Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 79
`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 79
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 79
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and
`
`NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`Patent No. 6,411,941 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,411,941
`
`
`
`153311217
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 79
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 3
`A.
`Real party-in-interest ............................................................................ 3
`B.
`Related matters ..................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information ......................................................... 5
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 6
`A. Ground for Standing ............................................................................. 6
`B.
`Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ..................................... 6
`1.
`Identification of Prior Art .......................................................... 6
`2.
`Grounds for Challenge ............................................................... 7
`3.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Legal Principles .............. 7
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute Review ........... 8
`C.
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY .......................................................... 11
`A. Overview of the Technology .............................................................. 11
`B.
`Overview of the ’941 Patent ............................................................... 13
`1.
`The Specification and Alleged Invention ................................ 13
`2.
`Prosecution History and Later Proceedings ............................. 18
`3.
`The Challenged Claims ............................................................ 22
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 22
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 24
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................................... 24
`A. Ground I: Claims 1–2, 11, and 13 were obvious over the
`combined teachings of Hellman and Chou. ....................................... 24
`1.
`Overview of Hellman ............................................................... 24
`2.
`Overview of Chou .................................................................... 29
`3. Motivations to Combine Hellman and Chou ........................... 30
`
`
`153311217
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 79
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 preamble: “A method of restricting software
`operation within a license for use with a computer
`including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a
`BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the
`method comprising the steps of:” ............................................ 35
`Claim 1.a: “selecting a program residing in the volatile
`memory,” .................................................................................. 38
`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,” ....................................... 40
`Claim 1.c: “verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure from the erasable non-volatile
`memory of the BIOS, and” ...................................................... 41
`Claim 1.d: “acting on the program according to the
`verification.” ............................................................................ 42
`Claim 2: “A method according to claim 1, further
`comprising the steps of: establishing a license
`authentication bureau.” ............................................................ 43
`10. Claim 11: “A method according to claim 1 wherein the
`volatile memory is a RAM.” .................................................... 43
`11. Claim 13: “The method of claim 1, wherein a unique key
`is stored in a first non-volatile memory area of the
`computer.” ................................................................................ 43
`Ground II: Claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16 were obvious over the
`combined teachings of Hellman, Chou, and Schneck. ....................... 44
`1.
`Overview of Schneck ............................................................... 44
`2. Motivations to Combine Hellman, Chou, and Schneck .......... 45
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`153311217
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 79
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`153311217
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1. preamble: “A method of restricting software
`operation within a license for use with a computer
`including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a
`BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the
`method comprising the steps of:” ............................................ 49
`Claim 1.a: “selecting a program residing in the volatile
`memory,” .................................................................................. 49
`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,” ....................................... 50
`Claim 1.c: “verifying the program using at least the
`verification structure from the erasable non-volatile
`memory of the BIOS, and” ...................................................... 52
`Claim 1.d: “acting on the program according to the
`verification.” ............................................................................ 53
`Claim 2: “A method according to claim 1, further
`comprising the steps of: establishing a license
`authentication bureau.” ............................................................ 53
`Claim 3 preamble: “A method according to claim 2,
`wherein setting up a verification structure further
`comprising the steps of:” ......................................................... 53
`10. Claim 3.a: “establishing, between the computer and the
`bureau, a two-way data-communications linkage;” ................. 54
`11. 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 program;” ............................................................. 55
`12. Claim 3.c: “forming an encrypted license-record at the
`bureau by encrypting parts of the request-for-license
`using part of the identification as an encryption key;” ............ 58
`13. Claim 3.d: “transferring, from the bureau to the
`computer, the encrypted license-record; and” ......................... 58
`-iii-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 79
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`14. Claim 3.e: “storing the encrypted license record in the
