NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TWILIO INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 15, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TWILIO INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 15, 2018
`___________
`
`
`
`
`Before ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JESSE J. CAMACHO, ESQUIRE
`CHRISTINE GUASTELLO, ESQUIRE
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`WAYNE STACY, ESQUIRE
`SARAH GUSKE, ESQUIRE
`Baker Botts, LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`Also Present: Robert McHenry, Twilio
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`November 15, 2018, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia, 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 1:01 p.m.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Good afternoon
`everyone. This is an oral hearing for IPR2017-01976 and
`01977.
` Let's start with appearances, and when you introduce
`yourself, please step up to the center podium.
` Who do you have here for petitioner?
` MR. CAMACHO: Your Honor, this is Jesse Camacho, and
`a colleague, Christine Guastello.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Thank you,
`Mr. Camacho.
` MS. GUSKE: For patent owner is Sarah Guske and
`Wayne Stacy. And also from Twilio, Robert McHenry.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Thank you,
`Ms. Guske.
` As you may or may not know, usually when the first
` snowflake hits the ground here in D.C., the city shuts down,
` so we certainly appreciate you all braving the elements and
` making it here today.
` We'll start with a few preliminary matters. As you
` can see, Judges McGraw and Judge Moore are appearing
` remotely, so in order for them to hear you, please step up
`
`3
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` to the center podium when you are speaking. And if you are
` using demonstratives, please refer to slide numbers so they
` can follow along.
` Secondly, in our order we gave each side 60 minutes
` to present their case for both of these cases. After
` looking over the issues, I think we actually may need a
` little bit more time to get through everything here today,
` so if we go a little bit longer, I'll make sure both sides
` get equal amounts of time.
` But with that, is there any time constraints we have
` here from either side in terms of travel after the hearing?
` MR. CAMACHO: Petitioner has a 4:45 flight.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. What time would you need
`to be done here, would you say?
` MR. CAMACHO: I would say 3:20, 3:30.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. CAMACHO: But if we have to push that, that's
`okay.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. All right. Ms. Guske,
`any time restraints on your end?
` MS. GUSKE: Not for patent owner, no.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. And then the last
`issue is, I know we have some information that was filed
`under seal in these cases. As of right now, this hearing is
`
`4
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`open to the public. The transcript will be public. I think
`it would be my preference to keep it that way, so if we can
`sort of refer to information at a high enough level, I think
`that would great for us.
` If we do reach a situation where you think you need
`to refer to some confidential information, please stop me and
`let us know, and we can make sure that that designation gets
`in the transcript. Okay?
` All right. Well, with that, let's start with
`petitioner, Mr. Camacho.
` How much time would you like to reserve for
` rebuttal?
` MR. CAMACHO: 30 minutes, please.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Like I said, if we need
`more time, which I think we might, I'll keep track of that
`for us. All right?
` MR. CAMACHO: Okay. Thank you very much, Your
`Honor. May it please the Board.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Can I actually, before you
`begin, actually direct you where I'd like you to begin --
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: -- if that's okay?
` MR. CAMACHO: That is.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I think it would be helpful to
`
`5
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`myself and my panel members here if you could, at least at
`the beginning, give us a sort of overview of the technology
`here. Not just sort of in an abstract view, but maybe in
`terms of an example claim, like Claim 1, or something like
`that.
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, Your Honor. The subject matter
`of the two patents, the two patents share a common
`specification. So the '376 patent and the '465 patent are
`very similar to each other. Like I said, they both share a
`identical common specification.
` And I'll start with reading from petitioner's
`page 21. Petitioner -- I'm sorry -- the patent owner
`response is page 21.
` It says, "The inventors of the '376 patent sought to
` solve a problem relating to developing software applications
` that interact with and use older, complex telephony network
` systems."
` So what these two patents are trying to do is make
` it easier for people who want to interact with a network,
` but something that happens behind the scenes of the network,
` interact with that network.
` The use case of the two patents is a telephony
` network.
