Exhibit 16

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:

4411
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7

571-272-7822 Date: May 23, 2024

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Petitioner,

v.

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Patent Owner.

IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192 B2

Before GARTH D. BAER, STEPHEN E. BELISLE, and 

RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CASS, Administrative Patent Judge. 

DECISION

Granting Institution of Inter PartesReview

35 U.S.C. § 314

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:

4412
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition 

requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15 (the 

“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,615,192B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’192

patent”). Paper 2, 1 (“Pet.”). Headwater Research LLC (“Patent Owner”)

did notfile a Preliminary Response. 

An inter partesreview may not be instituted unless it is determined 

that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and 

any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the 

claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also

37 C.F.R § 42.4(a)(2021) (“The Board institutes the trialon behalf of the 

Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than 

mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to 

prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, 

LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 

For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we 

determine that Petitioner has demonstrateda reasonable likelihood that it 

would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the 

challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partesreview on all 

grounds set forth in the Petition.

B. Real Parties in Interest

Petitioner states that the real partiesin interest are Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Pet. 98. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:

4413
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

3

Patent Owner states that Headwater Research LLC is the real party in 

interest. Paper 4, 1.

C. Related Proceedings

The parties indicate that the ’192 patent is the subject of the following 

district court case: Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00103 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 98–99; Paper 4, 2. 

D. The ’192 Patent (Ex. 1001)

The ’192 patent relates to a “message link server” that “maintains 

secure message links with device link agents on each of a plurality of 

wireless end-user devices.” Ex. 1001, code (57). Multiple network elements 

“send messages to the message link servicer” that are targeted to deliver 

“message content to specific software components on respective ones of the 

wireless end-user devices.” Id. The system also includes a “message 

buffering system in the server” that “buffers messages targeted to each 

device until one of several triggersoccur.” Id. As a result, “messages that 

do not have time-critical messaging needs may be buffered until the 

occurrence of a trigger other than the receipt of that message by the server.” 

Id. 

Figure 16 illustrates communication between a service controller 122 

and a device 100 over a service control link 1653.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:

4414
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

4

Figure 16 of the ’192 patent is a functional diagram illustrating 

a device based service processor and a service controller in 

accordance with certain embodiments of the invention. 

Ex. 1001, 2:22–24, 37:26–28.

As shown in Figure 16, service controller 122 includes servers 1650, 1652, 

1654, 1656, 1658, 1660, and 1662 coupled to service control server link 

1638. Ex. 1001, 76:30–78:60, Fig. 16. Device 100 includes service 

processor 115, including service control device link 1691, which provides 

communication for various agents in the service processor. Id. at 37:26–

38:24, Fig. 16.

E. Illustrative Claim

Of challenged claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15, claims 1 and 15 are

independent. For purposes of the issues raised at thisstage of the 

proceeding, claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:

4415
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

5

[1pre] A message link server comprising:

[1a] a transport services stack to maintain a respective secure 

message link through an Internet network between the 

message link server and a respective device link agent on 

each of ap plurality of wireless end-user devices,

[1b] each of the wireless end-user devices comprising 

multiple software components authorized to receive and 

process data from secure message link messages received 

via a device link agent on that device;

[1c1] an interface to a network to receive network element 

messages from a plurality of network elements,

[1c2] the received network element messages comprising 

respective message content and requests for delivery of the 

respective message content to respective wireless end-user 

devices, the respective message content including data for, 

and an identification of, a respective one of the authorized 

software components; and

[1d1] a message buffer system including a memory and 

logic,

[1d2] the memory to buffer content from the received 

network element messages for which delivery is requested 

to a given one of the wireless end-user devices,

[1d3] the logic to determine when one of a plurality of 

message delivery triggers for the given one of the wireless 

end-user devices has occurred, wherein for at least some of 

the received network element messages, the receipt of 

such a message by the message buffer system is not a 

message delivery trigger, and for at least one of the 

message delivery triggers, the trigger is the occurrence of 

an asynchronous event with time-critical messaging needs, 

and

[1d4] upon determining that one of the message delivery 

triggers has occurred, the logic further to supply one or 

more messages comprising the buffered content to the 

transport services stack for delivery on the secure message 

link maintained between the transport services stack and a 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:

4416
IPR2024-00010 

Patent 9,615,192 B2 

6 

device link agent on the given one of the wireless end-user 

devices. 

