UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., AMAZON
`FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., HULU, LLC, and NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,566,960
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box. 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`February 17, 2017
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioners re-
`
`spectfully requests inter partes review of Claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`Petitioners’ undersigned representatives authorize the Director to charge any
`
`fees required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and not submitted with the Petition to Depos-
`
`it Account No. 50-0665, charge number 122235.0002.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... v
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... viii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ............................................................ 2
`
`RELATED MATTERS ........................................................................ 2
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ............. 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ..................................... 4
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING............................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claims Challenged ..................................................................... 4
`
`The Prior Art .............................................................................. 4
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) .................................. 5
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon for the Challenge ................ 5
`
`Statutory Ground(s) of Challenge and Legal Principles ............ 5
`
`Claim Construction .................................................................... 6
`
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds ........ 6
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’960 PATENT ........................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE
`’960 PATENT ...................................................................................... 7
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’960 PATENT ........................................ 9
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’960 PATENT ................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY ................ 12
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 14
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“device identity” ...................................................................... 14
`
`“a first time period after an initial authorization of the
`digital product” ........................................................................ 16
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’960 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................... 16
`
`A.
`
`IDENTIFICATION AND OVERVIEW OF THE REFER-
`ENCES AS PRIOR ART ................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 to DeMello, et al ........................... 16
`
`Irish Patent Application No. 02/0429 by Staruiala, et al ......... 19
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 20
`
`C. DIFFERENT INVALIDITY POSITIONS AGAINST EACH
`CLAIM ARE INDEPENDENT, DISTINCTIVE, AND NOT
`REDUNDANT ................................................................................... 20
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTA-
`BILITY OF CLAIMS 1-25 OF THE ’960 PATENT ................................... 21
`
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-18, AND 22-25
`ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) AS AN-
`TICIPATED BY DEMELLO............................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 21
`
`Claim 2 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 33
`
`Claim 3 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 33
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 4 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 35
`
`Claim 5 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 36
`
`Claim 7 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 36
`
`Claim 8 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 38
`
`Claim 9 Is Anticipated by DeMello ......................................... 39
`
`Claim 10 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 40
`
`10. Claim 12 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 40
`
`11. Claim 13 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 41
`
`12. Claim 14 Is Anticipated By DeMello ...................................... 41
`
`13. Claim 16 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 42
`
`14. Claim 17 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 42
`
`15. Claim 18 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 42
`
`16. Claim 22 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 43
`
`17. Claim 23 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 45
`
`18. Claim 24 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 45
`
`19. Claim 25 Is Anticipated by DeMello ....................................... 45
`
`B. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 6-7, 11-12, AND 15-16 ARE UN-
`PATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS IN
`VIEW OF DEMELLO AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF A
`POSITA .............................................................................................. 48
`
`1.
`
`Claim 6 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 48
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 7 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 50
`
`Claim 11 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 51
`
`Claim 12 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 51
`
`Claim 15 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 51
`
`Claim 16 Would Have Been an Obvious Modification of
`DeMello Within the Knowledge of a POSITA ........................ 52
`
`C. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-25 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103 AS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF DEMELLO
`AND STARUIALA ............................................................................ 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Staruiala Teaches Element 1[d] and It Would Be Obvious
`to Combine It With DeMello’s System, Thereby Render-
`ing Claims 1-18 and 22-25 Obvious ........................................ 52
`
`Claim 19 Is Obvious in View of DeMello and Staruiala ......... 57
`
`Claim 20 Is Obvious in View of DeMello and Staruiala ......... 59
`
`Claim 21 Is Obvious in View of DeMello and Staruiala ......... 61
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 61
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 6
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 6
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 51, 55
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al.,
`IPR2016-01271 ................................................................................................. 3, 7
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`2:16-cv-570-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
`6:15-cv-1009-RWS (E.D. Texas 2015) ............................................................ 2, 3
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc.,
`2:16-cv-571-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Home Box Office, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-572-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Hulu, LLC,
`2:16-cv-573-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-574-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Valve Corp.,
`2:16-cv-575-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016) .................................................................. 3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................... 1,5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ......................................................................................... 5, 16, 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,904,680
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) ............................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,904,680
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .......................................................................................... 6, 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2) ....................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4) ....................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960 to Richardson, issued October 23, 2013
`(“the ’960 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 to DeMello, et al., issued May 16, 2006
`(“DeMello”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Irish Patent Application No. 02/0429, published November 27, 2002
`(“Staruiala”)
`
`Ex. 1005 Relevant Excerpts of File History of Application No. 12/272,570
`
`Ex. 1006 Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Case IPR2016-
`01271, issued January 9, 2017
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`PCT Application WO2005/084100 by Villela, published September
`15, 2005 (“Villela”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 4,796,220 to Wolfe, issued January 3, 1989 (“Wolfe”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,468 to Pearce, et al., issued June 5, 2001
`(“Pearce”)
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 to Richardson, issued February 6, 1996
`(“the ’216 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Patent Bibliographical Details, Irish Patent Office, Application
`2002/0429
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Excerpt of Patents Office Journal, Vol. 1956, November 27, 2002
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Excerpt of Patents Office Journal, Vol. 1985, January 14, , 2004
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,203,966 to Aburri, et al., issued April 10, 2007
`(“Aburri”)
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,904,680
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,574,612 to Baratti, et al., issued June 3, 2003 (“Bar-
`atti”)
`
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,212,564 to Harter, et al., issued April 3, 2001
`(“Harter”)
`
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 to Cox, et al., issued January 21, 2003
`(“Cox”)
`
`Ex. 1018 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. US 2007/0245423 by Herington,
`published October 18, 2007 (“Herrington”)
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. US 2004/0117440 by Singer, et al.,
`published June 17, 2004 (“Singer”)
`
`Ex. 1020 Assignment Data for U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. US
`2004/0117440 by Singer, et al.
