throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01872
`Patent 7,385,994
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01872
`Patent 7,385,994
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on December 6, 2016
`
`the following Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits is being served electronically
`
`by agreement of the parties, by e-mail to the following counsel of record.
`
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com
`speters-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`jhietala@intven.com
`tim@intven.com
`
`Lori A Gordon
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 772-8862
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Byron Pickard
`Steven Peters
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 772-8521
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`James Hietala
`Tim Seeley
`Intellectual Ventures
`3150 139th Avenue S.E.
`Bellevue, WA 98005
`Phone: (425) 677-2973
`Fax: (425) 467-2350
`Back-up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01872
`Patent 7,385,994
`
`
`
`
`
`/Charles J. Rogers/
`Charles J. Rogers
`Reg. No. 38,286
`Conley Rose, P.C.
`1001 McKinney St., Suite 1800
`Houston, Texas 77002-6421
`Phone: 713-238-8049
`Fax: 713-238-8008
`e-mail: CRogers@conleyrose.com
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioners
`Ericsson Inc. and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`ERICSSON INC. and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2015-01872
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`

`
`Instituted Claims/Grounds
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1
`
`Lu
`
`Lu & Pankaj
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Instituted
`Claims
`1-4, 7, 11-14, 17,
`20, 21, 23 & 24
`
`22 & 25
`
`2
`
`

`
`Overview of the ’994 Patent
`• The ’994 Patent generally relates to methods of
`processing queued data packets, described as a
`combination of hierarchical (tier‐based) round‐
`robin and weighted fair queuing, also referred to
`as a “tier‐based weighted fair queuing scheme.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, ‘994 Patent at 4:1‐2).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Claim Construction
`Means‐Plus‐Function Claims
`
`• Board properly construed Claims 11‐19 and 
`24 as reciting means‐plus‐function terms
`
`• Patent Owner (“PO”) does not dispute 
`constructions for means‐plus‐function terms
`
`4
`
`

`
`Background of the ’994 Patent
`Goal: Provide fair and optimal allocation of limited
`communication resources to data packet users having
`different requirements or throughputs
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:23‐30.)
`
`5
`
`

`
`Background of the ’994 Patent
`Weighted Fair Queuing
`• Overview: “Weighted fair queuing is a packet queuing/ordering scheme
`based on a bit‐by‐bit round‐robin allocation. The gateway 120 maintains
`separate queues for packets from each user 112, 114, 116. The gateway
`120 processes the queues in a bit‐by‐bit round‐robin manner by knowing
`the throughput of the time‐shared resource/server 130. Under these
`conditions it is clear that if there are N users then the throughput
`provided to each user will be 1/N.” (Ex. 1001, 2:65 – 3:5.)
`Hierarchical Round Robin
`•
`Overview: “A hierarchical round‐robin scheme employs multiple levels
`or tiers. Within each tier a round‐robin service is provided to users using
`a fixed number of slots. A user is allocated a fixed number of slots in
`each tier. The time taken to service all the slots within a level (or tier) is
`termed the frame time. . . . Thus, differential service can be provided to
`users on a level or tier basis.” (Ex. 1001, 3:38‐45.)
`
`6
`
`

`
`Background of the ’994 Patent
`Weighted Fair Queuing (bit‐by‐bit round‐robin)
`• Pro: “provides a fair allocation of bandwidth.” (Ex. 1001, 3:30)
`• Con: “in a system where different users experience very
`different throughputs (e.g. when they experience different radio
`conditions) a weighted fair queuing system faces problems in
`fair allocation to users.” (Ex. 1001, 3:63‐66.)
`
`Hierarchical Round Robin (tier‐based allocation)
`•
`Pro: “differential service can be provided to users on a level or
`tier basis.” (Id. at 3:44‐45.)
`Con: “the hierarchical round robin system does not provide fair
`allocation of bandwidth to users because resources cannot be
`transferred between tiers.’ (Id. at 3:46‐48.)
`
`•
`
`7
`
`

