`By: Isaac Rabicoff (isaac@rabilaw.com)
`Reg. No. 74,147
`Rabicoff Law LLC
`73 W Monroe St
`
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(773) 669-4590
`Kenneth Matuszewski (kenneth@rabilaw.com)
`Reg. No. 74,791
`Rabicoff Law LLC
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM GRECIA
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-00418
`Patent 8,402,555
`
`PATENT OWNER'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EWS-005570
`
`Early Warning Services 1037
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,887,308
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Adobe Systems Incorporated (hereinafter, “Adobe”), admits
`
`I.
`
`
`
`that its Petition recycles a petition previously denied by this Board: the only
`
`difference between the two petitions is that Petitioner adds one new reference
`
`here. Petition, 3 (“While this petition relies on some prior art references
`
`already presented to the Board in MasterCard’s petition [IPR2017-00788], all
`
`proposed grounds in this petition rely on the Venkataramu reference . . . .”).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, William Grecia, respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Adobe failed to introduce
`
`evidence showing that the sole new prior art reference—Venkataramu—was
`
`publicly accessible as of the critical date.
`
`II.
`
`FACTS
`
`
`
`The following facts are taken from the Petition:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`As of October 2, 2008, a student project report by Ramya
`
`Venkataramu titled “Analysis and Enhancement of Apple’s FairPlay Digital
`
`Rights Management,” (hereinafter, the “Venkataramu Report”), was stored on
`
`the San Jose State University web server. Petition, 30 (citing Ex. 1027).
`
`2.
`
`A book citing the Venkataramu Report titled Handbook of
`
`Research on Secure Multimedia Distribution, by Shiguo Lian and Yan Zhang,
`
`EWS-005571
`
`
`
`(hereinafter, the “Shiguo Lian Book”), has a 2009 copyright notice date. Ex.
`
`1016.
`
`3.
`
`A Library of Congress Online Catalog states that the Shiguo Lian
`
`Book was “Published/Created” in 2009. Ex. 1025.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Framework
`
`
`
`Pre-AIA law governs the Petition, and states “[a] person shall be
`
`entitled to a patent unless . . . b) the invention was . . . described in a printed
`
`publication in this . . . country . . . more than one year prior to the date of the
`
`application for patent in the United States . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (1952).
`
`
`
`“To qualify as a printed publication, a reference ‘must have been
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” Blue Calypso, LLC
`
`v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Cronyn,
`
`890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “A reference will be considered
`
`publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the
`
`extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (quoting Kyocera Wireless
`
`Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`EWS-005572
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, “[p]ublic accessibility is a legal conclusion based on
`
`underlying factual determinations.” Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election
`
`Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`B. Adobe Fails to Prove that the Venkataramu Report Was Publicly
`Accessible Before the Critical Date of March 21, 2009.
`
`
`
`
` Adobe asserts that the Venkataramu Report was publicly accessible
`
`because it was saved on a web server on October 2, 2008. Ex. 1027 (Butler
`
`Aff.), ¶ 5 (“The Internet Archive assigns a URL on its site to the archived files
`
`. . . .”); see also id., Ex. A (displaying a copy of a printout showing an archived
`
`file dated October 2, 2008).
`
`
`
`A student’s paper saved on the Internet is not a “printed publication”
`
`under section 102(b). Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348. In Blue Calypso, the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the petitioner failed
`
`to establish “that an interested party exercising reasonable diligence would
`
`have located [the reference].” Id. at 1349.
`
`Mere presence on a web server was not enough, and the Federal Circuit
`
`noted that the petitioner failed to produce evidence showing that the student
`
`paper was viewed or downloaded, or that one of ordinary skill “would be
`
`independently aware of the web address” where the paper was posted. Id.
`
`The Blue Calypso petitioner argued that a search engine would have
`
`uncovered the paper, but the Federal Circuit confined itself to the record. Id.
`
`EWS-005573
`
`
`
`at 1350. (“The record is devoid of any evidence that a query of a search engine
`
`before the critical date, using any combination of search words, would have
`
`led to [the reference] appearing in the search results.”).
`
`Here, Adobe’s only evidence is a single private web server backup.
`
`Such evidence lacks the necessary basis to hold that one of ordinary skill,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, would have located the Venkataramu Report
`
`before the critical date, March 21, 2009. Adobe also does not show that that
`
`the Venkataramu Report was viewed or downloaded before March 21, 2009.