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`“Microsoft Product Activation for Windows XP – Technical Market
`Bulletin,” published August 2001
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`“The Long March to Interoperable Digital Rights Management,”
`Koenen, et al., Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 92, No. 6, June 2004
`
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. US 2002/0128976 by O’Connor, et
`al., published September 12, 2002 (“O’Connor”)
`
`Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No. 5,809,251 to May, et al., issued September 15, 1998
`(“May”)
`
`Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 8,694,434 to Kley, issued April 8, 2014 (“Kley”)
`
`Ex. 1026 U.S. Patent No. 7,752,139 to Hu, issued July 6, 2010 (“Hu”)
`
`Ex. 1027 U.S. Patent Appl. Publication No. US 2003/0097331 by Cohen, pub-
`lished May 22, 2003 (“Cohen”)
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,904,680
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1028 U.S. Patent No. 6,915,278 to Ferrante, et al., issued July 5, 2003
`(“Ferrante”)
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`“Remote Physical Device Fingerprinting,” Kohno, et al., IEEE Trans-
`actions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 2, Issue 2, June
`2005
`
`Ex. 1030 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Aviel Rubin1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Citation Convention in this Petition: Where an exhibit contains original
`page numbering that uniquely identifies each page in the exhibit, the original page
`numbers will be used to refer to the pages in the exhibit; where an exhibit contains
`original page numbering that does not clearly and uniquely identify each page in
`the exhibit (such as in the File History (Ex. 1005) due to multiple documents in the
`exhibit with repeated page numbers), or does not contain page numbering at all, the
`page numbering labeled in the lower right hand corner of the exhibit will be used.
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., Hulu, LLC, and
`
`Netflix, Inc. (“Petitioners”) petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-25
`
`5
`
`of U.S. Pat. No. 8,566,960 (Ex. 1001), originally assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg,
`
`S.A. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`This Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of Claims 1-25 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Peti-
`
`tioners provide a preponderance of the evidence for each proposed invalidity
`
`10
`
`ground in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Specifically, Claims 1-25 are un-
`
`patentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. This Petition relies on art
`
`that is different from that was advanced in IPR2016-01271, filed by Unified Pa-
`
`tents Inc. As set forth herein, the DeMello reference relied upon in this Petition
`
`teaches a temporally adjustable limit on the number of device activations, where
`
`15
`
`the limit is set in response to a device not being found in the record of existing au-
`
`thorizations. That is the core limitation that the Board found missing in the refer-
`
`ences at issue in the Unified Patents’ petition. (See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 14, 26-28.)
`
`Petitioners request that the Board institute a trial for IPR and cancel Claims
`
`1-25.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), all real parties
`
`in interest for this IPR are Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Am-
`
`5
`
`azon Fulfillment Services, Inc.,2 Hulu, LLC, and Netflix, Inc.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`
`The ’960 Patent is asserted against Petitioners in lawsuits filed by Patent
`
`Owner and the alleged exclusive licensee, Uniloc USA, Inc., in the following law-
`
`suits: Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 2:16-cv-570-RWS (E.D.
`
`10
`
`Texas 2016); Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Hulu, LLC, 2:16-cv-573-RWS (E.D. Texas
`
`2016); and Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix, Inc., 2:16-cv-574-RWS (E.D. Texas
`
`2016).