` So, for example, if someone wants to interact with
`
`6
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` telephony, historically, that's been difficult. So the
` solutions provide by the '376 patent, by the two patents at
` issue, is to provide an interface to make it easier for
` developers to interact with an older network, in this case a
` telephony network. Because developers know how to code,
` they know how to make a web application, that's familiar.
` There's two main development models that we'll get
` into, but first I want to address your question. And now I
` can address your question in the context of, say, Claim 1 of
` the '376 patent.
` So Claim 1 of the '376 patent begins with operating
` two different types of networks; operating a telephony
` network and internet-connected system together with this --
` with a plurality of application programming resources. API
` resources.
` An API resource is a resource that can be used by
` the API. So, for example, so it would include a resource
` that would allow someone to make a call, place a call,
` transfer a call, something like that.
` Again, just walking through the steps of Claim 1.
` It says, "Initiating a telephony session. A telephony
` session is not the same as a telephone call. Initiating a
` telephony session is illustrated in various figures, and
` basically, it's the start of a process."
`
`7
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` The second step is communicating with an application
` server to receive an application response.
` So one way -- I think one thing that can be helped
` if Your Honor wants a little bit more background is to maybe
` direct the Court's attention to Fig. 7.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Did you say Figure 7?
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, Figure 7. Figures 7 through 12
`just provide various -- they're just illustrative embodiments
`of the invention.
` So you see what happens in what's labeled step S1,
`there's an incoming call. So say someone wants to make a
`telephone call to some inbound number, a target phone number.
`The incoming call comes in, and that's step S1.
` Those steps are also parroted or parallel in Fig. 1.
`We don't need to turn to Fig. 1, they're just also in Fig. 1.
` So that's step S1. What happens there is there is a
` lookup that occurs based on, say, the incoming call.
` So if someone wanted to call 867-5309, well, this
` little URI, step S1, would look up that phone number and map
` and understand that that phone number needs to be mapped --
` which is step S3 is the mapping -- that's going to get
` mapped to the application server, which is the vertical bar
` on the right. And it's also referred to as a web service.
` So again, the call comes in, it gets mapped by way
`
`8
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` of that URI. The URI is the Twilio.com/autoattendant/, and
` it's that string that ends in D0.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And what does the mapping
`actually entail?
` MR. CAMACHO: So what the mapping does is the
`mapping allows the historic telephony to be converted into a
`type of protocol that can be used over the web. The best
`place to see that is at the end -- at the bottom of Column 3.
` Column 3, I'll just read it for the Board's benefit.
` So this is Column 3 of the '376 patent starting at line 52.
` It says, "Step S3, which recites mapping the call to
` a URI, functions to enable a telephony session to be
` converted into a format that can be handled with standard
` web servers."
` So what happens is basically that URI gets
` generated. That's what allows the incoming call to interact
` in the same way that a web model would interact.
` So we see the request S5, and then a response S9,
` and then another request S5, with a corresponding response
` S9, and it repeats one more time in Fig. 7, a request S5 and
` a corresponding response, S9.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So does the mapping have to do
`with generating the URI in some fashion?
` MR. CAMACHO: Well, I think so. Inasmuch as it says
`
`9
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`that it allows -- it functions the telephony session to be
`converted into a format, then the mapping is going to map,
`yes, the call to that specific URI.
` That URI could be -- or could already exist. It
` doesn't need to be generated in real time. I think that's
` part of the associating stuff that is more expressly recited
` in the '465.
` But generally, before this even happens, there would
` be an associating really before step S1 that would associate
` a URI with an inbound call. So that when somebody calls a
` target number, that's how the system knows to direct the
` call to a specific server associated with that URI.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. I know there's some --
` JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, you're saying this -- you're
`saying the incoming call then would be the telephony --
`telephony endpoint?
` MR. CAMACHO: The telephony endpoint is generally
`the telephone number, or it could be -- for example, that's
`addressed at Column 3, line 60, where it says it could be a
`DID, a direct inbound dial, phone number or a VOIP SIP
`address.
` So the telephony endpoint could be either one of
` those. Generally, it's going to be the phone number, or
` it's going to be the whatever's needing to be called, Judge
`
`10
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` Moore.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` JUDGE MOORE: Thank you.
