throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,002,393 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND § 18 OF THE
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMECURRENT 721423821.1 11-Aug-16 13:24
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)) ...................................................................................... 1 
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT
`OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)) ........................................ 3 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 6 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’393 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`Independent Claims ................................................................................ 7 
`B. 
`Dependent Claims ................................................................................ 13 
`C. 
`Specification ......................................................................................... 13 
`D. 
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 15 
`V.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 17 
`A. 
`Petitioner Has Been Sued For Infringement Of The ‘393 Patent
`And Is Not Estopped ............................................................................ 17 
`The ’393 Patent Is A Covered Business Method Patent ...................... 17 
`1. 
`At least independent claims 1 and 56 are directed to
`“performing data processing or other operations used in
`the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`product or service.” ................................................................... 18 
`At Least Claims 1 And 56 Are Not Directed To A
`“Technological Invention” ................................................................... 21 
`1. 
`At least claims 1 and 56 do not recite a technological
`feature that is novel and unobvious .......................................... 21 
`a) 
`The claims recite known, prior art hardware .................. 23 
`b) 
`The claims recite known, prior art software ................... 28 
`At least claims 1 and 56 do not solve a technical problem
`using a technical solution .......................................................... 30 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`VI. 
`
`For the same reasons as addressed for claims 1 and 56,
`independent claims 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 69, and 70 are
`also related to a financial product and service, and do not
`recite a technological feature or solve technical problem ........ 32 
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE CLAIMS OF
`THE ’393 PATENT ....................................................................................... 33 
`A. 
`Claims For Which Review Is Requested ............................................. 33 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge .......................................................... 34 
`C. 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 34 
`D. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 35 
`1. 
`Standards for claim construction .............................................. 35 
`2. 
`“Head end system” .................................................................... 35 
`3. 
`“Downloading the [instruction/command signal] . . . to
`command
`the control device[s]
`to select [an/the]
`advertisement from the head end system” ................................ 35 
`VII.  CLAIMS 1–70 OF THE ’393 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .............. 36 
`A.  Ground No. 1: Claims 1–70 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101. .................................................................................................... 36 
`1. 
`The challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea ............. 38 
`2. 
`The independent claims do not contain an inventive
`concept ...................................................................................... 44 
`a) 
`The “head end system,” “control” components,”
`and one or more “data bases” ......................................... 44 
`The “display site” and “viewing site” limitations .......... 53 
`b) 
`Instructions to apply the abstract concept ...................... 55 
`c) 
`The ordered combination of elements ............................ 55 
`d) 
`Elements recited in the dependent claims do not alter the
`analysis. ..................................................................................... 59 
`Ground No. 2: Claims 1–70 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112. .................................................................................................... 69 
`1. 
`The Claims of the ’393 Patent are Invalid for Lack of
`Written Description ................................................................... 69 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 82 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 76
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GMBH v. Guideware Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 69
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV LLC,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 916 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ........................................................ 31, 40
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 76
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................passim
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 76
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ...................................................passim
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 46, 55, 60
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v AT&T Mobility,
`2016 WL 3514158 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) ..................................................... 57
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc., v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.,
`136 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (D. Haw. 2015) .................................................... 22, 23, 53
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 73
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) ...................................................passim
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Bev. Container Corp.,
`635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 80
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................ 50, 61, 63, 67
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 46, 50
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`Driessen v. Sony Music Entm’t,
`2016 WL 520263 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016) ....................................................... 72
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`2016 WL 4073318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) ................................................ 43, 58
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................................................................................ 71
`
`Fiers v. Revel,
`984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 77
`
`HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 3059238 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2016) ..............................................passim
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 80, 82
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 536 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) ....................................................... 50
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 78
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................passim
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................ 37, 38, 55
`
`Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d. 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................... 40
`
`Network Apparel Group, LP. v. Airwave Networks Inc., et al.,
`2015 WL 9661571 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2015) ................................................. 54
`
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences, APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 73
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................ 31, 40, 50, 64