`
`The ’960 Patent is being asserted in two other pending lawsuits brought by
`
`Patent Owner and Uniloc USA, Inc.: Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., 2:16-
`
`15
`
`cv-571-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016); and Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Home Box Office,
`
`Inc., 2:16-cv-572-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016). The ’960 Patent was previously as-
`
`serted in two lawsuits that have been dismissed: Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Elec-
`
`
`
`
`2 Though Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. is not accused of infringement in
`the district court litigation, it is identified as a real party in interest out of precau-
`tion and to avoid any dispute on the issue.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`tronic Arts Inc., 6:15-cv-1009-RWS (E.D. Texas 2015); and Uniloc USA, Inc., et al.
`
`v. Valve Corp., 2:16-cv-575-RWS (E.D. Texas 2016).
`
`The ’960 Patent was also the subject of another IPR proceeding filed on June
`
`29, 2016 by Unified Patents: Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al.,
`
`5
`
`IPR2016-01271. On January 9, 2017, the Board entered a Decision Denying Insti-
`
`tution of Inter Partes Review, terminating that proceeding. (Ex. 1006.)
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioners ap-
`
`point Daniel T. Shvodian (Reg. No. 42,148) as their lead counsel and Sarah E.
`
`10
`
`Stahnke (Reg. No. 54,854) as their back-up counsel. The above attorneys can both
`
`be reached at the mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 3150 Porter Dr., Palo Alto,
`
`CA 94304, contact numbers of 650-838-4300 (phone) and 650-838-4350 (fax), and
`
`the following email for service and all communications:
`
`DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
`
`15
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e). Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney executed by Petitioners appointing the
`
`above designated counsel are concurrently filed.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements un-
`
`der 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105, and 42.15 and should be accorded a filing date as
`
`of the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`5
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’960 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the
`
`claims of the ’960 Patent. Petitioners have standing, or meet all requirements, to
`
`file this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1), and 325(e)(1),
`
`10
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102.
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioners is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent
`
`and cancel those claims because they are invalid.
`
`15
`
`1.
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`2.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`The full names of the prior art references are identified in the Exhibit List.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`Grounds
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
`
`Challenged Claims
`References
`U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 (Ex. 1003) Claims 1-5, 7-10,
`12-14, 16-18, 22-25
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 (Ex. 1003) Claim 6-7, 11-12,
`15-16
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 (Ex. 1003)
`and Irish Patent Application No.
`02/0429 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Claims 1-25
`
`3.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`Petitioners authorize the Director to charge any fees required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) and not submitted with the Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-0665,
`
`charge number 122235.0002.
`
`5
`
`4.
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon for the Challenge
`
`The Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin (Ex. 1002) and other supporting evi-
`
`dence are identified in the Exhibit List, filed herewith.
`
`5.
`
`Statutory Ground(s) of Challenge and Legal Principles
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2), the review of patentability of Claims
`
`10
`
`1-25 of the ’960 Patent is governed by 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in effect before
`
`March 16, 2013. Statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 325 that took
`
`effect on September 16, 2012 govern this inter partes review.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`6.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The ’960 Patent has not expired. The Office shall give a claim in an unex-
`
`pired patent “its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears” to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard, claim terms
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`POSITA in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by de-
`
`10
`
`fining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and pre-
`
`cision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`7. How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4), Section VI provides an explanation of
`
`how Claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent are unpatentable, including the identification
`
`15
`
`of where each element of the claim is found in the cited prior art.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’960 PATENT
`
`The ’960 Patent is titled “System and Method for Adjustable Licensing of
`
`Digital Products” and issued to Ric B. Richardson on October 22, 2013. The earli-
`
`est application to which the patent claims priority is a November 17, 2007 provi-
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`sional application. All relevant applications and the patent were assigned to Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg, S.A.
`
`There have been no re-examinations, certificates of corrections, or interfer-
`
`ences regarding the patent. An IPR petition based upon different prior art was filed
`
`5
`
`and denied in Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., IPR2016-01271.
`
`A.
`
`STATE OF PRIOR ART TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE THE ’960
`PATENT
`
`The ’960 Patent relates to the field of digital rights management (“DRM”),
`
`which was a well-developed field long before the earliest possible priority date for
`
`10
`
`the ’960 Patent of November 17, 2007. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 58, 40-46.) Generally,
`
`DRM is a systematic means to enforce licensing rights and control the use, modifi-
`
`cation, and distribution of protected digital products, such as audio, video, or soft-
`
`ware. (Id. at ¶ 58.)
