Exhibit C

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 88 PageID #:

7604
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

—————————— 

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

—————————— 

GOOGLE LLC, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, 

VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP INC.,

T-MOBILE USA, INC., SPRINT LLC F/K/A SPRINT CORP.,

AND AT&T SERVICES, INC.,

Petitioners, 

v.

Headwater Research LLC, 

Patent Owner. 

—————————— 

Case: IPR2024-00945

U.S. Patent No. 9,215,613

Issue Date: Dec. 15, 2015

Title: Wireless End-User Device with Differential Traffic Control Policy List 

Having Limited User Control 

—————————— 

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 88 PageID #:

7605
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Standing ...........................................................................................................1

II. Relief Requested..............................................................................................1

III. The ’613 Patent................................................................................................1

A. Overview ...............................................................................................1

B. Prosecution History ...............................................................................3

C. POSA.....................................................................................................3

IV. Claim Construction..........................................................................................3

V. Prior Art...........................................................................................................3

A. Rao.........................................................................................................3

B. Montemurro...........................................................................................6

C. Freund....................................................................................................8

D. Araujo....................................................................................................9

VI. Ground 1: Rao-Montemurro-Freund Renders Obvious Claims 1-14, 16, 

18-23 ..............................................................................................................11

A. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................11

B. Claim 1 ................................................................................................15

1. [1.0] A wireless end-user device, comprising: .........................15

1. [1.1] a wireless wide area network (WWAN) modem to 

communicate data for Internet service activities between the 

device and at least one WWAN, when configured for and 

connected to the WWAN; [1.2] a wireless local area network 

(WLAN) modem to communicate data for Internet service 

activities between the device and at least one WLAN, when 

configured for and connected to the WLAN; ...........................16

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 88 PageID #:

7606
ii

2. [1.3] a non-transient memory to store.......................................17

3. [1.3.1] a differential traffic control policy list distinguishing 

between a first one or more applications resident on the device 

and a second one or more applications and/or services resident 

on the device, and [1.3.2] a differential traffic control policy 

applicable to at least some Internet service activities by or on 

behalf of the first one or more applications;.............................18

4. [1.4] an interface to allow a user to augment the differential 

traffic control policy for the first one or more applications but not 

for the second one or more applications and/or services; and..22

5. [1.5] one or more processors configured to ..............................24

6. [1.5.1] classify a wireless network to which the device currently 

connects in order to communicate data for Internet service 

activities as at least one of a plurality of network types that the 

device can connect with,...........................................................25

7. [1.5.2] classify whether a particular application capable of both 

interacting with the user in a user interface foreground of the 

device, and at least some Internet service activities when not 

interacting with the user in the device user interface foreground, 

is interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground, and .........................................................................26

8. [1.6] selectively allow or deny one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of the particular application based on 

whether or not the particular application is one of the first one or 

more applications, the differential traffic control policy, 

including any applicable user augmentation of the differential 

traffic control policy, and the classifications performed by the 

one or more processors. ............................................................28

C. Claims 2-5 ...........................................................................................33

1. Claim 2: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein based 

on the differential traffic control policy the one or more 

processors selectively deny one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of the particular application when the 

particular application is one of the first one or more applications, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 88 PageID #:

7607
iii

the classified wireless network is a WWAN type, and the 

particular application is classified as not interacting with the user 

in the device user interface foreground. ....................................34

2. Claim 3: The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to override the 

selective denial of one or more Internet service activities by or 

on behalf of the particular application when the user has 

augmented the differential traffic control policy so as to indicate 

that Internet service activities are allowable when the classified 

wireless network is the WWAN type, and the particular 

application is classified as not interacting with the user in the 

device user interface foreground...............................................36

3. Claim 4: The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein based 

on the differential traffic control policy the one or more 

processors selectively allow one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of the particular application when the 

particular application is one of the first one or more applications, 

the classified wireless network is the WWAN type, and the 

particular application is classified as interacting with the user in 

the device user interface foreground.........................................37

4. Claim 5: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein based 

on the differential traffic control policy the one or more 

processors selectively allow one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of a second particular application and/or 

service when the second particular application and/or service is 

one of the second one or more applications and/or services and 

the classified wireless network is the WWAN type. ................38

D. Claim 6: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are configured to classify that the 

particular application is interacting with the user in the device 

user interface foreground when the user of the device is directly 

interacting with that application or perceiving any benefit from 

that application. ...................................................................................39

E. Claim 7: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

user interface is further to provide the user of the device with 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 88 PageID #:

7608
iv

information regarding why the differential traffic control policy 

is applied to the particular application. ...............................................40

F. Claim 8: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

differential traffic control policy is part of a multimode profile 

having different policies for different ones of the network types.......41

G. Claim 9: The wireless end-user device of claim 8, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to select a traffic 

control policy from the multimode profile based at least in part 

on the classified wireless network type...............................................42

H. Claim 10: The wireless end-user device of claim 9, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to, when the 

classified wireless network type is at least one type of WLAN, 

select the traffic control policy from the multimode profile based 

at least in part on a type of network connection from the WLAN 

to the Internet.......................................................................................42

I. Claim 11: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include three or more of 2G, 3G, 4G, 

home, roaming, and WiFi....................................................................44

J. Claim 12: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, the one or 

more processors further configured to receive an update to at 

least a portion of the differential traffic control policy list from a 

network element. .................................................................................45

K. Claim 13: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include a roaming WWAN type and a 

home WWAN type, and the one or more processors are to apply 

the differential traffic control policy to one of but not both of the 

roaming WWAN type and the home WWAN type. ...........................47

L. Claim 14: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include the WWAN type and a WLAN 

type, and the one or more processors are to apply the differential 

traffic control policy to one of but not both of the WWAN type 

and the WLAN type. ...........................................................................48

M. Claim 16: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to dynamically 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 6 of 88 PageID #:

7609
v

change the application of the differential traffic control policy 

based on a device usage state. .............................................................49

N. Claim 18: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

differential traffic control policy defines that the first one or more 

applications can only access a first one of the network types 

during particular time windows...........................................................51

O. Claim 19: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are configured to classify that the 

particular application is interacting with the user in the device 

user interface foreground based on a state of user interface 

priority for the application...................................................................51

P. Claim 20: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

second one or more applications are not subject to a differential 

network access control that is applicable to the first one or more 

applications..........................................................................................52

Q. Claim 21: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to classify 

between: user applications; system applications, utilities, 

functions, or processes; and operating system application, 

utilities, functions, or processes. .........................................................53

R. Claim 22: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

second one or more applications or services comprises 

foreground services. ............................................................................56

S. Claim 23: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein 

selectively deny comprises intermittently block when the one or 

more Internet service activities are requested during selected 

time windows. .....................................................................................56

VII. Ground 2: Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo Renders Obvious Claims 

15, 17 and 24..................................................................................................57

A. The Motivation to Combine ................................................................57

B. Claim 15: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to dynamically 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 7 of 88 PageID #:

7610
vi

change the application of the differential traffic control policy 

based on a power state of the device...................................................59

C. Claim 17: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to dynamically 

change the application of the differential traffic control policy 

based on power control state changes for one or more of the 

modems. ..............................................................................................61

D. Claim 24: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

one or more processors are configured to prevent the first one or 

more applications from changing the power state of at least one 

of the modems, and to not prevent the second one or more 

applications from changing the power state of the same modem 

or modems. ..........................................................................................63

VIII. 35 U.S.C.§ 314...............................................................................................65

IX. 35 U.S.C. § 325..............................................................................................66

X. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8..................................................67

A. Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................67

B. Related Matters....................................................................................68

C. Lead and Backup Counsel Information...............................................68

XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................70

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 8 of 88 PageID #:

7611
vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S,

IPR2021-01195, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2021)...............................................66

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,

550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................33

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 315........................................................................................................68

35 U.S.C. § 325........................................................................................................66

35 U.S.C.§ 314.........................................................................................................65

Regulations

37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................67

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 9 of 88 PageID #:

7612
viii

CLAIM LISTING

[1.0] 1. A wireless end-user device, comprising:

[1.1] a wireless wide area network (WWAN) modem to communicate data 

for Internet service activities between the device and at least one 

WWAN, when configured for and connected to the WWAN;

[1.2] a wireless local area network (WLAN) modem to communicate data for 

Internet service activities between the device and at least one WLAN, 

when configured for and connected to the WLAN;

[1.3] a non-transient memory to store

[1.3.1] a differential traffic control policy list distinguishing between a 

first one or more applications resident on the device and a second 

one or more applications and/or services resident on the device, 

and

[1.3.2] a differential traffic control policy applicable to at least some 

Internet service activities by or on behalf of the first one or more 

applications;

[1.4] an interface to allow a user to augment the differential traffic control 

policy for the first one or more applications but not for the second one 

or more applications and/or services; and

[1.5] one or more processors configured to

[1.5.1] classify a wireless network to which the device currently 

connects in order to communicate data for Internet service 

activities as at least one of a plurality of network types that the 

device can connect with,

[1.5.2] classify whether a particular application capable of both

[1.5.2.1] interacting with the user in a user interface foreground of 

the device, and

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 10 of 88 PageID #:

7613
ix

[1.5.2.2] at least some Internet service activities when not 

interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground,

[1.5.2.3] is interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground, and

[1.6] selectively allow or deny one or more Internet service activities by or 

on behalf of the particular application based on whether or not the 

particular application is one of the first one or more applications, the 

differential traffic control policy, including any applicable user 

augmentation of the differential traffic control policy, and the 

classifications performed by the one or more processors.

[2] 2. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein based on the 

differential traffic control policy the one or more processors selectively 

deny one or more Internet service activities by or on behalf of the 

particular application when the particular application is one of the first 

one or more applications, the classified wireless network is a WWAN 

type, and the particular application is classified as not interacting with 

the user in the device user interface foreground.

[3] 3. The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to override the selective denial of one 

or more Internet service activities by or on behalf of the particular 

application when the user has augmented the differential traffic control 

policy so as to indicate that Internet service activities are allowable 

when the classified wireless network is the WWAN type, and the 

particular application is classified as not interacting with the user in the 

device user interface foreground.

[4] 4. The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein based on the 

differential traffic control policy the one or more processors selectively 

allow one or more Internet service activities by or on behalf of the 

particular application when the particular application is one of the first 

one or more applications, the classified wireless network is the WWAN 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 11 of 88 PageID #:

7614
x

type, and the particular application is classified as interacting with the 

user in the device user interface foreground.

[5] 5. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein based on the 

differential traffic control policy the one or more processors selectively 

allow one or more Internet service activities by or on behalf of a second 

particular application and/or service when the second particular 

application and/or service is one of the second one or more applications 

and/or services and the classified wireless network is the WWAN type.

[6] 6. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are configured to classify that the particular application is 

interacting with the user in the device user interface foreground when 

the user of the device is directly interacting with that application or 

perceiving any benefit from that application.

[7] 7. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the user interface is 

further to provide the user of the device with information regarding why 

the differential traffic control policy is applied to the particular 

application.

[8] 8. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the differential 

traffic control policy is part of a multimode profile having different 

policies for different ones of the network types.

[9] 9. The wireless end-user device of claim 8, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to select a traffic control policy from 

the multimode profile based at least in part on the classified wireless 

network type.

[10] 10. The wireless end-user device of claim 9, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to, when the classified wireless 

network type is at least one type of WLAN, select the traffic control 

policy from the multimode profile based at least in part on a type of 

network connection from the WLAN to the Internet.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 12 of 88 PageID #:

7615
xi

[11] 11. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of 

network types include three or more of 2G, 3G, 4G, home, roaming, and 

WiFi.

