03-18-
`DIGITAL CLOUD ACCESS (PDMAS PART III)
` 13/888,051
`2020::16:20:59
`This application is officially maintained in electronic form. To View: Click the desired Document
`Description. To Download and Print: Check the desired document(s) and click Start Download.
`Available Documents
`Document
`Document Description
`Mail Room Date
`Code
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`TRIAL.REQ.D Request for Trial Denied
`LET.
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`LET.
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`DRW.NONBW Drawings-other than black and white line
`drawings
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`Placeholder sheet indicating presence of
`SCORE
`supplemental content in SCORE
`TRIAL.REQ.D Request for Trial Denied
`TRAN.LET
`Transmittal Letter
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`TRAN.LET
`Transmittal Letter
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`TRIAL.REQ.D Request for Trial Denied
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`SOL.NTC.SUIT Report on the filing or determination of an action
`regarding a patent
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`LET.
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`
`Document Category Page Count
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`16
`2
`2
`1
`3
`2
`1
`17
`1
`3
`2
`1
`14
`31
`2
`15
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`23
`84
`34
`2
`2
`17
`16
`16
`35
`27
`17
`23
`10
`16
`12
`
`11-21-2019
`
`07-17-2018
`
`03-08-2018
`
`02-20-2018
`07-03-2017
`06-02-2017
`06-02-2017
`02-10-2017
`02-10-2017
`02-10-2017
`02-10-2017
`01-19-2017
`01-18-2017
`01-18-2017
`01-18-2017
`12-30-2016
`12-30-2016
`12-30-2016
`12-30-2016
`08-30-2016
`05-27-2016
`
`06-11-2015
`
`03-25-2015
`
`03-12-2015
`
`01-27-2015
`12-14-2014
`12-14-2014
`12-14-2014
`12-14-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`PROSECUTION
`
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`
`EWS-003991
`
`Early Warning Services 1006
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,308
`
`

`

`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`12-12-2014
`10-22-2014
`10-09-2014
`10-08-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`09-19-2014
`08-06-2014
`08-06-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-31-2014
`07-22-2014
`07-22-2014
`07-22-2014
`07-16-2014
`07-16-2014
`07-02-2014
`06-28-2014
`06-28-2014
`06-27-2014
`06-27-2014
`06-27-2014
`06-27-2014
`08-29-2013
`08-29-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`07-26-2013
`06-12-2013
`
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`REF.OTHER Other Reference-Patent/App/Search documents
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`ISSUE.NTF
`Issue Notification
`NTC.PUB
`Notice of Publication
`APP.FILE.REC Filing Receipt
`NOA
`Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)
`892
`List of references cited by examiner
`Issue Information including classification,
`IIFW
`examiner, name, claim, renumbering, etc.
`FWCLM
`Index of Claims
`List of References cited by applicant and
`1449
`considered by examiner
`BIB
`Bibliographic Data Sheet
`Search information including classification,
`SRFW
`databases and other search related notes
`SRNT
`Examiner's search strategy and results
`IFEE
`Issue Fee Payment (PTO-85B)
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`SRNT
`Examiner's search strategy and results
`SRNT
`Examiner's search strategy and results
`ADS
`Application Data Sheet
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`DIST.E.FILE
`Terminal Disclaimer-Filed (Electronic)
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`DISQ.E.FILE Terminal Disclaimer-Electronic-Approved
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`CFILE
`Request for Corrected Filing Receipt
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`ADS
`Application Data Sheet
`Notification of loss of entitlement to small entity
`SES.LOSS
`status
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant - No
`M327
`Action Count
`EARLYPUB
`Request for Early Publication
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`A.PE
`Preliminary Amendment
`CLM
`Claims
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`ADS
`Application Data Sheet
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`A.PE
`Preliminary Amendment
`CLM
`Claims
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`NPL
`Non Patent Literature
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form
`IDS
`(SB08)
`TRAN.LET
`Transmittal Letter
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`
`13
`12
`21
`10
`39
`18
`16
`2
`1
`1
`3
`12
`1
`3
`1
`5
`1
`1
`22
`1
`2
`2
`1
`1
`7
`2
`2
`2
`1
`2
`1
`2
`7
`1
`2
`1
`1
`2
`1
`2
`2
`1
`4
`2
`1
`4
`21
`15
`5
`1
`2
`1
`
`EWS-003992
`
`

`

`06-12-2013
`06-05-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`05-06-2013
`
`APP.FILE.REC Filing Receipt
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`OATH
`Oath or Declaration filed
`TRNA
`Transmittal of New Application
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`N417
`EFS Acknowledgment Receipt
`SPEC
`Specification
`CLM
`Claims
`ABST
`Abstract
`DRW
`Drawings-only black and white line drawings
