Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: February 7, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: December 9, 2021
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: February 7, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: December 9, 2021
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`HARPER BATTS, ESQ.
`JONATHAN DEFOSSE, ESQ.
`Sheppard Mullin
`Four Embarcadero Center
`Seventeenth Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(650) 815-2673
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DANIEL YOUNG, ESQ.
`Adsero IP
`8210 SouthPark Terrace
`Littleton, CO 80120
`(303) 268-0066
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`December 9, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: This is a final hearing in IPR 2020-01423
`involving Patent 6,341,375, Netflix, Inc. v. Broadcom
`Corporation. I'm Judge Giannetti. I will be presiding at the
`hearing, and with me are Vice Chief Judge Haapala and Judge
`Worth. That will be your panel for the hearing today.
` Counsel, may I have your appearances? Let's start
`with the petitioner.
` MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor. Harper Batts for
`petitioner and with me is my colleague, Jonathan DeFosse.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. I'm having a little
`trouble hearing you. It's Mr. -- what's your last name, sir?
` MR. BATTS: Batts.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
` MR. BATTS: Can you hear me now?
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes. Just spell your last name
`for me, would you?
` MR. BATTS: B-A-T-T-S.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Batts. All right. Thanks, Mr.
`Batts. You're not as clear as you could be. Are you using a
`headset?
` MR. BATTS: I am not. I'm using my webcam
`operation that I usually do for all these hearings.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Well, we'll do the best we
`can but you're not as clear as you could be.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
` Let's get the patent owner's appearance. Who is
`appearing for the patent owner?
` MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Dan Young
`from Adsero IP on behalf of Broadcom Corporation. With me in
`the room is our senior paralegal Tara Damhoff, and on the
`public line is Amanda Swaim, in-house counsel for Broadcom.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. All right. Thank you very
`much, counsel. And I've already introduced the panel. Let's
`talk a little bit about the hearing today. We are obviously
`appearing remotely and that raises some challenges for us. If
`anything happens, if you lose connectivity, or can't hear, or
`can't see, your video goes out, please let us know. Our
`principal goal here is to make sure that you have a full
`opportunity to present your cases and that the board has an
`opportunity to hear you and to see you and to see your
`demonstratives. So let us know right away if anything happens
`that prevents you from communicating with us.
` The second request is that when you are not
`speaking please mute yourself so that we don't pick up
`anything in the background that might distract from someone
`else's presentation. When you begin to speak you should
`identify yourself. I think as the hearing goes on we probably
`will be able to recognize voices but at least initially and
`probably throughout the hearing it would be a good practice
`when you're going to make a presentation or speak for any
`length of time, please identify yourself.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
` We have the whole record in front of us. We have
`your demonstratives and all of the papers that you've filed.
`If you do refer to any papers, if you do refer to any
`demonstratives, we would request that you identify it by
`number so that we can find it in our record, electronic
`record, and to follow along with your presentation.
` We've allowed 60 minutes per side, forargument.
`Each side will have an opportunity to present its argument
`starting with petitioner followed by the patent owner. The
`petitioner may reserve a reasonable amount of time for a
`rebuttal argument and, likewise, the patent owner may reserve
`a reasonable amount of time for a rebuttal or a surrebuttal
`argument. When we do end the hearing -- and I'll be keeping
`time. I will try to keep -- we don't have the same
`arrangement that we would in a hearing room where the lights
`give you warning, but I'll try to give you a two-minute
`warning when you get to the end of your time and let you know
`that time is running out and you should start summing up your
`argument. I'll try to do that as best I can.
` When the hearing ends we would appreciate it if
`you'd stay on the line for a few minutes to give the court
`reporter a chance to ask any questions about pronunciations or
`spellings of words. The court reporter has your
`demonstratives and will be able to pick up some of that from
`the demonstratives but there may be some questions. We want
`to make sure that we have an accurate transcript.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
` The record of this proceeding will be the
`transcript. Your demonstratives are not evidence so if you
`want an argument to be in the record don't rely on what is
`said in your demonstratives. Make sure that you put that
`argument in the record of the hearing.