`erasable non-volatile memory area of the BIOS.” ................... 58
`15. Claim 6: “A method according to claim 1 wherein
`selecting a program includes the steps of: establishing a
`licensed-software-program in the volatile memory of the
`computer wherein said licensed-software-program
`includes contents used to form the license-record.” ................ 59
`16. Claim 7 preamble: “A method according to claim 6
`wherein using an agent to set up the verification structure
`includes the steps of:” .............................................................. 59
`17. Claim 7.a: “establishing or certifying the existence of a
`pseudo-unique key in a first non-volatile memory area of
`the computer; and” ................................................................... 60
`18. 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.” .................. 60
`19. Claim 8 preamble: “A method according to claim 6
`wherein establishing a license-record includes the steps
`of:” ............................................................................................ 61
`20. Claim 8.a: “forming a license-record by encrypting of
`the contents used to form a license-record with other
`predetermined data contents, using the key; and” ................... 61
`21. Claim 8.b: “establishing the encrypted license-record in
`one of the at least one established license-record
`locations.” ................................................................................ 61
`22. Claim 9 preamble: “A method according to claim 7
`wherein verifying the program includes the steps of:” ............ 62
`23. 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 BIOS, using the pseudo-unique key;
`and” .......................................................................................... 62
`
`
`153311217
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 79
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`24. Claim 9.b: “comparing the encrypted licenses-software-
`program’s license-record contents with the encrypted
`license-record in the erasable, non-volatile memory area
`of the BIOS, or comparing the license-software-
`program's license-record contents with the decrypted
`license-record in erasable non-volatile memory area of
`the BIOS.” ................................................................................ 63
`25. 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.” ........................ 63
`26. Claim 11: “A method according to claim 1 wherein the
`volatile memory is a RAM.” .................................................... 64
`27. Claim 12: “The method of claim 1, wherein a pseudo-
`unique key is stored in the non-volatile memory of the
`BIOS.” ...................................................................................... 64
`28. Claim 13: “The method of claim 1, wherein a unique key
`is stored in a first non-volatile memory area of the
`computer.” ................................................................................ 66
`29. Claim 14: “The method according claim 13, wherein the
`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.” ............................................................................. 66
`30. Claim 16: “The method according to claim 13, wherein
`the step of verifying the program includes a decrypting
`the license record data accommodated in the erasable
`second non-volatile memory area of the BIOS using at
`least the unique key.” ............................................................... 66
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 67
`
`
`
`
`153311217
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 to Mullor et al. (“’941 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Image File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“File History”)
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. (“Wolfe Decl.”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093 (“Hellman”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906 (“Chou”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 (“Schneck”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Reserved
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Reserved
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Reserved
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Reserved
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:11-
`cv-06357 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) (ECF No. 107).
`
`Final Claim Constructions of the Court, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG
`Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2020) (ECF No.
`69).
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG
`Elecs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020) (ECF
`No. 93).
`
`Civil Minutes re Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02192 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020)
`(ECF No. 66) (attaching “The Court’s Final Ruling on Claim
`Construction (Markman) Hearing,” but also ordering further meet and
`confer on subject).
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Civil Minutes re Telephonic Markman Hearing, Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
`TCT Mobile (US), Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02192 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020)
`
`153311217
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`(ECF No. 69) (confirming no change to “The Court’s Final Ruling on
`Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing”).
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, TCT Mobile (US)
`Inc. v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2020-01609 (Feb. 16, 2021)
`(Paper No. 7) (“TCL Institution Decision”).
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Sony Mobile
`Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2021-00663 (June
`10, 2021) (Paper No. 17) (“Sony Institution Decision”).
`
`153311217
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioners request inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (Ex. 1001).
`
`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. ’941 Patent at 1:10-42. Indeed, storing a
`
`license record for a program in the BIOS memory, and not just any non-volatile
`
`memory, is the supposed improvement of the ’941 Patent claims over the prior art
`
`as articulated by the Patent Owner in prosecution, two Federal Circuit appeals, and
`
`numerous post-grant proceedings before the Office; even though those proceedings
`
`conceded that a “license record” and “BIOS memory” 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 Petitioners
`
`demonstrate with the use of three prior art references, Hellman, Chou, and
`
`Schneck.