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Do you think now maybe we could
`take these in order of the case numbers here? Maybe we could
`turn to the 1976 case first and go through the issues there?
`Is that agreeable, Mr. Camacho?
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes, that's fine.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And the first question I
`had for you on the 1976 case, which is the '465 patent,
`patent owner raises a couple of claim construction issues
`here. They propose constructions for telephony endpoint and
`for URI.
` Does petitioner have any dispute with those
`constructions? I understood they were agreed to in the
`district court and adopted by the district court. Is there
`any dispute about those constructions in this case?
` MR. CAMACHO: Tell me the two again just to confirm?
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: We have telephony endpoint,
`which patent owner proposes construing as an end user device
`identifier, such as a telephone number or mobile device
`address.
` MR. CAMACHO: I think, to the extent it would
`
`11
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`include -- I don't see any major issues with that as long as
`it would include -- the "such as" is important, so a SIP
`address would also include, but I think that's captured in
`that claim construction.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And then their
`construction for URI is, "A compact sequence of characters
`that identifies an abstract or physical resource."
` MR. CAMACHO: No, we did not have any dispute on
`that.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. That's helpful. Thank
`you.
` And we've been talking a little bit about this
` patent and the claims. I believe Claim 1 has this
` associating an initial URI with a telephony endpoint, and I
` was hoping you could walk through this for me because I
` think there's confusion here, the parties are -- there's a
` little bit of a dispute about what's identified as what in
` each of these elements.
` So what is petitioner's argument here specifically
` about what is the telephony endpoint in the prior art -- and
` you've identified we can start with the Maes and Ransom
` combination -- and how does it teach associating a URI with
` that endpoint?
` MR. CAMACHO: Okay. Yes.
`
`12
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` If you want to start with the Maes reference --
` essentially, just to sum things up, the Institution decision
` is correct. What the Institution decision says is right.
` As far as the telephony endpoint is going to be the
` target, the thing that is going -- that is trying to be
` called. That is trying to be reached.
` So in Maes -- let me see, I think I actually have
` the ETSI reference up first. Let me confirm.
` (Pause in the proceedings)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And I guess I'll frame the
`question I have for you here even more specifically.
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I think patent owner seems to
`argue that what you've pointed to as being the telephony
`endpoint is an application in Maes, and I'm trying to figure
`out, is that what you're relying on is the telephony
`endpoint, the application 14, or is it something else?
` MR. CAMACHO: Okay. I see. Okay. I will walk
`through this and then step back, and then if I don't hit it,
`I will go back and address His Honor's question.
` So in Maes, the URI of the application initially
`assigned to the incoming call, that's going to be the initial
`URI.
` So as far as what the initial URI is, the initial
`
`13
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`URI is the URI of the application that was initially assigned
`to the incoming call.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And Maes doesn't actually
`teach a URI though, correct?
` MR. CAMACHO: Maes does not expressly use the
`word -- or the letters "URI", but Maes does describe
`communicating with an application, and that application would
`be associated with a URI.
` But you're right, Maes does not expressly use the
`term "URI", Ransom does.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Right.
` MR. CAMACHO: Right.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So you've got an application,
`and you argue that someone reading Maes and Ransom together
`would know that the application would have a URI.
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes. Exactly. For sure.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. What's the telephony
`endpoint that we're associating this URI with?
` MR. CAMACHO: The end -- okay. In ETSI, it's the
`Sarah@ -- it's the target address.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: One second. Let me find out
`where you're -- in the ETSI reference.
` MR. CAMACHO: Yes. In the ETSI reference,
`there's -- I'm doing this from memory -- there's a symbol and
`
`14
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`it says Mary@. It's a SIP address.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. CAMACHO: It's in the lower -- lower right
`portion of the diagram, of the main ETSI diagram. So
`basically, it's the SIP address of the person to be called.
`Mary@company.com. That's the telephony endpoint.
` So the telephony endpoint is the target. It's
`what's being contacted. It's what's trying to be reached.
`In ETSI, it's Mary@company.com.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And what is it in Maes?
` MR. CAMACHO: I think in Maes -- I apologize because
`it's the (inaudible) so I'm making sure I'm not getting
`tripped up.