`
`As admitted in the ’960 Patent, a “common capability” of prior art DRM
`
`15
`
`systems was “the ability to control how many devices are allowed to be used with
`
`each product license . . . .” (Ex. 1001 at 1:22-25.) As referenced in the ’960 Patent,
`
`one such system was disclosed in inventor Richardson’s own ’216 Patent, which
`
`issued in 1996 and taught a system that linked a license for a digital product to one
`
`computer. (Id. at 1:25-30; Ex. 1010 at 3:22-37 (permitting software to run in “use”
`
`20
`
`mode (i.e., non-demonstration mode) on just one uniquely identified computer).)
`
`The ’960 Patent also admitted that Apple’s iTunes system limited customers to
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`playing purchased music on up to a maximum number of devices, such as five de-
`
`vices. (Ex. 1001 at 1:52-55.)
`
`To enforce such device limits, it was necessary that DRM systems be able to
`
`identify the devices requesting access to the digital product. Such systems there-
`
`5
`
`fore used techniques to generate unique ID’s for the user devices based upon pa-
`
`rameters of the device hardware. For example, Staruiala, which was published in
`
`2002, taught generating a “unique identifier based on the physical characteristics of
`
`the system.” (Ex. 1004 at 1.) DeMello, which issued in 2006, also taught using a
`
`“hardware ID” to identify a user device to the DRM system. (Ex. 1003 at 22:44-51
`
`10
`
`(“Thereafter, at steps 160-162, the activation servers 94 will request that the client
`
`(via the ActiveX control) upload a unique hardware ID (e.g., which, as noted above,
`
`may be derived from hardware components on the user’s computing device which
`
`substantially uniquely identify the user’s computing device).”).)
`
`According to the ’960 Patent, publishers of digital products faced a difficult
`
`15
`
`dilemma in choosing an appropriate device limit for such systems. To meet cus-
`
`tomers’ expectations that they would be able to use the product on all of their own
`
`devices, it was desirable to set the device limit to a high number. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:49-52.) A high device limit, however, increased the risk of piracy and abuse of
`
`the license through the sharing of the license with others. (Id. at 1:42-48.) A fixed
`
`20
`
`device limit also created an additional purported problem for customers due to the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`normal attrition of customer-owned devices as a result of periodic upgrades. (Id. at
`
`1:61-2:2.)
`
`These purported problems, however, were already addressed by prior art
`
`systems. DeMello, for example, teaches a DRM system that sets a limit on the
`
`5
`
`number of devices a particular user may employ. (Ex. 1003 at 1:66-2:26, 2:28-36,
`
`2:60-67.) The device limit in DeMello—like that in the ’960 Patent—is not fixed.
`
`Rather, DeMello teaches that the device limit can increase over time, thereby creat-
`
`ing a flexible DRM system that allows a user to access digital products with addi-
`
`tional devices as time passes and the user acquires new devices. (Id. at 23:4-8
`
`10
`
`(“The limit on activations may also allow for additional activations as time pass-
`
`es—e.g., one additional activation for each 90 day period after the first 90 days, up
`
`to a limit of 10 total activations.”).)
`
`Additionally, cryptographic hashing of device identification information to
`
`enhance security in such systems was a well-known technique in common use.
`
`15
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 11-12; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 46.)
`
`B.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’960 PATENT
`
`The application (U.S. Application No. 12/272,570) that led to the issuance of
`
`the ’960 Patent was filed on November 17, 2008. The ’960 Patent claims priority
`
`to provisional application No. 60/988,778, which was filed on November 17, 2007.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960
`
`
`As discussed below, DeMello issued and Staruiala was published more than a year
`
`before that date and therefore are prior art.
`
`C.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’960 PATENT
`
`The ’960 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Adjustable Licensing of
`
`5
`
`Digital Products.” The patent purports to solve the problems that arise regarding
`
`licensing systems with fixed device limits by disclosing a system and method that
`
`permits “adjusting a license for a digital product over time.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:15-19.)
`
`The specification provides an example of how such a device limit might be adjust-
`
`ed:
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`The number of devices allowed to run the software in an authorized or
`enabled state may increase over time to reflect the normal usage pat-
`tern of software users where the user adds devices, replaces or up-
`grades devices over time. The rules 60 may reflect this pattern of an
`increasing number of devices authorized over time. For the first five
`days of the users [sic] use of the software a total of five devices can be
`authorized on new devices. For the next twenty-five days until the
`thirtieth day after first authorization, the user is allowed to authorize a
`total of seven new devices. After the first thirty days an additional
`four devices can be authorized, delivering the maximum number of
`copies on separate devices under the license which, in this example
`embodiment, is eleven.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 4:21-34.)
`
`The three independent claims each recite, in substance, the same method:
`
`one in system form consisting of generic “modules” with code that performs the
`
`25
`
`method steps (Claim 1); one in straightforward method form (Claim 22); and one
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,5