UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1094
`
`
`
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS) —
`WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A WEB
`
`BROWSER
`
`ORDER NO. 7:
`
`' GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY
`THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE PENDING RESOLUTION OF
`
`MOTION DOCKET NO. 1094-001
`
`, (February 6, 2018)
`
`On January 29, 2018, Respondents Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc, and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) moved to stay
`
`(1094-002) these proceedings pending disposition of their Emergency Motion to Terminate the
`
`Investigation. On February 5, 2018, Complainants opposed the motion. The Commission
`
`Investigative Staff filed a response in support of Respondents’ motion.
`
`Respondents explain that the only patent asserted in this investigation — US. Patent No.
`
`7,930,340 (“the ’340 patent”) — will expire on March 5, 2018.. (Mot. at 1.) They assert that
`
`pursuant to the schedule set by Order No. 3, “there is no scenario under which a remedy can be
`
`issued in this investigation prior to the patent’s expiration.” (Id. (noting that under the proposed
`
`lOO-day schedule, there will not be hearing on domestic industry until after the patent has
`
`expired and that the domestic industry requirement cannot be satisfied if the patent is eXpired).)
`
`Respondents submit that a stay pending resolution of their dispositive motion would conserve the
`
`resources of the parties and the Commission. (Id) In particular, they contend that “proceeding .
`
`with discovery and all of the other activities set forth in the 100-day schedule of Order No. 3
`
`

`

`would be an enormous waste of resources .
`
`.
`
`. given the ’340 patent’s imminent expiration in 35
`
`days.” (Mem. at 2.)
`
`Complainants state:
`
`Complainants hereby oppose Respondents’ Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Respondents”)’s
`Emergency Motion to stay the procedural schedule pending disposition of
`Respondents’ Emergency Motion to Terminate the Investigation for NO good
`cause on the basis that “there is no scenario under which a remedy can be issued
`in this investigation prior to the patent’s expiration” and false factors propounded
`by Respondents, because (1) no discovery is required to prove an obvious result,
`where the infringement and the existence of the domestic industry are as patently
`and (prima facie) obvious as their antitrust impact for the same finding of the
`Court in US. v Microsoft, as asking to litigate issues where the answers are
`obvious, consistent with the ruling in US. v. Microsoft,
`is a waste, fraud and
`abuse. The Commission can and should provide relief by removing all interim
`superfluous steps that are delay tactics by Respondents and going straight to
`Markman Hearing on February 9, 2018. The ITC must carry out its mission to
`protect the public from infringing imports that are not licensed [Or ‘Infringently’
`Licensed.’]. There is no reason to wait 12 months, as Staff has proposed. [Why].
`The ITC and Staff are not to act as attorneys for Respondents. (2) A stay will not
`simplify the issues and hearing of the case; (3) there would be undue prejudice
`and clear tactical disadvantage to Complainants by granting Respondents Motion
`to Stay the Procedural Schedule in aiding and abetting antitrust violations by
`Respondents and civil rights’ discrimination against a minority woman—owned
`small business that has been abused by the Government and Respondents; and (4)
`a stay would not be an efficient use of Commission resources. Each of the
`Respondents’
`falsely propounded factors compels, not a stay as
`falsely
`propounded by Respondents, but
`the Commission and the CALJ providing
`immediate relief by removing all interim superfluous steps that are delay
`tactics by Respondents and going straight to Markman Hearing on February
`9, 2018. Furthermore, Respondents seeking a limited Stay of Discovery is
`moot, given that Discovery is not needed to prove an obvious result, where the
`infringement and the existence of the domestic industry are as patently and Corima
`facie) obvious as their antitrust impact for the same finding of the Court in US. v
`Microsoft.
`
`(Opp. at 1-2.) Complainants further argue:
`
`While it is not clear the ’340 patent expires on March 5, 2018, and particularly so,
`given all the (extrinsic and intrinsic) fraud(s), obstruction(s) of justice, antitrust
`violations, civil rights’ Violations and civil RICO that has gone on by multiple
`players, including Judges, lawyers, PTAB Judges, USPTO Re-Exam Examiners,
`and multiple large enterprises, it is not true that it will expire “well before any
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`relief could be granted”; where, equitable legal and factual finding and conclusion
`is swiftly made in the public’s interest upon the obvious domestic (and global)
`industry and Government use of the patent at
`issue. Strict adherence to the
`recently issued Procedural Schedule (Order No. 3), propounding the ’340_patent
`will expire nine days before the start of the evidentiary hearing on the domestic
`industry issue is obviously moot since the Federal Court- found anti-trust
`predicated upon the patent at
`issue impinging domestic industry; warranting,
`immediate Markman Hearing [predicated on the patent’s obvious universal
`infringements continuing by import by Respondents] for timely determination by
`the Commission. The overwhelming impact of strictly requiring evidentiary
`hearing on domestic industry issue with an ID to issue within 100 days of
`institution (USITC INV. NO. 337-TA-1094, Notice of Investigation) in the instant
`case would be; a) oppressive, respecting the obvious court and government
`actions predicated upon the infringed patent; b) compromising, respecting the
`public interest objective of the Commission; and, c) chilling regarding the
`public’s confidence and genuine expectation that a complaint filed will be heard
`instead of technically quashed. Respondents allege there can be no domestic
`industry in an expired patent,
`therefore it makes
`sense to continue this
`investigation and proceed to Markman Hearing immediately and force the parties
`and Commission to equitably and expeditiously expend the necessary resources
`adjudicating the imported patent infringements, the issue [for which there is no
`defense for the infringement
`imports into the United States] in the public’s
`interest, before the case allegedly becomes moot on March 5, 2018, when the
`patent allegedly expires.
`
`(Id. at 3-4.) A copy of Complainants” entire opposition is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Staff contends that it “is not aware of any realistic procedure, or procedural
`
`schedule, for this investigation under which the Commission could find a violation and
`
`issue relief for the alleged violations pled in Complainants’ Amended Complaint, and
`
`which were instituted by Notice.” (Staff Resp. at 10.) Thus, in Staff’s view, “it would be
`
`an inefficient use of Commission resources to make an early determination on the
`
`domestic industry requirement, let alone attempt to fit all of the necessary events in a
`
`procedural schedule that need to be decided under Section 337 (generally requiring 16
`
`months), before March 5, 2018.” (Id. at 11.)
`
`There can be no dispute that the expiration date for the ’340 patent is imminent.
`
`The ’340 patent issued from a continuation-in-part application that claims priority to
`
`_-3_
`
`