`
`Embodiments of the ’994 Patent
`Proposed Solution: “The packet data queuing algorithm in the
`RNC processor 248 is based around the concept of employing
`different tiers of service. In particular, each tier, of a number of
`tiers of service, is configured to provide users with a commitment
`that a proportion of the entire system bandwidth will be
`allocated to users operating on that particular tier.” (Ex. 1001,
`6:46‐51.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`The ’994 Patent
`“The approach of combining 
`hierarchical round robin and 
`weighted fair queuing has not be 
`considered in the past due to the 
`difficulty of determining the 
`number of packets which should 
`be allocated to each tier when 
`there are a variable number of 
`users in each tier.” (Ex. 1001, 4:1‐
`5.)
`
`Lu
`“The class queuing system may 
`use a weight based scheduling 
`scheme to control transfer of data 
`packets among queues. The 
`weight sets may specify the data 
`throughput for a queue during 
`each cycle of the weight based 
`scheduling so that appropriate 
`transfer rates corresponding to 
`the desired characteristics of each 
`class may be achieved.” (Ex. 1002, 
`2:1‐6.)
`
`9
`
`

`
`The ’994 Patent
`“The packet data queuing algorithm 
`in the RNC processor 248 is based 
`around the concept of employing 
`different tiers of service.” Ex. 1001, 
`6:46‐48. “In summary, an apparatus 
`and method are described to 
`provide for a tier‐based weighted 
`fair queuing scheme.” Id. at 4:59‐60. 
`“Within each tier, packets are then 
`allocated in a round‐robin fashion.” 
`(Ex. 1001, 7:52‐53.)
`
`Lu
`“This invention provides a [tier‐
`based] class queuing system
`where data is placed in queues 
`distinguished by class.” Ex. 1002, 
`1:20‐21. “A weight set may be 
`assigned to queues at each level.” 
`Id. at 3:18. “For a weight based 
`scheduling scheme, head data 
`packets from each of the initial 
`class queues are transferred in 
`sequence based on the weight 
`set.” (Id. at 6:23‐25.) 
`
`10
`
`

`
`The ’994 Patent vs. Lu
`• The ’994 Patent: “In particular, each tier, of a number of tiers of service, is 
`configured to provide users with a commitment that a proportion of the 
`entire system bandwidth will be allocated to users operating on that 
`particular tier.” Ex. 1001, 6:48‐51. “The algorithm is more flexible to changes in 
`the overall number of users served changes (each tier is provided with a 
`constant share of the overall bandwidth irrespective of the number of users in 
`that tier).” (Id. at 8:66 – 9:2.)
`Lu: “For example, in a network environment having high, medium, and low 
`classes, each of the classes may be guaranteed a minimum bound relative to 
`one or more network characteristics. The network characteristics may be 
`qualities such as transmission capacity expressed in terms of bandwidth (bw).” 
`Ex. 1002, col. 2:39‐44. “Classes may be distinguished from each other by 
`specifying minimum bounds of the above parameters so that data transmission 
`for each of the classes may be guaranteed performance above the specified 
`minimum bounds.” Ex. 1002, 1:28‐32. “In this way, data from different class 
`subscribers may be controlled to partition a bandwidth of the output port to 
`support the minimum bounds of the subscriber classes.” (Id. at 3:20‐23.) 
`
`•
`
`11
`
`

`
`Summary
`Lu Renders Obvious Claim 1 of the ’994 Patent
`I.
`II. Lu Renders Obvious Claims 11 and 24 of the ’994 Patent
`III. Lu Renders Obvious Claims 7 and 17 of the ’994 Patent
`IV. Lu Renders Obvious Claim 21 of the ’994 Patent
`V. Lu and Pankaj Render Obvious Claims 22 and 25 of the
`’994 Patent
`VI. Petition is not barred by § 315(a)
`VII.Petition is not barred by § 315(b)
`
`12
`
`