[12] 12. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, the one or more processors 

further configured to receive an update to at least a portion of the 

differential traffic control policy list from a network element.

[13] 13. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of 

network types include a roaming WWAN type and a home WWAN 

type, and the one or more processors are to apply the differential traffic 

control policy to one of but not both of the roaming WWAN type and 

the home WWAN type.

[14] 14. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of 

network types include the WWAN type and a WLAN type, and the one 

or more processors are to apply the differential traffic control policy to 

one of but not both of the WWAN type and the WLAN type.

[15] 15. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to dynamically change the application 

of the differential traffic control policy based on a power state of the 

device.

[16] 16. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to dynamically change the application 

of the differential traffic control policy based on a device usage state.

[17] 17. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to dynamically change the application 

of the differential traffic control policy based on power control state 

changes for one or more of the modems.

[18] 18. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the differential 

traffic control policy defines that the first one or more applications can 

only access a first one of the network types during particular time 

windows.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 13 of 88 PageID #:

7616
xii

[19] 19. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are configured to classify that the particular application is 

interacting with the user in the device user interface foreground based 

on a state of user interface priority for the application.

[20] 20. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the second one or 

more applications are not subject to a differential network access control 

that is applicable to the first one or more applications.

[21] 21. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are further configured to classify between: user applications; 

system applications, utilities, functions, or processes; and operating 

system application, utilities, functions, or processes.

[22] 22. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the second one or 

more applications or services comprises foreground services.

[23] 23. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein selectively deny 

comprises intermittently block when the one or more Internet service 

activities are requested during selected time windows.

[24] 24. The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one or more 

processors are configured to prevent the first one or more applications 

from changing the power state of at least one of the modems, and to not 

prevent the second one or more applications from changing the power 

state of the same modem or modems.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 14 of 88 PageID #:

7617
xiii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit # Description

1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,215,613 (“’613 Patent”)

1002 Select portions of prosecution history of the ’613 Patent (“’613 File 

History”)

1003 Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Henry Houh (“Houh 

Declaration”)

1004 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0039354 A1 (“Rao”)

1005 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0207817 A1 (“Montemurro”)

1006 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0217065 A1 (“Araujo”)

1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,987,611 (“Freund”)

1008 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry Houh

1009 Mobile Network Evolution: GSM to UMTS, CONNINGTECH (May 8, 

2008, 12:26 pm), 

https://conningtech.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/mobile-networkevolution-gsm-to-umts/ (last visited May 23, 2024)

1010 Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

v. Headwater Research LLC, No. IPR2023-01462, Paper 6 (PTAB Jan. 

4, 2024)

1011 U.S. Patent No. 8,000,715 (“Melpignano”)

1012 Elizabeth Woyke, World’s most wired airports, NBC News (Mar. 11, 

2008, 10:02 am), https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23391922 (last 

visited May 15, 2024)

1013 [reserved]

1014 U.S. Publication No. 2004/0123153 (“Wright”)

1015 U.S. Publication No. 2006/0183461 (“Pearce”)

1016 [reserved]

1017 [reserved]

1018 [reserved]

1019 U.S. Pat. No. 7,881,267 (“Crosswy”)

1020 Eastern District of Texas Model Order Focusing on Claim and Prior Art 

Reduction

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 15 of 88 PageID #:

7618
xiv

Exhibit # Description

1021 Docket Control Order, Headwater Research LLC v Verizon 

Communications Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00352, ECF No. 40 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 

24, 2023)

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 16 of 88 PageID #:

7619
1 

Petitioners request IPR of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent 9,215,613.

I. STANDING

Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on these grounds.

II. RELIEF REQUESTED 

Grounds

1 Rao in view of Montemurro and Freund renders obvious claims 1-14, 

16, and 18-23 

2 Rao in view of Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo renders obvious 

claims 15, 17, and 24

III. THE ’613 PATENT

A. Overview

The ’613 patent incorporates a hodge-podge of disclosures. The claims recite 

a “wireless end-user device” with the well-known structures of a processor (yellow), 

storage/memory (green), a user interface (red arrows), and modems for WWAN and 

WLAN communication (blue). EX-1001, 99:11-32, 105:51-106:25. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 17 of 88 PageID #:

7620
2

EX-1001, Fig. 26.1

The claimed processor: 1) classifies a network with which the device is 

communicating (WWAN or WLAN); (2) classifies whether applications are running 

in the device foreground; (3) controls the device’s internet activities using a 

differential traffic control policy (rules); and (4) allows user augmentation of the 

policy. See, e.g., id., Claim 1. The claimed policy evaluates and applies criteria (e.g., 

1 Unless otherwise noted, all annotations and emphases herein added.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 18 of 88 PageID #:

7621
3

the network used, whether an application is in the foreground) to allow or deny 

internet activity. See, e.g., id., 100:28-102:56, Fig. 27. 

B. Prosecution History

The ’613 claims were allowed without rejections. See generally EX-1002. The 

applicant submitted over 1,800 references to the Examiner without comment or any 

explanation of their relevance (or lack thereof). Id. 

C. POSA 

A POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a 

bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a similar field, and 

approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to 

computer software development and/or computer networking. EX-1003 ¶61. Work 

experience can substitute for education, and additional education can substitute for 

work experience. Id.

IV. Claim Construction 

No terms require construction to resolve this Petition.

V. PRIOR ART

A. Rao

Rao discloses a computing device (e.g., a mobile device) with a processor 

(CPU, yellow), memory/storage (green), user interface (red arrows), and network 

interface (blue):

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 19 of 88 PageID #:

7622
4 

Rao, Fig. 1D, ¶¶118-28. Rao’s device “connect[s] to network 104” through one or 

more “LAN or WAN links” and/or “wireless connections,” and “execute[s] one or 

more applications ... which access the network.” Rao ¶125; EX-1003 ¶¶70-72. 

Rao uses “client-side application-aware” policies to control network 

communications. Rao ¶179. Remote access client 120 operates to enforce these 

policies. Rao explains that it may include an agent (red), filter (including filtering 

table) (green), packet capture mechanism (blue), frame monitor (gold), and network 

driver. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 20 of 88 PageID #:

7623
5

Rao, Fig. 5A, ¶¶99-101, 114-16. These may have overlapping functionality or be 

combined in any fashion. Id. ¶¶114-16; EX-1003 ¶¶73-74. 

The remote access client intercepts inbound and outbound network packets 

and prioritizes those packets based on Rao’s policies. Rao ¶¶101-05; see also id. 

¶¶ 57, 108-10; EX-1003 ¶75. Rao teaches that its policies may be defined in a 

“multitude of ways,” including by application and based on whether an application 

associated with a packet is “running in the foreground or the background.” Rao, 

¶¶182, 188-93; EX-1003 ¶¶77-78. Rao broadly discloses that the enforcement may 

occur at different processing locations and levels. Rao ¶101; EX-1003 ¶76.

Rao invites a POSA to combine all of its teachings, which it sometimes 

describes as “embodiments.” Rao ¶¶218-19; id. ¶¶74, 131. Based on Rao’s 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 21 of 88 PageID #:

7624
6

suggestion, a POSA would have understood Rao to disclose various aspects of a 

single system. EX-1003 ¶79. Even if Rao’s “embodiments” were separate 

inventions, a POSA would have been motivated and found it obvious to combine 

those in view of Rao’s express invitation and taught benefits. Id.; Rao ¶¶3, 218.

B. Montemurro

Montemurro also teaches a mobile device (such as a PDA or smartphone) in 

which policies act to allow or deny network activities. Montemurro ¶29. 

Montemurro’s device includes Wi-Fi and cellular transceivers, “non-volatile 

memory,” and a “microprocessor.” Id. ¶¶50-59.

Id., Fig. 6; EX-1003 ¶¶81-82.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 22 of 88 PageID #:

7625
7

Montemurro explains that its mobile device (client) runs “applications” that 

communicate over the internet through two or more “network interfaces” including 

WLAN and WWAN. 

Montemurro, Fig. 2; EX-1003 ¶¶81, 83-84.

Montemurro controls the applications’ internet access through a set of 

application-specific rules/policies applied by a “rules engine.” Montemurro ¶¶11, 

27, 29; EX-1003 ¶¶85-86. Montemurro discloses that its policies may be based on 

various criteria, including whether the device is connected to a “WLAN” and 

“WWAN” network. See Montemurro, Fig. 1; EX-1003 ¶¶86-88. Montemurro’s 

policies control networks used by its applications by modifying a routing table based 

on interactions with “connection API’s.” Montemurro ¶¶34-35; EX-1003 ¶85.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 23 of 88 PageID #:

7626
8

C. Freund

Like Rao, Freund’s “mobile computer” includes a processor, storage,

memory, and network access cards:

Freund, Fig. 1, 7:32-61.

The mobile computer (client) includes “application programs,” and Freund, 

filed in 1997, teaches a “client monitor” to enforce application-specific network 

traffic control policies. Id., 7:64-8:39. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 24 of 88 PageID #:

7627
9

Id., Fig. 2. 

Using a “user interface,” users configure these application-specific policies to 

allow/block internet access based on criteria including an application’s 

“foreground”/“background” status and time-of-day. Freund, Abstract, 5:12-15, 

10:16-43, 15:12-21:46, Figs. 4, 5, 7A-7K, 12A-12C, 13A-13B; EX-1003 ¶¶90-93.

D. Araujo

Araujo (like Rao, Montemurro, and Freund) uses the long-known approach of 

implementing policies to control activities of “wireless telephones.” Araujo ¶14.

Araujo applies its policies to address the problem of power and battery management.

Id. ¶¶1-4; EX-1003 ¶¶95-96.

Araujo teaches that its components, including modems (network cards) 

expend power, and it describes a power-policy to manage power consumption:

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 25 of 88 PageID #:

7628
10

Araujo, Fig. 7, ¶¶4, 20, 52-57 (managing a “wireless network card” and “request to 

send data over a wireless network”); EX-1003 ¶¶97-99.

Araujo’s power policy decides whether to allow or deny an action (e.g., 

powering on a network card) based on factors including an application’s status (e.g., 

“high” or “low” priority). Araujo, ¶¶4, 26, 32-33. For example, Araujo may 

“permanently or temporarily” deflect a request to send information over the network 

card if the application making the request is of insufficient status to warrant 

powering on the card. Id., Figs. 3-4, 6, ¶51; EX-1003 ¶¶99-101.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 26 of 88 PageID #:

7629
11

VI. GROUND 1: RAO-MONTEMURRO-FREUND RENDERS OBVIOUS 

CLAIMS 1-14, 16, 18-23 

A. Motivation to Combine 

A POSA would have found it obvious to combine the complementary 

disclosures of Rao, Montemurro, and Freund. EX-1003 ¶¶105-22.

All three references teach controlling network communications to and from 

applications on a mobile device. See, e.g., Rao, Fig. 1D, ¶¶118-28; Freund, Fig. 1, 

7:32-61; Montemurro ¶¶29, 50-59. And a POSA would have looked to Montemurro 

and Freund to improve Rao given the references’ similarities. EX-1003 ¶¶106-07.

Rao, for example, discloses that a mobile device may “switch[] between 

networks” and that the device may connect to “one or more networks,” including a 

local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), and the internet. Rao ¶¶81, 

92, 95, 125. It teaches that its device may have a “modem or any other device” 

suitable for interfacing with these networks. Id. ¶125. Rao further discloses that its 

remote access client can prioritize network packets communicated over its networks 

according to any policy considerations and invites a POSA to “recognize and 

appreciate” criteria that may be used. Id. ¶¶188-89. Rao expressly proposes 

prioritizing packets by one or more of “whether the application 338a-338n

associated with the network packet is running in the foreground or the background” 

of the user device, “process task priority,” type of associated application, protocol 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 27 of 88 PageID #:

7630
12

used by the associated application, the size of the network packet, or time, among 

others. Id. ¶¶188-92. 