`

`three earlier filed non—provisional patent applications. The earliest of these applications
`
`was filed on August 5, 1996. (See Ex. B (U. S. Patent No. 7,93034.0)) Under 35 U. S C. §
`
`154(a)(2), the "340 patent is entitled to a 20-year term. The patent’s 20-year term was
`extended by 577 days under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), resulting in an expiration date of March
`
`5, 2018. Furthermore, as Staff correctly noted in its response:
`
`(“PTA”) is set forth
`[T]he procedure for determining a patent term adjustment
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 154(b)(3), (4), and such adjustments are determined by the
`US. Patent and Trademark Office, or can be appealed to the United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Accordingly, the Commission does not
`have the authority to alter the March 5, 2018 expiration date for the ‘340 patent.
`
`(Staff Resp. at 4 n.l.)
`
`Given the structure of section 337 investigations, there is not sufficient time for
`
`the undersigned to issue an initial determination on violation,
`
`let alone an early
`
`determination on domestic industry before the March 5, 2018 expiration of the ’340
`
`patent. Even if the undersigned had all of the necessary evidence before him to issue a
`
`final
`
`initial determination,
`
`the Commission would still be unable to reach a final
`
`determination or issue any relief before the March 5, 2018 expiration date. The
`
`undersigned therefore agrees with Respondents and Staff that a stay pending resolution of
`
`Respondents’ dispositive motion will conserve the resources of the Commission and the
`
`private parties.1
`
`1 The Commission has set forth the following factors to address in a determination to stay an investigation: “(1) the
`state of discovery and the hearing date; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues and hearing of the case;‘(3) the
`undue prejudice or clear tactical disadvantage to any party; (4) the stage of the PTO proceedings; and (5) the
`efficient use-0f Commission resources.” Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and
`Prods Containing Same, Inv. No. 337—TA-605, Comm n Op. 2008 ITC LEXIS 888, at *4 (May 27,2008). Given
`the imminent expiration of the ’340 patent, the undersigned does not believe it necessary to apply these factors to the
`circumstances of this Investigation Even if they were applied, the first and second factors weigh1n favor of a stay
`because the expiration date for the asserted patent moots the need for discovery and a hearing. In addition, the fifth
`factors — conservation of Commission resources — also weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Accordingly, Respondents” motion (1094—002)
`
`is hereby granted, and this
`
`.
`
`Investigation is stayed pending resolution of ' Respondents’ Emergency _Motion to
`
`Terminate the Investigation Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.2104), (Motion No. 1094-
`
`001).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
` harles E. Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`In The Matter Of
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS)
`
`— WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BROWSER
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA—1094
`
`CONIPLAINANTS’ OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO
`STAY THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION
`
`DOCKET NO. 1094-001 AND REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TINIE
`
`Complainants hereby oppose Respondents’ Apple Inc., Facebook,
`
`Inc., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Respondents”)’s Emergency
`
`Motion to stay the procedural schedule pending disposition of Respondents’ Emergency Motion
`
`to Terminate the Investigation for NO good cause on the basis that “there is no scenario under
`
`which a remedy can be issued in this investigation prior to the patent’s expiration” and false
`
`factors propounded by Respondents, because (1) no discovery is required to prove an obvious
`
`result, where the infringement and the existence of the domestic industry are as patently and
`
`(prima facie) obvious as their antitrust impact for the same finding of the Court_in US. v
`
`Microsoft, as asking to litigate issues where the answers are obvious, consistent with the ruling
`
`in US. v. Microsott,
`
`
`is a waste fraud and abuse. The Commission can and should provide
`
`relief by removing all interim superfluous steps that are delay tactics by Respondents and
`
`going straight to Markman Hearing on Februagy 9, 2018. The ITC must carry out its mission
`
`to protect the public from infringing imports that are not licensed [Or ‘Infringently’ Licensed.’].
`
`There is no reason to wait 12 months, as Staff has proposed. [Why.]. The ITC and Staff are not
`
`to act as attorneys for Respondents.
`
`(2) A stay will Lot simplify the issues and hearing of the
`
`

