`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIDSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT T. CRUZEN, ESQ.
`TODD M. SIEGEL, ESQ.
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`(503) 595-5300 (Cruzen)
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`EAGLE ROBINSON, ESQ.
`ERIC C. GREEN, ESQ.
`Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 474-5201
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October
`
`19, 2018, commencing at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
` (3:21 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing for
`IPR2017-01131 and IPR2017-01133, Twitter v. Vidstream. We would like
`parties to please introduce counsel at this time beginning with Petitioner.
`MR. SIEGEL: Todd Siegel from Klarquist Sparkman for
`Petitioner, and with me is Rob Cruzen from Klarquist Sparkman as well.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Could you please step up to the
`microphone? We can't hear you.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh. Sorry, yes, you have to step up to the --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Todd Siegel from Klarquist Sparkman for Petitioner,
`Twitter.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: And Robert Cruzen from Klarquist Sparkman also
`for Petitioner, Twitter.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And who will be representing or speaking
`
`today?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: I, Robert Cruzen, will be speaking as to the 1131
`petition, and Mr. Siegel as to the 1133 petition.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. ROBINSON: Eagle Robinson here for Patent Owner, Your
`Honor. With me is Mr. Eric Green. I will be presenting.
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Your Honor, excuse me. As a preliminary, we --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You need to go to the microphone, I'm sorry,
`you have to go back to the podium
`MR. SIEGEL: I'm sorry.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: -- because the other two can' t hear you if
`you're not at the podium.
`MR. SIEGEL: It seems as though we haven't had a chance to get
`this working, our slide deck. I'm not sure what the -- the last time I was
`here, it worked fine. So, I'm not sure if we have any --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, we have copies of your demonstratives.
`MR. SIEGEL: Okay.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, if everyone is okay with that, we can just --
`you can just go through your slide deck and just let us know which slide
`you're on and we can follow along with you.
`MR. SIEGEL: Sure. Sorry about that.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. No problems.
`All right. Each party has 60 minutes total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner, you'll proceed first to present your case with respect
`to the challenged claims and grounds, for which we instituted, and you may
`reserve some of your argument time to respond to arguments presented by
`Patent Owner.
`Thereafter, Patent Owner will respond to Petitioner's presentation
`and reserve argument time for sur-rebuttal.
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`Are there any questions as to the order of presentations?
`MR. CRUZEN: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. No?
`MR. ROBINSON: Not for Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Petitioner, do you want to reserve
`time for rebuttal, and how much?
`MR. CRUZEN: Yes, Your Honor. 20 minutes, please.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And Patent Owner, Mr. Robinson?
`MR. ROBINSON: Ten minutes, please.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Ten minutes. Okay. We'd like to remind
`the parties that the hearing is open to the public and the transcript will be
`entered into public record and these proceedings.
`And also, as we spoke earlier in a previous hearing, we did not
`receive Patent Owner's demonstratives uploaded into the record; so, we
`understand that by Tuesday you will file those?
`MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, you may
`proceed.
`MR. CRUZEN: Thank you, Your Honor. And it does appear that
`the HDMI is now working, so slides are on the screen.
`So, I'm Robert Cruzen presenting for Petitioner, and I will be
`speaking as to the 304 patent in the 1131 petition; and Mr. Siegel will be
`speaking as to the 1133 petition.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`So, on Slide 2, which is now on the screen, we list the single
`limitation that is at issue in this Petition. It's the server-specified constraint.
`And in Slide 3, I've listed all the grounds on which the petition was
`instituted and the various combinations. And notwithstanding the various
`combinations and grounds, the only issue that we intend to address today,
`and that's been disputed by Patent Owner, is a single limitation as to the
`Lahti primary reference.
`So, again, on Slide 4, various limitations are listed here, which are
`not in dispute. These limitations are the dependent claim limitations or the
`combinations as a whole. So, I'm happy to address any questions the Board
`may have, but don't intend to address those otherwise.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You've proposed a claim interpretation for
`predetermined constraints and we adopted that. They've proposed a
`somewhat modified version of your predetermined constraints proposal.