`WFEE
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`PROSECUTION
`
`3
`1
`4
`2
`2
`3
`25
`3
`1
`7
`1
`
`Close Window
`
`EWS-003993
`
`

`

`Case: L:27-cv-07300 Document # 116 Filed: 11/22/48 Page 1 of 1 PagelD 1779
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Northern District of Illinois
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`17cv7300
`PLAINTIFF
`
`William Grecia
`
`DATEFILED
`10/10/2017
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Northern District of Illinois
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`Discover Financial Services, Inc.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT CLERK
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`Thomas G. Bruton
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`Anya Ellis
`
`DATE
`
`11/21/2018
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`EWS-003994
`
`EWS-003994
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-O5696-4KH Document4d Filed O4/26/18 Page 1 of 1
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`for the Southern District of New York
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`1:18 Civ. 3696
`PLAINTIFF
`
`WILLIAM GRECIA
`
`DATEFILED
`4/26/2018
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`for the Southern District of New York
`DEFENDANT
`
`JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
`
`WILLIAM GRECIA
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`PATENT OR
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`1 8,887,308
`
`11/11/2014
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`EWS-003995
`
`EWS-003995
`
`

`

`Case CASSA-DS2icpRaD)-Daéc Bobi LT/Eseth] IAMS dPadeahellD #: 75
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10}
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Step 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1458
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1456
`
`|
`
`REPORTON THE
`FOULING GR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`fn Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 ULS.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`for the Southern District of New York on the following
`
`[_] Trademarks or
`ff Patents.
`([} the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.5:
`(
`
`DOCKET NO.
`1:15-cv-9210
`PLAINTIPP
`
`William Grecia
`
`DATE FILED —
`11/23/2015
`
`LS. DISTRICT COURT
`for the Southern District of New York
`DEFENDANT
`
`| Visa inc.
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`——
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`i 8,887,308
`
`2 8,533,860
`
`3 8,402 555
`
`14/91/2014
`
`William Grecia
`
`2/10/2013
`
`Wiliam Grecia
`
`3/19/2013
`
`Wiliam Grecia
`
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENTOR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`[i] Cross Bill
`
`[| Other Pleading
`
`fn the above-—entitied case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECTISIONJUDGEMENT
`
`DATE
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Copy 1-—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy te Director Copy 3—-Upon termination of action, mail this copy te Directer
`Copy 2--Upen fling document adding patent(s), mail this copy te Director Copy 4-—Case fle copy
`
`EWS-003996
`
`EWS-003996
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-07300 Document #5 Filed: 1O/L1/17 Page I of 1 PageiD #72
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Northern District of Illinois
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`17cv7300
`PLAINTIFF
`
`William Grecia
`
`DATEFILED
`10/10/2017
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Northern District of Illinois
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`Discover Financial Services, Inc.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT CLERK
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`Thomas G. Bruton
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`Anya Ellis
`
`DATE
`
`10/11/2017
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`EWS-003997
`
`EWS-003997
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: July 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`WILLIAM GRECIA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAELW.KIM,and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Decision DenyingInstituting Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`EWS-003998
`
`EWS-003998
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`A.
`MasterCard International Incorporated (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`requesting inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,887,308
`(Ex. 1001, “the 308 Patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). William Grecia (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Wehave jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review maynotbeinstituted unless the information presented in
`the Petition shows“there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the
`Petition and Preliminary Response, we are unpersuadedthat Petitioner has
`metits burden of showing a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`showingthat claim 1 is unpatentable.
`
`Related Proceedings
`B.