`

`case; (3) there would be undue prejudice and clear tactical disadvantage to Complainants by
`granting Respondents Motion to Stay the Procedural Schedule in aiding and abetting antitrust
`
`violations by Respondents and civil rights’ discrimination against a minority woman-owned
`
`small business that has been abused by the Government and Respondents; and (4) a stay would
`
`n_0t be an efficient use of Commission resources. Each'of the Respondents’ falsely propounded
`
`factors compels,
`
`n_0t a stay as falsely propounded by Respondents, but the Commission and the
`
`CALJ providing immediate relief by removing all interim superfluous steps that are delay
`
`tactics by Respondents and going straight to Markman Hearing on Februagy 9, 2018.
`
`Furthermore, Respondents seeking a limited Stay of Discovery is Eta—at, given that
`
`Discovery is not needed to prove an obvious result, where the infringement and the existence of
`
`the domestic industry are as patently and (prima facie) obvious as their antitrust impact for the
`
`same finding of the Court in US. v Microsoft.
`
`Respondents argue that “The Commission has broad investigative authority that allows
`
`it to “determine the scope and manner of its proceedings.” 19 CPR. § 201.7.” Complainants
`
`assert the Commission could (and should in the public-’s interest) issue a final determination
`
`and remedy, prior to the expiration of ‘the infringed patent at issue’ by equitably and legally
`
`finding and concluding that domestic industry patent at issue ‘is the same patent infringed by
`Microsoft that resulted in monopolizing the domestic andforeign markets’ requiring the US.
`
`Government to successfully file an anti-trust action against Microsoft in the mid-1990’s
`
`[notwithstanding (i) an OBVIOUS SHOWING OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY which every ‘
`child and Grandma knows; (ii) negotiated infringement settlements paid to Complainants by;
`
`Complainants’ Licensees over
`
`the years;
`
`and (iii)
`
`the SHOWING OF DOMESTIC
`
`INDUSTRY is OBVIOUS.].
`
`

`

`While it is not clear the ’340 patent expires on March 5, 2018, and particularly so,
`
`given all the (extrinsic and intrinsic)
`
`fraud(s), obstruction(s) of justice, antitrust violations,
`
`civil rights’ violations and civil RICO that has gone on by multiple players, including Judges,
`
`lawyers, PTAB Judges, USPTO Re-Exam Examiners, and multiple large enterprises,
`
`it is not
`
`true that it will expire “well before any relief c0uld be granted”; where, equitable legal and
`
`factual finding and conclusion is swiftly made in the public’s interest-upon the obvious
`
`domestic (and global) industry and Government use of the patent at issue. Strict adherence to
`
`the recently issued Procedural Schedule (Order No. 3), propounding the ”340 patent will expire
`
`nine days before the start of the evidentiary hearing on the domestic industry issue is obviously
`
`moot since the Federal Court found anti-trust predicated upon the patent at issue impinging
`
`domestic industry; warranting,
`
`immediate Markman Hearing [predicated on the patent’s
`
`obvious universal
`
`infringements continuing by import by Respondents]
`
`for
`
`timely
`
`determination by the Commission.
`
`The overwhelming impact of strictly requiring an
`
`evidentiary hearing on domestic industry issue with an ID to issue within 100 days of
`
`institution (USITC INV. NO. 337-TA-1094, Notice of Investigation) in the instant case would
`
`be; a) oppressive, respecting the obvious court and government actions predicated upon the
`infringed patent; b) compromising, respecting the public interest objective ofthe Commission;
`and, c) chilling regarding the public’s confidence and genuine expectation that a complaint
`
`filed will be heard instead of technically quashed.
`
`V Respondents allege there can be no
`
`domestic industry in an expired patent,
`
`therefore it makes
`
`sense to continue this
`
`investigation andproceed jto Markman ‘Hearing immediately and force the
`
`parties and Commission to equitably and expeditiously expend the necessary resources
`
`adjudicating the imported patent infringements, the issue [for which there is no defense for the
`
`