Montemurro builds on these disclosures. Like Rao, Montemurro teaches 

“[w]ireless communication devices capable of communicating in at least two 

network communication modes (e.g., WLAN such as Wi-Fi . . . and WWAN such 

as GSM/GPRS cellular and wired modes.” Montemurro ¶11. It describes that to 

facilitate these network connection modes, the device includes “an interface for each 

of WLAN 208A, WMAN 208B and WWAN 208C network communications.” Id. 

¶28. Montemurro further teaches classifying the network type the device is using 

through a routing table. Id. ¶30. Using that information, Montemurro suggests, the 

device can selectively allow or deny network communications based on the type of 

network to which the device is connected. Id. ¶4; EX-1003 ¶111. Montemurro 

teaches that by implementing network-specific network control policies, the user can 

save costs and improve communication quality. Id. ¶4; EX-1003 ¶112.

At least in view of these benefits, a POSA would have been motivated to 

include Montemurro’s teachings related to network interfaces, network 

classification, and network-based policies in Rao. EX-1003 ¶113. Rao, like 

Montemurro, suggests multi-mode connections, Rao ¶¶81, 92, 95, 125, and invites 

POSAs to control network communications based on multiple criteria, id. ¶¶188-92; 

EX-1003 ¶114. And a POSA would have understood the cost- and quality- benefits 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 28 of 88 PageID #:

7631
13

of combining Rao and Montemurro in this way. Montemurro notes these benefits, 

Montemurro, ¶4, and they were well-known in the art. See, e.g., EX-1015 ¶¶4-5, 54, 

68, claim 6; EX-1014 ¶¶48, 252, 279-285, Figs. 10A-10B; EX-1003 ¶115. A POSA 

would accordingly have been motivated to apply Montemurro’s teachings to Rao, 

and would have reasonably expected to succeed in doing so given the references’ 

teachings. EX-1003 ¶115.

A POSA would have been further motivated to implement the teachings of 

Freund in the Rao-Montemurro system. Like Montemurro, Freund expands on Rao’s 

teachings. Rao teaches that its policies may “be configurable by a user by any 

suitable means and/or mechanism.” Rao ¶183. Freund details how a user may 

configure policies, offering exemplary interfaces, discussing various policy 

augmentations, and explaining that policies may direct the system to deny a user 

internet access, warn users of issues, or redirect access. See, e.g., Freund, 4:5-5:5, 

8:45-53, 12:54-13:22, 23:65-27:50, Figs. 7A-7K. Similarly, Rao controls network 

traffic in part by distinguishing between foreground and background activity, see, 

e.g., Rao ¶182, and Freund likewise monitors inbound and outbound network 

communications and distinguishes between network activity based on whether it is 

foreground or background activity, Freund, 14:51-21:50, 8:63-9:3, 10:16-43. Freund

identifies foreground and background activity based on “whether the application 

receives ‘focus’ and/or receives user input (e.g., mouse clicks or key strokes).” Id.,

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 29 of 88 PageID #:

7632
14

10:40-43. And it maintains a list of actively used processes to “determine if [a] 

process . . . should have access to the Internet and what kind of access . . . is 

permissible.” Id., 4:5-5:5.

As with Montemurro, given Freund’s and Rao’s similarities, a POSA would 

have been motivated to implement Freund’s teachings in Rao. EX-1003 ¶119. And 

because Freund enhances different aspects of the Rao system than Montemurro, a 

POSA would have been likewise motivated to apply Freund’s teachings to the RaoMontemurro system. Id. ¶120. Freund describes its approach as “advantageous,” and 

a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Freund’s teachings to improve 

the combined system’s user friendliness (e.g., in view of Freund’s detailed “rules 

wizard” for policy configuration and its policy options) and to implement the 

background/foreground prioritization suggested by Rao. Freund, 10:55-11:28; EX1003 ¶120. A POSA would have recognized that the proposed combination would 

have had particular benefits in corporate settings where an employer may wish to 

monitor (and impose limits on) employees’ device use, as Freund teaches. See 

Freund, 8:63-9:3, 10:16-43 (“[I]t is desirable to monitor the time an employee spends 

‘actively’ interacting with the Internet,” as opposed to background email and other 

process, to “control[] counterproductive Web browsing.”); EX-1003 ¶121.

A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining 

Rao, Montemurro, and Freund. The proposed combination combines known 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 30 of 88 PageID #:

7633
15

hardware and software components (including, e.g., standard device components 

and policy modules) operating according to their known use for their known, 

commonly intended purpose (e.g., to monitor network communications and take 

actions according to set policies), to achieve known benefits (e.g., control of network 

communications). EX-1003 ¶122.

B. Claim 1

1. [1.0] A wireless end-user device, comprising: 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches a “wireless end-user device.” Rao discloses 

a “mobile client, such as a notebook, personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone, 

or any type of mobile computing or telecommunication device.” Rao ¶198. This 

client may connect wirelessly to a network. Id. ¶¶81, 100, 125, 217; EX-1003 ¶124. 

Montemurro and Freund teach similar devices, e.g., Montemurro ¶50 

(describing “handheld wireless communication device”); Freund, 5:12-15 

(describing internet access by “mobile computer on the road”), and a POSA would 

have been motivated to implement the combined system as a wireless end-user 

device, EX-1003 ¶125. These were well known at the time of the alleged invention,

and a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 31 of 88 PageID #:

7634
16

1. [1.1] a wireless wide area network (WWAN) modem to 

communicate data for Internet service activities between the 

device and at least one WWAN, when configured for and 

connected to the WWAN;

[1.2] a wireless local area network (WLAN) modem to 

communicate data for Internet service activities between the 

device and at least one WLAN, when configured for and 

connected to the WLAN;

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches these limitations. 

Rao discloses that its device communicates network packets over 

network 104. E.g., Rao ¶¶99, 110, 179-80, 185 (“obtain inbound and/or outbound 

packets of the client 105, such as the network traffic associated with application 

338”); id. ¶¶125, 195 (describing wireless interfaces/connections). Montemurro and 

Freund describe similar network communications. E.g., Montemurro ¶31 

(discussing IP packet transmission over network); Freund, 11:30-12:42 (same). A

POSA would have understood these communications to be “data for Internet service 

activities” and would have understood the device must communicate such data for

its internet connection. EX-1003 ¶129 (explaining internet access is facilitated by 

device-network packet exchanges). 

Rao further teaches that its device may access networks, including WAN and 

LAN networks, by wired or wireless connection, and that its device may include a 

“network interface” to interface with a network, which may be a modem. Rao ¶¶95, 

125. Montemurro similarly teaches that a device may connect to multiple networks, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 32 of 88 PageID #:

7635
17

including a WWAN and WLAN networks, using a network interface for each 

network type. Montemurro, Abstract, ¶¶3, 11-13, 50-54, Fig. 2. Montemurro teaches 

that such “multi-mode” devices, those “capable of communicating in at least two 

communication modes (e.g., WLAN such as Wi-Fi . . . and WWAN),” allow 

“optimize[d] communications,” reduce costs (e.g., by avoiding networks with an 

associated costs), and improve communication quality. Id. ¶¶3-4, 11-13; EX-1003 

¶131. 

Given these benefits, a POSA would have been motivated to include both a 

WLAN and a WWAN network interface in the Rao-Montemurro-Freund wireless 

network device to facilitate internet access over multiple network types. EX-1003 

¶132; supra §VI.A. A POSA would have implemented the network interfaces as 

modems in view of Rao’s suggestion to do so and would have recognized such 

modems are to communicate data as claimed when configured for and connected to 

the respective WWAN or WLAN network. Rao ¶125; EX-1003 ¶132. Freund’s 

disclosures are not contrary, and a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation 

of success in implementing this aspect of Rao-Montemurro-Freund. EX-1003 

¶¶133-34.

2. [1.3] a non-transient memory to store 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Each reference relies on 

non-transient memory to store policy-related information. E.g., Rao ¶¶116 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 33 of 88 PageID #:

7636
18

(describing stored “executable instructions”), 119 (explaining processor “responds 

to and processes instructions fetched from the main memory unit”), 124 (describing 

memory for storing application software and programs such as the remote access 

client software”); Montemurro ¶¶53-56 (disclosing memory for storing 

configuration data and applications); Freund, 7:46-8:10 (describing software stored 

in memory), Fig. 1. 

A POSA would have understood the disclosed memory includes “nontransient memory,” e.g., Rao’s “hard disk drive[]” and Freund’s “mass storage,” and 

a POSA would have been motivated to store information needed in the long-term 

(e.g., information related to the traffic control policy) in non-transient memory in 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund. EX-1003 ¶137. Storing information in non-transient 

memory was well-known, e.g., EX-1015 ¶¶36-37; EX-1019, Fig. 1A, and a POSA 

would have had a reasonable expectation of success, EX-1003 ¶138.

3. [1.3.1] a differential traffic control policy list distinguishing 

between a first one or more applications resident on the 

device and a second one or more applications and/or services 

resident on the device, and

[1.3.2] a differential traffic control policy applicable to at 

least some Internet service activities by or on behalf of the 

first one or more applications;

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches these limitations.

Rao discloses that its “remote access client 120” is stored on a hard disk drive 

(non-transient memory). Rao ¶124; EX-1003 ¶140. Remote access client 120 has 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 34 of 88 PageID #:

7637
19

“one or more policies 520” that specify transmission priority for network packets 

associated with certain of the device’s applications. Rao ¶182. Remote access 

client 120, which is stored in Rao’s non-transient memory, supra [1.3], discloses 

both a “differential traffic control policy” and a “differential traffic control policy 

list.”

First, Rao’s prioritization policy is a “differential traffic control policy” as 

claimed in Limitation [1.3.2] because it applies differently to different packets—

based on the assigned prioritization, a packet is placed in a different transmission 

queue and communicated more or less quickly (or is even discarded). Id. ¶¶191-94, 

207; EX-1003 ¶141. The policy is a “traffic control” policy because it controls how 

network packets (which are network traffic) are sent and received by the device over 

the network. Id. ¶¶191-94, 207; EX-1003 ¶142.

Rao’s policy is “applicable to at least some Internet service activities.” 

EX-1003 ¶143. Rao explains that its policy is “for specifying client-side 

prioritization of network communications related to applications 338a-338n”—that 

is, the policy prioritizes (and thus applies to) internet service activities (the network 

communications) of Rao’s applications. Rao ¶182; EX-1003 ¶143. 

The policy is “applicable to at least some Internet service activities (network 

communications)” “by or on behalf of” a particular application or group of 

applications, which a POSA would have understood to be a “first one or more 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 35 of 88 PageID #:

7638
20

applications.” EX-1003 ¶¶144-45. Rao teaches that its policies may be specified for

a particular application by “name,” for a particular application “type,” or based on 

other characteristics of the application, such as “whether an application is running 

in the foreground or the background.” Rao ¶182; id. ¶¶188, 192. Rao gives an 

example of a policy prioritizing one group of applications (real-time data 

communications of an application) ahead of other applications’ non-real-time data 

communications. Id. ¶184; see also id. ¶192.

Second, Rao teaches a differential traffic control policy list as claimed. EX1003 ¶146. Rao includes applications “resident” on the device. E.g., Rao ¶¶3, 87-88, 

124. To prioritize packets associated with particular applications (e.g., a first one or 

more of these applications or a second one or more applications), Rao uses remote 

access client 120’s filter 322. Rao ¶¶99, 114-17, 179, Figs. 1C, 5A. 