Ex. 1001, 167:8–45 (indents and bracketed paragraph identifiers added). 

F. Applied References

Petitioner relies upon the following references:

3GPP TS 23.140 v6.9.0 (2005-03), 3rd Generation 

Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Terminals, 

Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), Functional Description, 

Stage 2 (Ex. 1004, “TS-23.140”); 

Shen, US 2005/0207379 A1, published Sep. 22, 2005 

(Ex. 1014, “Shen”);

Ellison, US 7,082,615 B1, issued Jul. 25, 2006 (Ex. 1019, 

“Ellison”); 

Rakic, US 2009/0282256 A1, published Nov. 12, 2009 

(Ex. 1015, “Rakic”);

WO 2006/077283 A1, published Jul. 27, 2006 (Ex. 1007, 

“Houghton”); and

Munson, US 2009/0240807 A1, published Sep. 24, 2009 

(Ex. 1017, “Munson”).

Pet. vii–viii, 2. Petitioner also submits the Declaration of Dr. Patrick 

Traynor (Ex. 1003). 

G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15 of 

the ’192 patent based on the following grounds: 

Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 

1, 5–7, 9, 11–13, 15 103(a) 1 TS-23.140 

2, 3 103(a) TS-23.140, Shen

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 

(2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:

4417
IPR2024-00010 

Patent 9,615,192 B2 

7 

Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 

4 103(a) TS-23.140, Ellison

8 103(a) TS-23.140, Rakic

1, 5–7, 9, 11–13, 15 103(a) Houghton, Munson

2, 3 103(a) Houghton, Munson, Shen

4 103(a) Houghton, Munson, Ellison

8 103 Houghton, Munson, Rakic

Pet. 1. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Claim Construction

A claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction 

standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 

35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). At this stage of the 

proceeding, neither party presents any claim terms for construction. Pet. 2–

3. 2 Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to 

provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this time. See

Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The 

Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, 

and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid 

Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 

after the filing of an application to which the ’192 patent claims priority. 

For purposes of this Decision,we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103. 

2 As noted above, Patent Owner has not submitted a preliminary response.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:

4418
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

8

B. Principles of Law

A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences 

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such 

that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the 

invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said 

subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 

(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying 

factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; 

(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; 

(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, objective evidence 

of non-obviousness.3

 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 

1, 17–18 (1966). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also 

“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known 

elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 

418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a 

combination of prior art elements would have produced a predictable result 

weighs in the ultimate determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.

In an inter partesreview, the petitioner must show with particularity 

why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid 

Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. 

§ 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. 

Dynamic Drinkware, LLCv. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2015).

3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective 

evidence of non-obviousness.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:

4419
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

9

We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance 

with the above-stated principles.

C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

Petitioner introduces the testimony of Dr. Traynor that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in 

computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) 3–5 years 

of experience in services and application implementation in communication 

networks.” Pet. 3 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 21–22). Petitioner further states that 

“[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional 

experience, and vice versa.” Id.

For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment of the level of 

ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Traynor and not 

disputed by Patent Owner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. 

See Okajima v Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir 2001) (the prior art 

may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).

D. Ground 1:4 Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 11–13, and 15 

Based on TS-23.140

Petitioner contends that claims 1, 5–7, 9, 11–13, and 15 would have 

been obvious based on TS-23.140. Pet. 5–33. As noted previously, Patent 

Owner did not submit a preliminary response to the Petition.

1. Overview of TS-23.140 (Ex. 1004)

TS-23.140 is a technical specification from the 3rd Generation 

Partnership Project (3GPP) relating to “group terminals” and “multimedia 

4 Here, and elsewhere in theDecision, the identification of the grounds using 

designations such as “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” refers to the designation of 

the grounds as presented in the Petition.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:

4420
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

10

messaging service (MMS).” Ex. 1004, 1. This document “contains the core 

functions for a non-realtime Multimedia Messaging Service, MMS, which 

are sufficient to provide a basic service.” Id. at 10.

