Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 56
`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 56
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 56
`
`PTO/SB/57 (01-18)
`Approved for use through 11/30/2021. 0MB 0651-0064
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 0MB control number.
`(Also referred to as FORM PT0-1465)
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`Address to:
`Mail Stop Ex Parle Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Attorney Docket No.: _______ _
`
`Date: Sept. 21, 2021
`
`issued June 25, 2002
`
`1. 00 This is a request for ex parle reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.51 O of patent number 6,411,941 B1
`. The request is made by:
`D patent owner.
`[ii third party requester.
`2. 00 The name and address of the person requesting reexamination is:
`
`lrfan A. Lateef
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP
`
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Requester D asserts small entity status (37 CFR 1.27) or D certifies micro entity status (37 CFR 1.29). Only
`a patent owner requester can certify micro entity status. Form PTO/SB/1 SA or B must be attached to certify
`micro entity status.
`
`This request is accompanied by payment of the reexamination fee as set forth in:
`
`00 37 CFR 1.20(c)(2); or
`D 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1 ). In checking this box for payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1 ), requester
`
`asserts that this request has forty (40) or fewer pages and complies with all other requirements of
`37 CFR 1.20(c)(1 ).
`
`Payment of the reexamination fee is made by the method set forth below.
`
`is enclosed to cover the reexamination fee;
`
`a. D A check in the amount of$
`b. D The Director is hereby authorized to charge the reexamination fee
`c. D Payment by credit card. Form PT0-2038 is attached; or
`d. 00 Payment made via EFS-Web.
`00 In addition, the Director is hereby authorized to charge any fee deficiencies to
`
`to Deposit Account No. __________ _
`
`Deposit Account No. _1_1_-_14_10 _______ _
`
`37 CFR 1.26(c). If payment is made by credit card, refund must be to credit card account.
`
`5. 00 Any refund should be made by D check or [!] credit to Deposit Account No._1_1_-_14_1_0 ____ _
`6. 00 A copy of the patent to be reexamined having a double column format on one side of a separate paper is
`7. D CD-ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Computer Program (Appendix) or large table
`D Landscape Table on CD
`
`enclosed. 37 CFR 1.51 O(b)(4).
`
`[Page 1 of 3]
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.510. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO
`to process) a request for reexamination. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1 .11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 18 minutes to
`complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO
`THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop Ex Parle Reexam, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`ff you need assistance in completing the form, ca/11-800-PT0-9199 and select option 2.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 56
`
`PTO/SB/57 (01-18)
`Approved for use through 11/30/2021. 0MB 0651-0064
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Pa erwork Reduction Act of 1995, no ersons are re uired to res ond to a collection of information unless it dis la s a valid 0MB control number.
`
`If applicable, items a. - c. are required.
`
`b. Specification Sequence Listing on:
`
`8. D Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
`a. D Computer Readable Form (CRF)
`i. D CD-ROM (2 copies) or CD-R (2 copies) or
`ii. D paper
`c. D Statements verifying identity of above copies.
`9. 00 A copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction or reexamination certificate issued in the patent is included.
`1 O. 00 Reexamination of claim(s) _1_-3_, 6_-_1_4_,_a_n_d_1_6 _________________ is requested.
`11. 00 A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon is submitted herewith including a listing thereof on
`12. D An English language translation of all necessary and pertinent non-English language patents and/or printed
`13. 00 The attached detailed request includes at least the following items:
`
`Form PTO/SB/08, PT0-1449, or equivalent.
`
`publications is attached.
`
`a. A statement identifying each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed
`publications. 37 CFR 1.51 O(b)(1 ).
`
`b. An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the
`pertinency and manner of applying the cited art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.
`37 CFR1 .51 O(b)(2).
`
`14. D A proposed amendment is included (only where the patent owner is the requester). 37 CFR 1.51 O(e).
`15. 00 It is certified that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) do not
`
`prohibit requester from filing this ex patie reexamination request. 37 CFR 1.51 O(b)(6).
`
`16.
`
`Service
`
`a. 00 It is certified that a copy of this request (if filed by other than the patent owner) has been served in its
`
`entirety on the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(c).
`
`The name and address of the party served are:
`Venable LLP
`P.O. BOX 34385
`Washington, D.C. 20043-9998
`
`Date of Service: 9/21/2021
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`OR
`
`b. D A duplicate copy is enclosed since service on patent owner was not possible. An explanation of the
`
`efforts made to serve patent owner is attached. See MPEP 2220.
`
`[Page 2 of 3]
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 56
`
`PTO/SB/57 (01-18)
`Approved for use through 11/30/2021. 0MB 0651-0064
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 0MB control number.
