UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM GRECIA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2018-00418
`Patent No. 8,402,555
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,402,555
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`January 4, 2018
`
`
`
`EWS-007045
`
`Early Warning Services 1050
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,308
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 1
`A.
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`1.
`Lawsuits and Appeals ................................................................ 2
`2.
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review ............................................... 2
`3.
`Summary of Prior MasterCard Petition ..................................... 3
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information ......................................... 5
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................... 6
`A.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 6
`B.
`Identification of Challenge ................................................................... 7
`1.
`Claims Challenged ..................................................................... 7
`2.
`The Prior Art .............................................................................. 7
`3.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ................................... 8
`4.
`Supporting Evidence .................................................................. 8
`5.
`Statutory Grounds ...................................................................... 8
`6.
`How Claims Are Unpatentable .................................................. 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’555 PATENT ........................................................... 9
`A.
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 9
`B.
`State of the Art Before the ’555 Patent ................................................ 9
`C.
`Summary of the ’555 Patent ............................................................... 11
`D.
`Summary of the ’555 Patent File History .......................................... 12
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 13
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................. 13
`A.
` “metadata of the encrypted digital media” ........................................ 14
`B.
`“[the request comprising a membership verification token pro-
`vided by a first user,] corresponding to the encrypted digital
`media”................................................................................................. 15
` “verified web service” ....................................................................... 16
`
`V.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`EWS-007046
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`D.
`
`“the branding request is a request from one or more secondary
`users” .................................................................................................. 16
`Various “Modules” in Claims 12 and 26 ........................................... 17
`1. Modules Practiced on Server Device ....................................... 19
`a.
`“first receipt module” (Claim 12) .................................. 19
`b.
`“authentication module” (Claim 12) ............................. 20
`c.
`“connection module” (Claim 12) ................................... 20
`d.
`“request module” (Claim 12) ......................................... 20
`e.
`“second receipt module” (Claim 12) ............................. 21
`f.
`“branding module” (Claim 12) ...................................... 21
`g.
`“customization module” (Claim 26) .............................. 22
`h.
`“database module” (Claim 26) ...................................... 22
`i.
`“encryption module” (Claim 26) ................................... 23
`2. Modules Practiced on a Data Processing Device .................... 23
`a.
`“selection module” (Claim 26) ...................................... 23
`b.
`“password module” (Claim 26) ..................................... 24
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’555 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................... 24
`A.
`Identification and Overview of Key Prior Art References ................ 24
`1.
`Ameerally (Ex.1004) ................................................................ 25
`2.
`Gautier (Ex.1005) ..................................................................... 26
`3.
`Frakes (Ex.1006) ...................................................................... 27
`4.
`Venkataramu (Ex.1007) ........................................................... 30
`5.
`Zweig (Ex.1008) ...................................................................... 32
`6.
`Kondrk (Ex.1009) .................................................................... 34
`7.
`Linking to iTunes (Ex.1010) .................................................... 34
`8. Modifying Content in iTunes (Ex.1011) .................................. 34
`B. Motivation to Combine References ................................................... 34
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`EWS-007047
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8-22, and 24-25 Are Rendered Obvious
`by Ameerally, Gautier, Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ................. 38
`1.
`Claim 1 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 38
`Claim 2 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 50
`Claim 3 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 51
`Claim 4 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 52
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 53
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 53
`Claim 8 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 54
`Claim 9 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 54
`Claim 10 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 55
`10. Claim 11 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 56
`11. Claim 12 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 57
`12. Claim 13 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 63
`13. Claim 14 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 63
`14. Claim 15 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 63
`15. Claim 16 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 63
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`EWS-007048
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`16. Claim 17 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 63
`17. Claim 18 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 64
`18. Claim 19 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 64
`19. Claim 20 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 65
`20. Claim 21 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 65
`21. Claim 22 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 65
`22. Claim 24 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 65
`23. Claim 25 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu ............................................ 65
`D. Ground 2: Claims 7 and 23 Are Rendered Obvious by Ameeral-
`ly, Gautier, Frakes, Zweig, Venkataramu, and Linking to
`iTunes ................................................................................................. 66
`1.