TS-23.140 illustrates an MMS reference architecture in Figure 3, 

reproduced below.

Figure 3 of TS-23.140 shows an MMS Reference Architecture 

and identifies reference points within an MMS network 

architecture (MMSNA). Ex. 1004, 14, 23.

As TS-23.140 explains, “[t]he MMS Relay/Server is responsible for 

storage and notification, reports, and general handing of messages.” 

Ex. 1004, 21. The MMS Relay/Server “may also provide convergence 

functionality between External Servers and MMS User Agents and thus 

enable the integration of different server types across different networks.” 

Id. The MMS can be used to send messages, including “data specific to 

applications between two MMS User Agents or an MMS User Agent and an 

MMS VAS Application (or vice versa).” Id. at 55.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:

4421
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

11

2. Analysis of Independent Claim 1

a) [1pre] “A message link server comprising:” 

Petitioner argues that, “[i]f the preamble is limiting, TS-23.140 

renders obvious a message link server (MMS Server/Relay) and a method 

for operating” it. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–102). Petitioner asserts that 

the “MMS/Relay Server is a message link server because it facilitates 

message delivery between devices/elements (user devices, other network 

elements) over a network,” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of 

Figure 2 of TS-23.140, reproduced below. Id. 

Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of TS-23.140 

showing the MMS Server and MMS Relay highlighted in 

yellow. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 17, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–96).

According to Petitioner, the “MMS Relay/Server stores and handles 

‘incoming’/‘outgoing messages’ and transfers messages ‘between different 

messaging systems,’ including between MMS User Agents/UEs, or MMS 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:

4422
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

12

User Agents and MMS VAS Applications.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 14; 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–99). Further, Petitioner contends, the “MMS Relay/Server 

also facilities data transport to applications between two MMS User Agents 

or an MMS User Agent and an MMS VAS Application.” Id. (citing 

Ex. 1004, 54–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–101). 

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses the preamble of claim 1 for purposes of institution.5

b) [1a] a transport services stack to maintain a respective secure 

message link through an Internet network between the message 

link server and a respective device link agent on each of ap 

plurality of wireless end-user devices,

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious a transport services 

stack (transport layer security (TLS)-based transport protocol) to maintain a 

respective secure message link through an Internet network between the 

message link server (MMS Relay/Server) and a respective device link agent 

(MMS User Agent) on each of multiple wireless end-user devices (mobile 

phones/terminals/UEs).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–116). Petitioner 

asserts that Figure 2 of TS-23.140, reproduced below, shows MMS 

Relay/Server communicating via an Internet network with MMS User agents 

executing on each UE/phone.

5 Because Petitioner presents sufficient evidence at this stage that TS-23.140 

discloses the preamble, we need not determine whether the preamble is 

limiting for purposes of this Decision.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:

4423
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

13

Figure 2 of TS-23.140 showing MMS architectural elements. 

Ex. 1004, 17, Fig. 2. 

According to Petitioner, Figure 2 shows an “environment with different 

network types provided using ‘Internet protocol’ that ‘enables messaging in 

2G and 3G wireless networks’ and are ‘compatible with messaging systems’ 

on ‘the Internet.’” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 104, Fig. 2). Petitioner contends that 

the MMS User Agent “is a device link agent facilitating

transmission/reception of multimedia messages (MMs) with/from different 

devices (e.g., MMS User Agents/UEs, MMS Relay/Server, MMS VAS 

Applications) linked over a communication network,” as shown in Figure 2. 

Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1004, 19–20, Ex. 1003 ¶ 106).

Petitioner also argues that “TS-23.140 discloses or renders obvious a 

‘transport services stack’ consistent with its description in the ’192 Patent.” 

Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 89:24–41, 90:34–50; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–108). 