`
`17.
`
`Correspondence Address: Direct all communication about the reexamination to:
`
`~ The address associated with Customer Number: 120995
`
`I
`
`OR
`
`D Firm or Individual Name
`
`(at the address identified below)
`
`Address
`
`City
`
`Country
`
`Telephone
`
`Email
`
`State
`
`Zip
`
`18. ~ The patent is currently the subject of the following concurrent proceeding(s):
`a. D Copending reissue Application No.
`b. D Copending reexamination Control No.
`C. D Copending Interference No.
`d. D Copending litigation styled:
`See attached detailed request for full listing of concurrent proceedings
`
`WARNING : Information on this form may become public. Credit card information should not be included on this
`form. Provide credit card information and authorization on PT0-2038.
`
`/lrfan A. Lateef/
`Authorized Signature
`
`I rf an A. Lateef
`Typed/Printed Name
`
`D For Patent Owner Requester
`
`September 20, 2021
`Date
`
`51,922
`Registration No.
`
`[ii For Third Party Requester
`
`[Page 3 of 3]
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 56
`
`Privacy Act Statement
`
`The Privacy Act of 1974 (P .L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission
`of the attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please
`be advised that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the
`information solicited is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent. If you do not
`furnish the requested information, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to process and/or examine your
`submission, which may result in termination of proceedings or abandonment of the application or expiration of the patent.
`
`The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses:
`
`1. The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of Information
`Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Records from this system of records may be disclosed
`to the Department of Justice to determine whether disclosure of these records is required by the Freedom of
`Information Act.
`2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to
`a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of
`settlement negotiations.
`3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a
`request involving an individual, to whom the record pertains, when the individual has requested assistance from
`the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
`4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having need
`for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply with the
`requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
`5. A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of records
`may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization,
`pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
`6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes of
`National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 218(c)).
`7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services,
`or his/her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to
`recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904
`and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of
`records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e., GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be
`used to make determinations about individuals.
`8. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public after either publication of
`the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record
`may be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record was filed
`in an application which became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which application
`is referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspection or an issued patent.
`9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, or local law
`enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 56
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`in re U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B 1
`
`Patentee:
`
`Issued:
`
`Mullor et al.
`
`June 25, 2002
`
`Application No.:
`
`09/164,777
`
`For:
`
`METHOD OF RESTRICTING
`SOFT\V ARE OPERATION \VITHIN A
`LICENSE LIMITATION
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Attn: Irfan A. Lateef, Esq. (Reg. No. 51,922)
`Customer No. 20995
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 56
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`L
`
`IL
`
`INTRODlJCTI()N ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`1.51 O(B)(2) ......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`IIL
`
`OTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE '941 Pi\TENT AND
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6) ........................................................ 2
`
`IV.
`
`CITATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 ................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AND BACKGROUND OF THE '941 PATENT ......................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`State of the A.it ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`The '941 Patent Priority ......................................................................................... 7
`
`The '941 Patenl Clailns .......................................................................................... 7
`
`The '941 Patent specification ................................................................................. 8
`
`Prosecution History and Later Proceedings ......................................................... 12
`
`VL
`
`SUM MARY OF THE PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
`\VHICH ARE SUBMITTED TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL NEW
`1·)'T 'E'S'Plf)N. oc n / 'PE'N·-'I' "B].LI'J'v·
`"'...: u
`\... 11\..
`.[' r L-\._ 1
`t""l
`_
`
`j_ • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
`
`1 d.
`
`0
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Helln1an ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Chou ..................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Schneck ................................................................................................................ 19
`
`VIL
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................. 19
`
`VIII. STATEMENTS POINTING OlJT EACH SUBSTANTIAL NE\V
`QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`1.51 O(B)( 1 ) ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Hellman and Chou Raise Substantial New Questions of Patentability ................ 20
`
`Hellman, Chou, and Schneck Raise Substantial New Questions of
`Patentability ......................................................................................................... 20
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 56
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont'd)
`
`Page No.
`
`IX.