`Patent Ownerhas identified the following actions as related to the
`
`(1) Grecia v. DISH Network L.L.C., Case No. 4:16-cv-588
`°308 patent:
`(N.D.Cal.) (February 3, 2016); (2) Grecia v. MasterCard Incorporated,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-9059 (S.D.N.Y.) (November18, 2015); (3) Grecia v.
`
`American Express Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-9217 (S.D.N.Y.)
`(Novemher23, 2015); (4) Grecia v. Visa Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-9210 ©
`(S.D.N.Y.) (February 23, 2015); (5) Grecia v. McDonald’s Corporation,
`Case No. 1:16-cv-2560 (N.D. Ill.) (February 24, 2016). Paper 4, 1. The
`
`°308 patent also is the subject of IPR2016-00602, IPR2016-01519, and
`
`EWS-003999
`
`EWS-003999
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`IPR2017-00797.' Paper 4, 1. Related Patent No. 8,402,555 is the subject of
`IPR2016-00789, IPR2016-00788, and IPR2017-00799.” Paper4, 1-2.
`
`Related Patent 8,533,860 is the subject of IPR2016-00422, IPR2016-00600,
`
`and IPR2017-00791.3 Paper 4, 1-2.
`
`C.
`
`The ’308 Patent
`
`The *308 Patent relates generally to “digital rights management
`
`[((“DRM”)] which employs electronic ID,as part of a web service
`
`membership, to manage accessrights across a plurality of devices.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:23-27. In addition to encryption, DRM systemsuse a layer of
`
`authentication in which permission is granted for access to the cipher key
`requiredto decryptfiles for access. Id. at 1:42-44. According to the ’308
`Patent, prior art DRM methodsrely on content providers to maintain
`computerservers to receive and send session authorization keysto client
`
`computers with an Internet connection.
`
`/d. at 2:55—57. “At times, content
`
`providers will discontinue servers or even go out of business some years
`after DRM encrypted content was sold to consumers causing the ability to
`
`accessfiles to terminate.” Jd. at 2:60-63. DRM opponentsalsocriticize the
`
`inability of current DRM measuresto allow unlimited interoperability
`
`between different machines.
`
`/d. at 3:1-3. Accordingly, the ’308 Patent
`
`discloses that “[a]n object of the present invention is to provide unlimited
`
`! The Board declined to institute review in IPR2016-00602 and in IPR2016-
`01519. IPR2017-00797 terminated by settlement.
`2 The Board declined to institute review in IPR2016-00789. IPR2017-00799
`terminated by settlement.
`3 TPR2015-00422 terminated by settlement. The Board declined toinstitute
`review in IPR2016-00600.
`
`EWS-004000
`
`EWS-004000
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`interoperability of digital media between unlimited machines with
`
`managementof end-user access to the digital media.” Jd. at 3:12—14.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`D.
`Independentclaim 1 is the only claim of the °308 Patent, andis
`
`reproduced below (someparagraphing added to improveclarity):
`
`1. A process for transforming a user access request for
`cloud digital content
`into a computer readable authorization
`object, the process for transforming comprising:
`a) receiving an access request for cloud digital content
`through an apparatusin process with at least one CPU,the access
`request being a write request to a data store, wherein the data
`store is at least oneof:
`
`a memory connectedto the at least one CPU;
`a storage connectedto the at least one CPU; and
`a database connected to the at
`least one CPU
`through the Internet;
`further comprises
`request
`wherein the access
`verification data provided byat least one user,
`wherein the verification data is recognized by the
`apparatusas a verification token; then
`b) authenticating the verification token of (a) using a
`database recognized by the apparatus of (a) as a verification
`token database; then
`c) establishing an API communication between the
`apparatusof (a) and a database apparatus, the database apparatus
`being a different database from the verification token database of
`(b)
`
`wherein the APIis related to a verified web service,
`
`wherein the verified web service is a part of the
`database apparatus,
`communication
`wherein establishing the API
`requires a credential assigned to the apparatusof(a),
`
`EWS-004001
`
`EWS-004001
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`is
`assigned credential
`apparatus
`wherein the
`recognized as a permission to conduct a data exchange
`session between the apparatus of (a) and the database
`apparatus to complete the verification process,
`wherein the data exchangesessionis also capable of
`an exchange of query data, wherein the query data
`comprises at
`least one verified web service account
`identifier; then
`d) requesting the query data, from the apparatus of(a),
`from the API communication data exchange session of (c),
`wherein the query data request is a request for the at least one
`verified web service identifier; then
`’ e) receiving the query data requested in (d) from the API
`communication data exchangesession of(c); and
`f) creating a computer readable authorization object by
`writing into the data store of (a) at least one of: the received
`verification data of (a); and the received query data of(e);
`wherein
`the
`created
`computer
`readable
`authorization object is recognized by the apparatus of(a)
`as user accessrights associated to the cloud digital content,
`wherein the computer readable authorization object
`is processed by the apparatus of (a) using a cross-
`referencing action during subsequent user access requests
`to determine one or more of a user access permission for
`the cloud digital content.