`

`infringement imports into the United States] in the public’s interest, before the case allegedly
`becomes moot on March 5, 2018, when the patent allegedly expires.
`
`Respondents have requested that the ALJ terminate this investigation and stay the Procedural
`
`Schedule on the ALLEGED basis that no resolution of the issuescan be reached and no remedy
`
`can issue prior to the expiration of the ’340 patent.
`
`Complainants state that equitable
`
`considerations in the public’s interest, or protecting the public’s rights can waive statutes of
`
`limitation and doctrine of laches to preserve the same; and, this Complaint warrants such
`
`considerations. 1
`
`Complainants respond that theCommission MUST find OBVIOUS domestic industry
`
`(asking to prove the'OBVIOUS is a stalling tactic that only serves to aid and abet anti-trust, and
`
`civil rights’ discrimination against a genuine inventor), and the case must move to Markman
`
`Hearing forthwith in the public’s best interest and Respondents’ Motion to stay the Procedural
`
`Schedule should not be granted, as it is a delay tactic on the part of Respondents.
`
`Dated: February 3, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ GEM A
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`
`222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995; Laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`On Behalfof Complainants
`
`[With or without
`1 SEE ‘FLETCHER V PECK (18101: Reexamining ‘Government Granted Patent Contracts’
`considering a patent’s ‘Prosecution History Estoppel’ to determine patentability By the USPTO/PTAB for the
`Federal Circuit (or ‘Highest Authority’).] to rescind a government grant once issued. Can be done only by ‘Breach
`
`of Solemn Oath(s) [1n (willful or wanton) failing] to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the Land [In contempt of
`Chief Justice Marshall’s patent
`‘Mandated Prohibition’
`from rescinding government grants once issued,
`amounting to treason and misprisions thereof by the USPTO/PTAB, the Federal Circuit, Courts [Including the
`Supreme Court], and all the patent attorneys [Ignorant, indifferent, or sincerely confused] noticed of the mandated
`prohibition [As this governing case has not been overturned].
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`. WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`In The Matter Of
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS) —
`
`WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A WEB
`BROWSER
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA—1094
`
`foregoing
`the
`copies of
`certify that on February 3, 2018,
`I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`“COMPLAINANTS’ OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THE.
`PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION DOCKET NO. 1094-001 AND
`
`REQUEST FOR SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME” were delivered, pursuant
`regulations, to the following interested parties as indicated:
`
`to Commission
`
`The Honorable Lisa Barton
`
`Via EDIS
`
`Via hand delivery and email:
`
`Counselfor OUII
`‘
`Via E—maz‘l:
`JefiHsu @usitc. gov
`
`
`
`Secretary to the Commission
`U. S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, SW
`Washin_ on, DC 20436
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`'
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Bullock337@usitc.gov; 1rina.Kushner@usitc.gov
`500 E Street, SW
`.
`.
`Washin_ on, DC 20436
`Jeffrey Hsu
`Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, SW
`Washin_ on, DC 20436
`Brian E. Ferguson
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washin; on, DC. 20036
`Sturgis M. Sobin
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter,
`.
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washin_ on, DC 20001
`Stephen R Smith
`COOLEY LLP
`
`Counsel for Respondent Apple Inc.
`'
`Via E-mail: Apple.ITC.1094@wei1.com
`
`Counsel for Respondents Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`-
`
`Via email: ssobin@cov.com
`
`Counsel for Facebook, Inc.
`
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700
`Washin_ on, DC 20004-2400
`
`Via E-mail: FB-ITC@cooley.com
`
`