` So I think that's it from our side. Any questions
`from counsel? Mr. Batts, any questions for petitioner?
` MR. BATTS: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Any questions from the
`patent owner?
` MR. YOUNG: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Fine. I think we're ready
`to begin. Let me just check here. Okay. So Mr. Batts,
`you'll be making the presentation for the patent owner; is
`that correct?
` MR. BATTS: For petitioner, Your Honor, yes.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: For petitioner, yes. I'm sorry.
`Yes, Mr. Batts. Do you want to reserve time for rebuttal?
` MR. BATTS: Yes. I'd like to reserve 20 minutes
`please, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. All right. Let me just
`make a note here. Okay. So Mr. Batts, when you're ready to
`go -- when you're ready to go you may proceed.
` MR. BATTS: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll
`start -- this is Harper Batts on behalf of petitioner Netflix
`and I'd like to start briefly on slide 2 just to remind the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`panel that this is an IPR involving three instituted grounds.
`Each of those grounds include the Baker reference as the
`primary reference.
` And if we turn to slide 17, slide 17 lays out what
`we see as the remaining disputes in this proceeding and I'm
`going to address first the dispute of what is the proper
`construction for the term drive server and whether drive
`server is taught by Baker's video library.
` And if we turn to slide 19 we see the two competing
`constructions between petitioner's construction and patent
`owner's construction. Petitioner's construction, a device
`that provides centralized storage services to a VOD system, was
`largely adopted at the institution decision with the exception
`of the term centralized. And I believe that it is not
`necessary for the board, whether it's under the board's
`modified construction or petitioner's original construction,
`either way Baker clearly satisfies this construction.
` In contrast, patent owner is arguing the
`construction that essentially requires that the drive server
`be a computer and have processing capabilities. And I would
`note here that the term drive server, both side's experts
`agree that the term drive server was not a commonly used term
`in 1999.
` But if we go through, and I'm going to start at
`slide 20, if we go through the Phillips analysis here starting
`with the claims, then the specification, then the file history
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`and extrinsic evidence what we see is that petitioner's
`construction or the board's construction is the correct
`construction and patent owner's construction should be
`rejected. So starting at slide 20 we see that the claim
`language provides an explanation of the function of a drive
`server. The function of the drive server is to present
`compressed data streams in response to control signals. And
`we have the corresponding language in the summary of invention
`from the specification here that explains that same function
`for a drive server.
` Turning to slide 21 what we see is that in a
`preferred embodiment, figure 2 in the 375 patent, that 375
`patent shows that that function of the drive server is
`performed by storage devices that provide a source of --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, let me just -- let me
`just interrupt you here. This is an apparatus claim, isn't
`it?
` MR. BATTS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So why focus on the function?
`Why not focus on the structure? I mean isn't that the way an
`apparatus -- unless it's a means plus function claim shouldn't
`we be focusing on the structure of the claimed element, not
`its function?
` MR. BATTS: Well, both I believe, Your Honor,
`because we should look at what is the structure that is
`performing that function to confirm that we're correct in our
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`construction that a drive -- what is a drive server, what can
`be a drive server? And clearly the claim language is saying
`what is a driver server is a -- a drive server is something
`that responds to control signals from a control server to send
`the data. And what we see on slide 21 is that in a preferred
`embodiment, figure 2, it states clearly in the specification
`that the disk library 104 is what is -- it says generally
`comprises one or more DVD drives and associated disks that
`present one or more signals to the server 102.
` JUDGE HAAPALA: Mr. Batts.
` MR. BATTS: Yes.
` JUDGE HAAPALA: The cited portion of the
`specification describes a disk library and not a drive server.
`Can you please explain your arguments why the disk library is
`a drive server?