`Do you agree with it or have any issues with their modification?
`MR. CRUZEN: For purposes of this Petition we have no issues
`with their modification. I think their only suggestion was that -- to specify
`that not all of the constraints listed were required.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Correct.
`MR. CRUZEN: And we don't dispute that for purposes of our
`Petition.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: On the screen now, Slide 5, is Figure 18 from the
`304 patent, and it's an overview that roughly tracks the claims at issue.
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`First, there's a user-installed application that can be opened on a
`mobile device, a user makes selections, including selection to record video.
`And then, ultimately, that video is uploaded to a server at which it's
`transcoded and then processed in various ways for distribution.
`Again, notwithstanding the complexity of this figure, I only intend to
`address the user-recorded video step at 506 for purposes of this argument.
`That's the only aspect of the claim that's in dispute for purposes of this
`Petition.
`And here is a particular limitation that Patent Owner contends is not
`met by Lahti. It's -- this is in Claim 1, but similar language appears in each
`independent claim, and it's the limitation that instructions are provided to the
`client computing device by the server system and cause the video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints, and the
`predetermined constraints include a frame rate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Just before you get going even more, how are
`you planning on splitting up your time? Because, to me, the issues sort of
`overlap.
`So, are you going to let Mr. Robinson speak -- I'm sorry -- Mr.
`Siegel speak after so many minutes that you speak? Like, if I have
`questions about the 1133 case, should I wait until he -- it's a little confusing
`for me how it's all going to work.
`MR. CRUZEN: I apologize for that, Your Honor. Yes, that
`would be my suggestion. I only intend to address this particular limitation
`and whether that's met by Lahti.
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`All of the issues in the 1133 Petition will be addressed by Mr. Siegel.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: So, I plan to speak for roughly 20 minutes, and
`Mr. Siegel will also speak for roughly 20 minutes. We'll reserve 20
`minutes for rebuttal.
`Does that clarify?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Yes, thank you. So, can we go back
`to that claim language and could you unpack exactly what all of that
`requires?
`MR. CRUZEN: Sure.
`So, the claim language requires that instructions are provided to a
`client computing device by a server system and to cause video data to be
`captured in accordance with predetermined constraints -- so constraints that
`are determined in advance -- and the predetermined constraints include the
`frame rate.
`So, there must be a server system that provides instructions to a
`client device, and the instructions must include a frame rate.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Defined by the instructions.
`MR. CRUZEN: That's right.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: The instructions that are downloaded to your
`mobile phone, for example, must include a predetermined constraint, which
`also includes a frame rate?
`MR. CRUZEN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: And here, in Slide 7, is an overview of the primary
`reference on which we rely Lahti, and Lahti discloses a video application --
`video capture application that is downloaded from a server to mobile devices
`and it's called MobiCon.
`And we contend Lahti's description of MobiCon discloses that the
`application constitutes server provided instructions that specify a frame rate.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that MobiCon discloses server
`provided instructions, and I don't believe Patent Owner disputes that Lahti
`discloses a frame rate parameter.
`And, indeed, here on Slide 8 is an excerpt from Lahti and the final
`underlined portion there describes how video is captured, including a series
`of parameters. And one of those parameters includes a frame rate of 15
`frames per second, and so we contend that this language meets the limitation
`of the independent claims of the 304 patent.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: The dispute centers on -- if you go back to
`that, please, the dispute centers on where that is specified, where is the 15
`frames per second coming from?
`Is that coming from the mobile user's phone or is it coming from the
`instructions that were downloaded to the phone; is that correct?
`MR. CRUZEN: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: Yes. Exactly.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Sorry, that passage doesn't tell us.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: This passage -- there's nothing in this passage that
`suggests that parameter comes from a mobile device. This is a description
`of how MobiCon is an application that records videos and it describes a
`series of things about the MobiCon application.