`

` '/§/
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`‘
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`Laks22002@yahoo.com .
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`||||||||||||l|||||l|||||||||||||||l|||||||||||||||||||l|||||l||||||||||||||
`
`USOO7930340B2
`
`(12) United States Patent
`(10) Patent No.:
`
`Arunachalam
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,930,340 B2
`Apr. 19, 2011
`
`(54) NETWORK TRANSACTION PORTAL TO
`CONTROL MULTI-SERVICE PROVIDER
`TRANSACTIONS
`
`(76)
`
`Inventor; LakshmiArunachalam, Menlo Park,
`CA (US)
`
`( * ) Notice:
`
`_
`'
`'
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis
`Patent ‘5 mended ordadluswd under 35
`U-S-C- 154(b) by 577 aYS-
`
`(21) Appl. No.: 09/863,704
`(22) Filed:
`May 23, 2001
`
`(65)
`
`.
`.
`Prior Publication Data
`US 2003/0069922 A1
`Apr. 10, 2003
`
`WO
`
`709/246
`
`l
`
`4,984,155 A
`5,1253091 A
`5,148,474 A
`5,159,632 A
`5,231,566 A
`5,239,662 A *
`5,285,383 A
`,
`.-
`zigzag; 2
`5,329,619 A *
`5,347,632 A
`5,367,635 A
`5,383,113 A
`
`1/1991 Gcier et a1.
`5/1992 SW“: JR eta1~
`et a1.
`............................. 379/1 11
`9/1992 Haralambopoulos
`/ 992
`dall
`3/{993 333,,“ e, ,1.
`8/1993 Danielson et al.
`2/1994 Lindsey et a1.
`rasere ,
`.
`3/133: 1136mm?it 31-
`7/1994 Page eta],
`..................... 709/203
`9/1994 Filcpp ct al.
`11/1994 Bauer et a1.
`1/1995 Kightetal.
`Continued
`(
`)
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`97/18515 A1
`5/1997
`(Continued)
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`(60) Continuation-impart of application No. 09/792,323,
`filed on Feb. 23, 2001’ now Pat. No. 7,340,506, which
`is
`a
`continuation-in-part
`of
`application No.
`08/879,958, filed on Jun. 20, 1997, now Pat. No.
`5,987,500, which is a division of application No.
`08/700,726, filed on Aug. 5, 1996, now Pat, No.
`5,778,178.
`(60) Provisional application No. 60/006,634, filed on Nov.
`13, 1995.
`
`(2006 01)
`2156;115/16
`(51)
`.
`.
`’
`.,
`'
`(52) U'S' CL """" 709/203’ 709/202’ 709/206’ 77(099/221179,
`.
`V
`.
`.
`(58) Field of Classflication Search .................. 709/200,
`709/201: 202: 203: 204: 205: 217’ 218’ 2193
`.
`.
`705/8
`.
`See application file for complete search history‘
`References Cited
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`(56)
`
`4,829,372 A
`4,851,988 A
`
`5/1989 McCalley et al.
`7/1989 Trottier etal.
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`,,
`“
`,
`_
`.
`.
`Banks, Michael A., America Online: A Graphics-based Success
`Lmk'Up’ Jan/Feb 1992‘
`
`(Continued)
`
`,
`,
`.
`.
`Primary Examiner — Hassan Phillips
`74 Attorn ,A ent, or Firm — Lakshmi Arunachalam
`(
`)
`ey g
`>
`’
`(57)
`ABSTRACT
`The present invention provides a system and method for
`providing controlled service transactions involving multiple
`service providers on a service network, A client access device
`links to the service network via a network entry point and
`performs the multi-service provider transaction under the
`control of a network transactional application at a hub that
`holds the transaction captive and includes a router to route to
`remote distributed software objects at nodes of the service
`providers. The software objects include methods that may be
`remotely executed under the control of the transactional
`application at the hub.
`
`40 Claims, 33 Drawing Sheets
`
`11'— SAsEb
`36°
`“CERES 52mm:
`
`“:09qu
`:L
`(n.3, knit-fir,
`
`Amtrmnw,PM]
`awn-:15
`
`
`$€QvtCE
`
`
`NETMOQK
`
`
`PQOC ESSiAXC‘
`\
`k“ cfgfibmmvig
`
`
`Serum:
`
`
`Pam/met;
`N
`
`
`“-3-; Slum“,
`
`
`Mummies, mm,
`63:15:13
`
`
`3w
`
`