` I believe in Maes it is also the incoming call. So
`it's the number of the address associated with the incoming
`call. It's the target number that's being called. That's
`the telephony endpoint, who you're trying to call.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. CAMACHO: The incoming call.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: And does that fit our
`construction here, that it's an end user device identifier?
` MR. CAMACHO: Sure. It's like -- yeah. It's the
`address -- it's the call -- like the number that's being
`called. It's just like who you're actually trying to call,
`
`15
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`whatever that is.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. CAMACHO: I -- I did -- I don't think there's a
`distinction between like the phone number and the phone.
`There was never such a distinction below.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And then how do we know
`that the URI of the application gets associated with that
`phone number?
` MR. CAMACHO: Because when the call is actually --
`when the call is actually processed, like for instance in the
`ETSI reference, the Mary@. When the Mary gets -- when the
`Mary@ gets sent down through that Cloud 2, it includes
`information about, say, the calling device.
` So, for example, if we flip back to the ETSI
`reference, the ETSI reference is going to include information
`about the call. So if it includes information about the
`call, then it was associated with the call.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And then how do we get to
`the mapping limitation? How is the mapping different from
`the associating?
` MR. CAMACHO: So the associating is associating the
`URI with the endpoint. So that would be associating the URI
`with the phone number.
` Mapping is mapping the URI to the telephony session.
`
`16
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` We know that the URI gets mapped to the telephony
`session because the URI includes information about the
`telephony session, such as the calling party, so it must have
`been associated --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So let --
` MR. CAMACHO: -- with that mapping.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: -- so let's start with the first
`ground, with Maes and Ransom.
` Where do we have a disclosure that the URI includes
`information about the telephony session?
` MR. CAMACHO: I wanted to wait because I wanted to
`answer the specific question instead of just (inaudible).
` Can you confirm the question, Your Honor?
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Yeah. My question was, you said
`that mapping the initial URI to the telephony session is
`disclosed because the URI includes information about the
`telephony session.
` And my question was, where do we have disclosure in
`Maes and Ransom that the URI that was associated with the
`telephone number includes information about the telephony
`session?
` MR. CAMACHO: Okay. We addressed this on page 18 of
`the '465 petition.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
`
`17
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` MR. CAMACHO: And it says, "As described above for
`element 1B, Maes discloses that once application 14 is
`assigned to the incoming call, call router 21 sends a request
`to application 14 over the internet. That includes
`information relating to the call" -- and to answer His
`Honor's question -- "such as the appropriate TEL-address,
`e.g., the duration of the call, if it was session-based," and
`that comes from Exhibit 1003 at 1558 through 62. Okay.
` THE COURT[MS1]: And again, though, how do we know that
`that TEL-address, which I guess is your -- what you're
`pointing to as the information about the telephony session --
`how do we know that that gets included in the URI?
` Because again, I think the problem we're having here
`is Maes doesn't actually talk about a URI. I know Ransom
`talks about URIs but doesn't actually say putting telephone
`addresses into the URI. Right? So that's -- you're saying
`that would be obvious, I assume.
` MR. CAMACHO: I am. That's right.
` And that basically gets to the heart of the issue is
`that the information that you're describing, that in, for
`instance, the Maes reference, or the ETSI reference, this
`information that would be included in the body of the
`submessage, such as this that I just said, or even the
`calling party, Mary@ is -- that called -- the calling party,
`
`18
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`the '465 patent discloses that that also is state information
`or information associated with the telephony session.
` That sort of information is going to be included in
`the body of a SOAP message.
` But if, per Ransom, one was employing a REST model,
`then the information that's in the body would be in the URI.
`So that's why it would be in the URI.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENKWEINSCHENK: So your position is that
`anytime
`you would switch over to use REST instead of SOAP, the
`information that would be in the body, for example this
`telephone address, would then be put into the URI itself.
` MR. CAMACHO: And just to confirm, it wouldn't be
`like any information, like if -- the SOAP message could
`contain a lot of information. I'm not contending that all
`that information would get put into the URI, but some
`information, such as the calling party, the person who is
`making the call, that information would get put into the URI.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENKWEINSCHENK: Okay. How do we know
`that?
