Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC
`IPR2019-0000702 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,969,925)
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`May 21, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`IPR2019-0000702 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,969,925)
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`May 21, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`• Overview of ’925 patent
`
`• Claim Construction
`
`Slides 3-7
`
`Slides 8-27
`
`• Ground 1 (Alos and RFC793)
`
`Slides 28-40
`
`• Grounds 5 and 6 (Lee, SMS Specification,
`RFC793, WMA)
`
`Slides 41-42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ’925 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`’925 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`The ’925 Patent
`
`• The ’925 patent is directed toward a “Peer-to-Peer Mobile
`Data Transfer Method and Device”
`
`• Data transfers are made without the need for a server to store data
`
`• The initiating mobile device does not know the target’s IP address
`
`’925 patent, 1:61-67 (cited in Petition at 7).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’925 patent, 4:12-19 (cited in Reply at 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ’925 Patent
`
`1.a
`
`1.b
`
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’925 patent, Fig. 2 (Petition at 8).
`
`5
`
`
`
`’925 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1.pre A method of establishing a direct data transfer session between mobile devices that
`support a data packet-based communications service over a digital mobile network system,
`the method comprising:
`
`1.a
`
`1.b
`
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`opening a listening software port on an initiating mobile device to receive
`communications through the data packet-based communications service;
`
`transmitting an invitation message to a target mobile device through a page-mode
`messaging service, wherein the invitation message comprises a network address
`associated with the initiating mobile device, and wherein the target mobile device is
`located by providing a unique identifier to the page-mode messaging service;
`
`receiving a response from the target mobile device at the listening software port on the
`initiating mobile device; and
`
`establishing a data transfer session through the data packet-based communications
`service between the initiating mobile device and the target mobile device, wherein the
`data transfer session is established in a peer-to-peer fashion without a server
`intermediating communications through the established data transfer session between
`the initiating mobile device and the target mobile device.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`’925 patent at 1:41-67; Petition at 7
`
`
`
`’925 Patent, Claim 2
`
`2.pre
`
`The method of claim 1 further comprising:
`
`2.a
`
`2.b
`
`opening a second listening software port on the initiating mobile device to receive
`invitation messages through the page-mode messaging service;
`
`receiving, at the second listening software port and through the page-mode messaging
`service, a message from another mobile device inviting the initiating mobile device to
`establish a data transfer session, wherein such message comprises a network address
`associated with the other mobile device; and
`
`1.c
`
`transmitting a response to the network address associated with the other mobile device,
`wherein the response acknowledges the ability to establish a data transfer session.
`
`’925 patent at 2:1-15; Petition at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`“opening a software
`listening port”
`(claims 1,8,15)
`
`associating a port
`identifier with a
`process
`
`opening a listening
`software port for a
`specific target mobile
`device
`
`Petition at 21-22; Reply at 2-8; Patent Owner
`Response at 7-9; Patent Owner Sur-reply at 3-4
`
`Decision, 13, 25-26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`Reply at 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 51 (cited in Petition at 21-22)
`[Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by documentary
`evidence
`
`Ex. 1010 at 90 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[RFC 793, TCP specification]
`
`Ex. 1010 at 20 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[RFC 793, TCP specification]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by documentary
`evidence
`
`Ex. 1015 at 13 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 1 – The Protocols]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by documentary
`evidence
`
`Ex. 1013 at 22 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[Unix Network Programming]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by documentary
`evidence
`
`Ex. 1014 at 73 (cited in Petition at 21-22)
`[ETSI 123 040 v3.5.0 (SMS Specification)]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO’s “construction” imports a limitation into claim 1 rather
`than construing the words of claim 1
`
`opening a software listening port on an
`initiating mobile device to receive
`communications from only a specific target
`mobile device through the data packet-based
`communications service
`
`Reply at 2
`
`•
`
`It is improper for at least this reason
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO’s construction is only attorney argument that is not
`supported by expert testimony
`
`Paper 9 at 7
`[PO’s Response to Petition]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO’s “construction” is only attorney argument that is not