`

`US 7,930,340 132
`
`Page 2
`
`......... 395/50048
`
`............. 345/684
`
`Us. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`51404523 A
`“995 Dame” 6131-
`§~A°84519 A
`31995 9‘1?"
`a1
`-
`1 141312 A
`1995 F1 ‘Pet
`5,428,792 A
`6/1995 Conneretal.
`5,432,937 A
`7/1995 Tevanianetali
`5,434,974 A
`7/1995 Loucksetal.
`5,440,744 A
`””95 14°01’50“ “3"
`5,442,771 A
`8/1995 FilePP etal-
`5,442,791 A
`8/1995 WrabetzetaL
`14444192 A
`8/1995 Shetye em
`514454896 A
`“995 “Pgmeml
`55451433 A
`”995 Wan?“
`5,455,903 A
`10/1995 Jol1ssa1ntetal.
`5375319 A
`12’ 1995 M111“ 6? 9
`1491300 A
`”995 G°1dsmh 0131'
`55174645 A
`5’1996 Stutzem-
`5,519,868 A
`5/1996 Allenctal.
`5,537,464 A
`7/1996 Lewisetal. ................... 379/114
`55394909 A
`"995 Tum“ 31-
`5,557,780 A
`9/1996 Bdwardsetai.
`5,560,005 A
`9/1996 Hooveretal.
`5,577,251 A
`11/1996 Hamiltonetal.
`5,592,378 A
`1/1997 Cameronetal.
`5,604,905 A
`2/1997 Tevanianetal.
`5,613,148 A
`3/1997 Bezvinerctal.
`gagg‘l‘gg A
`$33; £13113“5‘31
`,
`4
`a
`gam‘
`5,677,708 A * 10/1997 Matthewsetal.
`2’333’313 A
`13/33; $2211“;sz
`1
`,
`6:
`2 A
`“1998 Andy
`~
`5,70 ’44
`“5°“ 6”"
`5,708,780 A
`1/1998 Levergood et 81,
`5,710,887 A *
`1/1998 Chelliah eta],
`................. 705/26
`57121913 A
`“1998 Chaum
`5,715,314 A
`2/1998 Paynee1a1. ..................... 380/24
`5715444 A
`”998 Dims“ eta"
`5,724,424 A
`3/1998 G1fford ........................... 380/24
`5,742,762 A
`4/1998 Scholletal.
`313?;ng A
`$133: Egggfifl-
`4
`,
`*
`5754939 A
`5/1998, Hm ML
`5,757,917 A
`“998 119565131‘
`57584072 A
`“998 F'lePP 6““-
`55758327 A
`”993 Gumerem‘
`5971354 A
`5A9” 03‘1”“;
`gagggréggA
`$33: Ahmnfggh am
`’
`’
`5781531 A
`7/1998 Chm"
`5793954 A
`“998 R°gers “1 111-
`5,794,234 A
`8/1998 Church etal.
`5,809,483 A
`9/1998 Brokaet a1.
`5,812,779 A
`9/1998 Ciscon etal.
`5,822,569 A
`10/1998 McPartlanet a1.
`5,826,085 A
`10/1998 Bennettetal.
`5325341 A
`“”1998 Stein eta“
`5,828,666 A
`10/1998 Focsaneanuetal.
`5,835,726 A
`“”998 S'IWed
`5,845,061 A * 12/1998 M1yamotoeta1,
`5,845,073 A
`12/1998 Carlin et a1.
`5,845,265 A
`12/1998 Woolston
`5,856,974 A
`1/1999 Gervajsetal.
`5,859,978 A
`1/1999 Sonderegger et :11.
`707/103
`5,864,866 A
`1/1999 Henckeletal.
`
`580/21
`..
`5,870,473 A
`2/1999 Boesch etal,
`
`...... 705/42
`5,870,724 A *
`2/1999 Lawlor et a],
`548734072 A
`“999 Klfih‘e‘al‘
`5,873,093 A
`2/1999 W1l11amsonet a1.
`2’33???) A
`gfiggg 3:13:11
`5:878:141 A
`3,999 Dalyetal.
`5,878,403 A
`3/1999 DeFrancesco etal.
`2:333:32; A
`$333 mfemr
`5,890,137 A
`3/1999 Koreeda
`5,890,161 A
`3/1999 Hellzmdet a1.
`5,892,821 A
`4/1999 Turner
`.......................... 379/220
`5,893,076 A
`4/1999 Hafneretal.
`................... 705/28
`5,895,454 A
`4/1999 Harrington
`
`.................... 707/4
`
`......... 370/389
`
`............ 709/203
`
`......... 705/38
`
`395/680
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`............... 713/156
`