`
`Claim 1 of the ’994 Patent
`(pre) A method of processing queued data packets in a packet data
`communication system, the method comprising:
`a) allocating a tier of service for each of a plurality of individual packet
`data queues, wherein allocating a tier of service comprises:
`b) determining a total number of data packets that can use an available
`communication resource;
`c) allocating different weights to each tier of service based on a number of
`users requiring access to the available communication resource;
`d) allocating a proportion of said total number of data packets to a number
`of the tiers of service to allow individual packet data queues on a
`number of tiers to share a communication resource; and
`e) providing said communication resource to queued packet data users
`on a tier‐by‐tier basis, such that said communication resource is made
`available to a number of tiers.
`*PO only disputes obviousness of claim elements b) and e)
`
`13
`
`

`
`Element b) “determining a total number of data packets
`that can use an available communication resource”
`i.
`“determining a total number of data packets”
`• Lu: “A weight based scheduling scheme may operate in
`cycles where for each cycle a number of data packets is
`selected for transfer based on the weights of the weight
`set.” Ex. 1002, 6:31‐33. “[T]he controller 502 may also
`collect subscriber volume data so that the actual number
`of subscribers that are communicating and data packet
`volume for any period of time for each class may be
`determined.” (Ex. 1002, 11:10‐14.)
`
`14
`
`

`
`“determining a total number of data packets” 
`• The ’994 Patent: “In the preferred embodiment of
`the
`invention, we assume that allocation of resources by the RNC
`236 can only be made at certain time interval or rounds (also
`possibly referred to as frames), as occurs in known packet data
`systems. . . . Therefore, in each round 100 packets are
`allocated.” Ex. 1001, 6:29‐35. “The total number of data
`packets that can be allocated in a single round, β310, can
`then be determined. (Id. at 7:45-46.)
`• Lu also Determines the Number of Packets per Round: “A
`weight based scheduling scheme may operate in cycles where
`for each cycle a number of data packets is selected for transfer
`based on the weights of the weight set.” (Ex. 1002, 6:31‐33.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`PO’s Expert confirms that Lu 
`determines a number of packets
`
`• PO’s Expert: “To determine the number of packets to
`transfer from each class queue in Level 2 to Level 3, Lu
`determines a weight for each class queue.” (Williams Dec.
`¶ 44.)
`• PO’s Expert: “so, for example, in level 2 of Lu, transferring
`packets between the high, medium, and low class queues
`to the output queue, the weights determine the number
`of packets.” (Williams Depo. 76:24 – 77:4.)
`
`16
`
`

`
`PO’s Expert confirms that Lu 
`determines a number of packets
`“If the second weight set is: high
`class=5; medium class=2; and low
`class=1, then five data packets from
`the high class final class queue 444 is
`transferred to the destination output
`queue 328 for two data packets of the
`medium class final class queue 442
`and for one data packet of the low
`class final queue 440.” (Ex. 1002, 6:43‐
`48.)
`
`(Williams Dec. ¶ 44.)
`
`•
`
`As annotated by PO’s Expert, Fig. 5 above shows Lu “determining a
`total number of data packets” (i.e., 8) “that packets can use an
`available communication resource.”
`
`17
`
`

`
`Element b) “determining a total number of data packets
`that can use an available communication resource”
`ii. “use an available communication resource”
`• The ’994 Patent: “Assuming that there are L tiers we define the number
`of packets allocated to each tier.” (Ex. 1001, 7:45‐47.)
`• Lu also Defines the Number of Packets for each Tier: “If the second
`weight set is: high class=5; medium class=2; and low class=1, then five
`data packets from the high class final class queue 444 is transferred to
`the destination output queue 328 for two data packets of the medium
`class final class queue 442 and for one data packet of the low class final
`queue 440.” (Ex. 1002, 6:43‐48.)
`• Lu: “Each of the data packets are received by the network 102 and
`placed into queues awaiting available network resources to complete
`the communication.” (Id. at 3:43‐45.)
`
`18
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to alter 
`Board’s initial decision regarding element b)
`
`(Institution Decision (“ID”) at 24.)
`
`19
`
`