`
`This Petition uses the same grounds on which the Board twice instituted
`
`inter partes review of the ’941 Patent within the last six months. In February
`
`2021, the Board instituted inter partes review based on these same grounds
`
`presented in a petition filed by TCL. See TCL Institution Decision (Ex. 1016).
`
`When TCL settled, Sony moved to join the proceeding, which Ancora contested on
`
`153311217
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`both discretionary and substantive grounds. In June 2021, the Board instituted
`
`inter partes review for Sony based on these same grounds. See Sony Institution
`
`Decision (Ex. 1017). When Sony subsequently settled and the Board granted the
`
`joint stipulation to terminate this proceeding on the morning of July 16, 2021,
`
`Ancora sued Nintendo for infringement later that same day.
`
`Nothing has changed as to the substance of patentability of the challenged
`
`claims of the ’941 Patent. Petitioners submit that, when fully considered on the
`
`merits, the prior art demonstrates that storing information, a license record or
`
`otherwise, in the BIOS memory, that is used in a method to restrict unauthorized
`
`operation of software, was well-known as a way to provide increased protection
`
`against tampering with that information by, e.g., a software hacker. Petitioners
`
`demonstrate through the combinations of Hellman, Chou, and Schneck that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (POSA) would have
`
`found all challenged claims obvious.
`
`For the reasons described herein, and for the reasons the Board already
`
`articulated in its decisions instituting review in the TCL IPR and Sony IPR,
`
`Petitioners request institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of all
`
`challenged claims of the ’941 Patent.
`
`153311217
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real party-in-interest
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related matters
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioners infringe the ’941 Patent in Ancora
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-00738 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(complaint filed July 16, 2021).
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’941 Patent against other parties in the
`
`following currently-pending district-court lawsuits: Ancora Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`VIZIO, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00739 (W.D. Tex.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku,
`
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00737 (W.D. Tex.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Google, LLC,
`
`No. 6:21-cv-00735 (W.D. Tex.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Lenovo Group
`
`Limited, No. 1:19-cv-01712 (D. Del.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00034 (W.D. Tex.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`HTC America, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01919 (W.D. Wash.). Patent Owner also asserted
`
`the ’941 Patent against other parties in the following recently-dismissed district-
`
`court lawsuits: Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Nos. 8:19-cv-
`
`02192, 2:20-cv-01252 (C.D. Cal.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,
`
`153311217
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`No. 1:19-cv-01703 (D. Del.); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd., No. 6:19-cv-00385 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`There are presently no inter partes review or other post-grant review
`
`proceedings pending with respect to the ’941 Patent. The present Petition contains
`
`the same grounds of invalidity as the grounds that were instituted in the prior TCL
`
`IPR proceeding. See TCL Institution Decision. Those grounds were again
`
`instituted in the prior Sony IPR proceeding. See Sony Institution Decision. Both
`
`of these two previously-instituted IPR proceedings were terminated due to
`
`settlement prior to any further activity after the respective institution decisions.
`
`See Decision re Settlement as to TCT and TCL After Institution of Trial, TCT
`
`Mobile (US) Inc. v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2020-01609 (June 10,
`
`2021) (Paper No. 21); Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial,
`
`Sony Mobile Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Technologies, Inc., No. IPR2021-00663
`
`(July 16, 2021) (Paper No. 20).
`
`153311217
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jerry A. Riedinger
`Reg. No. 30,582
`riedinger-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 3rd Ave., #4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: 206-359-8664
`Facsimile: 206-359-9664
`
`
`
`153311217
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Jose Villarreal, Reg. No. 43,969
`villarreal-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`500 W 2nd St 1900
`Austin, TX 78701
`Phone: 737-256-6122
`Fax: 206-359-9664
`
`Kyle Canavera, Reg. No. 72,167
`canavera-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`Phone: 858-720-5700
`Fax: 858-720-5799
`
`Theresa H. Nguyen
`(to be admitted pro hac vice)
`nguyen-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Phone: 206-359-6068
`Fax: 206-359-7068
`
`Tara Kurtis, Reg. No. 74,846
`kurtis-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Perkins Coie LLP
`131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700
`Chicago, IL 60603-5559
`Phone: 312-324-9607
`Fax: 206-359-7068
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service. All services and communications
`
`to the attorneys listed above may be sent to: PerkinsService-Nintendo-Ancora-
`
`IPR@perkinscoie.com. Powers of attorney are being filed concurrently.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Ground for Standing
`Petitioners certify that the ’941 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging claims of
`
`the ’941 Patent on the grounds presented here.
