Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 51
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 51
`
`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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 51
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`L
`
`IL
`
`IIL
`
`INTRODlJCTI()N ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`1.51 0(B)(2) ......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`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
`{')'T 'E'S'Plf)N" oc n / 'PE'N•·,r· "B]·L1·1•v·
`"'...: u
`\-. 1 1\..
`.[' r L-\._ 1
`t""l
`_
`
`j_
`
`• o o o o o • • • o o o o • o • • o o o o o • • • o o o o • o • • o o o o o • • • o o o o • o • • o o o o o • • • o o o o • o • • o o o o o • • • o o o o • o
`
`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.Sl0(B)(l) ....................................................................................................................... 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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 51
`
`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.
`§ 1.510(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 B IC)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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 5 of 51
`
`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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 6 of 51
`
`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." ...... o . . . . . . o••· .. ·••o• .... •o••· .. 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:" .... •o •••••• o• . . . . . . •o •••••• o• . . . . . . •o •••••• o• . . . . . . •o •••••• o• . . . . . . •o •••••• o• . . . . . . •o •••••• o• .... 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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 7 of 51
`
`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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 8 of 51
`
`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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 9 of 51
`
`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. § 1.510(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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 10 of 51
`
`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-
`d "',.,.,.,4 81° ""L
`28
`N.
`l T S u
`'')
`6. 1-" g1- (''S' h
`(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 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 11 of 51
`
`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.ncora Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01703 (D. Del.); Shmtly
`
`after the PT AB institution decision in the TCT lPR, Sony separately filed a
`
`"copycat" IPR petition and motion for joinder with the TCT IPR. Sony Mobile
`
`Commc'ns, AB et al. v. Ancora Techs., lnc., IPR2021-00663, Paper l (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 15, 2021). Ancora then settled its case with TCT and filed a joint motion to
`
`terminate the TCT IPR. TCT l'vfobile (US) Inc. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2020-
`
`01609, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2021). The PTAB granted institution in the
`
`Sony IPR on June 10, 2021, granted Sony's motion for joinder ;,vilh the TCT IPR,
`
`and consolidated the Sony IPR with the TCT IPR. Ex. D at 132-133. The PTAB
`
`also terminated TCT as a petitioner, but did not terminate the proceeding with
`
`respect to Ancora and Sony. 1 On July 12, 2021, the parties jointly moved to
`
`tem1inate the proceedings based on settlement. On July 16, the Board terminated
`
`the IPR.
`
`1 Shortly after the PTAB institution decision in the TCT IPR, HTC, LG, and Samsung
`also separately filed "copycat" IPR petitions and motions for joinder with the TCT IPR. HTC
`Corp. et al. v. Ancora Techs. inc., IPR2021-00570, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2021); LG Elecs.,
`Inc. et al. v. A.ncora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00581, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B, Feb. 23, 2021); Samsung
`II}D')0 ... 1 1 0()_8_'
`1 (n 'I' \ B F' l
`')4 20')1)
`i
`(' L 1
`l
`~--
`1' h
`:,- j , aper
`. e , . ..:.
`,
`..:.
`/"
`tt;,. et a. v. 1-J.ncora ec s., nc.,
`ecs.
`El
`[J
`r. Ji...
`-O.
`The PTAB also denied institution in the other "copycat" IPRs on procedural grounds. HTC
`Corp. et al. v. Ancora Techs. Inc., IPR2021-00570, Paper 1 (P.T,A.B. Feb. 19, 2021); LG Elecs.,
`lnc. et af_ v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00581, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2021); Samsung
`Elecs. Co. Ltd. et al. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00583, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2021);
`Sony Mobile Commc'ns, A.B et al. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021--00663, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B.
`Mm. 15, 2021).
`
`..:.
`
`-·
`
`1'-. ....
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 12 of 51
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`(9)
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc, No. 1:20-cv-00034 (\V.D.
`
`Tex.), settled.
`
`(10)
`
`11ncora Technologies, Inc v. VJZ/O, Inc., No. 6:21--cv--00739 (\V.D. Tex.),
`
`pending.
`
`(11) Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21--cv--00737 (W.D. Tex.),
`
`pending. On August 24, 2021, Roku and Vizio filed a petition for IPR in
`
`IPR2021-01406 based on the TCT instituted petition.
`
`(12) Ancora Technologies, Inc v. Google, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00735 (W.n Tex.),
`
`pending.
`
`(13) Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-00738 (W.n Tex.),
`
`pending. On August 10, 2021, Nintendo filed a petition for IPR in IPR202 l-
`
`01338 based on the TCT instituted petition.
`
`There is no overlap in grounds or prior art references between this Request, the Sarnsung
`
`IPR Petition (IPR2020--01184), the Apple CBM, the HTC CBM or the Microsoft Reexam. The
`
`grounds and prior art references presented in this Request are the same as the grounds presented
`
`in the TCT instituted petition and other copycat IPR petitions filed based on the TCT instituted
`
`petition. Although the grounds and prior art references overlap with the TCT instituted petition,
`
`a substantial new question of patentabllity exists and is not cumulative of the TCT instituted
`
`petition because Ancora settled each instituted IPR such that no IPR on the '941 Patent resulted
`
`in a final vv·ritten decision. Thus, the prior art references are not cumulative of any concluded
`
`examination or concluded review of the patent, or pending reexamination or supplemental
`
`examination of the patent.
