UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Petitioner

v.

BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Patent Owner

CASE: To Be Assigned

Patent No. 7,139,794 B2

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,139,794 B2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

-i-

EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ ii I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 2 III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ................................... 3

A. GROUND FOR STANDING ............................................................... 3 B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................... 3

IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 794 PATENT ............................................................. 5 A. PRIORITY DATE OF THE 794 PATENT ......................................... 5 B. SUMMARY OF THE 794 PATENT ................................................... 6 C. SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY......................... 10 D. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 11 E. PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................... 12

V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE 794 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................... 13 A. IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ....... 13 B. SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ................................... 14

VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1 AND 2 OF THE 794 PATENT ....................................................................................................... 15 A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 ARE UNPATENTABLE

UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER POTMESIL, HORNBACKER, AND LINDSTROM ........................ 15

B. GROUND 2: CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG AND COOPER ....................................... 41

C. GROUND 3: CLAIM 2 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER RUTLEDGE IN VIEW OF LIGTENBERG, COOPER AND MIGDAL..................... 53

VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,139,794 B2

-ii-

EXHIBIT LIST

Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,139,794 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 794 Patent”)

Ex. 1002 Declaration of Judea d’Arnaud, attaching the article Maps Alive: Viewing Geospatial Information on the WWW, Michael Potmesil, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems Vol. 29, issues 8-13, pp. 1327-1342 (“Potmesil”) as Exhibit A.

Ex. 1003 PCT Publication No. WO 1999/041675 by Cecil V. Hornbacker, III (“Hornbacker”)

Ex. 1004 U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,441 to Adrianus Ligtenberg et al. (“Ligtenberg”)

Ex. 1005 U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,998 to Charles Wayne Rutledge et al. (“Rutledge”)

Ex. 1006 U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,456 to David G. Cooper (“Cooper”)

Ex. 1007 U.S. Pat. No. 5,760,783 to Migdal et al. (“Migdal”)

Ex. 1008 Declaration of Prof. William R. Michalson

Ex. 1009 Six Provisional Applications from which the 794 Patent claims priorities.

Ex. 1010 EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III from a European national application based on PCT Publication No. WO 1999/041675 (Ex. 1003)

Ex. 1011 An Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System by P. Lindstrom et al., Tech. Rep. GIT-GVU-97-07, March 1997 (“Lindstrom”)

Ex. 1012 Declaration of Dr. Peter Lindstrom (including Exhibits A, B and C) regarding the publication of the 1997 article entitled “An Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System” which is Ex. 1011 (“Lindstrom”)

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,139,794 B2

-iii-

Ex. 1013 Declaration of Mr. Charles Randall Carpenter (including Exhibits A, B, C and D) regarding the publication of 1997 article entitled “An Integrated Global GIS and Visual Simulation System” which is Ex. 1011 (“Lindstrom”)

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794 B2

-1-

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Microsoft Corporation

(“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1

and 2 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794 B2 (“the 794 Patent,” Ex. 1001), currently owned

by Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium” or “Patent Owner”). This Petition is a 5

remedial measure for correcting the issuance of invalid claims in the original

examination and is necessitated by Patent Owner’s improper enforcement of the

invalid claims.

Specifically, this Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that

Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims 1 and 2 challenged 10

under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in

this Petition in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), claims 1 and 2 are

unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 based on specific grounds listed

below.

Grounds References Challenged Claims

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

Potmesil, Lindstrom, and Hornbacker Claims 1 and 2

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

Rutledge, Ligtenberg and Cooper Claim 1

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

Rutledge, Ligtenberg, Cooper and Migdal

Claim 2

Petitioner Microsoft respectfully requests the Office to institute a trial for 15

IPR and to cancel claims 1 and 2.

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794 B2

-2-

II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) and 37

C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner Microsoft constitutes all real parties in interest for

this IPR proceeding.

RELATED MATTERS: Patent Owner Bradium is asserting the 794 Patent 5

and two other related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,343 and 8,924,506, against

Petitioner in an on-going patent infringement lawsuit in Bradium Techs. LLC v.

Microsoft Corp., 1:15-cv-00031-RGA, filed in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Delaware on Jan. 9, 2015. In addition, Petitioner is pursuing IPR

petitions on 343 and 506 Patents asserted in the above litigation. 10

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 appoints Bing Ai (Reg.

No. 43,312) as lead counsel, Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice), Vinay Sathe

(Reg. No. 55,595) and Patrick McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019) as back-up counsel.

Petitioner also requests authorization to file a motion for Mr. Bernstein to 15

appear pro hac vice, as Mr. Bernstein is an experienced patent litigation attorney, is

lead counsel for Petitioner in the district court litigation, and has an established

familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner intends to

file such a motion once authorization is granted. The above attorneys are all at the

mailing address of Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350, San 20

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794 B2

-3-

Diego, CA 92130, contact numbers of 858-720-5700 (phone) and 858-720-5799

(fax), and the following email for service and all communications:

PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com.

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by Microsoft for

appointing the above designated counsel is concurrently filed. 5

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

date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.

A. GROUND FOR STANDING 10

Pursuant to § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the 794 Patent is

available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting

IPR challenging claims of the 794 Patent on the grounds identified herein.

Specifically, Petitioner has the standing, or meets all requirements, to file this

Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), 315(e)(1) and 325(e)(1); and 37 15

C.F.R. §§ 42.73(d)(1), 42.101 and 42.102.

B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested is

that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1 and 2 and cancel the claims

because they are invalid on the grounds and evidence presented in this Petition. 20

Claims Challenged: Claims 1 and 2 are challenged in this Petition.

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,139,794 B2

-4-

The Prior Art: The prior art references relied upon are 7 references listed in

the Exhibit List: (1) Potmesil (Ex. A of Ex. 1002); (2) Hornbacker (Ex. 1003); (3)

Ligtenberg (Ex. 1004); (4) Rut