DOCSLIB.ORG

Filed on Behalf Of: Facebook, Inc. Entered: February 12, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Filed on Behalf Of: Facebook, Inc. Entered: February 12, 2021 Filed on behalf of: Facebook, Inc. Entered: February 12, 2021 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________________ FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner, v. ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION, Patent Owner. _______________________ Case IPR2020-01525 Patent 9,467,728 B2 ______________________ PETITIONER’S REPLY TO THE PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abbott Vascular, Inc. v. Flexstent, LLC, IPR2019-00882, Paper 11 (Oct. 7, 2019) ......................................................... 2, 7 In re Adobe, 823 F. App’x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 3 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) .................................................. 1, 4, 5 Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00204, Paper 11 (June 19, 2020) ........................................................... 6 Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00686, Paper 9 (Sept. 23, 2020) ........................................................ 4, 6 Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 (Sept. 1, 2020) ........................................................ 2, 3 Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434, 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13, 2020). .................................................................................................................... 8 Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (Jan. 21, 2021) ........................................................ 2, 4 GlobalFoundries Inc. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, IPR2020-00984, Paper 11 (Dec. 9, 2020)............................................................. 8 Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00846, Paper 9 (Oct. 21, 2020) ............................................................. 3 HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01086, Paper 12 (Jan. 14, 2021) ............................................................ 7 HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01085, Paper 12 (Jan. 14, 2021) ............................................................ 8 i IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2020-01302, Paper 9 (Jan. 28, 2021) .............................................................. 8 Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Huawei Digital Techs. (Cheng Du) Co., IPR2020-01130, Paper 13 (Jan. 22, 2021) ............................................................ 6 Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01349, Paper 24 (Feb. 1, 2021) ............................................................. 8 Nvidia Corp. v. Invensas Corp., IPR2020-00602, Paper 11 (Sept. 3, 2020) ............................................................ 3 Peag LLC v. Varta Microbattery GmbH, IPR2020-01212, Paper 8 (Jan. 6, 2021) ................................................................ 2 Resideo Techs., Inc. v. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, IPR2019-01335, Paper 38 (Jan. 26, 2021) ............................................................ 8 Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ................................................... 2, 4, 6 ii IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR Exhibit List Ex. No. Description 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 (the “’728 patent”) 1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,728 1003 Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry Houh 1005 Hurwicz, et al., Special Edition Using Macromedia Flash MX (Candace Hall et al. eds., 2003) (“Hurwicz”) 1006 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0225728 (“Huggins”) 1007 Towes, Kevin, Macromedia® Flash Communication Server MX (2002) (“Towes”) 1008 [Reserved] 1009 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0056123 (“Liwerant”) 1010 [Reserved] 1011 Crouch, Cameron, RealPlayer v. Windows Media: A Streaming Shootout, CNN, Jan. 28, 2000, https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/28/ stream.shootout.idg/index.html 1012 Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee 1013 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee 1014 Strauss, Neil, Rolling Stones Live on Internet: Both a Big Deal and a Little Deal, New York Times, Nov. 22, 1994, https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/22/arts/rolling-stones-live-on- internet-both-a-big-deal-and-a-little-deal.html 1015 Chambers, Mike, Macromedia Flash MX Security, Macromedia White Paper, Mar. 2002 1016 [Reserved] 1017 [Reserved] 1018 [Reserved] iii IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR Ex. No. Description 1019 [Reserved] 1020 PCMag Encyclopedia definition of browser plug-in 1021 PCMag Encyclopedia definition of HREF 1022 GeeksforGeeks definition of src attribute 1023 [Reserved] 1024 HTMLQuick definition of param element 1025 [Reserved] 1026 Letter from counsel for Petitioner to counsel for Patent Owner regarding co-pending litigation (Feb. 12, 2021) 1027 [Proposed] Agreed Scheduling Order, Onstream Media Corp. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00214-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 13, 2020), ECF No. 28 1028 [Proposed] Amended Agreed Scheduling Order, Onstream Media Corp. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00214-ADA (W.D. Tex. June 30, 2020), ECF No. 35 1029 [Proposed] Second Amended Agreed Scheduling Order, Onstream Media Corp. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00214-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2020), ECF No. 53 1030 Declaration of Lisa K. Nguyen in Support of Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1031 Thirteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021), https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/ coronavirus-covid-19-guidance/ 1032 Lex Machina report of civil cases pending before Judge Alan D. Albright 1033 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas report of pending criminal cases in the Waco Division 1034 Letter from counsel for Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. to Hon. Andrei Iancu (Nov. 17, 2020), https://beta.regulations.gov/ comment/PTO-C-2020-0055-0381 iv IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR Ex. No. Description 1035 Email thread between counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Patent Owner regarding co-pending litigation (May 15 – July 17, 2020) v IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR Patent Owner (“PO”) cannot defeat this petition on the merits, nor does PO even attempt to. The only mention of merits found anywhere in the POPR is a lone, conclusory statement in a footnote. POPR at 16 n.7. Rather than providing any substantive arguments (because it has none), PO relies on Fintiv and the fact that the trial in Onstream Media Corporation v. Facebook Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00214-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (the “Related Litigation”) is tentatively scheduled for January 10, 2022, just three months before the final written decision. But this tentative trial date is in no way dispositive. The Related Litigation is only weeks into discovery and major deadlines have already moved back by months. This is compounded by the fact that at least nineteen separate trials are currently scheduled to begin before the same judge in January 2022, with at least five other trials scheduled on the same date as the Related Litigation. Regardless, in the unlikely event that trial proceeds before the final written decision issues, there would be no wasted resources because Petitioner has stipulated that if instituted, Petitioner will not pursue the same grounds in the Related Litigation. Thus, efficiency and fairness confirm that the Board should reach the merits of the instant petition, particularly given its strength which PO does not substantively dispute. I. Institution is Appropriate under § 314(a) and Fintiv A “holistic” evaluation of the Fintiv factors confirms that institution in this proceeding will further the Board’s considerations of “efficiency, fairness, and the merits.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). Here, Fintiv factors 3, 4, and 6 weigh in favor of reaching 1 IPR2020-01525 (USP 9,467,728) Petitioner’s Reply to POPR the merits of the petition, while only factor 2 (proximity to trial) at most weighs slightly against. Viewed in balance, the tentative trial date cannot be the sole reason for denial. See Abbott Vascular, Inc. v. Flexstent, LLC, IPR2019-00882, Paper 11 at 31 (Oct. 7, 2019) (“Abbott”) (rejecting “a rule that imminent trial dates will require denial”). Factor 1 (stay) is neutral. A stay motion has not been filed in the Related Litigation, and the district court has not stated whether it would consider a stay. The Board has repeatedly stated that it will not speculate as to the outcome of any stay motion under such circumstances. See, e.g., Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 at 12–14 (Jan. 21, 2021) (“Dish”); Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 7 (June 16, 2020) (“Sand Revolution”). Factor 2 (proximity to trial) at most weighs only slightly against institution. As a threshold matter, the Board has repeatedly instituted where the gap between the trial date and the decision deadline has been far greater. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 at 9 (Sept. 1, 2020) (“Seven”) (granting institution despite nine-month gap); Peag LLC v. Varta Microbattery GmbH, IPR2020-01212, Paper 8 at 22–23
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open Channel® Policy Enforcement