Specifically, Petitioner asserts, the “MM1 Transfer Protocol and associated 

functionality (utilizing TCP and TLS/transport layer security) provides a 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:

4424
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

14

secure message link through an Internet Network between the message link 

server (MMS Relay/Server) and wireless end-user devices (UEs/terminals).” 

Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109–110). Referring to Figure 4 of TS-23.140, 

reproduced below, Petitioner contends that the MM1 and MM3 Transfer 

Protocols “are implemented as the ‘protocol framework’ at the MMS 

Relay/Server to enable communications with the corresponding Transfer 

Protocols (MM1 or MM3) implemented at, e.g., another UE/External 

Server.” Id. at 9–10.

Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 4 of TS-23.140 

showing the MM1 Transfer Protocol in the UE/MS and Service 

Environment highlighted in red. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004, 24–

25, Fig. 4).

Relying on Dr. Traynor, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill “would 

have understood or found obvious that the MM1 Transfer Protocol is a 

transport services stack that facilitates transmission/transport of network 

communications between the MMS Relay/Server and network elements 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:

4425
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

15

(e.g., MMS User Agent, MMS VAS Applications).” Pet. 10 (citing 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–114; Ex. 1013).

Petitioner further argues that “TS-23.140 contemplates 

‘WAP[(Wireless Application Protocol)]/OMA implementation’ for the 

‘MM1 Transfer Protocol’ and incorporates by reference Open Mobile 

Alliance (OMA specifications),” which Petitioner submits as Exhibit 1011, 

that “explain that ‘a device implementing OMA MMS must have . . . WAP 

WSP stack or HTTP/TCP/IP stack.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 13, 162; 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113; Ex. 1011, 11). “Moreover,” according to Petitioner, 

“OMA specifications describe the ‘TLS’ ‘security protocol’ as providing 

‘secure data transmission between the MMS Client and the MMS ProxyRelay in . . . HTTP based protocol stacks for MMSM implementation.’” Id.

at 11 (citing Ex. 1010, 22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113). 

Petitioner contends that, based on these disclosures that are “expressly 

incorporated into TS-23.140,” and “TLS’s well-known use for 

securing/encrypting communications within transport stacks,” one of 

ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that [the] MMS 

Relay/Server’s transport services stack would use TLS for securing the 

communication link between the MMS User Agent and the MMS 

Relay/Server.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 114). According to Petitioner, one 

of ordinary skill would also “have understood or found obvious that, in 

MMS environments, multiple MMS User Agents/terminals are in 

communication with the MMS Relay/Server, thereby maintaining a 

respective secure TLS-based link between each MMS User Agent and MMS 

Relay/Server.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 115–116; Ex. 1036, 2–3, Fig. 1, 3; 

Ex. 1007, 23; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 7–8, Fig. 1).

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:

4426
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

16

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1a] for purposes of institution.

c) [1b] each of the wireless end-user devices comprising multiple 

software components authorized to receive and process data 

from secure message link messages received via a device link 

agent on that device;

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious that each wireless 

end-user device (wireless/mobile devices/UEs) includes multiple software 

components (applications) authorized to receive and process data 

(application data) from secure message link messages received via a device 

link agent.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117–128). 

More specifically, Petitioner asserts that TS-23.140 “describes using 

MMS to ‘transport data specific to applications’ downloaded on a mobile 

phone/terminal, and such application-specific data transport occurs ‘between 

two MMS User Agents or an MMS User Agent and an MMS VAS 

Application.’” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1004, 54–55). Thus, Petitioner contends, 

one of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that each UE 

includes multiple software applications/components.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 

¶ 118; Ex. 1036, 2–4). 

Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill would have 

“understood or found obvious that such applications are authorized to 

receive application data messages.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–121). 

In support, Petitioner argues that each application “need[s] to register with 

the appropriate MMS User Agent or MMS VAS Application” to receive 

and process messages via MMS, and that, “[o]nce registered, a message 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:

4427
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

17

including application data for an intended application is delivered by the 

MMS Relay/Server to the registered/intended application (via MMS 

Relay/Server) upon determining that the MMS User Agent can support 

application data (i.e., has the capability to support application data transport) 

and the terminal includes the intended application.” Id. at 12–13 (citing 

Ex. 1004, 30, 54–55). 

Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill would have 

“understood or found obvious that application data received by a particular 

destination application would be processed by that application for displaying 

data or performing operations on that data.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122; 

Ex. 1004, 56). According to Petitioner, “[b]ecause this communication 

occurs between MMS User Agents and/or between MMS User Agent and 

MMS VAS Application, and via MMS Relay/Server,” as discussed with 

respect to limitation [1a], one of ordinary skill “would have understood that 

the messages including application data are received via MMS User Agent 

(device link agent) on the particular terminal/device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 

¶ 123; Ex. 1004, 54–55). And, Petitioner argues, “[b]ecause a secure 

message link enables communication of messages between MMS 

Relay/Server and MMS User Agent,” as discussed with respect to limitation 

[1a], one of ordinary skill “would have understood that the messages 

including the application data are ‘secure message link messages.’” Id. at 

13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 125). 

Finally, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill “would have also 

found obvious that the above-described allocation data delivery to an 

application would be performed for multiple applications resident on a 

mobile terminal that seek to send/receive application data via MMS (i.e., 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:

4428
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

18

from MMS Relay/Server and via MMS User Agent).” Pet. 14 (citing 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–128; Ex. 1004, 54–55; Ex. 1036, 3–4).

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1b] for purposes of institution.

d) [1c1] an interface to a network to receive network element 

messages from a plurality of network elements,

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140“renders obvious an interface 

(interfaces including MM1, MM3, MM7) to a network to receive network 

element messages (messages including application data and addressing data) 

from network elements (other MMS User Agents/UEs, MMS VAS 

Applications).” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–135). 

Specifically, Petitioner argues that TS-23.140’s MMS network 

environment shown in Figure 2 “includes ‘a collection of MMS-specific 

network elements’ and enables communications between these elements 

(MMS User Agents, MMS Server/Relay, MMS VAS Applications, and 

external server(s)) over various networks.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 17, 

Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–130). Petitioner asserts that, as explained for 

limitations[1a] and [1b], the “MMS Relay/Server receives messages from 

network element(s) (i.e., network element messages),” such as “MMS User 

Agents and MMS VAS Applications.” Id.(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 131). 

Petitioner also argues that TS-23.140 shows various “interfaces” that 

“facilitate network communication of messages (i.e., network element 

messages) between MMS User Agents, MMS VAS Applications, and MMS 

Relay/Server, using MM1, MM2, MM7, and MM4 interfaces,” as shown in 

Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2, reproduced below.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:

4429
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

19

Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of TS-23.140 

highlighting the MMS Relay/Server and “Foreign” MMS 

Relay/Server in yellow, the MMS User Agent A and MMS 

User Agent B in green, the MMS VAS Applications in pink, 

and also highlighting interfaces MM1, MM4, and MM7. 

Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 2).

In the annotated Figure 2 above, Petitioner argues that the MM1 interface is 

the “reference point between the MMS User Agent and the MMS 

Relay/Server,” the MM4 interface is the “reference point between the MMS 

Relay/Server and another MMS Relay/Server,” and the MM7 interface is 

“the reference point between the MMS Relay/Server and MMS VAS 

Applications.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–133). 

According to Petitioner, these interfaces “are interfaces to various networks, 

including 2G/3G mobile networks, and IP/internet networks.” Id. (citing 

Ex. 1003 ¶ 134).

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:

4430
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

20

Finally, Petitioner argues that, as explained for limitation [1b], 

“applications registered with MMS User Agents/VAS applications transmit 

application data to other applications (corresponding to other MMS user 

agents and VAS applications) via the MMS Relay/Server.” Pet. 17 (citing 

Ex. 1004, 54–55; Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). 

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1c1] for purposes of institution.

e) [1c2] the received network element messages comprising 

respective message content and requests for delivery of the 

respective message content to respective wireless end-user 

devices, the respective message content including data for, and 

an identification of, a respective one of the authorized software 

components; and

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious that the received 

network element messages (messages from applications registered with 

MMS User Agent/MMS VAS Applications) comprise respective message 

content, including data (application and control data) and identification of a 

respective one of the authorized software components (registered 

application(s)), and requests for delivery of the respective message content 

to respective wireless end-user devices.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–

144).