`
`>
`
`EWS-004002
`
`EWS-004002
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
` Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`FE.
`Petitioner challenges independent claim | on the following ground.
`
`References
`
`Ameerally* and Muller?
`
`
`
`
`
`[ben |oneChallengedClaim
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Peter Alexander, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1007).
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 as Unpatentable over Ameerally and Muller
`Petitioner asserts that independent claim 1 is obvious over Ameerally
`
`and Muller. Pet. 13-54 (citing Exs. 1001, 1004, 1005, 1007). Patent Owner
`disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 21-24 (citing Exs. 1001, 1004, 1005, 1007).
`1.
`Ameerally (Ex. 1004)
`Ameerally relates generally to “employing promotional codes with
`whichparticular digital media items are associated in a promotional database
`of a digital media purchase system.” Ex. 100494. Figure 1 of Ameerally
`depicts a block diagram of a system including digital media purchase system
`
`100, andis set forth below.
`
`*U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0212401, published Sept. 21,
`2006 (Ex. 1004; “Ameerally”).
`> U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0203959, published Sept. 15,
`2005 (Ex. 1005; “Muller’’).
`
`EWS-004003
`
`EWS-004003
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
` Media Commerce
`
`Server
`
`
`106
`
`Network
`
`
` Data
`
`i
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Figure 1 depicts a system including digital media purchase system 100.
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 1. As shown above, digital media purchase system 100
`
`includes digital media commerceserver 102 andclient 104, with each client
`
`104 including digital media player 108. Jd. § 19. Digital media purchase
`
`system 100 also includes promotional database 116. Id. J 27. Users of
`
`client 104 may receive promotional media 112, which includes unique
`
`promotional code 114. Jd. ]29. Unique promotional code 114 is provided
`
`to promotional database 116, and the record for promotional code 114 is
`
`accessed to locate a particular digital media content associated with
`
`promotional code 114. Id. JJ 29, 39.
`
`‘Vhe particular digital media content
`
`associated with promotional code 114 is then madeaccessible to the user of
`
`client 104. Id. ¥ 42.
`
`2.
`Muller (Ex. 1005)
`Muller relates generally to distribution of digital media items in a
`
`client-server environment. Ex. 1005, Abstr. Figure 1A of Muller depicts a
`
`block diagram of media purchase system 100, and is set forth below.
`
`EWS-004004
`
`EWS-004004
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`110
`
`n*,
`
`Media commerce
`
`a
` Data Network
`
` Media store
`
`112
`
`FIG. 1A
`
`a 104
`
`Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of media purchase system 100.
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1A. As shown above, media purchase system 100 includes
`media commerce server 102, data network 106, media storage server 110,
`
`media store 112, and client 104, which includes media player 108. Jd. 4 30,
`
`35. Digital media contentfiles 117 are stored on media store 112 and
`retrieved via media storage server 110. Jd. 935. Digital media item
`
`components 115 are stored on media commerceserver 102. Id. { 30.
`In order for media player 108 to acquire purchased digital media
`
`contentfiles 117, a media access response is received at media player 108.