`And it describes that via MobiCon that videos record with a series of
`parameters, one of which includes 15 frames per second.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is there anything in Lahti that specifically says
`that the 15 frames per second, that is part of the instructions on MobiCon?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we think this is --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I know you think this does, but other than this.
`MR. CRUZEN: Other than this, there's nothing that specifies that
`that particular limitation comes from MobiCon, but MobiCon is an
`application that is used with multiple mobile phones and the video aspects of
`that are facilitated via vendor software developing kits.
`And we will get into it soon, but mobile phones, at that time,
`provided a range of parameters, a range of frames per second that could be
`captured.
`And so, by specifying a particular parameter here, we strongly feel
`that that suggests MobiCon is providing that that is a parameter and the
`frame rate parameter that is utilized when the application is run.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So, is it your position that the evidence that
`you have in connection to your reply, that you need that to -- in order to
`make your case?
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: No, Your Honor. Our contention is that this
`description in MobiCon makes clear that video is captured via 15 -- with the
`parameter of 15 frames per second.
`This is a description of the MobiCon application and how it operates.
`There's nothing in here mentioned about any particular mobile phone, and so
`our contention is this application, in its plain -- this particular passage in this
`disclosure specifies that the "15 frames per second parameter" comes from
`MobiCon.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: And, indeed, here's a depiction of the user
`interface that MobiCon provides, and it shows that a user can select to
`capture a video clip.
`And then in the Window 4, shows the mobile device recording using
`the MobiCon application to capture the video in question.
`So, again, I think Your Honor has already captured this whole
`dispute. It's whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`Lahti to teach device specified parameters only versus MobiCon specified
`parameters. In particular, whether the MobiCon application specifies a
`particular frame rate or not.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What about Patent Owner's argument that it's
`equivocal, that you just don't know? Because those parameters certainly
`could have been used by the mobile -- a mobile device using MobiCon.
`And so, how does that get you to the preponderance of the evidence,
`over the hurdle of 50.0000 whatever --
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, a couple things, Your Honor. So, one, we
`do know -- and this is on page 3 of Lahti, which is Exhibit 1006 -- that
`MobiCon is intended to be used with a variety of mobile devices.
`And the way to interface with MobiCon in those differing mobile
`devices works through the use of vendor software development kits. That's
`explicitly disclosed in Lahti.
`And if MobiCon is intended to be used with a variety of devices
`having varying parameters, it's simply not possible, we'd argue, that every
`single mobile device on the market, at that time, would capture video in a
`native frame rate of 15 frames per second.
`And so, because Lahti's intended to have broad application across a
`broad range of devices, specifying 15 frames per second in its description of
`how MobiCon captures video strongly suggests that MobiCon is specifying
`that as the parameter to be used.
`So, in response to our argument, Patent Owner relies primarily on
`two arguments. One of which is that Patent Owner relies upon three Nokia
`devices, which it contends has a parameter similar to what Lahti discusses,
`and -- but Patent Owner ignored all other devices on the market in 2006 at
`the time of Lahti.
`And then Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would be dissuaded from reading Lahti as specifying a frame rate
`because it would require complex code modules in order to specify the
`parameter across different kinds of mobile devices; and we just disagree
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`factually with both of those contentions and we think, therefore, Patent
`Owner's arguments fail.
`And here is Patent Owner's expert's testimony. Dr. Olivier testified
`that, based on two exhibits that indicated that the camera phones available in
`2006 captured video data with the parameters listed in Lahti -- and here,
`there's a resolution and a frame rate mentioned -- Dr. Olivier said this
`strongly -- this alone strongly suggests that the parameters listed --
`JUDGE KAISER: Counsel, which demonstrative number are you
`
`on?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: I apologize, Your Honor.
` I'm on Slide 12.