More specifically, Petitioner argues that, as described with respect to 

limitations [1a] and [1b], the “MMS is used to transport application data 

from one device (terminal, server) and its associated agent (MMS User 

Agent, MMS VAS Application(s)) to another device and its associated agent 

(MMS User Agent, MMS VAS Application(s)).” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:

4431
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

21

54–55; Ex. 1003 ¶ 138). Petitioner asserts that “[t]his application data 

transmission occurs upon an application ‘trigger[ing]’ the MMS User Agent 

or MMS VAS Application to send a message—including application data 

and/or ‘control information’ along with a destination ‘application 

identifier’—to a destination application.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 14, 

54–56; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–140). According to Petitioner, “the MMS User 

Agent/VAS Application coordinates message transmission.” Id. The MMS 

Relay/Server, Petitioner contends, “receives this message and passes ‘on the 

destination application identifier’ and ‘application data’ to MMS User 

Agent.” Id.

Petitioner argues that “[t]he recipient/destination application would be 

an authorized/registered application” because “applications intending to 

send/receive application data ‘need to register with the appropriate MMS 

User Agent’ using their ‘application identification value.’” Pet. 18 (citing 

Ex. 1004, 55–56; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 141–143). Then, “upon message receipt,” 

Petitioner contends, “the recipient application would be identified by MMS 

User Agent using its identification value as being resident on the device 

before the message is transmitted to this application.” Id. 

Petitioner further argues that, “[b]ecause messages are sent by an 

originating MMS User Agent to the MMS Relay/Server for delivery to an 

MMS User Agent with which the destination application is registered,” one 

of ordinary skill “would have understood or found obvious that the 

transmitted/received message comprises a request for delivery of the 

respective message content to a respective wireless end-user device 

(including the destination application(s) resident on that device).” Pet. 18–

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:

4432
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

22

19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 141–143; Ex. 1004, 28–29, 54–55, Fig. 6; Ex. 1036, 

2–4).

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1c2] for purposes of institution.

f) [1d1] a message buffer system including a memory and logic, 

[1d2] the memory to buffer content from the received network 

element messages for which delivery is requested to a given one 

of the wireless end-user devices,

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious a message buffer 

system including a memory that buffers content from received network 

element messages (message store storing the received message), for which 

delivery is requested to a given one of the wireless end-user devices 

(application running on a terminal/UE associated with the recipient MMS 

User Agent).” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145–152).

More specifically, Petitioner argues that, as described for limitations

[1c1] and [1c2], “network element messages are received from network 

element(s) by the MMS Relay/Server, and delivery of these messages is 

requested to application(s) resident on a terminal/UE (and its associated 

MMS User Agent).” Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 146). Petitioner also 

argues that the “MMS Relay/Server ‘stores and handl[es]’ ‘incoming and 

outgoing messages’ and handles message transfer ‘between different 

messaging systems,’” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of a portion 

of TS-23.140’s Figure 2, reproduced below.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:

4433
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

23

Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of TS-23.140 

highlighting the Message store and MMS Server/Relay. Pet. 20 

(citing Ex. 1004, 17, Fig. 2).

As shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of TS-23.140’s Figure 2, MMS 

Server/Relay communicates with various systems and is coupled to the 

Message store. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 17, 21, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 147–

149).

Petitioner also argues that, “[u]pon receiving a message, the originator 

MMS Relay Server ‘retain[s] the MM until the earliest desired time of 

delivery’” and “the recipient MMS Relay/Server (which can be the same as 

the originator server) ‘store[s] the MM at least until’ ‘the associated time of 

expiry is reached, the MM is delivered, or the recipient MMS User Agent 

requests the MM to be routed forward or the MM is rejected.’” Pet. 20–21 

(citing Ex. 1004, 26–28). Additionally, according to Petitioner, “[m]essages 

can be ‘persistent[ly] stored’ in a ‘Persistent Network-Based Storage’ 

(MMBox) associated with ‘the MMS Relay/Server.’” Id. at 21 (citing 

Ex. 1004, 21–22, 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–151). Finally, Petitioner contends 

that, as discussed later for limitations [1d3] and [1d4], the “MMS 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:

4434
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

24

Relay/Server includes a memory buffer system including logic for delivering 

messages upon one or more message delivery triggers occurring.” Id. (citing 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 151–152).