Filter 322 receives the “indicated priorities” established under Rao’s policy 

and applies them to packets associated with particular applications. Id. ¶190. A 

POSA would have understood that the “indicated priorities” are a differential traffic 

control list as recited in Limitation [1.3.1]. EX-1003 ¶147. The indicated priorities 

distinguish between (e.g., a first one or more and a second one or more applications) 

because, as explained, they dictate different application of the traffic control 

(prioritization) policy for packets associated with different applications or types of 

applications resident on the device. Rao ¶¶182, 184, 188, 192; see also id. ¶¶3, 87-

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 36 of 88 PageID #:

7639
21

88, 124. They are therefore “differential.” EX-1003 ¶148. And a POSA would have 

understood the “indicated priorities” to be a list. Id. ¶149. Rao elsewhere explains 

that filter 322 stores information used to route the packets (e.g., the priorities) in a 

“filtering table,” which filter 322 uses to determine if a packet “satisfies a condition 

listed in the filtering table.” Rao ¶¶102-06; EX-1003 ¶149.

A POSA would have been motivated to use a differential traffic control policy 

and list, as taught by Rao, in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. A POSA would have been 

aware of the benefits of implementing an application-specific traffic control policy, 

including improving communication quality and regulating bandwidth. E.g., EX1015, ¶¶4-5, 54, 68, claim 6; Montemurro ¶¶29, 56-59 (describing benefits of 

allowing “preferred” applications internet access); EX-1003 ¶150. Rao explains that 

its prioritization can be used for any of a “multitude” of defined priorities, and a 

POSA would have appreciated the flexibility of Rao’s traffic control policy. Rao 

¶182; see also id. ¶3 (explaining benefits of applying different prioritization to, e.g., 

prevent background activity from being processed ahead of foreground activity); 

EX-1003 ¶151. 

Montemurro and Freund similarly teach application-specific policies and the 

use of lists to implement those policies, confirming the appeal of Rao’s approach 

and a POSA’s likelihood of success in implementing this aspect of RaoMontemurro-Freund. E.g., Montemurro ¶¶27, 29, 32-24 (describing rules and 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 37 of 88 PageID #:

7640
22

“connection table”); Freund, 12:66-13:43 (describing “database of access rules” 

identifying “a list of applications or application versions that a user can or cannot 

use in order to access the internet”); EX-1003 ¶152. To the extent it is argued that 

Rao does not disclose the claimed policy or list, Montemurro and Freund do, and a 

POSA would have been motivated to implement these features in Rao-MontemurroFreund for the reasons discussed above. EX-1003 ¶153.

4. [1.4] an interface to allow a user to augment the differential 

traffic control policy for the first one or more applications 

but not for the second one or more applications and/or 

services; and

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Rao explains that a user may 

“configur[e]” an aspect of a policy through “a user interface, graphical or otherwise, 

design[ed] and constructed for configuring or specifying the policies 520.” Rao 

¶183; EX-1003 ¶155. Montemurro and Freund similarly teach that a user may 

beneficially use a user interface to allow the user to configure rules (e.g., aspects of 

the larger policy). E.g., Montemurro ¶36 (describing interface for “configur[ing] 

rules”); Freund, 8:10-12, 23:65-27:50 (describing interface for “modify[ing]” rule), 

Fig. 7A (button 712); EX-1003 ¶156. 

A POSA would have understood that by configuring or modifying the policy, 

e.g., by adding a criterion, the user is “augmenting” the differential traffic control 

policy. EX-1003 ¶157. And a POSA would have been motivated to include this 

option in Rao-Montemurro-Freund, as the references all suggest, to give the user 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 38 of 88 PageID #:

7641
23

increased control and flexibility. Id. This implementation would have required only 

routine skill as demonstrated by all the references’ teachings (including Freund’s 

1997 suggestion). Id.

Freund further suggests that only certain aspects of the policy (e.g., aspects 

applicable to the first one or more applications but not for the second one or more 

applications) may be augmented. It explains that when a rule is created the user can 

“selectively include or exclude applications” (or groups of applications). See, e.g., 

Freund, 24:17-27:36, Fig. 7A, 7D; EX-1003 ¶159. Subsequent modifications to the 

policy, e.g., to add a time constraint, augment the policy for the first one or more 

applications but not the second one or more applications (which are already excluded 

from the rule). EX-1003 ¶159; Freund, Fig. 7H-7K; 27:4-50.

Moreover, to the extent this limitation requires that the interface prevent

augmentation of the second one or more applications, Freund teaches that its rules

may be restricted so that end-users may not modify particular rules, which are 

aspects of the larger policy. E.g., Freund, 27:18-35 (describing limitations on who 

may modify); EX-1003 ¶160. Freund explains that organizations may wish to 

impose rules that individual users cannot modify—for example, the policy may 

block internet access for specified internet browsers, and users may be unable to 

modify that rule. Id., 26:31-27:36. But although users could not modify the policy 

as applied to those browsers (e.g., a second one or more applications), users could 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 39 of 88 PageID #:

7642
24

potentially modify the access policy applicable to the remaining browser 

applications (e.g., the time windows when the browser has internet access). Id.; EX1003 ¶¶160-61.

A POSA would have been motivated to include Freund’s teachings related to 

modifications and permissions in Rao-Montemurro-Freund because Freund 

describes benefits to allowing a central authority (e.g., an employer) to regulate 

users’ activities to protect against various security threats and “abuse . . . for 

unauthorized personal activities” without the user disabling/modifying important 

aspects of the policy. Freund, 9:22-11:27; id., 2:2-14; EX-1003 ¶162 (discussing 

EX-1014 ¶¶78, 229). Montemurro similarly contemplates that an “administrator” 

may configure rules, Montemurro ¶36, confirming the benefits described in Freund,

EX-1003 ¶163. And in view of Freund’s detailed teachings, a POSA would have had 

a reasonable expectation of success. Id.

5. [1.5] one or more processors configured to

Rao-Montemurro-Freund discloses this limitation. Each reference relies on 

processors to execute policy-related software, and a POSA would have been 

motivated to rely on such a well-known processor for the functions described in 

Limitations [1.5.1], [1.5.2], and [1.6] in the combined system. E.g., Rao ¶¶118-20, 

Figs. 1D, 1E; Montemurro ¶¶34, 55-59; Freund, 7:32-61, Fig. 1; EX-1003 ¶165. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 40 of 88 PageID #:

7643
25

6. [1.5.1] classify a wireless network to which the device 

currently connects in order to communicate data for Internet 

service activities as at least one of a plurality of network types 

that the device can connect with,

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Montemurro describes a 

“routing table” that “updates according to which interfaces 208 [e.g., modems] are 

available. Montemurro ¶30; EX-1003 ¶167. For instance, if both the WLAN and 

WWAN . . . are connected to their respective networks” the routing table reflects 

those connections:

Montemurro ¶¶30-31; id. ¶¶40-42, Figs. 2, 3. A POSA would have understood that 

when Montemurro’s interfaces are “connected to their respective networks,” the 

wireless network is one to which the device currently connects in order to 

communicate data (e.g., packets) for internet service activities. EX-1003 ¶¶168-69, 

171. And by classifying the network based on the interface it uses (e.g., WLAN or 

WWAN), Montemurro classifies the network as “at least one of the plurality of types 

that the device can connect with.” EX-1003 ¶¶170-71.

A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate these teachings into RaoMontemurro-Freund. Montemurro teaches the benefits of a multimode operation that

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 41 of 88 PageID #:

7644
26

applies a policy specific to a network type (e.g., permitting certain activities on some 

network types and not others). E.g., Montemurro, Abstract, ¶¶4, 11, 14, 29; EX-1003 

¶172; supra §VI.A. A POSA would have understood that classifying the available 

wireless networks to which the device currently connects by type, as Montemurro 

suggests, is a predicate to implementing the multimode functionality Montemurro 

touts. E.g., Montemurro ¶¶11, 30-35; EX-1003 ¶173. Implementing this 

classification in Rao-Montemurro-Freund would have required only ordinary skill. 

EX-1003 ¶173.

7. [1.5.2] classify whether a particular application capable of 

both interacting with the user in a user interface foreground 

of the device, and at least some Internet service activities 

when not interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground, is interacting with the user in the device user 

interface foreground, and

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Rao and Freund both explain 

that an application may operate in the foreground or the background of a user device. 

For example, Rao describes “foreground” applications currently in active use by the 

user” and those providing “interactive user session[s] ... such as video, voice, chat.” 

Rao, ¶¶3, 133, 140; see also id. ¶¶88, 91-92. These applications are thus capable of 

“interacting with the user in a user foreground of the device.” EX-1003 ¶176. They 

are also capable of internet service activities (e.g., sending and receiving network 

packets) when not interacting in the device display with the user. EX-1003 ¶177.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 42 of 88 PageID #:

7645
27

When applying its policy, Rao considers whether these applications are

currently “running in the foreground or the background,” confirming its applications 

are capable of either operation. E.g., id. ¶¶182, 188; EX-1003 ¶177. Freund similarly

teaches that an application may be interacting in the user interface foreground of the 

device (e.g., an email application when the user is typing an email) or may be 

engaging in internet activity when not interacting with the user in the device 

foreground (e.g., the email application “intermittently poll[ing] an Internet-based 

mail server”). Freund, 10:16-43.

Both Rao and Freund teach that it is advantageous to classify whether a 

particular application (and its associated internet use) is interacting with the user in 

the device interface foreground. Rao teaches that its remote access client may 

“determine whether the application 338a-338n associated with [a] network packet is 

running in the foreground or the background of the client” and suggests applying the 

differential policy based on “whether an application is running in the foreground or 

the background of the client.” Rao ¶¶182, 188. Freund similarly teaches examining 

each application to “determine[e] whether it is ‘active’ by determining whether the 

application receives ‘focus’ and/or receives user input (e.g., mouse clicks or key 

strokes).” Freund, 10:16-43. Freund discloses that making this determination 

facilitates rules limiting an employee’s “counterproductive Web browsing.” Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 43 of 88 PageID #:

7646
28

In view of Rao’s and Freund’s teachings, a POSA would have been motivated 

to classify whether a particular application was interacting in the device user 

interface foreground in Rao-Montemurro-Freund to facilitate the 

background/foreground-specific rules allowing or denying particular packets’ 

transmission as the references suggest. Supra §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶180. Montemurro’s 

disclosures are not contrary, and a POSA would have reasonably expected success 

in implementing this aspect of the combined system. EX-1003 ¶181.

8. [1.6] selectively allow or deny one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of the particular application based 

on whether or not the particular application is one of the first 

one or more applications, the differential traffic control 

policy, including any applicable user augmentation of the 

differential traffic control policy, and the classifications 

performed by the one or more processors.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. 

First, Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches “selectively allow[ing] or deny[ing] 

one or more internet activities by or on behalf of [a] particular application.” Each of 

the references suggests allowing/denying internet activities by particular 

applications. 

Rao, for example, teaches that based on its policy, the system may “discard 

network packets” (internet service activities), particularly during a network 

disruption, while queueing other packets to be transmitted. Rao ¶207; id. ¶¶102-05 

(describing decision to “drop” or “accept” packets). A POSA would have understood 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 44 of 88 PageID #:

7647
29

that discarded packets are “denied” and packets queued and transmitted are 

“allowed.” EX-1003 ¶185. Rao “selectively” denies and allows because the policies 

“determine which network packets to queue and/or discard. For example, a network 

packet of a first application 338a may be queued while a network packet of a second 

application 338n is discarded.” Rao ¶207; EX-1003 ¶185; see also EX-1010, 1 

(conceding Rao may discard packets after establishment of internet service). Rao 

further teaches deprioritizing some packets while immediately allowing others, e.g., 

Rao ¶¶38-40, 43, 180-88, and a POSA would have understood this de-prioritization 

is at least a temporary denial because packets are prevented from accessing network 

resources while higher-priority packets are being transmitted, EX-1003 ¶186.