`.................. 705/26
`
`4/1999 Boesch ctal.
`5,897,621 A
`5/1999 Crawfo
`5,901,228 A
`6/1999 Payne ertda1.
`..................... 380/24
`5,909,492 A
`6/1999 Ginter
`5,910,987 A
`6/1999 Guptael a1.
`5,913,061 A
`8,1999 Shimmetal
`5931967 A
`8,1999 Mom”,
`5’945’509 A
`9,1999 ChametaL
`5:956’400 A
`9/1999 Kevner
`......................... 709/219
`5,956,509 A *
`9/1999 Hellandet a1.
`5958 004 A
`9,1999 Hartman“,
`5’960’411 A
`11/1999 Arunachalam
`5,987,500 A
`131999 Rameretali
`6,003,085 A
`1/2000 Crawford
`6,014,651 A
`“2000 Hellandetal
`6014,666 A
`................... 705/39
`4/2000 Gifford
`6,049,785 A
`
`4/2000 Buckle eta].
`.. 709/202
`6,049,819 A
`4/2000 Wren ...........
`705/27
`6,055,514 A *
`4,2000 Ganesan et 31
`6055 567 A
`6,2000 E11150“, al..
`6:073:37 A
`7/2000 Boeschctal.
`6,092,053 A
`7,2000 DilipetaL
`6094673 A
`8/2000 DiAgelo etal.
`6,101,482 A
`8,2000 Lejeuneet ,1
`6’101’527 A
`9/2000 Carlinetal
`6,119,152 A
`'
`9/2000 Boesch
`6,125,185 A
`9/2000 Fr‘anklinetal.
`6:125:352 A
`10/2000 Takeuchi
`...................... 370/466
`6,128,315 A
`10/2000 Hellandet a1.
`6,134,594 A
`10,2000 Kmafi
`6,135,546 A
`.............. 714/4
`6,145,090 A *4 11/2000 YarnagnohietaJ.
`
`709/219
`6,185,609 B1
`2/2001 Rangarajan eta].
`
`.. 455/463
`6,192,250 B1
`2/2001 Buskens et a1.
`........
`6205433 B1
`3/2001 Boesch etal
`6:212’556 B1
`4,2001 Amnachalmfi
`6,212,634 B1
`4/2001 Gerr, Jr. eta].
`6249291 3,
`6,2001 Popp et al.
`6,279,001 Bl
`8/2001 DeBettencourt etal.
`6289 322 B1
`9,2001 Kitchen eta,
`'
`6:295:522 B1
`9,2001 Boesch
`6,301,601 B1
`10/2001 Hellandetal.
`6,327,577 B1
`12/2001 Garrisoneta1.
`6,327,579 B1
`12/2001 Crawford
`6,334,116 B1
`12/2001 Ganesaneta1.
`6,360,262 B1
`3/2002 Guenthner et a1.
`6,363,362 131
`3/2002 Burfieldet a1.
`6,411,943 B1
`6/2002 Crawford
`6,453,426 B1
`9/2002 Garnacheetal.
`6,457,066 B1
`9/2002 Memetal.
`6,473,740 B2
`10/2002 Cockrilletali
`6,473,791 B1
`10/2002 Al-Ghosein eta].
`6 490 567 B1
`12,2002 Gregory
`6’553’427 B1
`4,2003 Chang et ,1
`6,574,607 B1
`6/2003 Carteretal.
`6’625’581 Bl
`9,2003 Perkowski‘
`6’678’664 131
`[/2004 6mm
`6,678,696 B1
`1/2004 Hellandctal
`6:714:962 B1
`”004 Henander a1:
`6,839,677 B2*
`1/2005 Marhureta1.
`6850 996 B2
`2/2005 Wagner
`6’855’974 B1
`2,2005 Gama“ e, 31
`6’932’268 B1
`8,2005 McCo eta] ‘
`6’948’063 B1
`9,2005 Games; era1
`7,076,784 B1
`7/2006 Russell etal '
`7’080’051 B1
`7,2006 Crawford
`'
`7’107’244 B2
`9,2006 Kightetal
`7:120:602 B2
`10/2006 Kitchen et'al.
`7,146,338 B2
`1712006 Kightetal.
`7,175,074 B2
`712007 Mejiasetal.
`7,177,846 B2
`2/2007 Moenickheimetal.
`7,213,003 B1
`5/2007 Kightetal,
`33%; g:
`3333; 11:53:22]
`7,296,004 B1
`11/2007 Garrison et a1.
`7,302,408 B2
`11/2007 Engdahl etali
`7,302,411 B2
`11/2007 Ganesan etal
`7,330,831 B2
`2/2008 Biondi etal-
`7,334,128 B2
`2/2008 Ganesan et a1.
`7,340,506 B2
`3/2008 Arunachalam
`
`.................... 705/1
`
`