`
`Element e) “providing said communication resource to queued
`packet data users on a tier‐by‐tier basis, such that said
`communication resource is made available to a number of tiers”
`
`(Petition at 34.)
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent Owner
`(POR at 24.)
`
`(Williams Depo., 91:12‐19)
`
`21
`
`PO’s Expert
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to 
`alter Board’s initial decision regarding element e)
`
`(ID at 25.)
`
`22
`
`

`
`Lu Renders Obvious 
`Claims 11 & 24 of the ’994 Patent
`
`• Claims 11 (apparatus) and 24 (system) correspond to
`means‐plus‐function claims.
`
`– Petitioners: “The means‐plus‐function of Claims 11 and
`24 do not include any materially different limitations
`from the corresponding method of Claim 1.”(Pet. at 35.)
`– Patent Owner: does not dispute statement above
`
`23
`
`

`
`Lu Renders Obvious 
`Claims 11 & 24 of the ’994 Patent
`
`• Petitioners: “POSA would have understood Lu to disclose
`corresponding or equivalent means and logic for performing
`each function in Claims 11 and 24.” (Pet. at 36‐37.)
`
`(Pet. at 36.)
`
`24
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to alter
`Board’s initial Decision Regarding Claims 11 and 24
`• PO: “Petitioners cite to lists of computer and networking components
`disclosed by Lu without attempting to address which components
`map to which function.” POR at 25. “Petitioners’ failure to specify with
`particularity the means‐plus‐function disclosures of Lu, in addition to
`its failures with respect to claim 1, demonstrate that they have not
`established a reasonable likelihood that Lu renders claims 11 and 24
`obvious.” (Pet. at 24‐25.)
`• Board has Already Considered & Dismissed PO’s Argument: “Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner fails to specify with particularity where
`Lu teaches the means‐plus‐function limitations of claims 11 and 24.
`Prelim. Resp. 39–40. We disagree. On the current record, we are
`persuaded that the evidence Petitioner cites for claim 1 teaches the
`corresponding elements of claims 11 and 24.” (ID at 26.)
`
`25
`
`

`
`Lu Renders Obvious 
`Claims 7 & 17 of the ’994 Patent
`
`26
`
`

`
`Lu (Ex. 1002)
`“When end‐users 104‐108 desire to communicate, each of the end‐users
`104‐108 sends communication signals through the network 102 in the form
`of data packets, for example. Data packets are not required but are
`convenient for discussion purposes. Each of the data packets are received by
`the network 102 and placed into queues awaiting available network
`resources to complete the communication.” (Ex. 1002, 3:39‐46.)
`
`“For a weight based scheduling scheme, head data packets from each of the
`initial class queues are transferred in sequence based on the weight set. A
`head data packet is a data packet that is waiting to be transferred ahead of
`all other data packets in a queue. After the head data packet is transferred,
`the next data packet (in time) in the queue becomes the head data packet
`and so on. In this way, the data packets in a queue is sequentially moved out
`of the queue.” (Ex. 1002, 6:24‐31 (emphasis added).)
`Lu (Ex. 1002)
`
`See supra Claim 7.
`
`Claim 7
`The method of processing 
`queued data packets in a 
`packet data communication 
`system according to claim 1, 
`the method further 
`comprising: placing a user at a 
`tail of an allocated queue, 
`depending on the userts [sic] 
`tier of service when said user 
`provides data packets for 
`queuing.
`
`Claim 17
`The packet data scheduler 
`according to claim 11, wherein 
`said scheduling means is 
`operable for placing a user at a 
`tail of the allocated queue, 
`depending on the user’s tier of 
`service in response to the user 
`providing data packets for 
`queuing.
`
`27
`
`