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 34, 35
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 35
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 81
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 57, 69
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC,
`2016 WL 2865693 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016) ..............................................passim
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TNS Media Research, LLC v. Tivo Research and Analytics, Inc.,
`2016 WL 817447 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) .......................................... 31, 40, 50
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 31, 40
`
`Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`635 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 49
`
`Videoshare v. Google Inc.,
`2016 WL 4137524 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2016) ....................................... 31, 40, 43, 58
`
`Visual Memory LLC, v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69543 (D. Del. May 27, 2016) ........................................ 67
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .................................................................................................... 1, 33
`
`AIA § 18 ......................................................................................................... 1, 32, 33
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ......................................................................................................... 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .................................................................................................. 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 c.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 36
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 36
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................................................... 22, 28, 31
`
`American Express Co. v Harvey Lunenfeld,
`CBM2014-00050 (May 22, 2015) .......................................................... 40, 51, 55
`
`Boku, Inc. v. Xilidev, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00140 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) ............................................. 21, 22, 31
`
`Coupa Software, Inc. v. Ariba, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00061 (P.T.A.B. July 25, 2014) ....................................................... 17
`
`Epicor Software v Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2015-00002 (P.T.A.B., April 20, 2016) ......................................... 51, 61, 67
`
`Google Inc. v. Patrick Zuili,
`CBM2016-00008 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016) ....................................................... 19
`
`Google Inc. v. Patrick Zuili,
`CBM2016-00021 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2016) ......................................................... 19
`
`Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00004 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) ............................................. 19, 30, 57
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00053 (P.T.A.B. June 23, 2015) ....................................................... 19
`
`iHeartMedia, Inc. v. Impulse Radio, LLC,
`CBM2016-00010 (P.T.A.B. May 9, 2016) ......................................................... 19
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Techs LLC,
`IPR2015-01866 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016) ......................................................... 35
`
`Life Techns. Corp. v. Union Strategic IP, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00037 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2016) ....................................................... 58
`
`Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp.,
`CBM2015-00014 (P.T.A.B., April 28, 2014) ......................................... 50, 61, 67
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,393
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,002,393
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, HBAC Matchmaker Media,
`Inc. v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00429 (D. Del. Mar.
`15, 2013)
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google Inc., 2016 WL
`3059238 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2016)
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Andrew Cromarty
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`“The 1984 Cable Act” – Public Law 98-549 – Oct 30, 1984
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew Cromarty
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`“Advertising and Marketing on Cable Television: Whither the
`Public Interest?” Catholic University Law Review, Volume 31
`Issue 2, Winter 1982
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`History of Cable
`
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`“Product Lets Tv Sets Multiple from Vcr or Cable Box,”
`Chicago Tribune, June 27, 1986
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,255,090
`
`Exhibit 1012:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,410,326
`
`Exhibit 1013:
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (1994)
`
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,155,591
`
`Exhibit 1015:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,577,221
`
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`“Concurrency Control in Distributed Database Systems,”
`Computer Corporation of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
`June 1981
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`“Every Door Direct Mail”
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1018:
`
`Ciciora, W, Cable Television in the United States (1995)
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`
`Exhibit 1020:
`
`Exhibit 1021:
`
`Douglas Gomery, “How Nielsen and Arbitron Became the
`Ratings Kings,” Transmitter, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001)
`
`Brief of Appellant, HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google
`Inc. et al., No. 2015-1447 (June 19, 2015)
`
`Markman Hearing Transcript, HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc.
`v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00429, D.I. 92 (May 2,
`2014)
`
`Exhibit 1022:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,333,198
`
`Exhibit 1023:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,468,710
`
`Exhibit 1024:
`
`A Timeline of Database History
`
`Exhibit 1025:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,223,924
`
`Exhibit 1026:
`
`Exhibit 1027:
`
`
`Exhibit 1028:
`
`
`Exhibit 1029:
`
`
`Exhibit 1030:
`
`
`Exhibit 1031:
`
`
`Exhibit 1032:
`
`HBAC’s Claim Construction Sur-reply Brief, HBAC
`Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-
`cv-00429, D.I. 54 (April 28, 2014)
`
`Order in Case No. 1:13-cv-00438-SLR-SRF, Dkt. No. 424,
`dated (November 18, 2013).
`
`Excerpts from Owen and Wildman, Video Economics, Harvard
`University Press, 1992
`
`“A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks,”
`Comm. ACM 13 (June 6, 1970) 377-387
`
`Excerpts from James Martin, Principles of Data-Base
`Management, Prentice Hall, 1976.
`
`Excerpts from Albert Azzam and Niel Ransom, Broadband
`Access Technologies: ADSL/VDSL, Cable Modems, Fiber,
`LMDS, McGraw-Hill, 1999
`
`Excerpts from The Diebold Group, Automatic Data Processing
`Handbook , McGraw-Hill, 1977
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1033:
`
`
`Exhibit 1034:
`
`
`Exhibit 1035:
`
`
`
`
`
`Excerpts from James Martin, Introduction to Teleprocessing,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972
`
`Excerpts from James Martin, Telecommunications and the
`Computer, Prentice-Hall (2nd Ed. 1976)
`
`Excerpts from Philip H. Dougherty, Advertising: Fighting
`Television ‘Zapping,’ New York Times (July 31, 1984)
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37
`C.F.R. § 42.22(a))
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act (“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., Google Inc. (“Google”)
`
`hereby requests covered business method review of claims 1–70 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,002,393 (“the ’393 Patent,” (Exhibit 1001)).