    Open Channel® Policy Enforcement Datasheet Mobile Traffic Management Software Simplified Service Plan Creation The proliferation of mobile devices and apps has placed In the highly competitive market for wireless data services, enormous pressure on wireless carriers to manage data traffic operators seek to match their offerings to the diverse more effectively. Subscribers are downloading more apps than preferences of end users. Open Channel Policy Enforcement ever before, and using those apps more intensively. Cellular simplifies the creation of a broad range of innovative mobile bandwidth is stressed to the breaking point as carriers have no service plans tailored to the needs of the marketplace. For control over the behavior and data demands of apps. example, there may be a market for an unlimited e-mail only plan, or a plan allowing unlimited access to only certain At the same time, carriers face great opportunities to create social media apps. Policy Enforcement enables fine-grained innovative new service plans addressing highly targeted control to permit access only to those apps included on the customer needs. Unfortunately, they often have inadequate purchased data plan. Carriers regain the control over mobile operational means to deliver plans that end users demand. data traffic that has been beyond their reach since the advent Open Channel Policy Enforcement conserves network of smartphones, freeing them to innovate and more fully resources by managing traffic at the point of creation, rather monetize their wireless infrastructure. than after it has already impacted the network. It improves the ability of operators to fully monetize their infrastructure Traditional means of creating service plans are overly investments with tailored service plans that match subscribers’ complex and rely on in-network enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • SUCCESS STORY BMW France “SEVEN’S Solution Is Like Our Cars in Many Ways
    SUCCESS STORY BMW France “SEVEN’s solution is like our cars in many ways. It’s a solid combination of design, performance and safety. Plus it’s fast!” Mr Bernard Vasselon, IT Director, BMW France ABOUT SEVEN SEVEN is a global provider of software that enables mobile operators, Internet email providers and service providers to offer their subscribers secure, low-cost, real-time access to business and personal email applications. SEVEN's software is specialised to meet the unique needs and requirements of the Fortune 500 enterprise, the small-to-medium organisation, workgroups, individual professionals and consumers. Our software supports all major device platforms, including BREW, J2ME, Microsoft Windows Mobile, Palm OS and Symbian-based phones, and currently ships on over 200 mobile phone models manufactured by Hitachi, HTC, HP, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Sanyo, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and Toshiba. SEVEN is available today across major international network standards, and has been chosen by 100 leading mobile operators and service providers worldwide. SEVEN is headquartered in Redwood City, CA, USA, with local offices around the globe. For additional information, visit www.seven.com. SEVEN is a registered trademark of Seven Networks, Inc. Always-On Mail, Out of the Office, System SEVEN, SEVEN Personal Edition, SEVEN Enterprise Edition, and SEVEN Server Edition are also trademarks or service marks of Seven Networks, Inc. or its subsidiaries. All other trademarks or trade names are those of their respective owners. ON THE MOVE IN FRANCE Top German carmaker shifts to SEVEN Enterprise Edition for secure, easily deployed, low-cost SITUATION mobile email in France. With easy Global carmakers like BMW run their KEY BENEFITS FOR BMW access to personal email, calendar, business on precision management and Enables anywhere, anytime access to critical contacts and documents, BMW focused customer care.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting the Mobile Ecosystem
    CONNECTING THE MOBILE ECOSYSTEM GAME CHANGING STRATEGIES FOR THE DATA CENTRE www.equinix.co.uk GROW REVENUES | SECTION/OTHER IMPORTANT INFO 1 S content OF table Executive Summary ...............................................................3 Introduction ............................................................................4 Challenges and opportunities facing the mobile ecosystem ...5 Building on a heritage of collaboration ...................................7 Towards collaboration in the data centre ................................9 Identifying a data centre ecosystem partner ........................ 11 The benefits of the ecosystem approach .............................13 Reducing Overall Network Traffic ....................................14 Efficiencies in Network Performance ...............................14 Backbone Service Procurement ......................................14 Neutrality and Direct Connections ...................................15 Mobile Backhaul Procurement .........................................15 Roaming and Interoperability ...........................................15 Conclusions .........................................................................16 Collaboration in context: a growing trend .........................16 CONNECTING THE MOBILE ECOSYSTEM | TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the much-vaunted arrival of long-term evolution (LTE) networks the mobile industry faces familiar challenges and new opportunities. The challenges include network congestion and falling average revenue
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief
    Case: 19-126 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2019 No. 19-126 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner. On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Nos. 2:18-cv-00462, -00463, Hon. Rodney Gilstrap BRIEF OF ACUSHNET, BIGCOMMERCE, CHARGEPOINT, CHECKPOINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, DISH NETWORK, EBAY, FITBIT, GARMIN, HIGH TECH INVENTOR’S ALLIANCE, HP, L BRANDS, MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, NETFLIX, QUANTUM CORPORATION, RINGCENTRAL, TWITTER, WALMART, AND WILLIAMS-SONOMA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Eric A. Shumsky Clement Roberts ORRICK, HERRINGTON & ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th Street NW 405 Howard Street Washington, DC 20005 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 773-5700 Abigail Colella ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 W 52nd St New York, NY 10019 Counsel for Amici Curiae Acushnet, BigCommerce, ChargePoint, Checkpoint Software Technologies, DISH Network, eBay, Fitbit, Garmin, High Tech Inventors Alliance, HP, L Brands, Netflix, Quantum Corporation, RingCentral, Twitter, Walmart, and Williams-Sonoma. [additional counsel listed on the inside cover] Case: 19-126 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 09/24/2019 Brent Lorimer WORKMAN NYDEGGER 60 East South Temple Suite 1000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 553-9800 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Merit Medical Systems Case: 19-126 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 09/24/2019 FORM 9. Certificate of Interest Form 9 Rev. 10/17 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re Google LLC v. Case No. 19-126 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for the: □ (petitioner) □ (appellant) □ (respondent) □ (appellee) ■ (amicus) □ (name of party) Acushnet Company, BigCommerce, Inc., ChargePoint, Inc., Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., DISH Network LLC, eBay Inc., Fitbit, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., High Tech Inventor’s Alliance, HP Inc., L Brands, Inc., Netflix, Inc., Quantum Corporation, RingCentral, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Walmart, Inc., and Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Improper Venue Under Rules 12(B)(1), 12(B)(3) and 12(B)(6)
    Case 2:18-cv-00553-JRG Document 21 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 96 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION UNILOC 2017 LLC, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Civil Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00548, -549, -550, § -551, -552, -553 GOOGLE LLC, § § Defendant. § § DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING AND IMPROPER VENUE UNDER RULES 12(B)(1), 12(B)(3) AND 12(B)(6) Case 2:18-cv-00553-JRG Document 21 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 97 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED (L.R. CV-7(A)(1)) ................................. 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3 A. The Parties ............................................................................................................. 3 B. The Complaints ...................................................................................................... 4 III. UNILOC 2017 LACKS STANDING TO SUE ................................................................. 5 A. Several Agreements Have Fractured Ownership of the Patents-in-Suit. ............... 6 B. Fortress’s Right to Sub-License the Asserted Patents Deprives Uniloc 2017 of Standing. ................................................................................................... 7 1. Multiple “Events of Default” Under the Uniloc Lux-Fortress
    [Show full text]
  • 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 27
    Case 3:17-cv-04600 Document 1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 1 of 17 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Sean S. Pak (Bar No. 219032 (CA)) 2 [email protected] Brian E. Mack (Bar No. 275086 (CA)) 3 [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 875-6600 5 (415) 875-6700 (facsimile) 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC. 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 GOOGLE INC., CASE NO. ________________________ 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT 13 vs. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 14 SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC, REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 15 SOUGHT TO BE SEALED Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Google”) seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of 19 United States Patent Nos. 8,078,158, 8,811,952, 9,247,019, 9,325,600, 9,351,254, 9,386,433, 20 9,444,812, 9,516,127, 9,516,129, and 9,553,816 as follows: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT Case 3:17-cv-04600 Document 1 Filed 08/10/17 Page 2 of 17 1 NATURE OF THE ACTION 2 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement arising under the 3 patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Plaintiff Google Inc. 4 (“Google”) requests this relief because Defendant SEVEN Networks, LLC (“SEVEN”) has filed 5 lawsuits claiming that Google infringes United States Patent Nos. 8,078,158 (“the ’158 patent”), 6 8,811,952 (“the ’952 patent”), 9,247,019 (“the ’019 patent”), 9,325,600 (“the ’600 patent”), 7 9,351,254 (“the ’254 patent”), 9,386,433 (“the ’433 patent”), 9,444,812 (“the ’812 patent”), 8 9,516,127 (“the ’127 patent”), 9,516,129 (“the ’129 patent”), and 9,553,816 (“the ’816 patent”) 9 (the “Asserted Patents”) by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products and 10 services that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C