`JUDGE KAISER: And just so you know, Judge Boudreau and I
`can't see the screen from here. So, if you could let us know which number
`you're on, that would greatly help us follow along.
`MR. CRUZEN: I will endeavor to do so. I apologize.
`JUDGE KAISER: Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: So, Patent Owner is relying on two exhibits,
`essentially, in support of the argument -- and this is displayed in Slide 12 --
`that Lahti is simply adopting the native parameters in mobile devices, and
`we just contend that the underlying assumption that relying on two cherry-
`picked exhibits, or three cherry-picked Nokia phones, establishes that all
`phones, at that time, used the parameters disclosed in Lahti.
`I'm now looking at Slide 13. Mobile phones, at that time, did have
`a range of parameters, including a variety of selectable frame rates. And
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`we have submitted exhibits establishing that in rebuttal to Patent Owner's
`argument. The final four exhibit numbers listed there pertain to Samsung
`phones that have frame rates in the 15 to 30 frames per second range.
`The first exhibit there, the 1033 exhibit, is a phone that Patent Owner
`relied upon, but 1033 shows that the Nokia phone at issue in that exhibit
`actually had a range of possible resolutions.
`And that suggests that Lahti was not merely relying upon a disclosed
`-- a single native resolution; it would have had to select between two
`resolutions.
`And so, we think that that -- that Patent Owner's reliance upon that
`particular phone does not support its argument that Lahti was merely
`adopting native parameters of the mobile phones in question.
`Additionally, Patent Owner submitted an exhibit, which is Exhibit
`2005, which pertained to the Nokia 6330 phone, which also displayed that
`two different resolutions were available on that phone.
`And so, it's not merely the case that those phones could capture a
`single native resolution. A choice would have to have been made. And
`by Lahti specifying a particular resolution, we contend that Lahti is
`specifying that particular parameter.
`And that would be true, as well, for the Samsung phones. If their
`frame rates are 15 to 30 frames per second, and Lahti is disclosing a frame
`rate of 15 frames per second and use of MobiCon and saying that MobiCon
`captures video at 15 frames per second, a choice is being made. And that
`choice is being made by the MobiCon application.
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`And there's no dispute that Lahti is intended to be broadly applicable
`across all mobile phones in 2006. And Dr. Olivier admitted that,
`essentially, and that's in his deposition, which is Exhibit 1051 at page 66,
`lines 11 through 15.
`So, if everyone agrees that Lahti has broad application across all
`mobile devices and mobile devices had a range of frame rates and a range of
`resolutions, Lahti's specification of particular frame rates and particular
`resolutions establishes that MobiCon is specifying the particular parameters
`utilized when it records video.
`And in Slide 14, there's a quotation from Dr. Olivier's declaration
`where he says, "The fact that devices generally have an inherent format, a
`resolution and a frame rate, that suggests that Lahti is merely relying on the
`native capabilities of phones."
`We just disagree with that as we don't really follow the logic
`involved, the fact that phones have an inherent frame rate and an inherent
`resolution, but differing resolutions and differing frame rates does not
`suggest that Lahti is not specifying a particular frame rate or a particular
`resolution when it's listing 15 frames per second in a 176-by-144 resolution.
`And just the second thing I would note about this is Dr. Olivier's
`statement there that -- in the final sentence, that he thinks this supports the
`position that it's equally consistent with natively capturing video. So, I
`guess his -- even, you know, Patent Owner's expert is saying it's subject to
`both interpretations.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`Now, Dr. Houh, Petitioner's expert, has taken a far different position
`and strongly supports the position that the use of specifying a particular
`frame rate in Lahti when there are multiple frame rates available on phones
`at the market, strongly supports the contention that MobiCon was specifying
`a particular frame rate at that time.
`So, in Slide 15, this is the disclosure in Lahti that video recording is
`accomplished and relatively straightforward to implement with vendor
`provided SDKs.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: That was explained in your Reply, but not
`your Petition, correct?