`

`US 7,930,340 B2
`Page 3
`
`4/2008 Ganesan etal.
`7,366,696 B1
`4/2008 Kitchen etal.
`7,366,697 132
`6/2008 Kightetal.
`7,383,226 132
`6/2008 Russell etal.
`7,389,514 B2
`6/2008 Ganesan etal.
`7,392,223 B1
`7/2008 Zielke etal.
`7,395,243 B1
`7/2008 Harris etal.
`7,395,319 B2
`2002/0152200 Al“ 10/2002 Krichilskyetal.
`2003/0069922 A1
`4/2003 Arunachalam
`2008/0091801 A1
`4/2008 Arunachalam
`
`............... 707/3
`
`WO
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`00/63781 A1
`10/2000
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Hickey, “Shopping at Home: One Modem Line, No Waiting,” Home
`PC, Dec. 1, 1994, p. 307, Dialog, File 647, Acc# 01038162.
`Lang, “Cashing In: The Rush is on to Buy and Sell on the Internet But
`Conflicting Schemes Leave Marketers on Sidelines for Now,” Adver-
`tising Age, Dec. 19, 1994, p/ 11, Dialog, File 16, Acc# 05419137.
`Lichty, Tom, “America Online Tour Guide,” Maclntosh Edition, Ver-
`sion 2, Preface, Chapter 1, Ventana Press, 1992.
`Lichty, Tom, “America Online Tour Guide,” MacIntosh Edition, Ver-
`sion 2, Preface, Chapter 3, Ventana Press, 1992.
`Lichty, Tom, “America Online Tour Guide,” MacIntosh Edition, Ver-
`sion 2, Preface, Chapter 8, Ventana Press, 1992.
`Lichty, Tom, “America Online Tour Guide,” MacIntosh Edition, Ver-
`sion 2, Preface, Chapter 10, ' Ventana Press, 1992.
`“Tymnet,” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/
`wiki/tymnet, Oct. 2006.
`“Tymnet”, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/
`wiki/tymnet, May 2007.
`Cox, Benjamin et a1., “NetBill Security and Transaction Protocol",
`Carnegie Millon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15212-3890.
`Lamond, Keith, “Credit Card Transactions Real World and Online”,
`http://wwwvirtual school.edu/mon/ElectronPIoperty/klamond/
`credit_.card.htm, pp. 1-16, 1996.
`“HotJava”, Wikipedia, the free encylcopedia, http://en.wikipedia.
`org/wiki/HotJava. May 2007.
`Microsoft Corporation‘s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to
`Amend (Complaint) US District Court—Northern Disctrict of Cali-
`fornia.
`Order Granting Defendant’Motion to Dismiss—Northern District of
`California Feb. 17. 2009.
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Patent Non/Infringement,
`Invalidity, and Unenforceability; (Dated Jul. 2, 2009) Microsofi
`Docket #001 (219 pages).
`'Defendant Webxchange Inc. ‘S Motion to Dismiss Microsoft‘s Com-
`plaint With Prejudice for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, and for
`Attorneys‘ Fees (entered Aug. 26, 2009) Microsoft Docket #009.
`'Microsofl’s Opposition to Wechhange, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
`Microsofi’s Complaint (dated Sep. 14, 2009) Microsoft Docket #0 12.
`Order Dismissing Microsofi (Oct. 30, 2009) Judge Alsup Microsofi
`Docket #017.
`Memorandum Opinion Microsoft (Oct. 30, 2009) Judge Faman
`Microsofi Docket #018.
`Complaint filed with Jury Demand against Allstate Corporation,
`Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company,
`Allstate Financial Services LLC, Allstate Financial LLC- . ( Filing
`fee
`5 350,
`receipt No. 03110000000000419775.)—filed by
`Wechhange Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
`Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(lid) (Entered: Mar. 5, 2008),
`Allstate Docket #1.
`Answer to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand, Counterclaim against
`Wechhange Inc. by Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance Com-
`pany, Allstate Life Insurance Company, Allstate Financial Services
`LLC, Allstate Financial LLC. (McGeever, Elizabeth) (Entered: Apr.
`25, 2008), Allstate Docket #15.
`Answer
`to 15 Answer
`to Complaint, Counterclaim Plaintiff
`Wechhange Inc’s Answer to Defendant Allstate’s Counterclaims
`by Wechhange Inc..(Heaney, Julia) (Entered: May 19, 2008),
`Allstate Docket #26.
`
`Claim Construction Opening Brief [Defendants' Opening Brief in
`Support of Their Proposed Claim Constructions] filed by Allstate
`Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company, Allstate
`Financial Services LLC. (Moore, David) (Entered: Oct. 29, 2008),
`Allstate Docket #61.
`Claim Construction Opening Brief filed by Wechhange Inc..
`(Attachments: # l Exhibits A-B)(Hmn