Apple, Inc., Blackberry Corp.,
`LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00222 (Patent 7,16,487 B2)*
`IPR2019-00252 (Patent 7,16,487 B2)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Josiah C. Cocks, Robert J. Weinschenk, &
`John F. Horvath, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`March 3, 2020
`
`* All record citations are to IPR2019-00222 unless noted.
`
`
`LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-00222 (Patent 7,16,487 B2)*
`IPR2019-00252 (Patent 7,16,487 B2)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before Josiah C. Cocks, Robert J. Weinschenk, &
`John F. Horvath, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`March 3, 2020
`
`* All record citations are to IPR2019-00222 unless noted.
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• New Evidence / Argument Improper
`
`• Failure to show R2-010182 (Ground 1) is a
`printed publication
`
`• R2-010182 (Ground 1) not teach “minimum
`bit rate [for] the respective logic channel”
`
`• Petitioners fail to meet their burden on
`Peisa (Ground 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`2
`
`
`
`New Evidence / Argument Improper
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or
`argument in reply that it could have
`presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima
`facie case of unpatentability…. a reply …
`may only respond to arguments raised in the
`preceding brief …. “Respond,” … does not
`mean proceed in a new direction with a new
`approach as compared to the positions
`taken in a prior filing.” Consol. Trial Practice
`Guide (Nov. 2019) at 73-74.
`
`PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`3
`
`
`
`Attempt to Argue Prima Facie Case in Petition
`
`Petition (Paper 5) at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`4
`
`
`
`Reply Takes New Direction / Approach
`
`• Petitioners in their Reply, for the first time:
`o argued public accessibility as the basis for printed
`publication
`o introduced Federal Circuit “public accessibility”
`case law
`o argued email distribution of “Draft Version”
`o R2-010182 arguments re MinGBr
`o Peisa arguments re “fairness” / “guaranteed rate”
`
`PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 2-6, 11-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`5
`
`
`
`Reply Should Not Be Considered
`
`“[A] reply … that raises a new issue or
`belatedly presents evidence may not be
`considered. The Board is not required to
`attempt to sort proper from improper
`portions of the reply ….” Consol. Trial
`Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 74.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`6
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• New Evidence / Argument Improper
`
`• Failure to show R2-010182 (Ground 1) is a
`printed publication
`
`• R2-010182 (Ground 1) not teach “minimum
`bit rate [for] the respective logic channel”
`
`• Petitioners fail to meet their burden on
`Peisa (Ground 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`7
`
`
`
`Not Limited to Medtronic “Factors”
`
`“As relevant to this case, the size and nature
`of the meetings and whether they are open
`to people interested in the subject matter of
`the material disclosed are important
`considerations.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891
`F3d 1368, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`8
`
`
`
`Bishop
`• Bishop provides opinion (not fact) on alleged public
`availability:
`o Not receive email
`o Not attend 5-day meeting
`o No personal knowledge of 95 individuals
`attended
`o Not know how many people attended portions of
`meeting where RS-010182 discussed
`o Not custodian or record keeper authorized to
`represent 3GPP
`
`PO Response (Paper 14) at 14-15; 17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`9
`
`
`
`No Evidence of Indexing / Searchable
`• Neither Petition nor Bishop I attempt to show that
`the 3GPP file server is (i) indexed or (ii) searchable
`in any meaningful way.
`
`• Web archive dated May 31, 2001, after critical date.
`
`• “Armed” with Information---would need to know:
`o Know to look for materials associated with
`meeting 18
`o Navigate to the URL path
`o Manually open each of the zip files
`
`PO Response (Paper 14) at 14-16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`10
`
`
`
`No Dissemination Through Meeting / Email
`
`Jazz Pharm. Case
`
`R2-010182
`
`Notice of Meeting
`Published in Public
`Document
`
`Yes, Federal Register.
`
`Widely Disseminated Yes, “Notice in the Federal
`Register” (contrasted with
`meetings in the hundreds,
`which were insufficient).
`
`Explained How to
`Access in Single
`Document
`
`Yes, “Notice explained …
`were located on the FDA
`website, … when they
`would be available, and
`how to navigate to them.”
`
`PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 7-9.
`
`No, emailed to limited
`subscriber-members
`employed by specific
`companies / affiliated with
`organizations.
`No, 934 subscriber-
`members.
`
`No, required two separate
`emails.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`11
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• New Evidence / Argument Improper
`
`• Failure to show R2-010182 (Ground 1) is a
`printed publication
`
`• R2-010182 (Ground 1) not teach “minimum
`bit rate [for] the respective logic channel”
`
`• Petitioners fail to meet their burden on
`Peisa (Ground 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`12
`
`
`
`Individual MinGBr Parameter for Each Logical Channel
`• New theory: value of MinGBr is variable
`o New theory improper as it could have been
`presented earlier.
`o Petition never mentioned that MinGBR is different for
`different logical channels.
`
`• Even if allowed, technically flawed:
`o No statement in R2-010182 that it teaches “distinct
`parameter of each logical channel”
`o R2-010182 has no discussion of how MinGBr would
`be determined for different logical channels.
`
`PO Response (Paper 14) at 19-21; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 11-16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`13
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`• New Evidence / Argument Improper
`
`• Failure to show R2-010182 (Ground 1) is a
`printed publication
`
`• R2-010182 (Ground 1) not teach “minimum
`bit rate [for] the respective logic channel”
`
`• Petitioners fail to meet their burden on
`Peisa (Ground 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners Fail to Meet Burden for Peisa
`• New theory: Peisa would have used the terms “fairness”
`and “guaranteed rates” to mean a guaranteed bit rate as
`used in TS23.107
`o New theory improper as it could have been
`presented earlier.
`
`• Even if allowed, technically flawed:
`o Reply fails to rebut argument that “fairness” fails to
`teach a minimum bit rate.
`o Fig. 8: fail to provide meaningful rebuttal that “Peisa
`teaches a very general “minimum level of service to
`all flows.”
`
`PO Response (Paper 14) at 22-25; PO Sur-Reply (Paper 17) at 16-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE – NOT EVIDENCE
`15
`
`
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