Likewise, Rao selectively allows the transmission of those higher-priority packets

while temporarily denying the lower-priority packets. Id.

Montemurro similarly teaches denying internet service activities if a particular 

network is not available. Montemurro ¶29 (explaining particular application may 

“only” perform certain actions “over a WLAN network”). And Freund teaches that 

when its rules are violated (e.g., through overuse of an application), its system 

“den[ies] internet access.” E.g., Freund, 13:13-22. It further teaches that denying 

access (blocking) may be advantageous “when network traffic is already congested.” 

Id., 27:9-14, Fig. 14.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 45 of 88 PageID #:

7648
30

In view of the references’ teachings, a POSA would have been motivated to 

selectively deny and allow internet service activities. EX-1003 ¶189. As the 

references teach, including the option to selectively deny is beneficial at least when 

there is congestion (as disclosed by Rao and Freund) or when no option to complete 

the activity in compliance with the applicable policy currently exists (as suggested 

by Montemurro and Freund). Id. A POSA would have similarly recognized that 

selectively allowing internet service activities in conformance with the policy 

facilitates high-quality communications in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Supra §VI.A; 

EX-1003 ¶190. This implementation would have required only routine skill. EX1003 ¶190.

Second, Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches that the decision to selectively 

allow or deny is based on whether the particular application is one of the first one or 

more applications. As explained, supra [1.4], the combined system applies an 

application-specific differential traffic control policy and allows augmentation of the 

differential traffic control policy for the first one or more applications. A POSA 

would have understood that the decision to selectively allow or deny internet service 

activity is based in part on any augmentations and is accordingly based in part on 

whether the particular application is one of the first one or more applications. EX1003 ¶191.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 46 of 88 PageID #:

7649
31

Third, Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches that the decision to selectively allow 

or deny is further based on the differential traffic control policy, including any 

applicable user augmentation of the differential traffic control policy. As explained, 

supra [1.3.2], [1.4], Rao-Montemurro-Freund describes a differential traffic control 

policy that acts to prioritize/allow/deny particular packets based on the policy, which 

a user may augment in some circumstances. EX-1003 ¶192.

And fourth, Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches that the decision to selectively 

allow or deny is further based on the classifications of [1.5.1] and [1.5.2] (e.g., the 

network type and whether an application is interacting with the user in the device 

user interface foreground).

As explained, supra [1.5.1], Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches multimode 

operation, in which particular internet service activities are allowed or denied based 

on what network the device is using. A POSA would have understood that allowing 

or denying an internet service activity based on the network type is selectively 

allowing or denying that activity based on the classification discussed supra [1.5.1].

EX-1003 ¶¶193-94.

Similarly, as explained, supra [1.5.2], Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches 

selectively allowing or denying an internet service activity based on whether the 

associated application is operating in the background or the foreground, which a 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 47 of 88 PageID #:

7650
32

POSA would have understood is selectively allowing or denying that activity based 

on the classification discussed supra [1.5.2], EX-1003 ¶195.

A POSA would have been motivated to base the selective allowance or denial 

of an internet service activity on both these considerations. All three references 

invite a POSA to apply a multi-faceted policy. E.g., Rao ¶¶182-84, 187-94; 

Montemurro ¶29; Freund, 4:8-28, 13:2-22, 23:65-27:49; EX-1003 ¶196. A POSA 

would have been motivated to do so in order to offer improved performance, lower 

cost, and customizability. EX-1003 ¶196; §VI.A. And in view of the references’ 

disclosures, a POSA would have reasonably expected success in implementing this 

aspect of Rao-Montemurro-Freund. EX-1003 ¶196.

A POSA would have understood that these criteria could be implemented as 

part of a logic triggering different policies based on, e.g., the network type to which 

the device is connected or could be implemented as a single multi-faceted policy. Id. 

¶197. For example, the network type can be a criterion in a policy:

(1) If network_type=WWAN (and optionally more criteria), then [action]; 

(2) If network_type=WLAN (and optionally more criteria), then [action]. 

Id. Or policy rules can be grouped conditionally, such that, once a first classification 

is made, a different “policy” applies:

(1) If network_type=WLAN then

(1A) if (additional criteria) then [action]

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 48 of 88 PageID #:

7651
33

(2) If network_type=WLAN then

(2A) if (additional criteria) then [action]

Id. ¶198. Either approach would have been straightforward and routine for a POSA 

to implement using only ordinary skill in the art and would have achieved the desired 

ability to selectively allow or deny based on multiple considerations. Id. ¶199; Rao 

¶182 (noting “hierarchical” and “conditional” policies).

C. Claims 2-5

Claim 1 requires that the decision to allow or deny an internet service activity 

be based on (1) whether its associated application is one of the first one or more 

applications, (2) the differential traffic control policy (and any applicable 

augmentation), (3) the classification of the wireless network, and (4) the 

classification of whether the application is interacting with the user in the device 

user interface foreground. Supra [1.6]. 

Claims 2-5 merely recite permutations of these elements and are obvious for 

at the least the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. EX-1003 ¶¶201-02. 

Selecting one particular example from the limited number of different known 

permutations does not impart patentability. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 

398, 421, (2007); EX-1003 ¶201. Indeed, the ’613 patent does not describe any 

particular advantage of using the four claimed criteria to make the decision to allow 

or deny, much less using any specific permutation of those criteria. EX-1003 ¶202.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 49 of 88 PageID #:

7652
34

1. Claim 2: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein 

based on the differential traffic control policy the one or 

more processors selectively deny one or more Internet service 

activities by or on behalf of the particular application when

the particular application is one of the first one or more

applications, 

the classified wireless network is a WWAN type, and 

the particular application is classified as not interacting with 

the user in the device user interface foreground. 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The proposed combination 

discloses selectively denying internet service activities as discussed, supra [1.6], and 

thus renders obvious the specific implementation of claim 2, EX-1003 ¶204. 

In addition, a POSA would have been motivated to include claim 2’s 

limitation in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Supra [1.6], §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶205. Limiting 

certain applications’ (e.g., those not interacting with the user in the device 

foreground) activities to non-WWAN networks (selectively denying their internet 

service activities on WWAN networks) would have saved costs without degrading 

user experience, as suggested by Montemurro and Rao. See, e.g., Montemurro ¶4, 

EX-1015 ¶¶4-5, 54, 68, claim 6; EX-1014 ¶¶48, 252, 279-285, Figs. 10A-10B; Rao 

¶3; EX-1003 ¶206. And a POSA would have recognized the advantages of allowing 

the user to augment the rule for applications important to the user’s work or general 

experience (the “first one or more applications”) as suggested by Freund, so that the 

user could modify the rule and override the selective denial if needed (e.g., adding a 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 50 of 88 PageID #:

7653
35

time-based criterion to permit access over any connection for a period). Freund, 

4:19-28, 8:40-53, 13:13-22, 23:65-27:50; EX-1003 ¶207.

Given the references’ teachings, a POSA would have reasonably expected 

success. EX-1003 ¶208. Indeed, Montemurro gives an example of a rule that 

discloses claim 2. Id. It teaches that a “CRM application” may “only synchronize 

the sales contact database . . . over a WLAN network.” Montemurro ¶29. This

selectively allows or denies the synchronization with the database (an internet 

service activity) on behalf of the CRM application. Id.; EX-1003 ¶208. 

A POSA would have understood that in the combined system, the CRM 

application may be a first one or more applications that is subject to user 

augmentation. EX-1003 ¶209. Freund instructs that users may modify rules relevant 

to their areas of responsibility at work, see, e.g., Freund, 4:19-28, 8:40-53, 13:13-

22, and a POSA would have recognized that access to a contact database is the type 

of rule the user should be permitted to modify so that the user can access the database 

if needed (overriding the rule), EX-1003 ¶209. 

Montemurro’s suggested rule selectively denies synchronization when the 

CRM application is not connected to a WLAN network (e.g., when the classified 

network is instead a WWAN type). Montemurro ¶29; EX-1003 ¶210. And based on 

Rao and Freund’s teachings, a POSA would have understood that synchronization 

is a background process like “poll[ing] an Internet-based mail server” that occurs 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 51 of 88 PageID #:

7654
36

passively, when the application is not interacting with the user in the device user 

interface foreground. E.g., Rao ¶3; Freund, 10:16-27; EX-1003 ¶210. 

2. Claim 3: The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein the 

one or more processors are further configured to override 

the selective denial of one or more Internet service activities 

by or on behalf of the particular application when the user 

has augmented the differential traffic control policy so as to 

indicate that Internet service activities are allowable when 

the classified wireless network is the WWAN type, and the 

particular application is classified as not interacting with the 

user in the device user interface foreground.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. As discussed, a POSA 

would have understood the benefits of allowing the user to augment (e.g., modify to 

add criteria) the selective denial for certain applications, e.g., by allowing the user 

to override a selective denial by adding a time-based criteria to permit access over 

any connection, including a WWAN, for a period. Supra claim 2. A POSA would 

have understood that Rao-Montemurro-Freund’s processors would be configured to 

apply the augmentation. Supra [1.5], [1.6]; EX-1003 ¶213. Montemurro provides an 

example of such a rule, and a POSA would have implemented this limitation in RaoMontemurro-Freund for the reasons discussed above. Supra claim 2; EX-1003 ¶213. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 52 of 88 PageID #:

7655
37

3. Claim 4: The wireless end-user device of claim 2, wherein 

based on the differential traffic control policy the one or 

more processors selectively allow one or more Internet

service activities by or on behalf of the particular application 

when 

the particular application is one of the first one or more

applications, 

the classified wireless network is the WWAN type, and 

the particular application is classified as interacting with the 

user in the device user interface foreground. 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The proposed combination 

discloses selectively allowing internet service activities as discussed, supra [1.6], 

and thus renders obvious the specific implementation of claim 4, EX-1003 ¶215. 

In addition, a POSA would have been motivated to include claim 4’s 

limitation in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Supra [1.6]; §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶216. 

Allowing internet service activities by applications in the set of “first one or more 

applications” (e.g., those for which the user may augment rules) that are actively 

interacting with the user in the foreground to occur even on WWAN networks would 

have benefitted users. EX-1003 ¶216. A POSA would have understood that, as 

disclosed by Freund, applications subject to augmentation may be those important 

to the user’s work, and as taught by Rao and Freund, applications interacting with 

the user in the device user interface foreground are those with which the user is 

actively engaged. E.g., Rao ¶¶3, 188-89; Freund, 4:19-28, 8:40-53, 13:13-22; 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 53 of 88 PageID #:

7656
38

EX-1003 ¶217. A POSA would have implemented Rao-Montemurro-Freund to 

allow internet service activities associated with, e.g., applications important to the 

user with which the user is actively engaged to improve the quality of the user 

experience, and a POSA would have reasonably expected success in this 

implementation given the references’ teachings. EX-1003 ¶218; supra [1.6], 

claim 2.

4. Claim 5: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein 

based on the differential traffic control policy the one or 

more processors selectively allow one or more Internet 

service activities by or on behalf of a second particular 

application and/or service when 

the second particular application and/or service is one of the 

second one or more applications and/or services and 

the classified wireless network is the WWAN type. 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The proposed combination 

discloses selectively allowing internet service activities as discussed, supra [1.6], 

and thus renders obvious the specific implementation of claim 5, EX-1003 ¶220. 