    PUBLIC VERSION [email protected] Paper 22 571-272-7822 Entered: November 28, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC, Patent Owner. ____________ Case IPR2018-01108 Patent 9,516,127 B2 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JONI Y. CHANG, and JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) 1 Exhibit 1052 Samsung v. Seven Networks Proceeding No. IPR2018-01108 PUBLIC VERSION IPR2018-01108 Patent 9,516,127 B2 I. INTRODUCTION Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner” or “Samsung”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1−30, 32−38, 40−48, and 50 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’127 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The SEVEN Networks, LLC and CF SVN LLC (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our prior authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply (Papers 15, 16, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response as to the issue of whether Petitioner had named all of the real parties in interest, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Papers 19, 20, “Sur-Reply”).1 The parties also filed Motions to Seal (Papers 17, 18, 21) the nonpublic versions of their papers (Papers 16, 19) and certain exhibits and have agreed to the Revised Protective Order (Paper 17, Attachments A, B; Paper 18, Attachment A).
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:19-Cv-07651-EMC Document 192 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 134
    Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 192 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 134 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 1 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP HALE AND DORR LLP 2 Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180) William F. Lee (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] [email protected] 3 950 Page Mill Road Joseph J. Mueller (admitted pro hac vice) 4 Palo Alto, CA 94304 [email protected] Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Timothy D. Syrett (admitted pro hac vice) 5 Fax: (650) 858-6100 [email protected] 60 State Street 6 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING Boston, MA 02109 HALE AND DORR LLP Telephone: (617) 526-6000 7 Leon B. Greenfield (admitted pro hac vice) Fax: (617) 526-5000 8 [email protected] Amanda L. Major (admitted pro hac vice) 9 [email protected] 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 10 Washington, DC 20006 11 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Fax: (202) 663-6363 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Intel Corporation, Apple Inc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 INTEL CORPORATION, APPLE INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 20 FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, AMENDED COMPLAINT FORTRESS CREDIT CO. LLC, UNILOC 21 2017 LLC, UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., VLSI 22 TECHNOLOGY LLC, INVT SPE LLC, INVENTERGY GLOBAL, INC., IXI IP, 23 LLC, and SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 ActiveUS 180903977v.19 Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 192 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 134 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 1 Plaintiffs Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Apple Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Sprint Mobile Email Work Quick Start Guide
    Sprint Mobile Email Work Quick Start Guide Sprint Mobile Email Work is an extension of Sprint Mobile Email that provides secure access to corporate email and contacts (in addition to your personal accounts) from selected Sprint phones—all with the convenience of easy-to-use, always-on access. This document provides instructions for activating the Sprint Mobile Email Work service on your compatible mobile phone. Phones currently eligible for this service include: z LG: LX260 (Rumor), LX550 (Fusic) z Motorola: RAZR, KRZR z Samsung: M500, M520, M800 (Instinct), A900, A900m z Sanyo: SCP-6600 (Katana), SCP-6650 (Katana II), SCP-8400 Your phone might qualify for the program even if it is not listed. Visit www.sprint.com/mobileemail for more information. Getting Started If you need assistance during this procedure, see the Helpful Hints section of this document. 1. For Samsung Instinct phones: Choose Main | Email, and respond to the prompts for service activation. 2. For LG Rumor phones: Choose Messaging | Email, and respond to the prompts for service activation. 3. For all other phones: a. Choose Main Menu | My Content | IM & Email | Get New IM & Email to display the Sprint software download page. b. Choose the Sprint Mobile Email (AOL, Gmail, MSN, Yahoo! and more) link to display the software details. c. Choose Get or Download. d. Choose Run to install the Sprint Mobile Email software. Note: When prompted to provide permission to access various features during the activation process, choose Always Allow. Be aware that when you eventually exit the Sprint Mobile Email application, the download success screen might still be present.