`
`B. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioners request
`
`cancellation of claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16 of the ’941 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`1.
`Petitioners rely upon the references listed in the Table of Exhibits, including:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093 (“Hellman” (Ex. 1004)), issued on April 14, 1987
`
`from an application filed on July 11, 1983. Hellman is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906 (“Chou” (Ex. 1005)), issued on April 6, 1999
`
`from an application filed on July 19, 1996. Chou is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`153311217
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 (“Schneck” (Ex. 1006)), issued on August 3,
`
`1999 from an application filed on November 5, 1997 and that claims priority to an
`
`application filed on January 11, 1996. Schneck is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Hellman, Chou, and Scheck were not in front of the Patent Office during the
`
`original examination, the ex parte reexamination, or the covered business method
`
`review of the ’941 Patent.
`
`2. Grounds for Challenge
`Basis
`Reference(s)
`
`Ground
`
`1
`2
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Hellman, Chou
`Hellman, Chou, Schneck
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1–2, 11, 13
`1–3, 6–14, and 16
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (“Wolfe
`
`Decl.” (Ex. 1003)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioners will prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one challenged
`
`claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge and Legal Principles
`3.
`This Petition requests cancellation of claims 1–3, 6–14, and 16 of the ’941
`
`Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`153311217
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 17 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`C. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion to Institute Review
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has discretion to deny institution of
`
`inter partes review if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses
`
`Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or
`
`substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-
`
`01469, Paper 6, 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). These Becton, Dickinson
`
`factors consider: “(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted
`
`art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the
`
`asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; . . . (d) the extent of the
`
`overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which
`
`Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art.”
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8,
`
`17–18 (Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).
`
`None of these factors support a finding that the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office. None of
`
`Hellman, Chou, and Schneck were submitted to the office during prosecution or in
`
`any of the post-grant proceedings prior to the TCL IPR. When those references
`
`and the grounds presented herein were presented to the Office for the first time in
`
`153311217
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 18 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`the TCL IPR, the Board found that they did warrant institution of review. See TCL
`
`Institution Decision. When Ancora argued that these references and grounds were
`
`cumulative over references and grounds previously considered by the Office, the
`
`Board rejected that position. See Sony Institution Decision at 25–26. The basic
`
`invalidity argument presented in this Petition was not presented to the Office prior
`
`to the TCL IPR, i.e., that Hellman discloses storing a license record in EEPROM,
`
`and Chou discloses the recent use of EEPROM as BIOS memory and the benefit of
`
`discouraging tampering by storing sensitive data in that BIOS memory. See id.
`
`Therefore, the substance of this Petition does not warrant denial of institution
`
`under § 325(d).
`
`The Board considers the General Plastic factors to determine whether to
`
`exercise its discretion under § 314(a). General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, 16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to
`
`§ II.B.4.i). These factors favor institution. First, this Petition is the first petition by
`
`Petitioner (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 5). Petitioners discovered the prior art presented in
`
`this Petition sometime after being sued by Patent Owner on July 16, 2021.
`
`Petitioners are filing this Petition just over three weeks later, before even being
`
`served in the parallel district court litigation (Factor 4). The Board has already
`
`considered and rejected Patent Owner’s extensive pre-institution arguments on
`
`discretionary factors and substantive invalidity, and thus the Board will be able to
`
`153311217
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 19 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`efficiently consider institution of this Petition (Factor 6). The Petition only
`
`presents a single base prior art reference and two grounds, making it more
`
`manageable for the Board to issue a final determination within the statutory time
`
`limits (Factor 7).