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, Venkataramu, and Linking to iTunes ............. 66
`Claim 23 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig, Venkataramu, and Linking to iTunes ............. 67
`Ground 3: Claim 26 Is Rendered Obvious by Ameerally, Gau-
`tier, Frakes, Zweig, Venkataramu, Kondrk, and Modifying
`Content in iTunes ............................................................................... 67
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`EWS-007049
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 35
`
`ClassCo v. Apple, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Cloud Farm Assocs. LP v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`674 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 18
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
`673 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 17
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F. 3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................... 14
`
`In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`504 F. 3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 14
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 68
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 35
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00898 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2017) ............................................................... 5
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Info USA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00584 (PTAB Dec. 31, 2013) ............................................................... 6
`
`Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00172 (PTAB July 28, 2014) .......................................................passim
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`EWS-007050
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 17
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 17
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 18, 67
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ................................................................................................ 1, 8, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ...................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ...................................................................................................... 5, 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`EWS-007051
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`EWS-007052
`
`

`

`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 entitled Personalized Digital Media
`Access System (PDMAS) to William Grecia (“the ’555 Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin and Appendices A-N
`
`Appendices O-AT to the Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0212401
`(“Ameerally”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0021478 (“Gautier”)
`
`Dan Frakes, First Look: iTunes Digital Copy, MacWorld.com (Jan.
`22, 2008),
`http://web.archive.org/web/20080124013853/http:/www.macworld.c
`om/article/1 31751/2008/01/digitalcopy.html (“Frakes”)
`
`Ramya Venkataramu, Analysis and Enhancement of Apple’s
`FairPlay Digital Rights Management (May 2007) (“Venkataramu”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0233606 (“Zweig”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0254883 (“Kondrk”)
`
`Linking to the iTunes Music Store, iTunes Store External
`Documentation, version 1.2 (Dec. 7, 2009),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20091229030540/http://images.apple.co
`m/itunesaffiliates/US/2009/Document/LinktoiTune.pdf (“Linking to
`iTunes”)
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Tony Bove and Cheryl Rhodes, Chapter 20: Enhancing Your iTunes
`Library, iPod & iTunes for Dummies, 4th Edition (2006)
`(“Modifying Content in iTunes”)
`
`Ex.1012
`
`List of Active and Terminated Lawsuits and Appeals Involving U.S.
`Patent Nos. 8,402,555; 8,533,860; or 8,887,308
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Joint Stipulation, Grecia v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 4:16-cv-6283-
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`EWS-007053
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`YGR , Docket No. 16 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017)
`
`Joint Stipulation, Grecia v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 4:16-cv-6283-
`YGR , Docket No. 30 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)
`
`Declaration of Laura Tognoli
`
`Shiguo Lian and Yan Zhang, Chapter VIII P2PTunes: A Peer-to-
`Peer Digital Rights Management System, Handbook of Research on
`Secure Multimedia Distribution (2009)
`
`Exhibit 7 (Deposition Transcript Excerpts) to Defendants’ Claim
`Construction Brief, Grecia v. MasterCard Int’l Inc., No. 1:15-cv-
`9059-RJS, Docket No. 68-7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017)
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Grecia v. MasterCard
`Int’l Inc., No. 1:15-cv-9059-RJS, Docket No. 65 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23,
`2017)
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Grecia v. MasterCard
`Int’l Inc., No. 1:15-cv-9059-RJS, Docket No. 69 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28,
`2017)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. William
`Grecia, IPR2017-00788, Paper 1 (Jan. 27, 2017)
`
`PTAB Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Mas-
`terCard Int’l Inc. v. William Grecia, IPR2017-00788, Paper 7 (July
`5, 2017)
`
`PTAB Institution Decision Regarding Inter Partes Review, Unified
`Patents Inc. v. William Grecia, IPR2016-00789, Paper 8 (Sept. 9,
`2016)
`
`PTAB Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review, MasterCard Int’l
`Inc. v. William Grecia, IPR2017-00791, Paper 7 (July 5, 2017)
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record for iPod & iTunes for Dum-
`mies, 4th Edition (2006)
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`EWS-007054
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`Library of Congress Catalog Record for Handbook of Research on
`Secure Multimedia Distribution (2009)
`
`Declaration of Amisha Manek
`
`Declaration of Christopher Butler attaching Internet Archive
`printouts from “Analysis and Enhancement of Apple’s FairPlay Dig-
`ital Rights Management” by Ramya Venkataramu,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20081002140457/http://www.cs.sjsu.ed
`u/faculty/stamp/students/RamyaVenkataramu_CS298Report.pdf;
`“First Look: iTunes Digital Copy” by Dan Frakes on
`www.macworld.com,
`http://web.archive.org/web/20080124013853/http://www.macworld.