`
`Additionally, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6), Requester hereby certifies that it ls not
`
`prohibited from filing the instant ex 1x1rte reexamination requested under 35 lLS.C § 315(e)(l)
`
`or § 325(e)(1). Although a number of IPR petitions have been filed against the '941 Patent, as
`
`explained above, the PTAB has never issued a final written decision in any IPR that would
`
`trigger the estoppel provision of § 315(e)(l ). The '941 Patent is not eligible for post-grant
`
`review, and thus, the estoppel provision of§ 325(e)(1) does not apply.
`
`IV.
`
`CITATION OF PRIOR ART PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.501
`
`A.s explained in detail below, the following prior ait references, as they would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the ait ("POSA") as of, or prior to, the earliest
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 13 of 51
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`effective p1iority date of the '941 patent, raise substantial ne;,v questions of patentability with
`
`respect to claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16 of the '941 patent. A copy of each patent or printed
`
`publication relied upon or refeITed to herein is provided in the Exhibits pursuant to the
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3).
`
`This request relies upon the references listed in the Table of Exhibits, including:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,658,093 ("Hellman" (Ex. E)), issued on April 14, 1987 from an
`
`application filed on July 11, 1983. Hellman is prior mt under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,906 ("Chou" (Ex. F)), issued on April 6, 1999 from an application
`
`filed on July 19, 1996. Chou ls prior a1t under pre-AJA 35 U .S.C. § 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,498 (''Schneck" (Ex. G)), issued on Augusl 3, 1999 from an
`
`application filed on November 5, 1997 and that claims priority to an application filed on January
`1 L 1996. Schneck is prior art under pre--AV\ 35 LLS.C § 102(e)o
`Hellman, Chou, and Schneck 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
`
`A statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability based on the cited
`
`patents and printed publications and a detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of
`
`applying the patents and printed publications to every claim for which reexamination is
`
`requested, pursuant to the requirements of 37 CF.R. § 1.510(b)(l)---(2), follow in Sections VIII
`
`and IX.
`
`This Request is suppo1ted by the declaration of Dr. Andre,v Wolfe ("Wolfe Deel."
`
`(Ex. H). The declaration of Dr. Wolfe is submitted pursuant to MPEP § 2217(II) to explain the
`
`contents of prior art patents or printed publications in more detai I.
`
`Further provided in Section IX, infra, are detailed explanations of the perlinency and
`
`manner of applying the patents and printed publications to each claim for which reexamination is
`
`requested.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AND BACKGROUND OF THE '941 PATENT
`
`1.
`
`State of the Art
`
`By the time of the '941 Patent's priority date in 1998, the field of software licensing was
`
`well--developed. Wolfe Deel. 1[1[ 31---35. For more than a decade prior, practitioners in the field
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 14 of 51
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`had widely recognized the ne;,v risks to software piracy introduced by the transformations to
`
`digital rnedia. fd.
`
`Many entities recognized that one such risk was "copy protection'' or "secondary
`
`distribution." Id. This referred to the situation ;,vhere 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 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 comrnon theme was to use some form of
`
`encryption to reduce unauthorized secondary distribution of the software program. Id.
`
`\Volfe Deel.
`Similarly, by 1998, the field of cornputer BIOS was well-developed.
`~l'lI 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 B lOS programs in
`
`separate, true ROM (read only memory) memory module, i.e., memory that could not be re·(cid:173)
`
`written in lhe field. id.
`
`By the 1990s, it was more common to store BIOS programs in "ROM" that could
`
`actually be rewritten in some fom1, 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 rnedium for BIOS rnernory. 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 allovved that functionality. Id,
`
`2.
`
`The '941 Patent Priority
`
`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 124571, which was filed on May 21, 1998.
`
`'941 Patent, Cover Page, Therefore, the priority date of the '941 Patent is no earlier than May 21,
`
`1998.
`
`3.
`
`The '941 Patent Claims
`
`Claim 1, the only independent claim challenged in this Request, recites:
`
`,..,
`- / -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 30-2 Filed 01/06/22 Page 15 of 51
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARIE REEXAMINATION
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 Bl
`
`L
`
`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 aiea; the method comprising the steps of:
`
`[a]
`
`[b]
`
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`
`using an agent to set up a verification strncture in the erasable,
`
`non-volatile mernory of the BlOS, the verification strncture accommodating data
`
`that includes at least one license record,
`
`[c]
`
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure from
`
`the erasable non-volatile memory of the B !OS, and
`
`[d]
`
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`The remaining clairns challenged in this Request all depend directly or indirectly on
`
`Claim 1. The dependent claims of the '941 patent add only conventional, ,veil-known limitations
`
`to the independent claim. As explained in Section lX below, these limitations \vould have been
`
`obvious to a POSA, and those claims are addressed in the grounds below.
`
`4.
`
`The '941 Patent specification
`
`The '941 Patent invention is directed to "restricting an unauthorized software program's
`
`operation." '941 Patent at 1:6---8. The '941 Patent recognizes that it was known in the field to
`
`store a "license signature" for a program in a cornputer's "volatile memory (e.g. hard disk)." 2 Id.
`
`at 1: 19---21. The '941 Patent alleges that such techniques were "approp1iate for rest1icting honest
`
`software users," but they \vere "vulnerable to attack at the hands of skilled system's
`
`programmers (e.g. 'hackers').'' Id. at 1 :21--24.
`
`The '941 Patent proposes to solve this problem based on "the use of a key and of a
`
`record, which have been written into the non-volatile rnemory of a computer." id.