/>iIn its Final Written Decision, the Board held that claims 1, 20, 30, 31, 67, 107, and 108 of the ’067 patent are unpatentable. At the same time, the Board found that claims 21 and 22 of the ’067 patent were not shown to be unpatentable.
Petitioner had requested inter partes review of claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 35, 67, 107, and 108 of the ’067 patent. The Board then instituted trial with respect to each of these challenged claims. The grounds upon which institution was based were alleged anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1, 20, 31, 67, 107, and 108 in view of Cronce and of claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 67, 107, and 108 in view of Deluca.
The ’067 patent describes a system for preventing unauthorized access to computer software, music, movies, or other electronic data, via the use of a portable licensing medium that stores license data used to determine if access to the electronic data by an electronic device should be allowed. A registration authority communicating with the electronic device uses verification data to verify the license data stored on the licensing medium and updates the license data stored on the licensing medium.
The Board construed the claim terminology “verification data for verifying the license data” to mean “a copy of the license data with which the license data can be compared;” interpreted “verification data” to mean “data including at least (1) a copy of the license data with which the license data can be compared; or (2) a list of authorized identifiers with which an identifier in registration information can be compared;” construed “[provides/providing] updated license data” to encompass “providing data reflecting the addition of, or removal of, a software license;” and interpreted the recited claim term “telephone” to require “both an earpiece for use in a telephone system and a microphone for use in a telephone system.”
As for Petitioner’s contention that claims 1, 20, 31, 67, 107, and 108 were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Cronce, the Board concluded that Petitioner had not sufficiently proven that Cronce teaches “the registration authority having verification data for verifying the license data” required by independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 20 and 31. Nonetheless, the Board found that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Cronce anticipates claims 67, 107, and 108 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
In reply to Petitioner’s contention that claims 1, 20-22, 30, 31, 67, 107, and 108 are anticipated by Deluca under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Board agreed with Petitioner that it had been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Deluca anticipates claims 1, 20, 30, 31, 67, 107, and 108. However, the Board did not agree with Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions with respect to claims 21 and 22, because the Board felt that Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated that Deluca discloses a “cellular telephone” as required by these claims.
Distinctive Developments, Ltd, Electronic Arts Inc., Gameloft S.E., Halfbrick Studios PTY Ltd., Laminar Research LLC, Mojang AB, and Square Enix, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2013-00391
Paper 38: Final Written Decision
Dated: December 3, 2014
Patent 6,857,067 B2
Before: Jameson Lee, Allen R. MacDonald, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Clements
Related Proceedings: (1) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Distinctive Developments, Ltd., Case No. 6:12-cv-00462 (E.D. Tex.); (2) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-00463 (E.D. Tex.); (3) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Gameloft S.E., Case No. 6:12-cv-00466 (E.D. Tex.); (4) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Halfbrick Studios Pty Ltd., Case No. 6:12-cv-00467 (E.D. Tex.); (5) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Laminar Research, LLC, Case No. 6:12-cv-00468 (E.D. Tex.); (6) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Mojang AB, Case No. 6:12-cv-00470 (E.D. Tex.); and (7) Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Square Enix, Inc., Case No. 6:12-cv-00472 (E.D. Tex.)