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The ’393 Patent seeks to solve a problem that has existed since the dawn of
`
`advertising—the elimination of waste by delivering advertisements to those
`
`customers who represent only the best prospects for an advertiser. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:50–52. As a solution to this age-old problem, the ’393 Patent proposes an age-
`
`old concept: targeted advertising. The claims of the ’393 Patent recite, for
`
`example, “[a] system for delivery of targeted advertisements from a head end
`
`system to individual consumers” at “display site[s].” Id. at 13:28–30. But the ’393
`
`Patent concedes that the algorithms for targeting advertisements were well-known
`
`at the time of filing of the ’393 Patent:
`
`This list [of consumers] is supplied by agencies which
`have gathered data on the consumers and have created
`algorithms for determining which commercials are
`most appropriate for those consumers. The
`combination of the algorithms and the data yield the
`instructions for targeting commercials to be used at the
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Display Site 400 of FIG. 1. The specific nature of the
`[consumer] data collected and the algorithms varies with
`the creativity and resources of the advertising agencies
`using this invention . . . . Neither the data set nor the
`algorithm are a part of the invention.
`Ex. 1001 at 7:24-36 (emphasis added).
`
`Beyond the concept of targeted advertising—which it concedes to be well
`
`known—the ’393 Patent recites nothing more than an environment consisting of
`
`conventional television or radio delivery hardware in which to implement the
`
`concept. Accordingly, the challenged claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
`
`because they are directed to the abstract idea of targeted advertising. The recited
`
`claim limitations serve only to: a) set this idea in a particular technological
`
`environment; and b) add routine and conventional post-solution activity of using
`
`information stored in databases to implement the idea in that environment. None
`
`of the recited limitations make the idea concrete enough to patent. Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). For these reasons, the claims
`
`of the ’393 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Infra at § VII.A.
`
`Moreover, the challenged claims are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`paragraph for lack of written description. The Federal Circuit construed the
`
`claimed “head end system” to mean “the origination point in a communication
`
`system.” This construction does not limit the claims to a specific type of
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication system. Instead, the claims encompass every type of
`
`“communications system.” Yet, the disclosure in the specification is limited to a
`
`particular type of communication system i.e., conventional television or radio
`
`delivery systems.1 The disclosure therefore does not demonstrate that the inventors
`
`were in possession of the full scope of the claims. Disclosing a single embodiment
`
`within the scope of the claim is not sufficient to comply with Section 112. See,
`
`e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343–46
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). For this reason, the challenged claims are also invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. Infra at § VII.B
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’393 Patent is the subject of litigation in the United States District Court
`
`for the District of Delaware. See Complaint for Patent Infringement, HBAC
`
`Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00429 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 15, 2013) (“Ex. 1003”). In addition, the ’393 Patent is also asserted in the
`
`following cases:
`
`1Conventional television or radio delivery systems refers to the broadcast systems
`
`disclosed as known systems in the ’393 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:6-34.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Name
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. Blip
`Networks Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. News
`Distribution Network Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`NextPoint Inc. et al.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`Ustream Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. AOL
`Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. CBS
`Interactive Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. NBC
`Entertainment et al.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. Fox
`Broadcasting Company et al.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`DirecTV Group Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`Disney Online et al.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. CNN
`Interactive Group et al.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`Univision Interactive Media Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. Vevo
`LLC
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`Viacom International Inc.
`HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v.
`Yahoo! Inc.
`
`
`Number
`1-13-cv-
`00962
`1-13-cv-
`00963
`1-13-cv-
`00964
`1-13-cv-
`00965
`11-13-cv-
`00427
`11-13-cv-
`00428
`11-13-cv-
`00430
`11-13-cv-
`00431
`11-13-cv-
`00432
`11-13-cv-
`00433
`11-13-cv-
`00434
`11-13-cv-
`00435
`11-13-cv-
`00436
`11-13-cv-
`00437
`1-13-cv-
`00438
`
`-4-
`
`District Filed
`
`DED May 30, 2013
`
`DED May 30, 2013
`
`DED May 30, 2013
`
`DED May 30, 2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`DED March 15,
`2013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the district court’s construction of the term “head end system,” the
`
`parties agreed to judgments of non-infringement of all asserted claims of the ’393
`
`Patent. HBAC appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit concluded that
`
`the district court incorrectly construed the term “head end system,” holding that the
`
`term should be construed broadly as “the origination point in a communication
`
`system,” even though no such broader disclosures are found in the patent. The
`
`Federal Circuit, however, left open the question of whether the full breadth of the
`
`claims is supported by the written description of the patent:
`
`Having determined that “head end system” requires a
`broader construction still leaves open, however, the issue
`ultimately at the center of the parties’ dispute: the scope
`of the invention . . . . Accordingly, while we do not
`construe the term “head end system” to be limited to a
`conventional TV system, this does not necessarily mean
`that the overall scope of the invention should be broader
`in application. Based on the claims, specification, and
`contemporaneous extrinsic evidence, the term “head end
`system” is properly construed as “the origination point in
`a communication system.” We do not address whether
`the claims as properly construed are invalid under the
`written description or enablement requirements of 35
`U.S.C. § 112.
`HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. Google Inc., 2016 WL 3059238, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`May 31, 2016) (“Ex. 1004”) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit remanded the
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`case to the district court. Id. A petition for panel rehearing was denied by the
`
`Federal Circuit on July 15, 2016.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.8(b)(4), Petitioner
`
`identifies Saqib J. Siddiqui as lead counsel and Brian A. Rosenthal as
`
`back-up counsel, and identifies the following service information:
`
`Lead Counsel and Service Info.
`Saqib J. Siddiqui (Reg. No. 68,626)
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`Telephone: (202) 263-3167
`Fax: (202) 263-5367
`Email: ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brian A. Rosenthal (authorization to file
`pro hac vice motion to be requested)
`Mayer Brown, LLP
`1675 Broadway
`New York, NY 10019-5820
`Telephone: (212) 506-2754
`Fax: (202) 263-5367
`Email: brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion for Brian A. Rosenthal to
`
`appear before the USPTO pro hac vice. Mr. Rosenthal has familiarity with the
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding, and has previously been admitted pro
`
`hac vice in proceedings before the PTO, including Inter Partes reexaminations,
`
`Inter Partes Review proceedings, and Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Proceedings. Petitioner intends to file the motion to appear pro hac vice under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10 once the Board authorizes the motion. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b), a power of attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’393 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A.
`The ’393 Patent has ten independent claims—claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46,
`
`Independent Claims
`
`55, 56, 69, and 70. Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, and 46 are apparatus claims and
`
`claims 55, 56, 69, and 70 are method claims. Representative claim 1 is copied
`
`below:
`
`1. A system for delivery of targeted advertisements from a
`head end system to individual consumers at at least one consumer
`display site comprising:
`(a) a control device at the at least one consumer display site;
`and
`(b) a controller at the head end system for sending a signal to
`the control device at the at least one display site for causing an
`advertisement to be displayed at said at least one display site
`intended for a particular consumer;
`(c) the controller at the head end system including a program
`database supplying program materials and a commercial
`database supplying advertisements for display at the at least one
`display site, the commercial database further storing
`information concerning the type of each advertisement; the
`head end system further including a consumer database having
`information about a consumer at the at least one display site,
`and an instruction formatter having inputs from the consumer
`database, the program database and the commercial database
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for generating an instruction for the control device at the at least
`one display site, the instruction being generated based on the
`type information stored in the commercial database and the
`information about the consumer at the at least one display site
`and optionally a characteristic of the program materials; the
`controller at the head end system further downloading the
`instruction to the control device at the at least one display site
`to command the control device to select an advertisement from
`the head end system intended for display at the at least one
`display site.
`Ex. 1001 at 13:28-57.
`
`In summary, claim 1 is directed to providing targeted advertisements from a
`
`head end system to a consumer display site. The system uses three databases to
`
`store data about programming, advertisements and consumers. The controller at
`
`the head end system coordinates with the databases and display site to choose and
`
`display advertisements.
`
`With minor non-substantive modifications, the remaining apparatus claims
`
`are similar in scope to claim 1. See Ex. 1001, claims 10, 19, 28, 37, and 46; Expert
`
`Declaration of A. Cromarty (“Ex. 1005” or “Cromarty Decl.”) ¶ 97 (stating that the
`
`elements of apparatus claims 10, 19, 28, 37, and 46 correspond to the elements of
`
`claim 1 with minor non-substantive modifications). Similarly, claims 55, 69, and
`
`70 are method claims that correspond to the features of apparatus claim 1 with
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`minor modifications and recite even less structure than apparatus claim 1. Ex.
`
`1005 ¶ 97 (comparing apparatus claim 1 with method claims 55, 69, and 70).
`
`Independent method claim 56, is somewhat different from the remaining
`
`claims in that it recites the steps of: (a) preparing a set of TV advertisements; (b)
`
`analyzing each advertisement as to its nature and focus; (c) cataloging each
`
`advertisement and storing it in a central data base; and (d) selectively commanding
`
`the delivery of an advertisement to a consumer from the central data base that is
`
`targeted for that consumer, wherein the advertisements are classified into one of
`
`three categories which include (1) non-preemptable; (2) conditionally preemptable;
`
`and (3) unconditionally preemptable. Ex. 1001 at 19:58–20:4.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.