
`
`In short, a “key distinction” between the ’941 Patent and the “closest prior
`
`art,” id., was the invention’s use of an OS-level software agent that was able to
`
`access and use BIOS memory (previously understood as inaccessible to OS-level
`
`programs) to store verification structures and license records that were to be used to
`
`verify a program.
`
`Because the “agent” necessarily had to be an OS-level “software program or
`
`routine” located on and run from (at least in part) the recited “computer,” this same
`
`innovation also distinguished the invention from prior art hardware-based
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 21 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`techniques. (Ex. 1001 at 1:44-47; id. at 3:33-47 (teaching that there may be a “license
`
`authentication bureau which can participate in … establishing the license record in
`
`the second non-volatile memory”).) In other words, consistent with the patentee’s
`
`criticism of prior art hardware techniques as “expensive, inconvenient, and not []
`
`suitable for software [] sold [and] download[ed] [] over the internet” because they
`
`required the use of additional, non-conventional hardware, the invention required
`
`the agent to comprise OS-level software on the computer such that no additional
`
`hardware was necessary. (Ex.1001 at 1:27-32; Apple, 744 F.3d at 733–34.)
`
`This was important. In affirming the validity of the ’941 Patent, the Federal
`
`Circuit twice emphasized that it “eliminat[ed] the expense and inconvenience of
`
`using additional hardware.” Apple, 744 F.3d at 733-34; see HTC, 908 F.3d at 1345.
`
`This Board reached the same conclusion. In an earlier Covered-Business Method
`
`Patent Review proceeding, it explained that the ’941 Patent improved on “hardware
`
`based products that are expensive, inconvenient, and not suitable for downloaded
`
`software.” HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., No. CBM2017-00054, Decision
`
`Denying Institution, Paper 7 at 9 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) (citing Ex.1001 at 1:19-32).
`
`B.
`
`The ’941 Patent Has Survived Four Separate Challenges to
`Its Validity and Patentability
`
`Given the well-recognized novelty of the ’941 Patent, it is not surprising that
`
`the ’941 Patent’s claims have survived no fewer than four separate attempts to re-
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-10 Filed 12/30/21 Page 22 of 75
`Case No.: IPR2021-01406
`Atty. Dkt. No.: ANCC0125IPR
`Patent No.: 6,411,941
`
`
`examine and invalidate them since their original examination in 2002.
`
`The first unsuccessful challenge came in 2009, when Microsoft