    [Show full text]
  • Security and Impact of the Iot on LTE Mobile Networks
    BOOK CHAPTER - PRE-PRINT AUTHOR VERSION Security and impact of the IoT on LTE mobile networks Book: Security and Privacy in the Internet of Things (IoT): Models, Algorithms, and Implementations Taylor & Francis LLC, CRC Press (To be published - Winter 2015) Roger Piqueras Jover Principal Member of Technical Staff AT&T Security Research Center New York NY July 20, 2015 ii Chapter 1 Security and impact of the IoT on mobile networks The ongoing evolution of wireless cellular networks is creating a new ecosystem with pervasive presence of a great variety of network-enabled objects which, based on unique addressing schemes, are able to interact with each other. Cellular connectivity is reaching beyond smartphones and tablets, providing access to data networks for connected home appliances, machinery and vehicles. The rapid evolution of mobile networking technologies and the transition towards IPv6 might drive this trend to an ecosystem where every single consumer item could be reachable through the cellular network. This convergence of the Internet and cellular mobility networks is breeding new Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication systems, which are the enabling platform for the Internet of Things (IoT) [1]. Cellular-based IoT applications are experiencing a drastic growth backed up by the large investments from network operators [2]. Current studies forecast the cellular IoT to be 1000 times more profitable than mobile data and as lucrative for operators as the Short Messaging Service (SMS) [3]. This is an attractive new market for cellular operators, which are cur- rently dealing with a heavily competitive market and declining revenues. Consequently, IoT applications are among the common denominator of some of the largest investments in mo- 1 2 CHAPTER 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon
    Dr. Mondragon – Curriculum Vitae – July 2018 - www.edwinhernandez.com Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon, PhD Technologist / Expert Witness / Entrepreneur 4890 NW 101st Ave, Coral Springs, FL, 33076 Skype: edwinhe | (561) 306 4996 | (561) 879 0158 [email protected] | [email protected] www.eglacomm.net | www.4gexpert.com | www.eglavator.com Expertise Areas • AirInterface and LTE Source: Experience with SDRs, OpenAirInterface project, reiewing code for handover, RRC Channels, and handoff parameters • Cloud Storage and Data Synchronization: GlusterFS, File Systems, Dropbox/S3 integration. Cloud computing, Load balancing, AWS. • Wireless Communications: 4G, 3G, LTE signaling, WLAN, Software-defined Networks, and RF emulation with a patent in wireless emulation/dissertation on this field. • Mobile Devices and Systems: User Interfaces in mobile, mobile operating systems, Expert in mobility and wireless roaming 2G-3G-4G systems • BlocKchain: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Consensus Algorithms, Gossip Protocols • Power Management: Wireless Power Management Issued Patent for Microsoft Wireless Service and Wireless Charging Patent with over 80+ references • Personal Area NetworKing: Expertise in Personal Area Networks and Wearable Systems. Issued Patent for Windows PAN Driver. • Multimedia Streaming: Cable Systems and TV distribution, DVB, Music platforms and automated playlist creation, real-time encoding, and cloud storage systems • Smart phones and wireless embedded software development: Personal Area Networking, Virtual Machines and Operating Systems,
    [Show full text]
  • First Amended Complaint
    Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 605 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-442 v. PATENT CASE GOOGLE INC., Jury Trial Demanded Defendant. First Amended Complaint Plaintiff SEVEN Networks, LLC (SEVEN) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement of several United States patents as identified below (collectively, the Patents-in-Suit) and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. SEVEN is a company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 2660 East End Boulevard South, Marshall, Texas 75672. 2. Google Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043 and may be served through its agent Corporation Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218. 3. Google is a self-described “information company” that is in the business of storing, organizing, and distributing data. Its stated mission is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Its stated vision is “to provide access to the world’s information in one click.” JURISDICTION 4. SEVEN brings this civil action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281–85. This Court has - 1 - Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 606 subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]