`com/article/1 31751/2008/01/digitalcopy.html; Linking to the iTunes
`Music Store, iTunes Store External Documentation, version 1.2,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20091229030540/http://images.apple.co
`m/itunesaffiliates/US/2009/Document/LinktoiTune.pdf.
`
`Ex.1028
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`EWS-007055
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Adobe Systems
`
`Incorporated (“Adobe” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`Claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,555 (“the ’555 Patent,” Ex.1001).
`
`5
`
`This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`establish invalidity of at least one (indeed, all) of the challenged claims based on
`
`the following grounds and references.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Grounds
`
`References
`
`Claims 1-6, 8-22,
`24-25
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 7 and 23
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claim 26
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig and
`Venkataramu
`
`Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig,
`Venkataramu, and Linking
`to iTunes
`
`Ameerally, Gautier,
`Frakes, Zweig,
`Venkataramu, Kondrk, and
`Modifying Content in
`iTunes
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Petitioner Adobe is the only real party in interest for Petitioner.
`
`10
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ’555 Patent is a parent of continuation U.S. Patent No. 8,533,860
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`EWS-007056
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`(“the ’860 Patent”), which is itself a parent of continuation U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,887,308 (“the ’308 Patent”).
`
`Lawsuits and Appeals
`
`1.
`The ’555 and ’860 Patents are asserted against Adobe in Grecia v. Adobe
`
`5
`
`Systems Incorporated, 4:16-cv-06283-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Patent owner William
`
`Grecia (“Grecia”) served the complaint on Adobe on January 5, 2017. Petitioner is
`
`contemporaneously filing a petition for IPR of Claims 9-10 and 21-30 of the ’860
`
`Patent.
`
`There are presently eight other active lawsuits or appeals involving one or
`
`10
`
`more of the ’860, ’555, or ’308 Patents, along with 47 terminated suits, all as set
`
`forth in Ex.1012.
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`2.
`A petition for IPR of the ’555 Patent was filed by Unified Patents, Inc. on
`
`March 22, 2016 (IPR2016-00789). The Board denied that petition on September 9,
`
`15
`
`2016.
`
`Petitions for IPR of the ’555, ’860, and ’308 Patents were filed by American
`
`Express on January 28, 2017 (IPR2017-00799, IPR2017-00801, IPR2017-00797,
`
`respectively). The parties jointly moved to terminate these petitions on April 10,
`
`2017, before any institution decision had issued.
`
`20
`
`MasterCard International Incorporated (“MasterCard”) filed petitions for
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`EWS-007057
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`IPR of the ’555 and ’308 Patents on January 27, 2017 (IPR2017-00788 and
`
`IPR2017-00793, respectively). The Board denied those petitions in their entirety
`
`on July 3.
`
`MasterCard also filed a petition for IPR of the ’860 Patent on January 27,
`
`5
`
`2017 (IPR2017-00791) applying references presented in the instant petition. On
`
`July 5, the Board instituted trial with respect to Claims 1-8 and 11-20 of the ’860
`
`Patent. However, on September 18, Grecia moved for adverse judgment on all
`
`instituted claims. The Board granted Grecia’s request and terminated proceedings.
`
`Summary of Prior MasterCard Petition
`
`3.