`
`Id. 935. The media access response is then used by media player 108 to
`
`retrieve digital media contentfiles 117 by interacting with media storage
`
`server 110 through data network 106, and to digital media item components
`
`115 from media commerceserver 102. Jd. 36. The particular digital
`
`media item is assembled at media player 108 by merging digital media item
`
`components 115 and digital media contentfiles 117. Jd.
`
`EWS-004005
`
`EWS-004005
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`Analysis
`3.
`Petitioner asserts that independent claim 1 is obvious over Ameerally
`
`and Muller. Pet. 13-54 (citing Exs. 1001, 1004, 1005, 1007). Patent Owner
`
`disagrees that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that independent claim 1 would have been obvious
`
`over Ameerally and Muller. Prelim. Resp. 21-24 (citing Exs. 1001, 1004,
`
`1005, 1007). We agree with Patent Owner.
`
`Independentclaim | recites “creating a computer readable
`
`authorization object by writing into the data store of (a)....” Petitioner
`
`asserts that the following in Muller corresponds to the aforementioned claim
`
`limitation:
`
`Here, the query data response from the media commerce
`server,i.e., the received “query data requested in (d)” of claim 1,
`is written into memory to provide a “computer
`readable
`authorization object.” As described above, the media commerce
`server response (media access response) that contains a media
`content URL, a download key, and a security token, and one or
`more digital media item components 115 that include license
`keys and user account information(i.e., query data) to the client
`computer/mediaplayer(i.e., apparatus of (a)). Alexander Decl.
`(Ex. 1007) at 49 157-160; Ex. 1005, Muller at [0057], [0035].
`The claimed “computer readable authorization object” is
`created when the received media access information anddigital
`media item components 115 are written into the memory of the
`client computer. Alcxander Decl. (Ex. 1007) at 4157. As
`described in Muller, the digital media item components 115 (.e.,
`part of the query data) are stored in the memory ofthe client
`computer(i.e., the data store of (a)). Ex. 1005, Muller at [0036],
`[0040].
`
`Pet. 46-48.
`
`Independent claim 1 then recites “wherein the computer readable
`
`authorization object is processed by the apparatusof (a) using a cross-
`
`EWS-004006
`
`EWS-004006
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`referencing action during subsequent user access requests to determine one
`
`or more of a user access permission for the cloud digital content.” Petitioner
`
`asserts that the following in Muller corresponds to the aforementioned claim
`
`limitation:
`
`Asdescribed above, the computer readable authorization
`is
`represented by the stored media access response
`object
`information, such as a media content URL, a download key, and
`a security token, as well as user account information, licensing
`information, DRM data, etc. that are part of the media access
`response.
`Following the receipt of media access information, the
`client performs a series of “subsequent user access requests to
`retrieve media content files. Alexander Decl. (Ex. 1007) at
`4174. Muller discloses cross referencing when the security
`token and media storage access pointers are used to reference the
`storage locations and retrieve individual digital media content
`items. Id. at § 175; Ex. 1005, Muller at [0035].
`Pet. 52-54. As an initial matter, we discern that the use of the word“the”in
`
`the latter limitation indicates that both limitations are referring to the same
`
`“computer readable authorization object.”
`
`In summary,Petitioner asserts, at various points in the Petition,that
`
`each of the following items in Muller correspondsto the recited “computer
`readable authorization object”: query data response from the media
`commerceserver; media commerceserver response; media access response;
`
`media content URL; a download key; a security token; digital media item
`
`components 115; license keys; user account information; media access
`
`information; media access response information; licensing information;
`
`DRM data; media storage access pointers; media information response;
`
`various combinations of these items; and various combinations of these
`
`items when “written into the memoryofthe client computer.” This listing is
`
`10
`
`EWS-004007
`
`EWS-004007
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`problematic, however,as the Petition, at various points, mentions some of
`
`these items as correspondingto the recited “computer readable authorization
`
`object,” but not others, with no explanation as to whythat is the case.
`
`Furthermore, the Petition does not explain adequately how someofthese
`
`items meet all the requirements of the aforementioned claim limitations for a
`
`“computer readable authorization object.” Because Petitioner treats the
`
`mapping of “computer readable authorization object” in such a diverse and
`
`varied manner, we are unpersuadedthat Petitioner has met its burden of
`_showingthat “the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each
`claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based,
`
`and the evidence that supports the groundsfor the challenge to each claim.”