`
`• PO Argues: “Petitioners…never show that Lu teaches or suggests
`“placing a user at a tail of [an/the] allocated queue.” (POR at 26.)
`• PO’s Expert: The claimed “users” refers to “an indication of who
`the users are, and that indication of who the users are is queued
`along with the data that they want to communicate.” (Williams
`Depo, 91:16‐19.)
`• Lu: When a user desires to communicate, the user’s “data packets
`are received by the network 102 and placed into queues.” (Ex.
`1002, 3:43‐44.) The user’s “data packets in a queue is sequentially
`moved out of the queue.” (Ex. 1002, 6:29‐30.)
`• Petitioners’ Expert: “A POSA would have understood that Lu’s
`system places a subscriber at a tail of a class queue, based on the
`subscriber’s class, in response to the subscriber providing the data
`for queuing.” (Ex. 1006, ¶ 109.)
`
`28
`
`

`
`Rebuttal Against PO’s Arguments
`Petitioners: There is no dispute that Lu places a user’s data packets at the tail of a
`queue when the user provides data packets for queuing, and that Lu “provides a class
`queuing system that processes data transmitted by a subscriber based on a class
`subscribed to by the subscriber.” (Ex. 1002, 2:37‐39.)
`
`(Ex. 1002, 5:57‐67.)
`
`(Williams Depo., 91:12‐19.)
`
`29
`
`

`
`Lu Renders Obvious Claim 21
`
`Claim 21
`The communication unit
`according to claim 20,
`wherein said
`communication unit
`operates as a gateway to
`and/or from two packet
`data networks.
`
`Lu (Ex. 1002)
`“FIG. 1 shows an exemplary diagram of a communications system 100 that includes a
`network 102 and end-users 104-108. The network 102 may be a telecommunication
`network, a data network or any of a variety of intra or internets that facilitates
`communication among end-users. The end-users 104-108 may be a terminal, a
`telephone station (wire or wireless) or other communication systems such as PBXs, for
`example.” (Ex. 1002, 3:31-38 (emphasis added).)
`“The network unit 202 places data packets received from the links 208, 210, 212 and
`214 into input queues so that a switch, for example, within the network unit 202 may
`route each of the data packets to the proper destinations corresponding to the links 209,
`211, 213 and 215. Each of the links 209, 211, 213 and 215 are provided with output
`queues that receive the data packets from the input queues for outputting to the
`respective end-users 104 and 108 and the network units 204 and 206.
`FIG. 4 shows an exemplary block diagram of the queues within the network unit 202.
`The input queues 302-308 receives data packets from the links 208, 210, 212 and 214.
`A switch 310 receives data packets from the input queues 302-308 and routes each of
`the data packets to one of output queues 312-318 corresponding to an appropriate
`destination of the data packet. While FIG. 4 shows the switch 310, there are many
`other known methods for routing the data packets from the input queues 302-308 to the
`output queues 312-318. For example, a bus may couple the input queues and the output
`queues together and a controller may simply read the data packets from the input
`queues 302-308 and write them into the output queues 312-318.” (Ex. 1002, 4:1-22.)
`
`30
`
`