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCY AND MANNER
`OF APPLYING THE CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`\VHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.51 O(B)(2) .................................................................................................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`Ground I: Clairns 1-2, 11, and 13 ·were obvious over the combined
`teachings of Hellman and Chou ........................................................................... 21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Claim 1 preamble: "A method of restiicting softvvare
`operation within a license for use with a computer including
`an erasable, non- volatile memory area of a Bl OS of the
`computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:" ......................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 1.a: ''selecting a program residing in the volatile
`n1ernory," ................................................................................................. 26
`
`Claim 1.b: "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," ......................................................................... 27
`
`Claim 1.c: "verifying the prograrn using at least the
`verification structure from the erasable non-volatile memory
`of the BIC)S, and" ..................................................................................... 28
`
`Claim 1 .d: "acting on the program according to the
`verification.'' ............................................................................................ 28
`
`Claim 2: "A method according to claim 1, further comprising
`the steps of: establishing a license authentication bureau." ..................... 28
`
`Claim 11: "A rnethod according to clairn 1 wherein the
`volatile memory is a RAM." .................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 13: "The method of claim 1, wherein a unique key is
`stored in a first non--volatile memory area of the computer." .................. 29
`
`2.
`
`Ground H: Claims 1---3, 6---14, and 16 were obvious over the
`combined teachings of Hellman, Chou, and Schneck .......................................... 29
`
`- 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 56
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont'd)
`
`Page No.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`1.
`
`J.
`
`k.
`
`Claim 1. prearnble: "A method of restricting softvv~ire
`operation within a license for use \vilh a computer including
`an erasable, non- volatile memory area of a BIOS of the
`computer, and a volatile memory area; the rnethod
`comprising the steps of:" ......................................................................... 32
`
`Claim 1.a: "selecting a program residing in the volatile
`rnen1ory," ................................................................................................. 32
`
`Claim 1.b: "using an agent to set up a verification structure in
`the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the
`verification structure accommodating data thal includes at
`least one license record," ......................................................................... 32
`
`Claim 1.c: ''verifying the program using at least the
`verification stmcture from the erasable non-volatile memory
`of the BIOS. and" ..................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 1.d: "acting on lhe program according lo the
`verification." ............................................................................................ 34
`
`Claim 2: "A method according to claim L further comprising
`the steps of: establishing a license authentication bureau." ..................... 34
`
`Claim 3 preamble: "A method according to claim 2, wherein
`setting up a verification structure further comprising the steps
`of:" ........................................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 3.a: "establishing, between the computer and the
`bureau, a two-way data-communications linkage;" ................................. 34
`
`Claim 3.b: "transferring, from the computer to the bureau, a
`request-for-license including an identification of the
`computer and the license-record's contents from the selected
`progran1;" ................................................................................................. 35
`
`Claim 3.c: "forming an encrypted license-record at the
`bureau by encrypting pa.rts of the request-for-license using
`part of the identification as an encryption key;" ...................................... 37
`
`Claim 3.d: ''transferring, from the bureau to lhe computer, the
`encrypted license--record; and" ................................................................ 37
`
`-111
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 56
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont'd)
`
`Page No.
`
`1.
`
`m.
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`t.
`
`u.
`
`v.
`
`Claim 3 .e: "storing the encrypted license record in the
`erasable non-volatile memory area of the BIOS." .............. ., .............. ., ... 37
`
`Claim 6: "A method according to claim 1 ;,vherein selecting a
`program includes the steps of: establishing a licensed-·
`soft\:vare-program in the volatile memory of the computer
`wherein said licensed-software-program includes contents
`used to form the license-record.'' ............................................................. 37
`
`Claim 7 preamble: "A method according to claim 6 wherein
`using an agent to set up the verification structure includes the
`steps of:" .................................................................................................. 38
`
`Claim 7 .a: "establishing or certifying the existence of a
`pseudo-unique key in a first non-volatile memory area of the
`con1puter; and" ......................................................................................... 38
`
`Claim 7.b: "establishing at least one license-record location
`in the first nonvolatile memory area or in the erasable, non-
`volatile memory area of the BIOS." ........................................................ 38
`
`Claim 8 preamble: "A method according to claim 6 wherein
`establishing a license-record includes the steps of:'' ................................ 38
`
`Claim 8.a: "forming a license-record by encrypting of the
`contents used to form a license-record vvith other
`predetermined data contents, using the key; and" ................................... 39
`
`Claim 8.b: "establishing the encrypted license-record in one
`of the at least one established license-record locations." ......................... 39
`
`Claim 9 preamble: "A method according to claim 7 wherein
`verifying the program includes the steps of:" .......................................... 39
`
`Claim 9.a: "encrypting the licensed-software-program's
`license-record contents from the volatile memory area or
`decrypting the license--record in the erasable, non-volatile
`memory area of the Bl OS, using the pseudo-unique key; and" ............... 39
`
`Claim 9.b: "comparing the encrypted licenses-softwaTe(cid:173)
`program's license-record contents with the encrypted license(cid:173)
`record in the erasable, non-volatile memory area of the BIOS,
`
`- lV
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 56
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont'd)
`
`Page No.