In addition, a POSA would have been motivated to include claim 5’s 

limitation in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Supra [1.6]; §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶221. Freund 

teaches that there are applications (e.g., second particular applications) whose 

internet access should be controlled only at the administrator level. Freund, 27:17-

36, Fig. 7I. A POSA would have understood that one example would be applications 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 54 of 88 PageID #:

7657
39

that detect security issues—allowing an individual user to disable such an 

application’s network access through modification of the policy might jeopardize 

other users’ or company security. EX-1003 ¶222. Accordingly, a POSA would have 

understood that Internet service activities by or on behalf of an application that 

detects security issues should be allowed under the differential traffic control policy 

irrespective of the network type, including, e.g., when the classified wireless 

network is the WWAN type. EX-1003 ¶223. Freund suggests as much, emphasizing 

the importance of network security. Freund, 1:24-30 (noting issue), 12:38-40 

(disclosing application that “detect security or other problems”); EX-1003 ¶223. In 

view of these disclosures, a POSA would have been motivated to implement this 

limitation in Rao-Montemurro-Freund and would have reasonably expected success. 

EX-1003 ¶224.

D. Claim 6: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are configured to classify that the particular 

application is interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground when the user of the device is directly interacting with 

that application or perceiving any benefit from that application.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The processors classify an 

application as interacting with the user in the device user interface foreground (or 

not). Supra [1.5.2]; see also supra [1.5], [1.6]. Freund further teaches making this

classification by examining an application and “determin[ing] whether the 

application receives ‘focus’ and/or receives user input (e.g., mouse clicks or key 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 55 of 88 PageID #:

7658
40

strokes),” e.g., whether the user is “directly interacting” with the application. Freund, 

10:16-43; EX-1003 ¶227.

A POSA would have been motivated to implement Freund’s method in RaoMontemurro-Freund to facilitate the foreground/background specific policies taught 

by Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Supra [1.6], §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶228. Freund’s 

teachings are consistent with Rao’s, which similarly classifies as “foreground” 

applications those “currently in active use by the user,” e.g., “interactive user 

session[s] ... such as video, voice, chat.” Rao ¶¶3, 133, 140, 189; EX-1003 ¶228. 

Montemurro’s teachings are not contrary, and a POSA would have been able to 

achieve this implementation through routine skill. EX-1003 ¶¶228-29.

E. Claim 7: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the user 

interface is further to provide the user of the device with 

information regarding why the differential traffic control policy is 

applied to the particular application.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. It includes a “user interface” 

to allow a user to augment a policy. Supra [1.4].

Freund teaches that the user interface may provide the user with information 

regarding why the differential traffic control policy is applied to an application. It 

teaches a “warning” or “error dialog” with rule-specific text that appears in the user 

interface and explains to the user that “<<appname>> has accessed the Internet . . . 

in violation of the access policies. The connection . . . will be terminated. Please 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 56 of 88 PageID #:

7659
41

contact your system administrator if you have any questions.” Freund, 4:25-27, 

12:65-13:23, 26:51-27:3, 29:18-23, 30:12-49, Figs. 7G, 13A, 13B.

A POSA would have been motivated to include these error messages, as 

Freund suggests, in Rao-Montemurro-Freund to make the user aware of why an 

internet service activity was denied and provide a point of contact for questions. EX1003 ¶¶233-34. In view of Freund’s 1997 suggestion, a POSA at the time of the 

alleged invention would have reasonably expected success. EX-1003 ¶234.

F. Claim 8: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

differential traffic control policy is part of a multimode profile 

having different policies for different ones of the network types.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The system includes 

modems for different network types and may apply different policies depending on 

the type of network the device is using. Supra [1.1], [1.2], [1.5.1], [1.6].

A POSA would have understood the traffic control policy of RaoMontemurro-Freund may therefore be part of a multimode profile having different 

policies for different ones of the network types. EX-1003 ¶237. Montemurro

describes its device as “multi-mode capable,” Montemurro, ¶4, and teaches the 

benefits of varying policy based on the network type, e.g., id. ¶¶27-29; EX-1003 

¶238. It discloses policy profiles for particular network types (e.g., a “WLAN 

network profile”), id. ¶27, and a POSA would have understood that the policies 

applicable to each network type can be considered a “multimode profile,” EX-1003 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 57 of 88 PageID #:

7660
42

¶239. A POSA would have included these features in Rao-Montemurro-Freund for 

the reasons discussed above. Supra §VI.A; EX-1003 ¶240.

G. Claim 9: The wireless end-user device of claim 8, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to select a traffic control 

policy from the multimode profile based at least in part on the 

classified wireless network type.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. As discussed, supra [1.6], 

claim 8, Rao-Montemurro-Freund may include different traffic control policies for 

different network types as part of a multimode profile, EX-1003 ¶242 (explaining 

claimed criterion may be implemented as part of a logic triggering different 

policies).

A POSA would have understood that in this configuration, the system 

processor would select the applicable traffic control policy based at least in part on 

the classified wireless network type. EX-1003 ¶¶243-44; see also supra [1.5], [1.6]. 

This is consistent with the references’ disclosures of processors used to classify and 

execute policy-related software/rules, supra [1.5], [1.6], and a POSA would have 

had a reasonable expectation of success. EX-1003 ¶245. A POSA would have been 

motivated to implement Rao-Montemurro-Freund in this way for the reasons 

discussed in connection with limitation [1.6] and claim 8. Id.

H. Claim 10: The wireless end-user device of claim 9, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to, when the classified 

wireless network type is at least one type of WLAN, select the 

traffic control policy from the multimode profile based at least in 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 58 of 88 PageID #:

7661
43

part on a type of network connection from the WLAN to the 

Internet.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. 

Montemurro teaches that there are cost differences between different network 

connection types. E.g., Montemurro ¶¶3-4. For example, it was known that WLANs 

could either be free (e.g., a corporate WLAN) or have a cost (e.g., a commercial 

WLAN hotspot). EX-1003 ¶247. A POSA would have understood that free/paid 

WLANs are “types” of WLANs and “type[s] of network connection[s] from the 

WLAN to the Internet.” Id.

A POSA would have been motivated to configure the processors to select a 

specific traffic control policy based at least in part on whether the WLAN was free 

or paid at least because Montemurro suggests doing so. EX-1003 ¶248. It discloses 

varying policy based on network cost, e.g., by having an “MP3 download application 

. . . runs on the lowest cost network 104 and 106 available.” Montemurro ¶29; see 

also supra [1.5], [1.6]. In view of Montemurro’s suggestion, a POSA would have 

been motivated to implement these teachings in Rao-Montemurro-Freund to control 

user costs and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. EX-1003 ¶249.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 59 of 88 PageID #:

7662
44

I. Claim 11: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include three or more of 2G, 3G, 4G, 

home, roaming, and WiFi.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. It implements the ability to 

connect to multiple network types, including, e.g., WLAN and WWAN networks. 

Supra [1.1], [1.2]. 

Montemurro discloses that using the WLAN interface a device may connect 

to WiFi. Montemurro ¶11. It further teaches that the WWAN interface includes 

“GSM/GPRS cellular” as well as “EDGE, UMTS, HSPA, CDMA, WCDMA, etc.” 

Id. ¶¶3-4, 11. A POSA would have understood that e.g., GSM, is a “2G” standard.

EX-1003 ¶251. And a POSA would have understood that, e.g., EDGE, UMTS, and 

WCDMA are “3G” standards. Id.

Based on Montemurro’s disclosures, a POSA would have understood that 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund may connect to a plurality of network types, including at 

least 2G, 3G, and WiFi, and a POSA would have been motivated to implement RaoMontemurro-Freund to permit those connections to increase the available network 

options, which would offer further avenues to decrease costs and improve quality. 

E.g., Montemurro ¶¶3-4; supra §VIII.C; EX-1003 ¶252. The addition is consistent 

with Rao and Freund, which contemplate the use of different internet connection 

types, e.g., Rao ¶95; Freund, 1:24-30, and given Montemurro’s express suggestion, 

a POSA would have expected success, EX-1003 ¶252.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 60 of 88 PageID #:

7663
45

J. Claim 12: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, the one or more 

processors further configured to receive an update to at least a 

portion of the differential traffic control policy list from a network 

element.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. It relies on a differential 

traffic control policy and associated list. Supra [1.3.1], [1.3.2]. In view of the 

references’ teachings, it would have been obvious to implement Rao-MontemurroFreund such that its processor, supra [1.5], is configured to receive an update to at 

least a portion of the list from a network element. EX-1003 ¶254.

The combined system relies on a processor to retrieve and execute 

instructions. Supra [1.5], [1.6]; see also, e.g., Rao ¶119, Montemurro ¶¶56-57. A 

POSA would accordingly have been motivated to, and expected success, in using 

the processor to receive updates to the list. EX-1003 ¶255.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund also teaches that its policies, and accordingly, the 

policy list, may be updated. For example, Freund teaches a local “rules database” 

(policy list) used to “intelligently determine” the action to take with respect to a 

particular internet service activity. Freund, 21:26-40; see also id., 13:66-14:12, 16:8-

29. Freund teaches modifications to its rules, supra [1.4], and it considers whether 

the system rules have “changed since last download,” Freund, 21:26-40. In view of 

these teachings, a POSA implementing Rao-Montemurro-Freund would have 

understood that to effectively manage internet access, the differential control policy 

and list would need to be kept up to date. EX-1003 ¶257. A POSA therefore would

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 61 of 88 PageID #:

7664
46

have been motivated to apply Freund’s teachings to configure the system to receive 

periodic (or on-demand) updates to the differential traffic control policy list (or at 

least a portion thereof, for example, related to high-priority changes). Id. ¶258. This 

is consistent with, e.g., Montemurro, which explains that rules may be transferred to 

the device “upon an update,” Montemurro ¶36, and Rao’s disclosures are not 

contrary, EX-1003 ¶258. A POSA would accordingly have had a reasonable 

expectation of success as evidenced by the references’ disclosures. Id.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund also renders obvious providing the update via a 

network element. All three references instruct that policy information may be 

provided by a network element. Rao describes that “policies 520 may be provided 

by or downloaded via the gateway 340,” a network element. Rao ¶¶97, 183; EX1003 ¶259. Montemurro similarly teaches that rules (policy) may be “configured 

off-device” and “transferred to the device via a communications interface” including 

“upon an update or other event.” Montemurro ¶36. A POSA would have understood 

this type of off-device update to be from a network element. EX-1003 ¶259. And 

Freund teaches downloading policy rules from the supervisor module (a network 

element). Freund, 21:21-40. A POSA accordingly would have been motivated to 

provide updates to the differential control policy list via a network element. EX1003 ¶160. A POSA would have understood that doing so would have been efficient, 

for example, in updating policies applicable to multiple devices, as suggested by 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 62 of 88 PageID #:

7665
47

Freund. Id. The references’ endorsement of providing policy information via the 

network element confirms that a POSA would have needed only ordinary skill for 

this implementation. Id.

K. Claim 13: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include a roaming WWAN type and a 

home WWAN type, and the one or more processors are to apply 

the differential traffic control policy to one of but not both of the 

roaming WWAN type and the home WWAN type.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. For example, Montemurro 

teaches that a device may choose among “multiple available cellular networks from 

different cellular service providers.” Montemurro ¶62. Montemurro uses cellular and 

“WWAN” synonymously, e.g., id., Fig. 2; EX-1003 ¶262. A POSA at the time of 

the alleged invention would have understood that when using cellular networks, the 

user may use their “home” network (e.g., the network provided by the user’s cellular 

carrier) or a “roaming” network (e.g., a network not provided by the carrier). EX1003 ¶263. At the time of the alleged invention, cellular carriers regularly imposed 

additional charges for “roaming,” and Montemurro teaches that different rules (e.g., 

differential traffic control policy) may apply based on whether the network is 

“roaming.” Id.; Montemurro ¶29; EX-1015 ¶¶4-5, 54, 68, claim 6; EX-1014, 

Fig. 4B, [0175]; EX-1003 ¶263. Montemurro therefore suggests applying 

differential traffic control policy to roaming WWAN and not home WWAN, which 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 63 of 88 PageID #:

7666
48

would have resulted in cost savings by minimizing roaming charges. Montemurro 

¶4; EX-1003 ¶264.