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Insofar as we can discern from the Petition, no
`
`single “computer readable authorization object” from the prior art has been
`
`identified to account forall the limitations directed to the claimed computer
`
`readable authorization object.
`
`Most prominently, on page 48 of the Petition, Petitioner mentions
`digital media item components 115, and, indeed, only mentionsdigital
`
`media item components 115, as being disclosed in Muller as “stored in the
`memoryofthe client computer(i.e., the data store of(a)),” which is the
`languagein this portionofthe Petition that most closely mirrors the claim
`limitation of “creating a computer readable authorization object by writing
`
`into the data store of (a)....” Pet. 46, 48. Ofall the purportedly stored
`
`items disclosed on pages 47-48ofthe Petition, the Petition only actually
`cites Muller for storing this one item. Later in the Petition, however, with
`
`respect to the recited “wherein the computer readable authorization objectis
`processed by the apparatusof (a)using a cross-referencing action during
`
`i
`
`EWS-004008
`
`EWS-004008
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`subsequent user access requests to determine one or more of a user access
`
`permission for the cloud digital content,” Petitioner does not make any
`mention of digital media item components 115, even though a mention
`would be expected, giventhat the claim, again, recites “computer readable
`
`authorization object.” Pet. 52-54.
`
`Relatedly, in that samelater portion of the Petition, Petitioner asserts
`that the items correspondingto the recited “computer readable authorization
`object” is “used to reference the storage locations andretrieve individual
`digital media content items,” whichis the language in this portion of the
`Petition that most closely mirrors the claim limitation of “wherein the
`computer readable authorization object is processed by the apparatusof(a)
`
`using a cross-referencing action during subsequent user access requests to
`
`determine one or more ofa user access permission for the cloud digital
`
`content.” Jd. at 54. This appears to be the only mention of “digital media
`
`content items,” in at least this portion of the Petition, and Muller also does
`
`not refer to “digital media content items.” See generally Pet.; Ex. 1005.
`
`Muller doesrefer to a “digital media item” that is assembled by merging
`
`digital media item components 115 and digital media contentfiles 117.
`Ex. 1004 4 36. When page 54 ofthe Petition, as informed by the
`aforementioned portion of Muller, is read in conjunction with page 48ofthe
`Petition, however, the resulting claim mappingis that digital media item
`components 115 are used to retrieve .
`.
`. themselves, whichis illogical, and,
`thus, digital media item components 115 cannot correspond properly to the
`
`recited “computer readable authorization object.”
`Other asserted mappings of items in Muller to “computer readable
`authorization object” are also problematic. For example, page 54 of the
`
`12
`
`EWS-004009
`
`EWS-004009
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00793
`Patent 8,887,308
`
`Petition specifically mentions “media storage access pointers” as performing
`the functions required by the recited “computer readable authorization
`object,” while page 48, and, indeed,the rest of the Petition, makes no
`mention of “media storage access pointers”atall.° Furthermore, page 54 of
`the Petition later reads: “One ofordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that retrieval of the digital media components (contentfiles) would require a
`‘de-referencing’ operation, i.e., extracting a pointer from the media
`information response (such as the XML data structure discussed in Muller
`(Ex. 1005 at [0027]) and forming a cross referenced URL identifying the
`data file location. Alexander Decl. (Ex. 1007) at 4177.” Pet. 54. One of the
`itemslisted on pages 47 and 53-54 of the Petition as corresponding to the
`recited “computer readable authorization object” is “media content URL.”
`Petitioner has not explained the difference between “media content URL”
`
`and “cross referenced URL.” Plausibly, the two could be one and the same.
`
`This is relevant, because if “media content URL”is meantto correspondto
`
`the “media storage access pointers” mentioned earlier on page 54 of the
`Petition, Petitioner has not explained adequately how or whya “de-
`referencing” operation, using the “media content URL,”is used to obtain the
`“cross referenced URL,” when, as noted above, the two could plausibly be
`
`one and the same.
`
`In a further example, pages 50-51 of the Petition reads: “The
`
`‘