`
`w.
`
`x.
`
`y.
`
`z.
`
`aa.
`
`bb.
`
`or cornparing the license- software-program's license-record
`contents with the decrypted license-record in erasable non-
`volatile rnemory area of the BIOS." ........................................................ 40
`
`Claim 10: "A method according to claim 9 wherein acting on
`the program includes the step: restricting the program's
`operation with predetermined limitations if the comparing
`yields non-unity or insufficiency.'' .......................................................... 40
`
`Claim 11: "A method according to claim 1 wherein the
`volatile memory is a RAM." .................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 12: "The method of claim 1, wherein a pseudo-unique
`key is stored in the non-volatile memory of the BIOS." .......................... 41
`
`Claim 13: "The method of claim L wherein a unique key is
`stored in a first non--volatile memory area of the computer." .................. 42
`
`Claim 14: "The method according claim 13, wherein lhe step
`of using the agent to set up the verification record, including
`the license record, includes encrypting a license record data
`in the program using at least the unique key." ......................................... 42
`
`Claim 16: "The method according to claim 13, ;,vherein the
`step of verifying the program includes a decrypting the
`license record data accomrnodated in the erasable second
`non--volatile memory area of the BIOS using at least the
`unique key.'' ............................................................................................. 42
`
`X.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS DO NOT
`FAVOR A REBUTTAL OF A PRIMA FACIE FINDING OF
`()BVlOlTSN.ESS .............................................................................................................. 43
`
`XL
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 43
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`- V
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 56
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRJ\DEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 B 1
`
`Patentee:
`
`Issued:
`
`Mullor et al.
`
`June 25, 2002
`
`Application No.:
`
`09/164,777
`
`For:
`
`METHOD OF RESTRICTING
`SOFTWARE OPERATION WITHIN A
`LICENSE LIMITATION
`
`Rl~OUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`POOO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C §§ 302.-'.307 and 37 CF.R. §§ 1.150--1.570, Requester respectfully
`
`requests ex parte reexamination of claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`(hereinafter ''the '941 patent''). A copy of the '941 Patent is Exhibit A. The owner of record is
`
`Ancora Technologies, lnc. (hereinafter "Ancora," "Patent Owner," or" Applicant").
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The '941 Patent generally relates to methods for restricting unauthorized software
`
`operation. Specifically, the '941 Patent claims such a method by storing a license record in the
`
`BIOS memory, which purportedly overcame deficiencies using a sofl;,vare-based prior art
`
`method where a license record was stored in "volatile memory (e.g., hard disk)" and a hardware(cid:173)
`
`based prior ait method. '941 Patent at 1: 10--42. Indeed, storing a license record for a program in
`
`the BIOS memory, and not just any non-volatile rnemory, is the supposed irnprovernent of the
`
`'941 Patent claims over the prior ait in prosecution, an ex parte reexamination, a covered
`
`business method revie;,v, and two Federal Circuit appeals: even though those proceedings
`
`conceded that a "license record" and "BIOS rnernory" were both conventional. But the storage of
`
`license records in a BIOS memory was not a patentable distinction over the prior art as of the
`
`priority date in 1998, as shown in three prior art references, Hellman, Chou, and Schneck.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 56
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`·while the '941 Patent has been litigated in district courl and at the Patent Office in
`
`numerous cases, its invalidity based on prior att publications has been folly considered in only
`
`one of these proceedings. Neither of the Federal Circuit appeals considered prior art invalidity.
`
`One appeal v,·as limited to claim construction issues, and one appeal was limited to patent
`
`eligibility. The covered business method review was denied institution on the basis that the '941
`
`Patent was not eligible for covered business method review. Despite the Patent Owner having
`
`asse1ted the '941 Patent against over a dozen entitles over the course of more than 10 years, the
`
`invalidity of lhe '941 Patent's claims has only been considered on the merits three limes, an ex
`
`parte reexarn and two instituted IPRs (alleging identical grounds) that were both quickly
`
`tem1inated after institution due to settlement.
`
`\Vhen folly considered on the merits, the prior art demonstrates that storing information,
`
`a license record or othenvise, in the BIOS memory, that is used in a method to restrict
`
`unauthorized operation of software, was vvell-known as a way to provide increased protection
`
`against tampe1ing with that information by, e.g., a soft\vaie hacker. The combinations of
`
`Hellman, Chou, and Schneck demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention (POSA) would have found all challenged claims obvious. The PTAB has twice
`
`found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the '941 Patent is unpatentable in two
`
`similar IPRs. Ancora, however, quickly settled those matters before the PTAB could render any
`
`final ,vritten decision.