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitations[1d1] and [1d2] for purposes of 

institution.

g) [1d3] the logic to determine when one of a plurality of 

message delivery triggers for the given one of the wireless 

end-user devices has occurred, wherein for at least some of the 

received network element messages, the receipt of such a 

message by the message buffer system is not a message 

delivery trigger, and for at least one of the message delivery 

triggers, the trigger is the occurrence of an asynchronous 

event with time-critical messaging needs, and

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious multiple message 

delivery triggers for transmitting the stored message data to an MMS User 

Agent for a UE that includes the destination application.” Pet. 21 (citing 

Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 153–160). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “the message is 

not delivered by the MMS Relay/Server to a MMS User Agent/UE-terminal 

(resident on a UE/terminal) until one or more of the following triggers 

occur”:

• The MMS Relay/Server has sent a notification to the 

recipient User Agent (Ex. 1004 § 7.1.2).

• The recipient MMS User Agent requests message 

retrieval upon MMS Relay/Server receiving the 

notification—e.g., within a message expiry period

(Ex. 1004 § 7.1.2.1).

• The specified deferred delivery period (e.g., message 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:

4435
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

25

expiry period) is met (e.g., where the recipient MMS 

User Agent requests deferred message delivery in the 

message retrieve request) or until [the] message is 

retrieved/rejected (Ex. 1004 § 7.1.2.1).

• When recipient MMS User Agent becomes 

available/reachable (e.g., moves into coverage, switches 

MMS User Agent on) or until [the] message expires 

(Ex. 1004 § 7.1.3).

• The message conforms to the message retrieval request’s 

“size restriction” (Ex. 1004 § 7.1.3).

Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156).

Petitioner argues that, “[b]ecause MMS Relay/Server does not deliver 

the message to the recipient MMS User Agent (for a particular user 

terminal) until the above condition(s)/trigger(s) are met,” one of ordinary 

skill “would have understood or found obvious that the MMS Relay/Server 

includes logic that is configured to determine when one (or more) of these 

message delivery triggers for the particular terminal/end-user device has 

occurred and if so, delivering the messages.” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 

¶ 156). And, Petitioner contends, “[g]iven the above-described message 

delivery triggers,” one of ordinary skill “would have found obvious that 

message receipt alone would not trigger message delivery, particularly 

considering the other condition(s)/trigger(s) that would be implemented (per 

above) and would be satisfied before message(s) is/are delivered.” Id. at 23 

(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 157). 

Finally, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill “would have 

understood that MMS User Agent can request delivery of the message 

received/stored by the MMS Relay/Server,” and “would have found obvious 

(per the above disclosures) for such requested delivery to be based on user 

request.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 20, 28–29, 69; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:

4436
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

26

Petitioner further contends that, according to the ’192 patent specification, 

this requested delivery based on user request “constitutes a message delivery 

trigger that is ‘an asynchronous event with time-critical messaging needs.’” 

Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 38:50–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160).

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1d3] for purposes of institution.

h) [1d4] upon determining that one of the message delivery 

triggers has occurred, the logic further to supply one or more 

messages comprising the buffered content to the transport 

services stack for delivery on the secure message link 

maintained between the transport services stack and a device 

link agent on the given one of the wireless end-user devices.

Petitioner argues that TS-23.140 “renders obvious that, upon 

determining that message delivery trigger(s) has/have occurred, the message 

buffer system includes logic for supplying one or more messages comprising 

the buffered content (stored message in the message store or MMSBox) to 

the transport services stack for delivery on the secure message link 

maintained between the transport services stack and a device link agent 

(MMS User Agent) on the given one of the wireless end-user devices.” 

Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 161–165). 