` MR. BATTS: Sure. Because going -- if you look at
`the figure, figure 2, the patent repeatedly refers to three
`components for this invention: the drive server, the control
`server, and the decoders. And if you look -- and that's like,
`for example, the summary of invention right at the beginning
`on column 1, lines 55 through 57. And what you see in the
`preferred embodiment, they're saying there has -- you have
`these three components and you have the component 102 which is
`the PC server, the control server, and you have the decoders
`on the right-hand side there, and then you have the drive
`server. And what is the drive server? Well, it's box 104.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`And why do we know that? Because, as I was saying earlier,
`you see it's confirmed by the fact that it has the same
`function that's being explained in the claims. Mainly it's
`where the data is being stored and it's the device that's
`receiving a signal from the control signal from which the data
`is being received and then transmitted to the decoders.
` JUDGE HAAPALA: Does the 375 patent use the term
`drive server anywhere other than the claims, abstract, and
`summary? Anywhere in the detailed description is what I
`should say.
` MR. BATTS: Well, it certainly does in the summary
`of the invention. But I don't believe that was your question.
`And there is the use of the term DVD drive server and DVD ROM
`server in columns 3 and 4, but not just the term drive server
`itself.
` JUDGE HAAPALA: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. BATTS: And so if we go to slide 22 what we see
`is that patent owner -- patent owner is contending that under
`its construction of drive server that preferred embodiment,
`figure 2 that we just discussed, would not be covered by the
`claims. And we have there both their opinion statement and
`their expert's declaration as well as his confirmation at the
`deposition that their contention is that a preferred
`embodiment should be excluded from the challenged claims. And
`we know on slide 23, I'm not going to spend too much time on
`it, but there's numerous cases out there that say it's rare,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`if ever, that a preferred embodiment should be excluded from
`the claims.
` And I think also what's notable -- and I'll just
`jump real quickly to slide 74 -- that this is inconsistent
`with patent owner's previous representations in the claim
`construction briefing from a prior case that we cited as
`Exhibit 1016 where patent owner previously contended before
`this IPR was filed that the present invention should -- for
`drive server should not be limited to DVD drives. So now not
`only are they saying it should be limited but it should be
`limited to exclude DVD drives. So they're both taking a much
`narrow interpretation, and if we look at slide 75, we see that
`they continually said this should be a general term. It has a
`very broad meaning. And now they're saying, well, no, no, no,
`it's an extremely limited meaning. So there should be an
`estoppel effect here but at a minimum it shows an inconsistent
`position by Broadcom, the patent owner, as to the scope of the
`term drive server.
` And if we go to slide 26 what we see also is that
`it's not just figure 2 that -- the embodiment of figure 2 that
`they're saying is excluded under their construction of drive
`server. They're also saying that for -- we have figure 3 and
`we have figure 3 where you have that language I'm going to
`read at the top left there that's highlighted that talks about
`a number of source devices, 104a through 104n, are shown
`presented to the server. So again, to the control server 102.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`And it explains that one of the source devices, 104a, may be a
`DVD ROM server as shown in figure 1.
` Well, I think the parties agree that there's
`clearly a typo as to what figure is discussing. It can't be
`figure 1. And I think it's also clear that if we look at the
`context here and looking at figure 3, we see that figure 3 is
`just a slightly modified version of figure 2, and figure 3 is
`simply showing on the left-hand side that instead of a single
`source device you have source devices 104a through 104n in
`contrast to the DVD ROM drives and disks 104 at figure 2.
` And if we go to slide 27 what we see is again
`patent owner is arguing here that, and their expert said in
`his deposition, that you would have to exclude devices 104a
`through 104n of figure 3 with their construction and that is
`directly contrary -- not only is it wrong, but it's again
`directly contrary to their arguments that I just cited to in
`the slides regarding their briefing in the prior Amazon
`dispute.
` Now if we go to slide 28 we also see that -- I'm
`sorry. Is there a question?
