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.