`
`The status of the parallel district court proceedings and the factors set forth
`
`in Apple v. Fintiv, No. IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential),
`
`favor granting institution. The Patent Owner initiated the district court litigation
`
`just over three weeks prior to the filing of the present Petition. As such, there has
`
`been no investment in the district court proceedings; Petitioners have not even
`
`been served with process yet (Factor 3). There is no trial date set, or any schedule
`
`entered at all (Factor 2). If inter partes review is instituted based on the Petition,
`
`Petitioners will not present the grounds from this Petition or any other ground
`
`based on the Hellman reference in the district court proceeding (Factor 4). The
`
`Board has previously found this specific stipulation to favor institution of review
`
`of the ’941 Patent. See Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review at 9,
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., No. IPR2021-00581 (June 10, 2021) (Paper
`
`No. 16) (“TCL Institution Decision”). There is only partial party overlap between
`
`153311217
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 20 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`Petitioners and the named defendants in the district court litigation (Factor 5).1
`
`Given the early stage of the proceedings, the district court has given no indication
`
`whether it would grant a stay (Factor 1), so that factor is neutral. The fact that the
`
`Board has twice granted institution based on these same ground over the arguments
`
`of Ancora show that the grounds are strong on the merits (Factor 6).
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A. Overview of the Technology
`By the time of the ’941 Patent’s priority date in 1998, the field of software
`
`licensing was well-developed. Wolfe Decl. ¶¶ 31–35. For more than a decade
`
`prior, practitioners in the field had widely recognized the new risks to software
`
`piracy introduced by the transformations to digital media. Id.
`
`Many entities recognized that one such risk was “copy protection” or
`
`“secondary distribution.” Id. This referred to the situation where a user received a
`
`valid license for a software program, but the user then duplicated the program
`
`and/or the license so as to use it in an unauthorized fashion for more uses, on more
`
`computers, etc. Id. This problem was of particular interest to practitioners because
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Third-party Retro Studios, Inc. is a named defendant in the parallel district court
`litigation and has allegedly been served with process. Retro Studios is irrelevant to
`the allegations of infringement and thus is not a named petitioner here. Nintendo
`of America Inc. is a named petitioner, but is not a named defendant in the district
`court litigation.
`
`153311217
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 21 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`it required the software owner to provide enough trust to the user to perform at
`
`least one authorized use, as opposed to providing no trust or unlimited trust. Id.
`
`While many solutions were developed, a common theme was to use some form of
`
`encryption to reduce unauthorized secondary distribution of the software program.
`
`Id.
`
`Similarly, by 1998, the field of computer BIOS was well-developed.
`
`Wolfe Decl. ¶¶ 36–42. Nearly all consumer end user devices contained a BIOS
`
`program that was used to start up the device at power-on time. Id. Early personal
`
`computers tended to store BIOS programs in separate, true ROM (read only
`
`memory) memory module, i.e., memory that could not be re-written in the field.
`
`Id. By the 1990s, it was more common to store BIOS programs in “ROM” that
`
`could actually be rewritten in some form. Id. Early forms of this rewritable ROM
`
`often required physically accessing the memory chip with a special device. Id.
`
`By the ’941 Patent’s priority date in 1998, electrically-erasable
`
`programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) was a popular medium for BIOS
`
`memory. Id. EEPROM chips had the benefit of being re-writable by software
`
`without the need to remove the chip from the computer. Id. This aspect of
`
`EEPROM was considered beneficial because it became common prior to the ’941
`
`priority date in 1998 for device manufacturers to provide updates to BIOS while
`
`the devices were in the field. Id. EEPROM allowed that functionality. Id.
`
`153311217
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 29-7 Filed 12/30/21 Page 22 of 79
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,941
`PTAB Case No. IPR2021-01338
`
`
`B. Overview of the ’941 Patent
`The ’941 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 09/164,777, filed
`
`on October 1, 1998. It claims priority to Israeli Patent Application 12