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes. Counsel, before we leave
`that point, I mean isn't it possible for a claim to be
`directed to embodiment A? Let's say the patent discloses to
`embodiments A and B. Isn't it possible that one claim -- a
`claim could be directed to embodiment A and not to embodiment
`B? I mean that's perfectly acceptable, isn't it?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
` MR. BATTS: Yes, it's perfectly acceptable, Your
`Honor. But the problem here is what embodiment are we left
`with --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Why shouldn't we accept that
`argument here?
` MR. BATTS: Because what their argument is is that
`no embodiment would satisfy the claim including a preferred
`embodiment. And as I cited in the case law, rarely, if ever,
`are you going to have a claim that excludes a preferred
`embodiment and they're running away from all embodiments.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So including the figure 1
`embodiment?
` MR. BATTS: Sorry, Your Honor? I didn't hear that.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: I mean is it your claim -- I
`guess we're going to hear from the other side on this, but I
`think your point is that there's a concession here in the
`record that none of the embodiments in the patent are covered
`by the claims as they construe them?
` MR. BATTS: I believe that's correct. And I want
`to clarify, figure 1 is the conventional architecture. It is
`not the architecture of -- I don't think either side is
`arguing that figure 1 covers the claim.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
` MR. BATTS: It's the conventional architecture of
`the system.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: The figure 2 -- so it would be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`what, the figure 2 embodiment, figure 3 embodiment?
` MR. BATTS: So figure 2 is a preferred embodiment
`that they say is not covered by drive server.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right.
` MR. BATTS: Figure 5 is a preferred -- an
`embodiment that they is not covered by drive server. So the
`only remaining I believe dispute is whether figure 3 source
`104a could possibly be covered and that argument is blown up
`when you look at the fact that figure 3 is referring back to
`figure 2 which again talks about DVD drives.
` And if we look at like slide 28 for example, I'm
`showing that -- again, where it's talking source devices and
`it's talking about where you get the data that's in response
`to the control signals that's being transmitted, you see the
`language on the right-hand side there, it's talking about it's
`being implemented using DVD drives. So they're arguing that
`you should exclude DVD drives as being a possible
`interpretation of drive server when the preferred embodiment
`and multiple other embodiments include it. So that clearly
`can't be right.
` And if we go to slide 29 what we see is that again
`their expert was saying, yes, I am again excluding the
`embodiment of figure 5 in there because it doesn't match my
`construction.
` JUDGE WORTH: Counselor, I wanted to go back to
`something you said. Did you make a judicial estoppel argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`in your briefing?
` MR. BATTS: We did raise an estoppel argument in
`our briefing. Yes, Your Honor.
` (Cross-talking.)
` MR. BATTS: Sorry.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, this is -- I'm following
`up -- this is Judge Giannetti. I'm following up on Judge
`Worth's question. When you say you made the argument, did you
`explicitly make the argument or did you just make the argument
`that their previous statements were inconsistent? I'm
`wondering how specific you were.
` MR. BATTS: I can find the cite and I'll bring it
`back for the rebuttal, but we did make the argument that they
`were estopped.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right.
` MR. BATTS: I believe it was at page 13 of our
`reply off-hand. I don't recall on the petition but certainly
`in our reply brief we raised that specific argument.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. All right. I'll give you
`a chance on your rebuttal to supplement that or correct it if
`it's not the right page. Okay. Thanks. You can proceed.
` MR. BATTS: I don't have everything memorized but I
`believe that was the page, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right.
` MR. BATTS: And then so going back to looking at
`the specification. So we've talked about the embodiments that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`they're excluding, and if you look at the specification on
`slide 30, what they've pointed to is they've argued, well, you
`have this reference to the present invention that proposes
`bulk drives on capable servers with a minimal cost and remote
`decoders.