`
`Lu
`“FIG. 1 shows an exemplary diagram of a
`communications system 100 that includes a
`network 102 and end‐users 104‐108. The
`network 102 may be a telecommunication
`network, a data network or any of a variety
`intra or
`internets
`of
`that
`facilitates
`communication among end‐users. The end‐
`users 104‐108 may be a terminal, a
`telephone station (wire or wireless) or
`other communication systems.” (Ex. 1002,
`3:31‐37 (emphasis added).)
`
`Background of the ’994 Patent
`“A cellular communication network generally
`interfaces with a packet‐switched network,
`such as the Internet, via an Internet router
`serving as a gateway to the cellular
`communications
`network.
`Thus, when
`information is to be communicated to or
`from a MS
`or UE
`in
`a
`cellular
`communications network or system,
`the
`route is established to the appropriate
`Internet router, serving as the gateway of
`the cellular communication network.” (Ex.
`1001, 2:8‐15.)
`
`Other 
`Communication 
`Systems
`
`31
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to 
`alter Board’s initial Decision Regarding Claim 21
`
`– Mr. Lanning: “In the context of data packet communications, a POSA
`would have understood Lu’s network unit 202 to act as a gateway to
`and/or from “other communication systems” such as two packet
`data networks, e.g., a packet‐based local area network (LAN), home
`area network (HAN) and/or personal area network (PAN).” (Ex. 1006,
`¶ 135.)
`– PO: Lu’s network unit 202 is described simply as a router, not a
`gateway, and Lu only describes one network. (POR at 29.)
`– Board: “Patent Owner’s argument fails to address Mr. Lanning’s
`testimony adequately.” (ID at 31 (citing Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 134‐135).)
`
`32
`
`

`
`Lu and Pankaj Render Obvious 
`Claims 22 & 25 of the ’994 Patent
`
`33
`
`

`
`Lu and Pankaj Render Obvious 
`Claim 22 of the ’994 Patent
`Claim 22: “The communication unit of claim 20, wherein
`said communication unit is a radio network controller for
`operation in a third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
`specification for wide‐band code‐division multiple access
`(WCDMA) communication system.”
`Pankaj: Teaches a base station controller 810 operating
`“[i]n a wireless communication system employing a Code
`Division‐Multiple Access, CDMA,” which “may be designed
`to support one or more standards such as . . . 3GPP [and]
`referred to herein as the W‐CDMA standard.”(Ex. 1003, ¶7.)
`
`34
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to 
`alter Board’s initial Decision Regarding Claim 22
`
`• PO Argues: “Claim 22, which depends from claims 11 and 20, is
`not invalid because the claims from which it depends are not
`invalid. Petitioners did not show that claims 11 and 20 are
`invalid over Lu, and Pankaj does not cure Lu’s deficiencies with
`respect to these claims.” (POR at 33.)
`• Board: “Patent Owner does not present separate argument for
`this ground. Prelim. Resp. 60. On this record, Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`in
`showing that claim 22 would have been obvious over Lu and
`Pankaj.” (ID at 39.)
`
`35
`
`

`
`Lu and Pankaj Render Obvious 
`Claim 25 of the ’994 Patent
`Claim 25
`Lu (Ex. 1002), Pankaj (Ex. 1003)
`See supra Claims 11 and 24.
`A computer‐
`readable medium 
`“An apparatus in a wireless communication 
`comprising 
`system, comprising: a processing element; 
`computer 
`and a memory storage element coupled to 
`executable 
`the processing element, the memory storage 
`instructions for 
`element adapted for storing computer‐
`performing the 
`readable instructions” (Ex. 1003, Claim 18), 
`method of claim 1.
`“wherein the computer‐readable instructions
`further implement: scheduling the plurality 
`of mobile users.” (Ex. 1003, Claim 20.)
`
`36
`
`