More specifically, Petitioner argues that, as described previously for 

limitations [1d1]–[1d3], the “MMS Relay/Server delivers stored messages 

(in MMBox or another temporary storage) upon the occurrence of one or 

more of the delivery triggers.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 163–164). 

According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “would have found obvious 

that MMS Relay/Server includes logic for performing such message delivery 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:

4437
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

27

upon detecting occurrence of one or more of the delivery triggers.” Id. 

Additionally, Petitioner contends, as described previously with respect to 

limitation [1a], “TS-23.140 discloses/renders obvious message delivery via 

MMS Relay/Server’s transport services stack (MM1 Transfer Protocol) that 

maintains a secure message link (TLS-based link) to a device link agent 

(recipient MMS user agent) of a particular wireless end-user device 

(UE/terminal of recipient MMS User Agent).” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 24, 

Fig. 4; Ex. 1010, 22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165–166).

Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the cited portions of TS23.140. After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at 

this early stage, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that TS23.140 discloses claim limitation [1d4] for purposes of institution.

i) Summary for Claim 1

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s cited evidence and reasoning 

demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its 

contentions regarding claim 1.

3. Claims 5–7, 9, 11–13, and 15

Petitioner contends that independent claim 15 is unpatentable over 

TS-23.140 for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Pet. 6– 24. 

Petitioner also argues that dependent claims 5–7, 9, and 11–13 are 

unpatentable over TS–23.140. Pet. 46–60. As noted above, Patent Owner 

did not submit a preliminary response. Based on the evidence of record, we 

determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that 

claims 5–7, 9, 11–13, and 15 are unpatentable over TS-23.140. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:

4438
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

28

E. Grounds 2–4: Obviousness of Claims 2–4 and 8 Based on TS-23.140 

in View of Shen, Ellison, or Rakic

Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2–4 and 8 would have been 

obvious over TS-23.140 in view of Shen (Ground 2, claims 2 and 3), Ellison 

(Ground 3, claim 4), or Rakic (Ground 4, claim 8). Pet. 60–66. As noted 

above, Patent Owner did not submit a preliminary response. Based on the 

evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a 

reasonable likelihood that claims 2–4 and 8 are unpatentable over the 

combinations set forth in Grounds 2–4.

F. Grounds 5–8: Obviousness of Claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15 Based on 

Houghton in view of Munson, Shen, Ellison, and/or Rakic

Petitioner contends that claims 1, 5–7, 9, 11–13, and 15 are 

unpatentable over Houghton in view of Munson (Ground 5). Pet. 49–85. 

Petitioner also argues that claims 2–4 and 8 would have been obvious over 

Houghton and Munson in view of Shen (Ground 6, claims 2 and 3), Ellison 

(Ground 7, claim 4), or Rakic (Ground 8, claim 8). Pet. 85–95. As noted 

above, Patent Owner did not submit a preliminary response. Based on the 

evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a 

reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15 are unpatentable over 

the combinations set forth in Grounds 5–8.

III. CONCLUSION

After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current 

record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable 

likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of 

the ’192 patent is unpatentable. We therefore institute trial on all challenged 

claims and groundsraised in the Petition. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:

4439
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

29

At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final 

determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or as to the 

construction of any claim term. Any final determination will be based on 

the record developed during trial. 

IV. ORDER

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes

review of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15 of the ’192 patent is instituted with 

respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and

FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 

37 C.F.R. § 42.4(b), inter partesreview of the ’192 patent shall commence 

on the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution 

of a trial.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:

4440
IPR2024-00010

Patent 9,615,192B2

30

For PETITIONER: 

W. Karl Renner

Jeremy Monaldo

Karan Jhurani

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

axf-ptab@fr.com

jjm@fr.com

jhurani@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER: 

Reza Mirzaie

Dale Chang

Amy Hayden

James Milkey

Neil Rubin

Philip Wang

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

dchang@raklaw.com

ahayden@raklaw.com

jmilkey@raklaw.com

nrubin@raklaw.com

pwang@raklaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94-17 Filed 05/30/24 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:

4441