` And if we go to slide 31 what we see there is the
`architecture that we've been discussing. And on figure 2 we
`see on the right-hand side you have the decoders in the orange
`box, in the red box in the middle you have the control server,
`the capable server, and then you have the bulk drive or the
`driver servers, the thing that is storing the data that is
`then being -- in response to a control signal is then being
`transmitted. So that matches up and is consistent with our
`position, not their position, on drive server.
` And I think patent owner in its briefing, if we go
`to slide 32, patent owner makes a lot of arguments in its
`briefing about litigation convenience or litigation position
`for the term drive server like we are creating something
`that's wholly inconsistent with the time period as to how
`drive server would be construed. But if you look at how the
`examiner in the file history, which their expert admitted he
`never actually looked at the file history, but if you actually
`look at what the examiner did, the examiner rejected the
`claims and the term drive server based upon mass storage
`devices or hard disks.
` And on the Sekine reference, the second one here
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`noted on the page, the applicant didn't even argue in his
`perfunctory language to disagree with that rejection based
`upon the fact that it was a rejection of a hard disk apparatus
`satisfying the drive server limitation. So it's not
`litigation convenience. It's consistent even with the
`examiner's treatment.
` And if we go on to slide 35, and I'm going to not
`spend too much time on these, but slide 35 and 36, because
`we're hitting extrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence even
`supports our positions here because what it makes clear is
`it's not limited to a computer system. It can be a device
`that stores data.
` And if we go to slide 36 we see a number of
`dictionary definitions that support exactly that concept
`because we're talking about how was the term drive server, how
`would it have been interpreted back in 1999? And if we see
`the IBM dictionary on the top, we see it's saying a disk
`server is a high capacity disk storage device. Again, a
`storage device. And again in the Microsoft definition in the
`middle of the slide it talks about a disk server and it's
`again talking about a storage medium, a storage device.
` And I also think that the bottom one actually is
`particularly notable is talking about a CD-ROM server. And
`again, in 1999 when these computer dictionaries or IBM
`dictionaries were talking about these types of terms they were
`referring to basically a storage device.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
` So even extrinsic evidence is contrary to patent
`owner's now proposed limiting of the drive server that's not
`consistent with the claims, the specification, the examiner's
`treatment of the term at the time, and now we have the
`extrinsic evidence.
` So I think on slide 37 I note the one dictionary
`definition, so the one piece of support that they've pointed
`to for their construction. Even then it still supports our
`position that it's not -- even that one says it can be a
`process that provides services. So it again goes back to
`server is something that provides the service and the service
`is storing the data so then it can be transferred out.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, what is the Exhibit,
`1018? What is the data that -- that dictionary definition?
`Is it contemporaneous with the others? This is the server
`definition. Do you know what that is, Exhibit 1018?
` MR. BATTS: I'm sorry. I don't recall off-hand but
`I believe it was in the same time period.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Because what you seem to be
`suggesting -- what you seem to be suggesting in your argument
`is that in 1999 a server may have had a slightly different
`meaning or a different implementation than what we would think
`of as a server in the internet world of 2021 or even a few
`years earlier. When we think of a server today we --
` MR. BATTS: I think --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: What's that? You think that's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`correct?
` MR. BATTS: I think that's right, Your Honor.
`Yeah, I do think that's correct. And I think -- but my point
`on that is not simply that server had a different meaning back
`in 1999 and that's supported by the dictionary definitions
`that we're looking at here. But that meaning that we're
`looking at in the dictionaries is also consistent with how it
`was treated by the examiner and how it was treated in the
`specification and the embodiments that are set forth in the
`specification. All of them simply talk about a storage device
`that's responding to then the signals from a control server
`for basically pulling out that data and transferring that data
`so that it can be sent to the decoder devices for people to
`view basically the movies or whatever the content was. So I
`think slide 38 just kind of summarizes the overall what we're
`looking at for support between the two sides' positions and
`it's a pretty stark contrast of what evidence supports our
`position versus patent owner's.