A POSA would have been motivated to apply Montemurro’s teachings in 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund to achieve these savings. EX-1003 ¶265. A POSA would 

have recognized that, consistent with the references’ teachings, the processor would 

apply the differential traffic control policy, supra [1.5], [1.6], and a POSA would 

have had a reasonable expectation of success in view of Montemurro’s suggestions,

EX-1003 ¶265. 

L. Claim 14: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

plurality of network types include the WWAN type and a WLAN 

type, and the one or more processors are to apply the differential 

traffic control policy to one of but not both of the WWAN type and 

the WLAN type.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Rao-Montemurro-Freund 

teaches connections to a plurality of network types, including WWAN and WLAN. 

Supra [1.1], [1.2]. It likewise includes a processor, which would apply the 

differential traffic control policy, supra [1.5], [1.6]; EX-1003 ¶267. 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund further teaches applying the differential control 

policy to WWAN type networks and not WLAN type networks. As explained,

Montemurro gives an express example of selectively denying internet service 

activities (through application of the differential traffic control policy) of an 

application on a WWAN network. Supra [1.6], claim 2; see Montemurro ¶29. And 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 64 of 88 PageID #:

7667
49

as explained, a POSA would have been motivated to implement these teachings in 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund to avoid costs associated with WWAN networks. Supra 

[1.6], claim 2; see Montemurro ¶4. A POSA would have understood that 

Montemurro’s teachings could readily be implemented by applying the differential 

traffic control policy to WWAN type and not WLAN type networks. EX-1003 ¶269. 

This implementation is consistent with Rao, which contemplates filtering (e.g., 

applying differential control policy) some networks but not others. See, e.g., Rao 

¶104; EX-1003 ¶269. 

M. Claim 16: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to dynamically change 

the application of the differential traffic control policy based on a 

device usage state.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Its processor, supra [1.5], 

[1.6], applies the differential traffic control policy, EX-1003 ¶271. And RaoMontemurro-Freund teaches dynamically changing application of the differential 

control policy based on a device usage state. 

As discussed, supra [1.3.2], [1.6], the Rao-Montemurro-Freund traffic control 

policy may be based on a “multitude” of defined priorities. As an example, RaoMontemurro-Freund discloses that the policy may be based on a network type 

accessed. Supra [1.6]; EX-1003 ¶273. A POSA would have understood the type of 

network accessed is a device usage state and would have been motivated to base the 

policy on the network type accessed as explained above. EX-1003 ¶¶273-74.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 65 of 88 PageID #:

7668
50

In addition, Rao discloses that the policy may be based on whether the 

application is running in the foreground as well as other characteristics of the 

application, including “total execution time.” Rao ¶¶188-89; EX-1003 ¶275. A 

POSA would have understood that these criteria reflect the “device usage state.” EX1003 ¶276. For example, as Rao explains, an application in the interface foreground 

is in active use—the user is interacting with the application, and the device is in 

active use. Rao ¶3; see also Freund, 3:12-16. And the application’s execution time 

similarly reflects whether the application (and accordingly the device) is in active 

use. EX-1003 ¶276.

A POSA would have understood that the device’s usage state would change, 

and the Rao-Montemurro-Freund traffic control policy would obviously change with 

it. EX-1003 ¶277. For example, where the policy prioritized “real-time” data 

communications in the device foreground (a policy criteria based on the device usage 

state), application of the policy would change dynamically as a user held a VOIP 

conversation (where the packets associated with the application would receive high 

priority) and then completed the call and left her device idle and ceased to give the 

VOIP app focus (when the same application’s packets might receive lowest priority 

behind other background activities). Id.

A POSA would have been motivated to implement the Rao-MontemurroFreund policy in this way to flexibly respond to “change[s] to real-time conditions” 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 66 of 88 PageID #:

7669
51

as suggested by the references. Montemurro ¶2; EX-1003 ¶277. A POSA would have 

been able to implement this feature of Rao-Montemurro-Freund through routine 

skill. EX-1003 ¶277.

N. Claim 18: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

differential traffic control policy defines that the first one or more 

applications can only access a first one of the network types during 

particular time windows.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. As explained, supra claim 2, 

it teaches generally denying access to a WWAN type network by the first one or 

more applications but permitting the user to override the selective denial, e.g., by 

augmenting the applicable denial rule to allow internet access during a particular 

time window, EX-1003 ¶279. As explained, POSA would have understood that 

permitting the user to augment the policy to permit access during particular time 

windows would have been beneficial, and a POSA would have had a reasonable 

expectation of success. Supra claims 2, 23; EX-1003 ¶280 (citing EX-1015 ¶68; 

Montemurro ¶¶11, 29, 35, 39-42).

O. Claim 19: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are configured to classify that the particular 

application is interacting with the user in the device user interface 

foreground based on a state of user interface priority for the 

application.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Its processor classifies 

whether a particular application is interacting with the user in the device user 

interface foreground. Supra [1.5], [1.5.2], [1.6]. Freund bases this classification on 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 67 of 88 PageID #:

7670
52

“whether the application receives ‘focus’ and/or receives user input (e.g., mouse 

clicks or key strokes).” Freund, 10:16-43. A POSA would have understood that the 

application receiving focus or user input (and thus interacting with the user in the 

device user interface foreground) is the application in the highest interface priority. 

EX-1003 ¶283.

Based on Freund’s teachings, a POSA would have been motivated to classify 

the application as interacting with the user in the device user interface based on a 

state of user interface priority for the application. Id. ¶284. A POSA would have 

recognized this approach as one of a finite number of approaches available to classify 

whether an application is interacting with the user in the device interface foreground 

as suggested by Rao and Freund, id., and a POSA would have been motivated and 

reasonably expected success as discussed, supra [1.5.2].

P. Claim 20: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

second one or more applications are not subject to a differential 

network access control that is applicable to the first one or more 

applications.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. As discussed, supra [1.3.2], 

it teaches “application-specific” network traffic control policies. Under an 

application-specific policy, the first one or more applications may be subject to 

different controls than the second one or more applications, such that controls 

applicable to the first may not be applicable to the second. EX-1003 ¶287. For 

example, Freund teaches that particular applications may be permitted to access the 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 68 of 88 PageID #:

7671
53

internet while others are blocked. Freund, 24:1-15. For example, applications 

approved by a system administrator might be exempt from certain policy controls. 

Id.; EX-1003 ¶288. A POSA would have been motivated to implement applicationspecific control policies and reasonably expected success. Supra [1.3.2]; EX-1003

¶289.

Q. Claim 21: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to classify between: user 

applications; system applications, utilities, functions, or processes; 

and operating system application, utilities, functions, or processes.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. The references describe 

operating systems; system applications, including predetermined applications for 

basic functionality and windows shells; and user applications, including email 

clients and other user-facing programs (as well as operating systems). E.g., Rao ¶¶99 

(describing operating system with “user mode 332, also referred to as an application 

or user space and kernel-mode 334, which may be also referred to as the kernel or 

system level space”), 179 (describing applications “provid[ing] email, collaboration, 

online meeting, and/or desktop sharing related services or functionality”); 

Montemurro ¶¶56-57 (describing operating system, “predetermined set of 

applications that control basic device operations,” e.g., system applications, and user 

applications); Freund, Fig. 2, 7:54-8:38 (describing system including user “client 

application software,” a “windows shell,” and an operating system); EX-1003 

¶¶291-92. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 69 of 88 PageID #:

7672
54

A POSA would have been motivated to implement Rao-Montemurro-Freund 

such that the processor classifies between the user, system, and operating system 

applications in order to ensure each class received the appropriate access to resources 

(e.g., memory) and to apply a hierarchy of applications (e.g., the operating system 

controlling other software). EX-1003 ¶¶293-95; see also supra [1.5], [1.6]. A POSA 

would have expected success in making this classification, which would have 

required only routine skill. EX-1003 ¶295.

To the extent the claim requires the “selectively allow or deny” be based on 

this classification, supra [1.6], Rao-Montemurro-Freund renders obvious this 

limitation. Id. ¶296. For example, Rao teaches both user-mode and kernel-mode 

(e.g., in connection with user-level and system-level applications). Rao ¶99. Rao 

further teaches an operating system, id., and describes its importance, explaining that 

the operating system “control[s] scheduling of tasks and access to system resources,” 

id. ¶128. 

Montemurro similarly explains that its device relies on an operating system, 

e.g., Montemurro ¶55, and includes both user applications and a “predetermined set 

of applications that control basic device operations, including at least data and voice 

communications applications,” which a POSA would understand to be system 

applications, id. ¶¶56-57; EX-1003 ¶298. Freund, too, illustrates an operating system 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 70 of 88 PageID #:

7673
55

on which both user applications (e.g., email clients) and system applications (e.g., a 

“windows shell”) execute. See, e.g., Freund, 7:62-8:10, Fig. 2; EX-1003 ¶298.

A POSA would have understood the differing importance of operating 

systems and system and user applications to the operation of the user device and 

been motivated to prioritize demand for internet access based on that importance. 

EX-1003 ¶299. For example, a POSA would have generally viewed an operating 

system update to be of greater importance than a network communication by a 

system application (e.g., a windows shell, a compiler or a file management software) 

or a user application (e.g., a game). Id. A POSA would have accordingly been 

motivated to make the classification and base the decision to selectively allow or 

deny the internet service activity at least in part on the classification of the associated 

application as, e.g., a system or user application or as an operating system 

application. Id. ¶300. A POSA would have done so in order to allow the policy to 

account for the relative importance of the activity to the operation of the device as a 

whole (rather than only a particular user application), and a POSA would have 

recognized a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Rao-MontemurroFreund in this way based on the multi-faceted policies suggested by the references. 

Id.; supra [1.6]. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 71 of 88 PageID #:

7674
56

R. Claim 22: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the 

second one or more applications or services comprises foreground 

services.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Its applications, including 

“second one or more applications,” may run in the device foreground (and may thus 

comprise foreground services). Supra [1.3], [1.5.2]. A POSA would understand that 

at least some of the second one or more applications (for which the user may not 

augment a policy) may be foreground services. EX-1003 ¶303. Freund gives one 

such example, explaining that an end-user can be prevented from modifying a policy 

restricting “counterproductive” personal web browsing. Freund, 10:16-43. Personal 

web browsing is a foreground service (the user is interacting with the browser), but 

Freund suggests a non-modifiable associated policy. Id.; EX-1003 ¶304. 

A POSA would have been motivated to implement this suggestion in RaoMontemurro-Freund to improve productivity as Freund suggests and would have 

reasonably expected success in this implementation given Freund’s recommendation 

a decade earlier. EX-1003 ¶305. 

S. Claim 23: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein 

selectively deny comprises intermittently block when the one or 

more Internet service activities are requested during selected time 

windows.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund teaches this limitation. Both Freund and 

Montemurro teach allowing internet service activities only during particular time 

windows (and thus, intermittently blocking the activities during selected time 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 72 of 88 PageID #:

7675
57

windows by denying internet access in “selected” windows other than the time 

windows in which access is permitted). Montemurro ¶¶11, 29, 35, 39-42 (describing 

internet access rules based on time of day); Freund, 4:5-28, 13:2-22, 27:4-16, 

Figs. 7A, 7H, 7K (same); EX-1003 ¶¶307-08.