`
`Petition, 30. Nor does Adobe show or attempt to show that an interested party
`
`would have been independently aware of the San Jose State University
`
`website as of March 21, 2009. Id. Adobe further fails to produce evidence
`
`showing that before March 21, 2009, one of ordinary skill could have—with
`
`reasonable diligence—discovered the Venkataramu Report through queries in
`
`a search engine. Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit rejected the argument that a reference must be
`
`searchable on the Internet as an “absolute prerequisite.” Voter Verified, 698
`
`F.3d at 1380. In Voter Verified, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s
`
`holding that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and
`
`therefore prior art under section 102(b). Id. Although the record there failed
`
`to establish that the reference was searchable on the Internet, the Federal
`
`EWS-005574
`
`
`
`Circuit held that the “ultimate question” was whether the reference would
`
`have been accessible to one of ordinary skill upon a reasonably diligent
`
`search. Id. The record also included unrebutted testimony that the reference
`
`was posted on a website “well known to the community interested” in the field
`
`of invention. Id. at 1380-81. Users of the website could also copy its contents.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`Here, there is no evidence in the record regarding the San Jose State
`
`University website. As a result, the record Adobe produced does not provide
`
`a basis to determine that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been
`
`independently aware” of the San Jose State University website “as a
`
`prominent forum for discussing such technologies.” Voter Verified, 698 F.3d
`
`at 1381.
`
`
`
`In sum, Adobe failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that the
`
`Venkataramu Report was publicly accessible before the critical date of March
`
`21, 2009. Therefore, the Venkataramu Report does not qualify as prior art
`
`under section 102(b).
`
`C. Adobe Fails to Prove that the Shiguo Lian Book Was Publicly
`Accessible Before the Critical Date of March 21, 2009.
`
`
`
`Adobe produced no evidence in its petition supporting the assertion that
`
`the Shiguo Lian Book, which cites Venkataramu, was “published on February
`
`26, 2009 . . . .” Petition, 30 n.3. Instead, Adobe included a cover page from
`
`EWS-005575
`
`
`
`the Shiguo Lian Book, which bears a 2009 copyright notice, Ex. 1016, and a
`
`printed copy of a Library of Congress Online Catalog showing that the Shiguo
`
`Lian Book was “Published/Created” in 2009. Ex. 1025.
`
`
`
`The 2009 copyright notice does not demonstrate that the Shiguo Lian
`
`Book was publicly accessible in 2009. Instead,
`
`A copyright notice informs the public that copyright
`protection is claimed, identifies the copyright
`owner, and states
`the asserted year of first
`publication. 17 U.S.C. § 401. . . . It . . . does not
`establish when a document was publicly accessible
`under patent law.
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc., Case IPR2015-00677,
`
`2015 WL 5190757, *12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2015); see also Servicenow, Inc. v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, 2015 WL 5117887, *8 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Aug. 26, 2015) (noting that a different panel found a copyright notice prima
`
`facie evidence of publication but declining to hold “the presence of a
`
`copyright notice, without more, is sufficient evidence of public accessibility
`
`as of a particular date.”).
`
`
`
`Here, Adobe presents no evidence beyond the 2009 copyright notice
`
`and indication from the Library of Congress that the Shiguo Lian Book was
`
`“Published/Created” in 2009. Exs. 1016, 1025. At best, this record establishes
`
`that the Shiguo Lian Book was claimed as an owned publication some time in
`
`EWS-005576
`
`
`
`2009. Adobe provides no accompanying evidence to prove the Shiguo Lian
`
`Book was published and publicly accessible before March 21, 2009.
`
`
`
`Therefore, Adobe failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that the
`
`Venkataramu Report, as cited in the Shiguo Lian Book, was publicly
`
`accessible before the critical date of March 21, 2009. For this reason, too, the
`
`Venkataramu Report does not qualify as prior art under section 102(b).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Isaac Rabicoff/
`Isaac Rabicoff
`Reg. No. 74,147
`Kenneth Matuszewski
`Reg. No. 74,791
`Rabicoff Law LLC
`73 W Monroe St
`
`Chicago, IL 60603
`isaac@rabilaw.com
`kenneth@rabilaw.com
`(773) 669-4590
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EWS-005577
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`It is hereby certified that on April 3, 2018, a copy of the foregoing
`
`document was served via Electronic Mail upon the following:
`
`James F. Valentine, Adobe-Grecia-IPR@perkinscoie.com
`Reg. No. 39,053
`Perkins Coie LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 838-4300
`Fax: (650) 838-4350
`
`Matthew J. Moffa, Adobe-Grecia-IPR@perkinscoie.com
` Reg. No. 58,860
`Perkins Coie LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 838-4300
`Fax: (650) 838-4350
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Isaac Rabicoff/
`Isaac Rabicoff
`Reg. No. 74,147
`Rabicoff Law LLC
`73 W Monroe St
`
`Chicago, IL 60603
`isaac@rabilaw.com
`(773) 669-4590
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EWS-005578
`
`