`
`For the reasons described herein, the Patent Office should reexamrne and cancel a11
`
`challenged claims of the '941 Patent in line with the PTAB's institution decisions.
`
`n.
`
`Il)ENTWICATION OF EVERY CLAIM FOR vVHICH REEXAMINATION IS
`
`REQUESTED PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.510(8)(2)
`
`Reexamination of claims 1---3, 6---14, and 16 of the '941 patenl is requested, in line with
`
`the PTAB' s institution decisions.
`
`III. OTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE '941 PATENT AND
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § l.5:Hl(b)(6)
`
`Patent Owner has asserted or is asse1ting that various companies infringe the '941 Patent:
`
`(1)
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Toshiba Anierica Information Systems, Inc., et al.;
`
`C.D. Cal. Case No. 8:08-cv-00626.-AG-MLG; \VD. Wash. Case No. 2:2009-·cv-·
`
`00270, dosed on November 16, 2009.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 56
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`(2) Microsoft petitioned for ex parte reexamination on May 28, 2009, Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination No. 90/010,560. Its petition focused on two prior art references-
`6. 1-" 81- (''S' h
`d c.; ,.,.,.,4 810 ""L
`l T S u
`28
`'')
`N.
`(l\-~
`..,, u
`,
`., . 1 atent 1 os.
`, ) j , _.:,
`c ,vaitz . an
`ew1s /" 1v1ay
`·,
`.1 (
`
`" )
`
`O
`
`2009 Request for Ex Pmi.e Reexamination at 3, Exh. 1004.) The Patent Office
`
`instituted reexamination based on Lewis, but not Schwartz. (Aug. 3, 2009
`
`Reexamination Determination at 9-10, Exh. 1005.) The Examiner subsequently
`
`confirmed the claims over Lewis without issuing an office action, finding that
`
`Levvis was directed to ve1ifying hardware and not a softwai·e program, as claimed.
`
`(Mar. 9, 2010 Notice of Intent to Issue Reexam Certificate at 4-5, Exh. 1006.)
`
`A.ncora Techs., Inc. v. A.pple Inc. No. 11-cv-6357-YGR (N.D. Cal.) and A.ncora
`
`Techs.,
`
`lnc. v. Apple lnc., No. 15-cv-3659-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Apple also
`
`petitioned for CBrv1 review on January, 8, 2021 (CBM2016--00023). On April 25,
`
`2016, Apple and Ancora filed a joint motion to terminate in view of the parties'
`
`agreement to settle their disputes. Apple Inc. v. A.ncora Techs., inc., CBM2016-
`
`00023, Paper 6 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016). On April 26, 2016, the Board terminated
`
`the proceeding.
`
`(4)
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC,
`
`inc., No. 2:16-cv-1919 (\V.D.
`
`\Vash.), filed
`
`December 15, 2016 and still pending. HTC petitioned for CBM review of the
`
`'941 Patent on May 26, 2017 (CBM2017--00054). The Boai·d denied institution,
`
`finding that the '941 Patent was not a covered business method patent because it
`
`disclosed a technical solution in the form of storing the license record in the
`
`memory of the BIOS. HTC Corp. v. Ancora Techs., lnc., No. CBM2017-00054,
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 7, pp. 10-12 (Dec. 1, 2017). The Board therefore did
`
`not consider the merits of the prior art-based invalidity grounds present in the
`
`CB M petition.
`
`(5)
`
`Ancora Technologies, inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00385
`
`(W.D. Tex.). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. filed a petition for inter pmi.es
`
`review against the '941 Patent on June 25, 2020. IPR.2020-01184 ("Samsung IPR
`
`Petition"). The Board denied the Samsung IPR on January 5, 2021. The litigation
`
`,vas settled right before trial.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 56
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`(6)
`
`A.ncora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT M_obile (US) Inc, No. 8:19-cv-02192 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); On September 10, 2020, TCT filed a petition for inter partes review against
`
`claims 1-3, 6--14. and 16 of the '941 Patent (IPR2020--01609, ''the TCT IPR'').
`
`See Ex. B. On Febmary 16. 2021. the PTAB instituted inter partes review
`
`proceedings in the TCT IPR. See Ex. C. On April 5, 202L the paities filed a
`
`Joint Motion to Tenninate Proceedings based on settlernent. On July 16, 2021,
`
`the Boai-d tem1inated the proceeding.
`
`(7)
`
`Ancora Technologies, inc v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 1: 19-cv-01712 (D.
`
`Del.), pending.
`
`(8)
`
`A.