`supported by expert testimony
`
`Paper 9 at 7
`[PO’s Response to Petition]
`See Paper 10 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 2, 8, and 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`•
`
`In its Response, PO apparently argued that the listening port must
`be opened in such a way that only responses from a specific target
`mobile device could be received
`
`PO Response at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`•
`
`In its Response, PO apparently argued that the listening port must
`be opened in such a way that only responses from a specific target
`mobile device could be received
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PO Response at 12
`
`20
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`• Per Dr. Houh, PO’s construction can only be accomplished using TCP
`by specifying a foreign IP address in the listening port open command
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 14 [cited in Reply at 7]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`• But the techniques in the ’925 patent are directed to situations
`where the foreign IP address is not known
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 15 [cited in Reply at 7-8]
`
`22
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`•
`
`It is therefore not possible to open a TCP listening port that is
`restricted to a target mobile device when that device’s IP address is
`not known
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 13 [cited in Reply at 6]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO has apparently modified its construction
`
`• PO’s sur-reply now claims that opening a port “for a specific target
`device” means only that the local port number is not known to any
`other device
`
`• PO no longer asserts that a foreign IP address must be
`specified when the listening port is opened
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Paper 11 at 3
`[PO’s Sur-reply]
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• PO’s construction is not supported by the prosecution history
`
`•
`
`The Examiner correctly recognized that there was no such requirement in the claim
`
`Paper 9 at 8-9 (citing 663 patent’s file history)
`[PO’s Response to Petition]
`
`•
`
`Erroneous statements made during prosecution cannot overcome the plain language of the
`claims. Intervet Am., Inc. v Kee-Vet Labs., Inc. 887 F.2d 1050, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 4
`
`25
`
`Ex. 1004 (File History) at 324 (cited in Reply at 5)
`
`
`
`“opening a second software listening port”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Petitioner’s
`Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`“opening a second
`software listening
`port”
`(claims 2,9,16)
`
`no required order/
`timing relationship
`between opening of
`first and second ports
`
`second software
`listening port must be
`opened after first
`software listening port
`
`Petition at 20-21; Reply at 12-14;
`Patent Owner Response at 9-11
`
`Decision, 13, 25-26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`“opening a second software listening port”
`
`• PO relies solely on attorney argument that “second” means
`opened after the first port is opened
`
`PO Response at 10
`
`• PO’s argument is contrary to Federal Circuit case law
`
`•
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to
`distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation”
`
`Rejected assertion that first/second imposed serial or temporal limitation
`
`•
`
`See also Altiris and Gillette cases
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 13
`
`27
`
`
`
`Ground 1
`Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 Are Obvious
`Over Alos and RFC793
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Alos (EP1009153A1)
`
`page-mode messaging service (e.g., SMS)
`
`data packet-based communications service (e.g., Internet)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Ex. 1005 (Alos) at Fig. 1
`
`
`
`Alos (EP1009153A1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Alos (Ex. 1005) at Fig. 2a
`
`
`
`Alos (EP1009153A1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Ex. 1015 at 85 (cited in Petition at 16)
`
`
`
`Alos (EP1009153A1)
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶ 44
`[Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• The PO Response raised only three disputes for Ground 1,
`claim 1
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner has therefore waived all other arguments on Ground
`1 for claim 1
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 51; Petition at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• The PO Response raised only three disputes for Ground 1,
`claim 1
`
`•
`
`First, PO argued that the Petition relies solely on software listening
`port openings that are not specific to a target mobile device
`
`•
`
`That argument fails because it is based on an incorrect claim construction
`
`PO Response at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• The PO Response raised only three disputes for Ground 1,
`claim 1
`
`•
`
`Second, PO argued that the Petition’s reliance on the use of well-
`known ports/sockets “undermines” its challenge:
`
`PO Response at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• PO’s argument on well-known ports fails for two reasons:
`
`•
`
`First, the Petition also relied on ports that were not well-known
`
`Petition at 29
`
`Petition at 32-33
`
`•
`
`PO’s failure to address this theory in its Response results in waiver