`MasterCard’s petition for IPR of the ’555 Patent, which the Board denied in
`
`10
`
`its entirety, presented multiple grounds based on primary references describing the
`
`operation of Apple Computer Inc.’s (“Apple”) iTunes digital media system,
`
`including Ameerally, Gautier, Frakes, and Zweig. IPR2017-00788, Paper 1
`
`(Ex.1020) at 31. While this petition relies on some prior art references already
`
`15
`
`presented to the Board in MasterCard’s petition, all proposed grounds in this
`
`petition rely on the Venkataramu reference, which has not been presented to the
`
`Board as prior art for the ’555 Patent. Therefore, this Petition presents grounds
`
`never before seen by the Board.
`
`The key reason the Board denied institution with respect to the ’555 Patent
`
`20
`
`was that the prior art references relied upon by MasterCard did not meet the claim
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`EWS-007058
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`limitation requiring “branding metadata of the encrypted digital media by writing
`
`the membership verification token and the electronic identification reference into
`
`the metadata,” as required in all claims. IPR2017-00788, Paper 7 (Ex.1021) at 32-
`
`33. The Board found that MasterCard had failed to make a connection between the
`
`5
`
`“electronic identification reference” of the branding operation and the “electronic
`
`identification reference” of the already recited requesting and receiving operations.
`
`(Id. 30-31.) As explained in section VI below, this petition cures MasterCard’s
`
`error by relying on Venkataramu as prior art. Venkataramu shows that the
`
`“electronic identification reference,” in this case the iTunes user ID, is written or
`
`10
`
`“branded” into the metadata of the encrypted digital file.
`
`The Board had an additional reason for denying institution of Claims 12 and
`
`26: MasterCard’s failure to properly address the means-plus-function limitations
`
`recited as “modules” in those claims. (Id. at 34-36.) Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3), MasterCard was required, but failed, to show the specific structures
`
`15
`
`in the ’555 Patent specification corresponding to the claimed functions of the
`
`“modules.” Petitioner identifies the functions performed by each module, and the
`
`structures corresponding thereto, in section V below. MasterCard also failed to
`
`identify specific structural elements in the prior art that correspond to each
`
`“module,” which Petitioner does in section VI below.
`
`20
`
`The instant petition resolves deficiencies in MasterCard’s Petitions by curing
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`EWS-007059
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`MasterCard’s procedural errors and by presenting new grounds based on new prior
`
`art references.1 For these reasons, Petitioner maintains that the Board should not
`
`deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the same or substantially
`
`same prior art or arguments were not previously before the PTAB. See Microsoft
`
`5
`
`Corp. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., IPR2017-00898, 2017 WL 4012054, at *3 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 11, 2017) (refusing to exercise discretion under § 325(d) because petitioner
`
`was not party to prior IPR proceeding and because petition asserted obviousness in
`
`view of at least one reference not at issue in the previous proceeding.)
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`10
`
`appoints JAMES F. VALENTINE (Reg. No. 39,053) as its lead counsel and
`
`MATTHEW J. MOFFA (Reg. No. 58,860) as its back-up counsel. Both can be
`
`reached by mail at Perkins Coie LLP, 3150 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California
`
`94304; by phone at (650) 838-4300; by fax at (650) 838-4350; and at the following
`
`15
`
`email for service and all communications:
`
`Adobe-Grecia-IPR@perkinscoie.com.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service. Petitioner has executed and is
`
`1 Adobe has had no discussions with MasterCard or any other prior petition-
`
`er, their counsel, or their experts in connection with the preparation or prosecution
`
`of this or any prior petition.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`EWS-007060
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`concurrently filing a Power of Attorney appointing the above designated counsel.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105, and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`5
`
`date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`Standing
`
`A.
`Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’555 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the
`
`claims of the ’555 Patent. Petitioner has standing, or meets all requirements, to file
`
`10
`
`this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), and 315(e)(1), and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102.
`
`Adobe was first sued for infringement of the ’555 and ’860 Patents on
`
`November 30, 2015 in Grecia v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 3:15-cv-5474 (N.D. Cal.). No
`
`complaint was ever served on Adobe and the suit was voluntarily dismissed by
`
`15
`
`Grecia without prejudice on February 25, 2016, thus creating no bar to institution
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See Macauto U.S.A. v BOS GMBH & KG, IPR2012-
`
`00004, Paper 18 at 14-16 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013); accord Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v.