`
`MR. CRUZEN: It may have been explained in our Reply in
`response to the argument that creating -- that setting parameters across
`different mobile devices was a complex procedure and required complex
`code modules.
`And so, we pointed to the fact that vendor provided SDKs, that
`disclosure in Lahti, supports the idea that that does not involve a complex
`code procedure, and I'll get to that in just a moment.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. CRUZEN: And here is Dr. Olivier's declaration regarding this
`idea that specifying particular parameters across varying devices would be a
`complex procedure and would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art
`of understanding Lahti as specifying particular parameters.
`And here's what he says, on Slide 16, creating additional code
`modules to govern whether or not the video capture parameter code models,
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`you know, was a complex procedure, would require a lot of work and that
`anyone reading Lahti would be dissuaded from interpreting it as specifying.
`And so, this is the second proposition that Patent Owner relies on that we
`disagree with.
`There's no evidence that Patent Owner has cited in support of that
`other than Dr. Olivier's statement. He doesn't say that he looked at any
`particular operating system or a software developer kit or API to determine
`whether or not -- it really would be difficult to specify that.
`In fact, Dr. Olivier, in Slide 17, included this quote during his
`deposition, "A person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't even be familiar
`with a Symbian operating system."
`And this is the operating system that the Nokia phones that Patent
`Owner relies on utilized, and it had a leading market share at the time of
`Lahti.
`
`And so, Dr. Houh contends that any person of ordinary skill in the
`art would be familiar with the leading operating systems of mobile devices
`in 2006, and familiar with the software development kits that the leading
`vendors provided and APIs as well.
`And, in fact, this is a quote, on Slide 18, from Dr. Houh's declaration
`stating that, really, it's trivial to specify a particular frame rate using the
`SDKs and APIs that the Symbian operating system provided. It's simply a
`matter of determining, through simple functions, what possible frame rates
`are available and then specifying one.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`That is not a complex endeavor and does not require elaborate code
`modules or anything of the like. And so, therefore, the argument that
`having to specify frame rates across mobile devices would dissuade a person
`of ordinary skill in the art from reading Lahti that way, we think, has little
`support.
`And Dr. Houh, on Slide 19, goes on to explain that, really,
`specifying a parameter using SDKs, which Lahti explicitly states it uses, to
`coordinate video capture across devices would be easily implemented.
`And then, finally, Patent Owner criticizes Lahti as not disclosing
`these elaborate code procedures for specifying particular parameters, and we
`quoted cases here that stand for the proposition that you can look to the
`specification of the patent at issue to determine whether something is really
`complex or would be understood by anyone, any person of ordinary skill in
`the art.
`
`And here, the sur-reply -- and when we said there's no elaborate
`disclosure of how parameters are specified in the 304 patent, and Patent
`Owner pointed to these passages from the patent, and the first describes
`applying predetermined constraints on the captured video.
`So, after video is already captured, applying predetermined
`constraints, at that point, that's not relevant to the claim language which
`describes video data to be captured in accordance with predetermined
`constraints. I'm looking at Slide 21 now.
`And on Slide 22, there are two more quotations. The first discusses
`specifying a particular video length, which is not at issue in the 304 patent.
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`And then in the second, there is a citation to Column 21, lines 58
`through 66 of the 304 patent, and that describes that scripts provided in the
`retrieved web page encode in an FLV format in accordance with quality
`parameters.
`The use of the word "scripts" there is the most elaborate description
`of how a particular parameter is specified to a device and there's no
`particular code module, no complex set of code parameters that are used to
`specify a parameter that are disclosed in the 304 patent.
`And so, we think that a criticism of Lahti is, therefore, undue on
`those grounds because the 304 has no more fulsome disclosure of how
`parameters are specified to a device than does Lahti.
`And then, finally, I'll just note that --
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Mr. Cruzen, if I could just interrupt for a
`second, why isn't the frame rate just constrained by the hardware?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, if the frame rate -- if multiple frame rates are
`selectable on a particular piece of hardware, and Lahti suggests that you're
`using 15 frames per second, that reflects a choice.