`Like where is the evidence in the record that we know that
`that would happen?
` MR. CAMACHO: Okay. That's generally going to come
`from, for example, Dr. Nielson addressed this in paragraphs
`
`19
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`59 through 62 in Exhibit 1010, and 64 through 66.
` What you have, Your Honor, is a situation where
`someone reading Maes and seeing that it's a SOAP
`implementation would know that there's only two design models
`to follow. That's not contested in this case. There's only
`two design models; REST and SOAP.
` Therefore, since it would just be an obvious design
`choice whether someone uses REST or SOAP, information that
`was included in the SOAP message could as easily have been
`included in the URI -- in the body of a URI.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENKWEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MR. CAMACHO: And because there's only two
`alternatives -- just to confirm, our contention isn't just
`that there was something, A, was known in the art, and
`something, B, was known in the art, and then we're somehow
`trying to say, well, somebody would combine those, what our
`bigger point is, is just to confirm, is that people --
`skilled artisans would understand that these were two design
`alternatives. That there were only two, and that they were
`design alternatives. Not just that they existed, but they
`would be known alternatives.
` And that's what would provide the motivation to
`combine to someone who is reading Maes and sees, oh, the
`information is put into a SOAP. Well -- or SOAP body -- that
`
`20
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`information would be put into the URI if he was a proponent
`of the REST model.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. How do you respond to
`patent owner's argument that Ransom is really not analogous
`art? I know you've argued that patent owner defines the
`field of endeavor too narrowly being related to telephony,
`but isn't that really what the patent's talking about?
` MR. CAMACHO: It's not. It's just a use case, and
`that's why -- I mean, one of my main responses is, is that
`what the patent does, when addressing the problem that it
`wants to address, is the problem that -- is one of the
`problems, one of the main problems, that's addressed as
`petitioner, as patent owner itself articulates on page 21 of
`the patent owner response.
` The question is, when one thinks about non-analogous
`art is, well, what type of problems would have logically
`commended a POSA's attention?
` So they describe the problem as relating to
`developing software applications that interact with and use
`older complex -- now, they say telephony network systems, but
`our contention is that anyone who is interested in looking
`for a way to develop software applications to interact with
`older complex networks would look to, for example, Maes or
`Ransom. The reason is this:
`
`21
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
` The '465 patent -- these two patents at issue
`actually don't have that much to do with telephony. The
`petitioner --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: You recite telephony throughout
`the claims.
` MR. CAMACHO: We say telephony throughout the
`claims, and that is a use case, and that is true.
` But the problem that they're trying to solve is how
`to make telephony operations as accessible and as easily to
`work with as a web application.
` So if there's only two models, for example, if
`there's only two models and you're reading Maes, and you
`think to yourself, okay, huh. I'm reading Maes -- Maes
`describes a telephony operation, I don't think there's any
`dispute there -- and one of ordinary skill in the art knows
`there's only two models, REST and SOAP, he reads -- he or she
`reads that Maes is implemented via SOAP, knows that the other
`option is REST, and then thinks, I could just implement this
`via REST, and that's exactly what Ransom is doing. Ransom is
`doing the exact same thing.
` If telephony -- if one word were swapped out at this
`page 21, "telephony" were swapped out for, say, "electrical",
`it would read, "The problem relating to developing software
`applications that interact with and use older complex
`
`22
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01976 (Patent 8,837,465 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01977 (Patent 8,755,376 B2)
`
`electrical network systems."
` If someone wants to interact with any sort of other
` old telephony or old network system, how would they do that?
` And here's why. It may sound -- it may sound odd
` that I said, hey, this patent isn't really much about
` telephony. It's because this patent doesn't describe how
` the actual telephony works.
` The actual telephony here is handled by, say,
` carriers; the Verizons, AT&T, T-Mobiles. I mean, patent
` owner contends that they practice their claims. But Twilio
` does not own any network -- or excuse me -- does not own any
` networking infrastructure at all. They don't own any
` telephony type, PSTN type. The stuff that's ac
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