`
`Automated Creel Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00584, 2013 WL 8595536, at *6 (PTAB Dec.
`
`31, 2013).
`
`20
`
`Adobe was again sued for infringement of the ’555 and ’860 Patents on
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`EWS-007061
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`October 31, 2016 and was served with the complaint on January 5, 2017. See
`
`Grecia v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 4:16-cv-6283-YGR (N.D. Cal.), D.I. 16 (Ex.1013) (Joint
`
`stipulation, signed by Grecia’s counsel, stipulating inter alia that “Grecia served
`
`his complaint in this action on Adobe on January 5, 2017”); see also D.I. 30
`
`5
`
`(Ex.1014) (same); Declaration of Laura Tognoli (Ex.1015 ¶3). No proof of service
`
`of this complaint and related summons has been filed with the Court, but even if
`
`arguendo the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) began to run on January 5,
`
`10
`
`15
`
`2017, Adobe’s petition is timely.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioner is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1-26 of the ’555 Patent
`
`and cancel those claims because they are invalid.
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1.
`Claims 1-26 of the ’555 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`2.
`Claims 1-6, 8-22, and 24-25 are challenged as obvious under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Ameerally, Gautier, Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu.
`
`Claims 7 and 23 are challenged as obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Ameerally, Gautier, Frakes, Zweig, Venkataramu, and Linking to iTunes.
`
`20
`
`Claim 26 is challenged as obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Ameerally, Gautier, Frakes, Zweig, and Venkataramu, Kondrk, and Modifying
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`EWS-007062
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`Content in iTunes. Full names of the prior art references are identified below and
`
`in the Exhibit List. None of these references were on record during examination of
`
`the ’555 Patent.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`3.
`Petitioner authorizes the Director to charge any fees required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`5
`
`42.15(a) and not submitted with the Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-0665,
`
`charge number 088248.0068.
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`4.
`The Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin and other evidence supporting the
`
`10
`
`Petition are identified in the Exhibit List.
`
`Statutory Grounds
`
`5.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), the review of patentability of Claims
`
`1-26 of the ’555 Patent is governed by 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in effect before
`
`March 16, 2013. Statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 325 that took
`
`15
`
`effect on September 16, 2012 govern this IPR.
`
`6. How Claims Are Unpatentable
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), Section VI of this Petition provides an
`
`explanation of how Claims 1-26 of the ’555 Patent are unpatentable, including the
`
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the cited prior art.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`EWS-007063
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’555 PATENT
`A.
`Priority Date
`Application serial no. 13/397,517, which became the ‘555 Patent, was filed
`
`on February 15, 2012, as a continuation of application serial no. 12/985,351, filed
`
`5
`
`January 6, 2011 (abandoned), which in turn was filed as a continuation of
`
`application no. 12/728,218, filed March 21, 2010 (abandoned).
`
`During prosecution of the ’555 Patent, applicant tried to use provisional
`
`application no. 61/303,292, filed February 10, 2010, to swear behind prior art.
`
`While Petitioner does not believe that the ’555 Patent is entitled to an invention
`
`10
`
`date of February 10, 2010, for purposes of this Petition, it is assumed that the ’555
`
`Patent is so entitled. Nonetheless, because Petitioner relies only on references
`
`published before that date, the Board need not determine exact priority dates.
`
`State of the Art Before the ’555 Patent
`
`B.
`By the late 90s, as high-speed networks became commercially available,
`
`15
`
`users were able to access and consume significantly more digital content.
`
`(Ex.1002 ¶40.) However, commercial content providers were concerned that
`
`digital content they sold would end up on file-sharing networks, and as a result,
`
`DRM schemes were designed to restrict how end-users accessed and played the
`
`media. (Id. ¶¶42-43.)
`
`20
`
`To encourage adoption of DRM-protected content, digital content providers
`
`had to balance their interest in securing content with consumers’ interest in flexible
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`EWS-007064
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,555
`
`and convenient access to content. (Id. ¶¶47-50.) One of the first large online
`
`content providers to successfully