`of any argument regarding this implementation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• PO’s argument on well-known ports fails for two reasons:
`
`•
`
`Second, PO’s argument is based on unsupported attorney argument:
`
`•
`
`But the undisputed evidence shows that even well-known ports must
`be opened at a mobile device:
`
`PO Response at 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 26, Reply at 16
`
`37
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• The PO Response raised only three disputes for Ground 1,
`claim 1
`
`•
`
`Third, PO distinguished between packet-switched and circuit-
`switched networks, which purportedly demonstrated a deficiency in
`the Petition:
`
`PO Response at 17; see also 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 29, cited in Reply at 17-18
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• The PO Response raised only three disputes for Ground 1,
`claim 1
`
`•
`
`This attorney argument was refuted by unrebutted
`testimony of Dr. Houh:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`PO did not bother to depose Dr. Houh
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 29, cited in Reply at 17-18
`
`Dr. Houh’s testimony was not addressed in the sur-reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Alos and RFC793
`
`• PO’s attorney arguments have failed to overcome the
`evidence in the Petition demonstrating that claim 1 is
`obvious over the combination of Alos and RFC793
`•
`PO’s claim construction of “opening a software listening port”
`limitation is flawed
`
`•
`
`•
`
`PO relies on attorney argument rather than evidence
`
`PO has modified its construction and no longer argues that a
`passive open with an unspecified foreign host is not sufficient
`
`• The only other argument raised in the POR is that the
`second software listening port must be opened after the
`first (POR at 21)
`•
`This argument fails because it is based on a flawed construction of
`“second”
`
`•
`
`PO has therefore failed to overcome the evidence in the Petition
`that establishes the unpatentability of all challenged claims of
`Ground 1
`
`PO Response at 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Ex. 1028 ¶ 29, cited in Reply at 17-18
`
`
`
`Ground 5
`Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 Are Obvious
`Over Lee, SMS Specification, and RFC793
`
`Ground 6
`Claims 2, 9 and 16 Are Obvious
`Over Lee, SMS Specification, RFC793 and WMA
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Grounds 5 and 6
`
`• Only issues raised with respect to Grounds 5 and 6 in PO Response
`
`and Sur-reply were claim constructions for “opening a software
`
`listening port” and “opening a second software listening port”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`All other arguments are therefore waived
`
`Because Petitioner’s constructions are correct, all challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable on this basis alone
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Questions?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Packet Headers
`
`Ex. 1010 at 24
`[TCP Specification]
`
`Ex. 1022 at 20
`[IP Specification]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`and documentary evidence
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1013 at 32 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[Unix Network Programming]
`
`46
`
`
`
`“opening a second software listening port”
`
`• Common to distinguish instances of an elements using
`ordinals; intent to impose order must be clear
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co, v. Avery Dennison, 350 F.3d 1365, 1371
`(Cited in Reply at 13)
`
`Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371
`(Cited in Petition at 20-21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Gillette Co. v Energizer Hldgs., Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373
`(Cited in Reply at 13)
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`and documentary evidence
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1013 at 32 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[Unix Network Programming]
`
`48
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`and documentary evidence
`
`Ex. 1020 at 3 (cited in Petition at 21)
`[Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 11th Ed.]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`and documentary evidence
`
`• Petitioner’s construction uses “associate” in the same way
`the independent claims use it
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:52-57, 6:34-39, 7:19-24 (cited in Reply at 21)
`[925 Patent]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`“opening a software listening port”
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the claim
`language and context
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is supported by expert testimony
`and documentary evidence
`
`• Petitioner’s construction uses “associate” in the same ways
`the independent claims use it and PO’s Response uses it
`
`PO’s Response at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction of “opening” limitation
`Conflates Purpose with Manner
`
`’925 Patent at 4:38-40 (cited in Reply at 3)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Ex. 1028 (Houh Decl.) ¶ 11 (cited in Reply at 3)
`
`
`
`PO Conflates an ISP Server with a Multimedia Server
`
`’925 Patent at 1:61-67 (cited in Relay at 18)
`
`Cordenier (Ex. 1007) at 7:2-15 (cited in Reply at 18)
`
`Ex. 1028 (Houh Decl.) ¶ 30 (cited in Reply at 18)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
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