` And if we turn to slide 39 what we see is that
`Baker's video library -- keep in mind that if you read the 375
`patent, the 375 patent is talking about a VOD system. It's
`talking about like for hotels where it can have a centralized,
`basically in a separate room place where you're storing this
`data and then pulling the data so that it can be shown in the
`different hotel rooms. And what you see is that under the
`correct interpretation of drive server you see that video
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`library, the library of Baker, strongly resembles the disk
`library of the 375 patent. It's the same concept of storing
`multiple sets of content for distribution and then pulling
`that content using a control server, a server, a video server,
`a PC server, a control server, pulling it using that server in
`response to the control signals from the server, pulling it
`then and sending it for use by the end devices, the remote
`decoders.
` So I really don't think that patent owner has
`really created any dispute as to how Baker teaches this if
`their claim -- if they're, you know, inconsistent and
`extremely limiting and excluding a preferred embodiment
`construction is adopted. If they don't have that construction
`adopted they really lose out on Baker.
` So I'd like to -- if there's no other questions on
`that I'd like to move to the second issue that's on slide 41,
`and there's an issue of does Baker's video library teach
`configuring to present a plurality of compressed data streams?
`And as an initial matter I'd go to slide 43. What we have on
`Baker, Baker's system -- you know, we basically show that
`Baker's system can start with a single disk but it can go up
`to 4,000 disks. So it's talking about a vast storage library
`that can store an immense amount of content. And on the
`bottom of the slide you see another portion of Baker where it
`explains that multiple programs can be stored on those disks
`and multiple copies of the different titles can also be stored
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`in the video library.
` So what that means is, if you go to slide 44, it's
`almost kind of laughable the idea that Baker doesn't teach
`sending multiple streams. I mean it literally is talking
`about 4,000 disks and each disk has a capability of four to
`eight events. So you're talking about potentially 4,000 or
`32,000 streams, a massive amount of streams that are possible
`and under different implementations of Baker.
` And if we go to slide 45 we see that Baker is
`clear. I don't think again there is a dispute here that Baker
`is talking about transmitting those streams from the video
`library in response to control signals from the video server
`or the control server of Baker.
` So on slide 46 we kind of have three arguments that
`patent owner is raising now about whether it's presenting the
`streams or whether it's configured to present a plurality of
`streams or a single stream. So if we go to slide 47 what we
`see is patent owner argues or at least in the deposition of
`its expert who is arguing that the drive server and control
`server must present data using the same mechanism. And then
`on slide 48 we see that actually the parties are in agreement
`as to what does present mean in this context. I think both
`experts agree that present is talking about transmitting data.
` So if we go to slide 49, there's no requirement in
`the claims that require the same transmission mechanism to be
`used and the patent gives non-limiting examples I think at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01423
`Patent 6,341,375 B1
`
`column 3, line 41. There's not only examples of the different
`types of mechanisms or whether it can be a wired connection or
`wireless connection I think we refer to in our briefing, but
`if we go to slide 50 what patent owner argues is that it's
`really a corollary of their drive server construction.
`They're saying the drive server has to be a computer so
`therefore Baker's library can't do this because if it's a
`storage device it's a passive device that can't present
`streams. So essentially I think it rises and falls with their
`construction, but I also think it's clearly wrong if you look
`at the actual specification and claims.
` So if we go to the actual spec in the claims on
`slide 51 what we see is that the claim is clear. What is a
`drive server doing? It's presenting in response to one or
`more control signals. And then it goes on to give examples of
`a DVD drive is presenting based upon a particular bit rate.
`And then it also has another example on the bottom there where
`it talks about the disk library, again which is a DVD drive,
`is presenting. It's presenting the data. So again, even in
`the terminology that's used in the specification it's making
`clear it's transmitting the data. The drives are transmitting
`the data in response to signals from the control server.
` So on the next point, if we turn to slide 52, what
`we see is patent owner has conflated the conce
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