`So, there may be upper limits of what hardware frame rate could be
`captured; but if Lahti is suggesting you use 15 frames per second when, in
`fact, frame rates of 15 to 30 frames per second are available, Lahti is
`specifying a particular frame rate to be used.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Why would a person of ordinary skill in the
`art want to use a lower frame rate than what the hardware permits?
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`MR. CRUZEN: Yeah, that's a good question and that is addressed
`in paragraph 18 of Dr. Houh's supplemental declaration. And he describes
`that Lahti emphasizes that things like the phone's battery power, computer
`processing and memory are all things you'd want to conserve.
`And so, by utilizing a higher frame rate, you would be exhausting
`those resources more quickly.
`JUDGE BOUDREAU: Is there any evidence of record other than
`just his saying that? The problem that I have with this is that -- I think the
`Patent Owner argues that this is really a hindsight argument. How do you
`address that?
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we would argue it's not. Lahti is specifying
`a particular frame rate to be used with mobile devices. And if multiple
`frame rates are available at the time, identifying one to be used is specifying
`a frame rate. So, we just think it's an expressed disclosure in the Lahti
`reference.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Does it say that it's specifying a particular
`frame rate to be used? It just gives an example and says, "A new video
`clip" -- I'm reading from Lahti, page 6, the one place that you cite to in your
`Petition.
`It says, "A new video clip is captured in Capture Screen using
`Mobile Media API and it is recorded," so we don't know why it's being
`recorded, but it's being recorded according to 3GPP specification using
`AMR coding for audio and H.263 and the pixel size and 15 frames per
`second.
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`So, it's not really saying that it's using, you know, parameters
`specified by MobiCon, we just don't -- I have a hard time figuring out where
`those specs are coming from whether it's the phone itself or the application
`that's on the phone.
`MR. CRUZEN: We would submit that it would be a very
`straightforward thing for Lahti to have said in one example, using a
`particular mobile device, these are the parameters utilized, but that's not
`what it says.
`And, again, it's undisputed that it's intended as an application --
`MobiCon is intended as an application usable across all mobile devices.
`And so, we think it's specification of a particular frame rate
`parameter strongly suggests that it is specifying that as a parameter to be
`used.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I understand. So, you're saying that
`because it's used on any number of devices, but because it mentions this, that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would know that it had to be coming from
`MobiCon and not from the phone.
`MR. CRUZEN: Precisely. Because why else would it mention
`any frame rate whatsoever? I mean, that section of Lahti's description is
`not about a field trial or anything like that. There's no mention of any
`particular model of device up through that portion of Lahti. That's page 6
`of Lahti.
`So, we contend that that strongly suggests its specifying a parameter
`used across mobile devices.
`
`21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-01131 (Patent 8,464,304 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01133 (Patent 8,601,506 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But you didn't say that in your Petition --
`MR. CRUZEN: Well, we said that Lahti expressly discloses a
`frame rate parameter, yes. I mean, we said this is a portion of Lahti that
`discloses the parameter.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. You're 25 minutes into
`your presentation.
`MR. CRUZEN: Okay. I'll reserve the remaining time for rebuttal
`and turn the presentation over to Mr. Siegel.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CRUZEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'll just keep the clock running and just let you
`know when you have about 20 minutes, approximately.
`MR. SIEGEL: That's all right. I think we should go ahead and
`jump to Slide 31.
`And so, the 506 patent is a lot like the 304 patent, same specification
`and the claims are quite similar, but the one limitation that's at issue in this
`proceeding I have highlighted there.
`And instead of a frame rate, the -- excuse me -- the limitation is
`"constraints include a video length defined by the instructions with the video
`length predefined at the server system in accordance with a time slot in a
`linear television programming broadcast."
`And so, here, we have two grounds instituted; one
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