`
`PO does not present sufficient reasons to 
`alter Board’s initial Decision Regarding Claim 25
`• PO Argues: “Claim 25 depends on claim 1, which Petitioners failed to show to
`be obvious over Lu. See § IV(B), supra. Pankaj does not cure Lu’s deficiencies
`with respect to claim 1, and therefore Petitioners failed to show by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is obvious over the combination
`of Lu and Pankaj.” (POR at 33.)
`• Board has Already Considered and Dismissed PO’s Argument: “As Petitioner
`contends (Pet. 59–6), Lu teaches that its techniques can be implemented as
`computer programs. Ex. 1002, 4:42–44. Petitioner points to Pankaj as teaching
`that similar techniques can be implemented as computer‐readable instructions
`stored in computer memory devices. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 163). According
`to Petitioner, it would have been obvious to use such a memory device in Lu’s
`system. Id. We agree. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the
`contrary and find them to be unpersuasive. On this record, Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claim
`25 would have been obvious over Lu and Pankaj. ” (ID at 40.)
`
`37
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(a) 
`• Patent Owner alleges that Petitioners’ Answer in Intervention 
`(including an invalidity defense) from their intervention in 
`related district court litigation is a “civil action” filed by 
`Petitioner challenging the validity of a claim of the ’994 
`patent.
`
`• Section 315(a)’s reference to filing a “civil action” refers to the 
`filing of a Complaint to commence a civil action, not an Answer 
`asserting an affirmative defense of invalidity.  See Ariosa 
`Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd, IPR2012‐00022, Paper 20 at 5 
`(PTAB Feb. 12, 2013).
`
`38
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(a) 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ‐ Relation to other proceedings or actions
`(a)  Infringer’s Civil Action.—
`(1) Inter partes review barred by civil action.—
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if, before the date on 
`which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real 
`party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim 
`of the patent.
`
`* * *
`
`(3) Treatment of counterclaim.—
`A counterclaim challenging the validity of a claim of a patent does 
`not constitute a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a 
`patent for purposes of this subsection.
`
`39
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(a) 
`
`• Petitioners’ Answer in Intervention asserting an affirmative 
`defense of invalidity is an Answer, not a Complaint to commence 
`a “civil action.”
`
`40
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(b) 
`
`• Patent Owner asserts that AT&T was served with a Complaint 
`alleging infringement of the ’994 patent and that Petitioners 
`are in privity with AT&T.
`
`• Even if a Complaint alleging infringement of the ’994 patent 
`was served on AT&T over 1 year before the Petition requesting 
`this IPR proceeding was filed, Petitioners are not in privity with 
`AT&T.
`
`41
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(b) 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ‐ Relation to other proceedings or actions
`* * *
`(b) Patent Owner’s Action.—
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting 
`the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the
`petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a 
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent.  . . .. 
`
`42
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(b) 
`• Patent Owner asserts that Petitioners’ intervention in the 
`related district court litigation made AT&T a privy of 
`Petitioners.
`• Patent Owner does not even acknowledge this Panel’s 
`reference to the Caterpillar decision, in which a Board Panel 
`concluded that intervention in a district court does not suggest 
`that the intervenor is a real party in interest.  (ID at 12‐13 
`(citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Esco Corp., IPR2015‐00409, Paper 9, 
`2015 WL 3826661, at *7 (PTAB June 18, 2015).)
`
`• It was Petitioners’ lack of privity with AT&T that led 
`Petitioners’ to seek and be granted intervention in the district 
`court litigation.
`
`43
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(b) 
`
`• The issue is not whether Petitioners now will be bound to the 
`AT&T case result by virtue of their intervention; rather, the 
`proper consideration in a privity analysis is whether, absent 
`Petitioners’ intervention, its relationship with AT&T would 
`have been such that Petitioners would have been bound by 
`the outcome of the AT&T case.  (ID at 13.)
`
`• “Patent Owner has not alleged that Petitioners would have 
`been bound by the AT&T case result absent intervention.”  (ID 
`at 14.)
`
`44
`
`

`
`The Petition is not Barred by § 315(b) 
`• In further support of its privity argument, Patent Owner 
`alleges: 
`• customer/supplier relationship; 
`• outcome of the AT&T case might affect Petitioners; 
`• Petitioners are more knowledgeable about their products 
`than AT&T; and 
`• AT&T’s alleged infringement is based in part on Petitioners’ 
`products.
`• “Patent Owner has not alleged other facts, such as facts that 
`would suggest control.”  (ID at 14.)
`
`• “The facts alleged by Patent Owner . . . are insufficient to 
`suggest privity between Petitioner and AT&T.” (ID at 14.)
`
`45

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
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

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.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

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

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket