IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`
`Ric B. Richardson
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,566,960
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0378IP1
`
`Issue Date:
`
`October 22, 2013
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/272,570
`
`Filing Date:
`
`November 17, 2008
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTABLE LICENSING
`OF DIGITAL PRODUCTS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER.
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, of Escondido, CA, hereby declare the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Google Inc. (“Google”). I understand that
`
`Google is the Petitioner in an Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) of U.S. 8,566,960 (“the ’960 Patent”)
`
`(GOOGLE-1001). The ’960 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/988,778 (“the ’778 Provisional”).
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE 1003
`
`
`
`In re Patent of:
`
`Ric B. Richardson
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,566,960
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0378IP1
`
`Issue Date:
`
`October 22, 2013
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/272,570
`
`Filing Date:
`
`November 17, 2008
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTABLE LICENSING
`OF DIGITAL PRODUCTS
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER.
`I, Anthony J. Wechselberger, of Escondido, CA, hereby declare the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Google Inc. (“Google”). I understand that
`
`Google is the Petitioner in an Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) of U.S. 8,566,960 (“the ’960 Patent”)
`
`(GOOGLE-1001). The ’960 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/988,778 (“the ’778 Provisional”).
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE 1003
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`I have been asked to opine on the subject of the validity of the claims of the
`
`
`
`’960 Patent.
`
`
`
`I am currently the president of Entropy Management Solutions located in
`
`Escondido, CA. Entropy Management Solutions offers consulting services in the
`
`areas of technology, R&D management, and systems engineering, amongst others,
`
`with a focus on broadband and multimedia systems and networking for content
`
`management, distribution and consumption. My qualifications for formulating my
`
`analysis on this matter are summarized here and are addressed more fully in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Arizona in 1974. In 1979, I received my Masters of Science degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering from San Diego State University. I also completed an
`
`Executive Program for Scientists and Engineers at the University of California,
`
`San Diego, in 1984.
`
`
`
`From 1974 to 1980, I was employed by General Dynamics in the Electronics
`
`Division, where I started as a design engineer and later became a project engineer.
`
`Following my time at General Dynamics, I was a staff scientist in the corporate
`
`advanced technology group of OAK Industries, Inc. from 1980 to 1982. In 1982, I
`
`transferred to the OAK Communications, Inc. arm of OAK Industries. At OAK
`
`Communications, I was the manager and director of engineering from 1982 to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`1985, and the Vice President of Technical Operations from then until 1988. I
`
`served as the Senior Vice President of Domestic Operations at OAK
`
`Communications from 1988 until 1990, at which time the OAK Communications
`
`division was divested from OAK Industries and became TV/COM International. I
`
`then worked as the Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of TV/COM
`
`International, Inc., until it became a subsidiary of Hyundai Electronics America in
`
`1995. I then became the General Manager of the Conditional Access Business
`
`Unit at TV/COM. After serving as General Manager for two years, in 1997 I
`
`became the Vice President of Product Management at TV/COM. I then started
`
`Entropy Management Solutions in 1999, where I continue to hold the position of
`
`President.
`
`
`
`Through my professional career, I have accumulated over forty years of
`
`experience researching, designing, and implementing content distribution systems,
`
`including in the areas of content distribution security, content distribution
`
`standards development, cable and satellite broadcasting systems, and broadband
`
`systems.
`
`
`
`I am a named inventor on several patents and patent applications. The
`
`earliest of these, directed to a “Multilayer Encryption System for the Broadcast of
`
`Encrypted Information,” issued in 1985 (U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020). I am also a
`
`named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440 for a “Universal Decoder,” and am
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`named on patent applications directed to “Anonymous Transactions over a System
`
`of Networked Computers” and “Storage and Delivery of Electronic Media with
`
`Advertising.”
`
`
`
`I have published or participated in numerous technical papers, journal
`
`articles, technical panels, and technical and marketing presentations in the fields of
`
`content security, broadband and internet security, cable and satellite broadcasting,
`
`and standards development. Representative titles include “Content Ownership
`
`Rights: Distribution and Security Issues” (2004) and “Methodologies for Multiple
`
`Conditional Access Technologies in Digital Delivery Systems” (1994), and others
`
`are included in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`In addition to gaining expertise via my academic training, professional
`
`experiences, and accomplishments in research and development, I have kept
`
`abreast of the field of content distribution and content rights management by
`
`reading technical literature and attending and presenting at conferences, as
`
`discussed above. I have also had an active role in several technical societies and
`
`organizations over the years, including the Society of Cable &
`
`Telecommunications Engineers, the Society of Motion Picture and Television
`
`Engineers, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, the International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the Institute of Electronic and
`
`Electrical Engineers.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
` My opinions set forth in this declaration are informed by my experience in
`
`the fields of electrical engineering and computer science, and more particularly, in
`
`the fields of content distribution and digital content rights management. Based on
`
`my above experience, I am an expert in these fields. Also, based on my
`
`experiences, I understand and know the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in
`
`these fields during the relevant time period during the late 2000s. I worked in
`
`research and development directly, managed those efforts in various roles,
`
`participated in organizations and technical conferences, and otherwise worked
`
`closely with many such persons during that time frame and preceding time frames
`
`over my forty years in the industry.
`
` As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have considered
`
`the following: my own knowledge and experience, including my own work and
`
`research experience in the fields of content rights management and content
`
`distribution, my participation in professional organizations and conferences in
`
`those fields; and my experience in working with others in the relevant technical
`
`areas. In addition, I have analyzed the following materials:
`
` The disclosure and claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960 (“the ’960
`
`Patent”; GOOGLE-1001);
`
` File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960 (GOOGLE-1002);
`
` Curriculum Vitae of Anthony J. Wechselberger (“CV”; Appendix A);
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
` U.S. Patent No. 7,047,411 to DeMello, et al. (“DeMello” or “the ’411
`
`Patent”; GOOGLE-1004);
`
` Irish Patent Application No. 02/0429 to Staruiala, et al. (“Staruiala” or
`
`“the ’429 Application”; GOOGLE-1005);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,962,424 to Colosso, et al. (“Colosso” or “the ’424
`
`Patent”; GOOGLE-1006);
`
` IPR2016-01271 Institution Decision
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,574,612 to Colosso, et al. (“Baratti” or “the ’612
`
`Patent”; GOOGLE-1009)
`
` “The Long March to Interoperable Digital Rights Management”
`
`(“Koenen”; GOOGLE-1010)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,671,412 (“Christiano” or “the ’412 Patent”; GOOGLE-
`
`1011)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,243,468 (“Pearce” or “the ’468 Patent”; GOOGLE-
`
`1012)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,503,072 (“Hughes” or “the ’072 Patent”; GOOGLE-
`
`1013)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,041,411 (“Wyatt” or “the ’041 Patent”; GOOGLE-
`
`1014)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,866,769 (“Karp” or “the ’769 Patent”; GOOGLE-1015)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
` Other background references, of which I had been previously aware, not
`
`cited herein directly that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`at the time of invention would have recognized as being related to the
`
`subject matter of the ’960 Patent.
`
` Although this Declaration refers to and cites to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have viewed the references cited herein in their entirety and in
`
`combination with other references cited herein or cited within the references
`
`themselves. The references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed
`
`as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Google. I have been engaged
`
`in the present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues raised in the
`
`petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’960 Patent. I received no compensation for
`
`this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation of $375/hour based on my
`
`time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of this Inter Partes Review of the ’960 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
` This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on my
`
`independent analysis. To summarize, based upon my knowledge, experience, and
`
`my review of the prior art publications listed above, it is my opinion that:
`
`
`
`Each of claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent are obvious in light of
`
`DeMello in view of Staruiala and a POSITA’s knowledge.
`
`
`
`Each of claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent are obvious in light of
`
`DeMello in view of Staruiala, Colosso and a POSITA’s knowledge.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ’960 PATENT
` The technology of the ’960 Patent at issue generally relates to a system for
`
`adjusting the number of devices allowed to use a digital product, such as software
`
`or other digital content, under a license. GOOGLE-1001, Abstract. Over time, the
`
`system adjusts an allowed copy count that is associated with the license, to permit
`
`a user to increase the number of devices they can use with the license over the
`
`period of ownership of that license. Id., 4:14-17. Prior to the earliest effective
`
`filing date of the ’960 Patent, which as described below is assumed to be
`
`November 17, 2007 for purposes of my analysis here, there existed numerous
`
`products, publications, and patents that implemented or described the functionality
`
`claimed in the ’960 Patent. Based upon my knowledge and experience, and my
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`review of the prior art publications listed above, a POSITA, at the time the ’778
`
`Provisional was filed, would have recognized that the subject matter described in
`
`the ’960 Patent was well-known in the prior art. Further, to the extent there was
`
`any problem to be solved in the ’960 Patent, a POSITA at the time would have
`
`known that such a problem had already been solved in prior art systems, patents,
`
`and other printed publications appearing before the priority date of the ’960 Patent.
`
` Based upon my experience in this area, a POSITA would have had a
`
`combination of experience and education in the fields of digital rights management
`
`(“DRM”), cryptography, content distribution, or related software technology. This
`
`typically would consist of a minimum of a bachelor-level or higher university
`
`degree in computer science or electrical engineering, plus at least two years of
`
`experience in software development.
`
` Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of
`
`a POSITA. Indeed, I have worked with, supervised, participated in organizations
`
`with, and presented to a number of such persons over the course of my career.
`
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this Inter Partes Review
`
`proceeding, the terms appearing in the claims of the ’960 Patent should be
`
`interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In that
`
`regard, I understand that the best indicator of claim meaning is usage of the claim
`
`language in the context of the patent specification as understood by a POSITA. I
`
`further understand that the words of the claims should be given their plain meaning
`
`unless that meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification or the patent’s
`
`history of examination before the Patent Office. I also understand that the words
`
`of the claims should be interpreted as they would by a POSITA at the time the
`
`invention was made. I have used the filing date of the ’778 Provisional (U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/988,778) as the point in time for claim
`
`interpretation purposes, because this is the date to which the ’960 Patent claims
`
`priority and because I do not know at what earlier date, if any, the invention as
`
`claimed was made. That date was November 17, 2007. Without exception,
`
`however, the interpretations that I provide below would have also been correct if a
`
`date between, for instance, the start of the 2000s and November, 2007 was
`
`determined to be the date of invention. I have been asked to provide my
`
`understanding of the proper interpretation of the following terms and phrases of the
`
`’960 Patent set forth below.
`
` Claim 25 includes a limitation that recites “a first time period after an initial
`
`authorization of the digital product.” A POSITA would not require a particular
`
`construction of this language, but rather would readily understand those words,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`including “after” and “time period,” by applying the widely accepted meanings of
`
`those terms to the claims. Thus, a “plain and ordinary” meaning of those terms
`
`suffices to inform a POSITA of the metes and bounds of claim 25. Put another
`
`way, a POSITA at the time of the priority date of the ’960 Patent would understand
`
`that a “time period” can include any conceivable time period, including both finite
`
`and unbounded time periods, and would understand that the word “after” refers to
`
`any time that is subsequent to an initial authorization of a digital product.
`
` This interpretation is consistent with the specification of the ’960 Patent that
`
`describes that a “time period” can include bounded time periods, such as five or
`
`thirty day periods, or unbounded time periods that extend for an unlimited number
`
`of days. GOOGLE-1001, 6:21-24 (“ It is noted that the example embodiment of
`
`FIGS. 1 and 2 is simple for the purposes of understanding but can include any
`
`number of evaluation periods, not just the five, thirty and unlimited day periods
`
`described in the example.”).
`
` Moreover, the ’960 Patent is clear that the term “after” encompasses any
`
`time period subsequent to an initial authorization, including time periods beginning
`
`at an initial authorization and time periods beginning sometime after an initial
`
`authorization. For example, the ’960 Patent discloses that a license may have an
`
`applicable allowed copy count that can be different for “any number of evaluation
`
`periods,” including “the first five days of the users [sic] use of the software,” a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`subsequent period for “the next twenty-five days until the thirtieth day after first
`
`authorization,” and a third period that begins “[a]fter the first thirty days” since the
`
`initial authorization. Id., 4:27-34. Thus, the ’960 Patent is clear that the term
`
`“after” refers to any period that is subsequent to an initial authorization, including
`
`“a first time period after an initial authorization,” a second time period “after the
`
`first time period has expired,” a third time period “after the second time period has
`
`expired,” etc. Id., 7:8-31. See also Id., Abstract, 2:43-64, 8:18-43.
`
`
`
`In performing my analysis of the ’960 Patent, I have learned that in related
`
`IPR2016-01271, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) construed this
`
`language of claim 25 to mean “a time period that begins at an initial authorization
`
`of the digital product and extending for a duration thereafter.” GOOGLE-1007, 7,
`
`14. I must respectfully disagree with this construction of the claim language.
`
`First, as noted above, the ’960 Patent clearly intended the word “after” to include
`
`times occurring some predetermined amount of time after an initial authorization,
`
`and not only those times occurring at the time of an initial authorization.
`
`GOOGLE-1001, Abstract, 2:43-64, 7:8-31, 8:18-43. A time period beginning, for
`
`example, 5 or 30 days subsequent to an initial authorization is just as much a
`
`period “after” the initial authorization as one starting at the time of the initial
`
`authorization. Moreover, when the applicant of the ’960 Patent intended to refer
`
`specifically to a time period “that begins at” the time of an initial authorization,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`they consistently used the word “since” to do so. Id., 8:6-10 (“[T]he first time
`
`period may comprises [sic] a defined number of days since the initial authorization.
`
`For example, the defined number of days may comprise six days since the initial
`
`authorization.”). See also, id., 2:50-52, 5:41-46, 5:61-64, 6:49-52, 8:24-29, 12:30-
`
`34, 12:52-58. Therefore, a POSITA would understand the term “after” recited by
`
`claim 25 to refer to any period “subsequent to” an initial authorization, not only
`
`periods “begin[ning] at” the time of initial authorization, as the Board previously
`
`construed it to mean. In addition, to the extent the Board’s construction requires a
`
`“first time period” to extend for a finite “duration,” that construction is inconsistent
`
`with the teachings of the ’960 Patent that permit both finite and unlimited periods
`
`of time. Id., 6:21-24 (“[…] but can include any number of evaluation periods, not
`
`just the five, thirty and unlimited day periods.”).
`
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
` The ’960 Patent relates to a system for adjusting the number of devices that
`
`are allowed to use software under a license. GOOGLE-1001, Abstract. The
`
`system includes a licensing authority software system for processing a request to
`
`use a licensed product received from a given user device. Id., FIG. 2, 4:50-55.
`
`The system further includes a memory and processor used by the licensing
`
`authority software system to receive and process the authorization request, and a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`communication module for communicating with the given user device. Id., FIG. 4,
`
`2:21-27, 7:41-47.
`
` To request authorization to use a license, a given user device submits license
`
`data to the licensing authority that includes both license information and a device
`
`identity. Id., FIG. 2, 4:56-59 (“Typically the device 50 requesting authorization
`
`collects license related information 10 and unique device identifying information
`
`11, compiles the collected information into a communication and sends it to the
`
`authorization authority 55.”). The licensing authority receives the request and
`
`verifies the license data using a two-step process. Id., 4:60-5:9. First, the licensing
`
`authority determines whether the license information submitted by the given user
`
`device is valid. Id., 4:60-62 (“Upon receipt of this communication from the device
`
`50, the license authority 55 checks that the license information is valid (step 13).”).
`
`Second, if the licensing authority determines that the license information is valid,
`
`the licensing authority then checks the device identity to see if it recognizes the
`
`device identity. Id., 5:1-5 (“If the request for authorization 12 includes license
`
`information/data that is valid, the license information checking process (at step 13)
`
`will pass and the requesting devices unique identity information 11 is checked to
`
`see if it exists in the database of prior authorizations 15.”), 12:1-4 (Where the
`
`system is configured to “verify that a license data associated with the digital
`
`product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`physical parameters of the given device”). If the device identity is known,
`
`meaning that the device has been previously authorized to use the license, then the
`
`licensing authority grants the given user device permission to use the license. Id.,
`
`5:5-13.
`
` Otherwise, if the device identity is not known to the licensing authority, then
`
`the licensing authority treats the authorization request as a new request to use the
`
`license. Id., 5:14-19. To evaluate the new request, the licensing authority
`
`identifies an applicable allowed copy count that specifies a maximum number of
`
`devices that are authorized to use the license at that time. Id., FIG. 2, 5:14-19,
`
`2:19-21, 4:5-12, 7:8-12, 7:19-23, 7:28-31. To permit users to use licensed software
`
`on new or upgraded devices, while deterring unauthorized uses of the license, the
`
`licensing authority varies the applicable allowed copy count over time. See, e.g.,
`
`Id., FIG. 2, 1:31-57, 2:19-21, 3:41-51, 4:5-12, 5:14-19, 6:8-12, 7:8-12, 7:19-23,
`
`7:28-31. In other instances, the licensing authority can both increase and decrease
`
`the allowed copy count over time, for example, where the license is associated with
`
`a rented software product or digital content, or where a distributor of a software
`
`product or digital content determines that users are abusing an allowed copy count.
`
`Id., 6:33-44.
`
` Figure 2 of the ’960 Patent describes one example implementation in which
`
`an allowed copy count is increased over time. At an initial device authorization,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`the allowed copy count is set to five for a period of five days, meaning that a user
`
`may authorize up to five new devices to use the license during that period. Id.,
`
`FIG. 2, 4:25-29; 5:13-40. After this initial period, the allowed copy count is
`
`increased to seven for a subsequent period of twenty five days, up until the thirtieth
`
`day after the initial authorization. Id., FIG. 2, 4:29-31; 5:41-54. The allowed copy
`
`count is increased after thirty days from the initial authorization to permit ten total
`
`device authorizations, where the allowed copy count is then held constant for an
`
`indefinite period of time. Id., FIG. 2, 4:31-34, 5:61-6:7.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`
`
`
` Once the appropriate allowed copy count is determined, the licensing
`
`authority determines a device count representing the number of devices that have
`
`already been authorized to use the license, i.e., a number of prior authorizations
`
`that does not include the current authorization request. See, e.g., Id., FIG. 2, 2:34-
`
`64, 5:20-21, 5:46-52, 5:61-66. The licensing authority compares the device count
`
`to the allowed copy count, and if the device count is less than the allowed copy
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`count, authorizes the device to use the digital product associated with the license.
`
`Id., FIG. 2, 5:23-25, 5:46-52, 5:61-66. Otherwise, if permitting the new
`
`authorization would exceed the allowed copy count, then an indication, e.g., a
`
`warning or error message, is provided to the device for output. Id., FIG. 2, 5:26-
`
`32, 5:52-59, 5:5:66-6:7.
`
` Once authorized, the device may begin to use the digital product, such as by
`
`installing software associated with the license. Id., 1:31-41, 3:41-4:12. The
`
`system also updates a record of authorized devices stored at an authorization
`
`database to include the newly authorized device. Id., 5:1-9, 8:3-5. Doing so
`
`ensures that the device count accurately reflects the number of devices that have
`
`been authorized to use the license, and also permits reauthorization of the given
`
`device if needed in the future. Id., 5:1-9.
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
` Prior to the filing date of the ’960 Patent, several prior art references devised
`
`a digital rights management (DRM) system that offers flexibility in allowing users
`
`to access purchased digital content by adjusting license data for the digital
`
`content—just like the ’960 Patent. In fact, the Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`
`(“AAPA”) of the ’960 Patent includes DRM systems that allow users to adjust
`
`licensing rights to control which devices can access the digital content by
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`“free[ing] up [a] device installation so that the [digital content] can be used on one
`
`additional device.” GOOGLE-1001, 1:55-60.
`
` Owners of publicly available digital content, such as multimedia or software,
`
`had already developed and implemented DRM systems that placed limits on the
`
`number of devices that could access digital content. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,574,612 (GOOGLE-1009, “Baratti”) describes how the “advent of wide spread
`
`computer networks” disrupted the traditional software licensing model, and
`
`discusses the IBM License Use Management product. GOOGLE-1009, 1:10-13.
`
`Content owners needed a way to restrict the number of users to whom the content
`
`could be distributed after it was purchased, and companies that sold and distributed
`
`such content recognized the need for effective copy control. For example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,047,411 (GOOGLE-1004, “DeMello”) teaches a DRM system that
`
`distributes content while “protect[ing] the rights of the owners of the distributed
`
`works.” GOOGLE-1004, 1:35-36.
`
` Such DRM systems perform license management, verify user and device
`
`identities, associate licenses to requesting entities, and deliver the associated
`
`licenses to the requesting entities. License servers that process those license
`
`requests and manage and enforce license usage were well-known before the filing
`
`of the ’960 Patent. For example, “The Long March to Interoperable Digital Rights
`
`Management” (GOOGLE-1010, “Koenen”) describes processing license requests
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`from a client device and managing license use through consumption rules, such as
`
`“limitations on the number of plays,” or “time-based usage or expiration.”
`
`GOOGLE-1010, 888.
`
` Furthermore, using license information to verify a license associated with a
`
`client device requesting access to digital content was well-known before the ’960
`
`Patent was filed. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,671,412 (GOOGLE-1011,
`
`“Christiano”) teaches using “a key [that is] synthesized and stored in [a]
`
`component license record” and is “used to verify the validity of said license.” Id.,
`
`claim 11. Christiano also discusses granting a license to a requesting client
`
`according to a license policy that “provides a predetermined number of licenses”
`
`that can be distributed among computer systems on a network. GOOGLE-1011,
`
`10:25-52, 11:12-34.
`
`
`
`In addition to validating license information, license servers validate the
`
`identity of a device requesting the license for increased security. Using a device
`
`identity in an authorization process performed by a DRM system was well-known
`
`in the art at the time of the alleged invention. For example, Koenen describes
`
`validating “the identity of the requesting system (e.g., using a fingerprint based on
`
`characteristic attributes of the specific system or an indelible identifier or key) […]
`
`.” GOOGLE-1010, 888. Furthermore, Irish Patent Application No. 02/0429 to
`
`Staruiala discloses a device “fingerprint” that can be used for “authenticating”
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`devices to prevent “copyright infringement.” GOOGLE-1005, 1. Additionally,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,243,468 (GOOGLE-1012, “Pearce”), U.S. Patent No. 7,503,072
`
`(GOOGLE-1013, “Hughes”), U.S. Patent No. 6,041,411 (GOOGLE-1014,
`
`“Wyatt”), and U.S. Patent No. 4,866,769 (GOOGLE-1015, “Karp”), collectively
`
`demonstrate that using a physical identity of a device to improve security of
`
`verification methods was well-known before the filing date of the ’960 Patent.
`
` The prior art also demonstrates the use of license rules and tracked license
`
`records to enforce license use after access to digital content has been allowed. For
`
`example, Christiano teaches that “license records are created in the license
`
`database,” and that “each record includes a number of licenses available to be
`
`checked out,” “including an overdraft quantity” that “indicates a number of
`
`licenses that can be provided to clients over the authorized amount of licenses
`
`stored in the license records.” GOOGLE-1011, Abstract, 3:64-66.
`
` Adjusting a maximum number of devices that can access digital content, and
`
`adjusting licensing rights assigned to particular devices, was also well-known in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention. For example, DeMello’s DRM system
`
`offers flexibility by adjusting a limit on the number of devices that can be activated
`
`using a single user profile “as time passes.” GOOGLE-1004, Abstract, 22:33-67,
`
`23:4-10. So does, for example, U.S. Patent No. 7,962,424 (GOOGLE-1006,
`
`“Colosso”), which teaches a “license distribution” system that allocates licenses to
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`client devices to “operate software associated with a corresponding vendor
`
`software application,” and which similarly provides flexibility by “allocat[ing]
`
`extra software licenses (e.g., [] overdraft licenses) and distribut[ing] more software
`
`licenses than are actually purchased by a respective customer.” GOOGLE-1006,
`
`Abstract.
`
` The DeMello, Staruiala, and Colosso references collectively teach and
`
`render obvious each and every element of claims 1-25 of the ’960 Patent.
`
`
`
`DEMELLO OVERVIEW
` DeMello relates to a DRM system that “distributes and protects rights in
`
`content” by activating client devices prior to allowing access or use of digital
`
`products purchased by users of the client devices. GOOGLE-1004, Abstract, 4:52-
`
`56. DeMello recognizes that contemporary DRM systems that “attempt to protect
`
`ownership rights” are often “cumbersome and inflexible and make” use of
`
`purchased digital content “difficult for the purchaser.” Id., 1:44-49. Thus,
`
`DeMello proposes an “improved digital rights management system that allows of
`
`[sic] delivery of electronic works to purchasers in a manner that protects ownership
`
`rights, while also being flexible and easy to use.” GOOGLE-1004, 1:50-53.
`
` DeMello achieves this flexibility by allowing adjustments to the limit on the
`
`“number of devices that may be activated for a particular persona” associated with
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent No.: 8,566,960
`Attorney Docket: 19473-0378IP1
`a user or a “rate at which such devices may be activated for [the] particular
`
`persona.” Id., Abstract, 14:32-51, 23:4-48. Such adjustments include permitting
`
`additional activations for defined time periods. Id. In an exemplary embodiment,
`
`DeMello describes allowing “no more than five activations for a given persona in
`
`the first 90 days following the first activation, with an additional activation
`
`permitted each 90 days thereafter, up to a total of 10 activations.” Id. DeMello
`
`places a limit on the number of total activations available to “prevent[] the
`
`unchecked proliferation of” devices activated for “a single persona.” Id.
`
` DeMello’s system implements an activation process for a client device that
`
`is carried out in multiple steps. Id., FIG. 4, FIG. 8, 4:52-56, 22:30-67, 23:4-48.
`
`First, a user is “prompted to login using, in this example, their PASSPORTTM
`
`credentials,” which are associated with the user’s persona. Id. Once the user’s
`
`credentials have been verified, DeMello’s “activation servers 94” request that the
`
`client device “upload a unique hardware
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