A POSA would have been motivated to implement Rao-Montemurro-Freund 

to intermittently block internet service activities during selected time windows, 

because a POSA would have understood that time-based access saves costs because 

it takes advantage “of periods during which certain services are offered at reduced 

costs by wireless carriers.” EX-1015 ¶68; EX-1003 ¶309. And a POSA would have 

understood that implementing the system with this feature would have required only 

ordinary skill, as evidenced by Montemurro’s and Freund’s suggestions. EX-1003 

¶310.

VII. GROUND 2: RAO-MONTEMURRO-FREUND-ARAUJO RENDERS 

OBVIOUS CLAIMS 15, 17 AND 24

A. The Motivation to Combine 

Araujo teaches “Power Management Based on Policy.” Araujo, Title. Mobile 

end-user devices have limited power resources (e.g., battery life), and Araujo

discloses a policy that “may take into account a variety of factors” to manage power 

usage. Id. ¶¶1, 3. Its power policy may consider the device’s “current power 

consumption” and “the amount of energy stored in a battery.” Id. ¶¶4, 30-31. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 73 of 88 PageID #:

7676
58

Araujo’s policy may also account for the power state of particular device 

components (e.g., on, off, monitor “brightness levels,” processor “clock speeds”). 

Id., ¶¶4, 14, 25. Araujo explains that device components, including the network cards 

(modems) that permit internet access, consume power. Id., Abstract, ¶¶1, 2, 22, 56; 

EX-1003 ¶312 (explaining a network card that “may be used to facilitate machine 

700’s communication through network 708” encompasses a modem). And it teaches 

that, as one power policy factor, it is advantageous to identify program/application 

requests (e.g., sending a network packet) that may require changing the power state 

of a component (e.g., a modem) and to consider the priority of the 

program/application in deciding whether to permit the action. Araujo ¶¶2, 4; see also 

id. ¶20 (“Program 112 may be application software, system software, or any other 

type of software or hardware. . . . device 104 may be a machine 102’s wireless 

network card, and request 113 may be a request to send data over a wireless 

network.”). Araujo explains that by considering the component power state and the 

program/application priority, its power policy avoids wasting power from cycling 

components on and off. Id. ¶¶15-16, 28; EX-1003 ¶313.

A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Araujo’s power policy in 

Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Araujo teaches a solution to the well-known problem of 

limited battery life in wireless end-user devices like that of Rao-MontemurroFreund. EX-1003 ¶314. Its policy relies on components (e.g., processors running 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 74 of 88 PageID #:

7677
59

software stored in memory) present in Rao-Montemurro-Freund. Araujo ¶¶42, 52-

56; supra [1.0]-[1.3], [1.4]-[1.5]; EX-1003 ¶314. Like Rao-Montemurro-Freund, 

Araujo uses a policy to decide whether to selectively allow or deny activity by or on 

behalf of an application (including internet service activity). Supra [1.6]; Araujo

¶¶37-44 (explaining that a request may be allowed, blocked, or delayed until a later 

time); see also id. ¶33 (explaining that under Araujo’s policy, “[i]f an application 

with a low status is requesting use [of] a network card that is presently turned off 

. . . the low-status application’s request may be denied or delayed”), Figs. 3-4; EX1003 ¶314. And like Rao-Montemurro-Freund, supra [1.3.2], Araujo teaches that 

“any type of information” may be considered as part of its “rich” multi-factor policy, 

Araujo ¶¶3, 34; EX-1003 ¶314. A POSA would accordingly have had a reasonable 

expectation of success in implementing Araujo’s teachings in Rao-MontemurroFreund and would have been motivated to do so in order to better manage power use 

and preserve the battery life of the wireless end-user device. EX-1003 ¶314. 

B. Claim 15: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to dynamically change 

the application of the differential traffic control policy based on a 

power state of the device.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo teaches this limitation. Araujo teaches that 

its power policy may be based on “the amount of energy stored in a battery” of the 

device. Araujo ¶4, Fig. 2. It explains that its policy applies to the end-user device’s 

“wireless network card . . . [and] a request to send data over a wireless network.” Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 75 of 88 PageID #:

7678
60

¶20. It teaches that “the decision as to whether to power a device [e.g., the wireless 

network card, e.g., modem] may be different depending on whether a battery has 

already discharged 25% (or 75% or n%) of its energy.” Id. ¶30; see also id. ¶2. 

A POSA would have understood the amount of energy stored in the battery to 

reflect the power state of the wireless end-user device. EX-1003 ¶316. And because 

Araujo discloses that the decision as to whether to allow, e.g., a modem, to be turned 

on “may be different” depending on the battery state, a POSA would have 

understood Araujo to teach dynamically changing the application of the differential 

traffic control policy based on a power state of the device. Id. Araujo’s power policy 

dynamically changes application of the differential traffic control policy because it 

impacts whether an internet service activity can proceed—if the modem is not 

allowed to be turned on in response to the application’s request to send data over the 

wireless network (an internet service activity), the activity is denied, and the data 

packet cannot be sent. Id.

A POSA would have been motivated to implement Araujo’s power policy as 

part of the “selectively allow or deny” decision made by the system’s processor, 

supra [1.5], [1.6], and a POSA would have expected success for the reasons 

discussed above, supra §VII.A; EX-1003 ¶317.

Further, as will be discussed, infra claim 17, Araujo teaches that its power 

policy is based on the “[c]urrent power state of [the] device,” e.g., the modem or 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 76 of 88 PageID #:

7679
61

other component. Araujo ¶28, Fig. 2. A POSA would have understood that the power 

state of such components reflects the power state of the overall device, because 

components draw power from the same battery, e.g., Araujo ¶¶30-32, Fig. 7, and a 

POSA would therefore have understood Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo to teach 

this limitation for the additional reasons discussed below in connection with 

claim 17, EX-1003 ¶318.

C. Claim 17: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are further configured to dynamically change 

the application of the differential traffic control policy based on 

power control state changes for one or more of the modems.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo teaches this limitation. Araujo’s power 

policy “determines” whether a program’s request “involves a change in the device’s 

power state, such as a change from off to on.” Araujo ¶25. If not, “then the request 

may be processed”; if the request requires a change, Araujo determines whether the 

power policy “allows the device’s power state to be changed to service the request.” 

Id. It teaches that “various considerations” may be used to determine if a particular 

program/application’s request warrants changing the power state. Id. ¶¶25-27, 

Fig. 2; see also id. ¶20. For example, Araujo teaches that applications may be 

assigned a status “indicating a given program’s relative worthiness to receive a 

power allocation” and that “[w]hether a program is permitted to consume power 

could be based on a finding as to whether the program’s status justifies the 

consumption of power.” Id. ¶27. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 77 of 88 PageID #:

7680
62

Araujo discloses that its power policy applies to the end-user device’s 

“wireless network card . . . [and] a request to send data over a wireless network.” Id.

¶20. Accordingly, if an application requests to send data over the network (an 

internet service activity) when the network card (modem)’s power state is on, that 

request will proceed, but “if an application with a low status is requesting use [of] a 

network card [modem] that is presently turned off . . . the low status application’s 

request may be denied or delayed.” Id. ¶33; see also id. ¶42. 

A POSA would have understood that Araujo thus dynamically changes 

application of the differential traffic control policy based on the power control state 

changes of a modem. EX-1003 ¶321. If an application’s request to send data (internet 

service activity) requires a change in the modem’s power control state, Araujo’s 

power policy allows that request to proceed only under certain conditions. Id. If the 

request does not require a change in the modem’s power control state, the request is 

processed as usual. Id. The policy is dynamic because it changes based on the 

modem’s power control state, and it is a traffic control policy because it impacts 

whether an internet service activity can proceed—if the modem is not allowed to be 

turned on in response to the application’s request to send data over the wireless 

network (an internet service activity), the activity is denied, and the data packet 

cannot be sent. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 78 of 88 PageID #:

7681
63

A POSA would have been motivated to implement Araujo’s power policy as 

part of the “selectively allow or deny” decision made by the system’s processor, 

supra [1.5], [1.6], and a POSA would have expected success for the reasons 

discussed above, supra §VII.A; EX-1003 ¶322.

D. Claim 24: The wireless end-user device of claim 1, wherein the one 

or more processors are configured to prevent the first one or more 

applications from changing the power state of at least one of the 

modems, and to not prevent the second one or more applications 

from changing the power state of the same modem or modems.

Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo teaches this limitation. As explained, supra 

claim 17, Araujo teaches assigning applications statuses reflecting their powerworthiness, with “VIP” applications being allowed to “consume power in situations 

where other programs would not be permitted to consume power.” Araujo ¶27; see 

also id. ¶4 (“The policy may take into account any factors. One example factor is 

the identity and status of the program that is requesting action from a device.”). 

Araujo thus teaches assigning a “status” that permits an application to consume a 

particular amount of power under certain circumstances. Id. ¶27.

A POSA would have been motivated to apply Araujo’s teachings to RaoMontemurro-Freund such that the processor assigns the “second one or more 

applications” (e.g., those an administrator has approved) “VIP” status and assigns 

the “first one or more applications” lower status. EX-1003 ¶324; Freund, 24:1-9, 

supra [1.4]-[1.6]. A POSA would have understood that as a result, the “second one 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 79 of 88 PageID #:

7682
64

or more applications” would not be prevented from consuming the power needed to 

change the power state of a modem in circumstances where the “first one or more 

applications” would be barred from consuming that amount of power and 

accordingly could not change the power state of that same modem. EX-1003 ¶324.

In Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo, the user interface allows the user to 

augment policy for the first one or more applications, but not the second one or more 

applications, using the user interface. Supra [1.4]. A POSA would have understood 

that biasing the system towards allowing the second one or more applications to

change modem power state in order to communicate requests would therefore be 

beneficial, because the user cannot adjust a policy applicable to those applications. 

EX-1003 ¶325. 

In contrast, to improve power usage, a POSA would have biased the device

towards disallowing the first one or more applications from changing the power state 

of a modem merely because an application made a request. Id. ¶326. A POSA would 

have understood that the user would have the option to modify the policy as it applies 

to the first one or more applications and could do so to override the denial if needed. 

Id.; supra claims 2-3. Indeed, Araujo teaches that when the power policy determines 

an application may not change the power state, “a dialog box may be generated on a 

display [user interface].” Araujo ¶41. It suggests that the dialog box can “inform the 

person of the request’s energy-consumption effect, and of whether the requested 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 80 of 88 PageID #:

7683
65

consumption of energy is permitted under the policy,” and it explains that it may 

then “solicit input from the person” in response to this information. Id.

A POSA would have accordingly been motivated to configure RaoMontemurro-Freund-Araujo’s processors to prevent the first one or more 

applications from changing the power state of at least one of the modems, and to not 

prevent the second one or more applications from changing the power state of the 

same modem or modems. EX-1003 ¶327. Doing so would have balanced the goals 

of power saving and ease of user operation, and a POSA would have expected 

success in implementing Rao-Montemurro-Freund-Araujo in this way in view of the 

references’ teachings. Id.

VIII. 35 U.S.C.§ 314

The Board should not deny institution under the Fintiv factors based on the 

Related Matters identified below. That Petitioner Google is not a party to the Related 

Matters favors institution under all factors, and particularly Factor 5. For all other 

Petitioners, the statuses of the Related Matters (Factors 1-4) are either neutral or 

favor institution.

Factor 1 is neutral. Factor 2 favors institution. The first trial in any Related 

Matter is May 19, 2025. Further the trial date is not determinative, particularly as in 

EDTX, multiple trials are commonly scheduled on the same date.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 81 of 88 PageID #:

7684
66

Factor 3 favors institution. The first Markman hearing is not until 

November 19, 2024, and completion of discovery and dispositive motions all follow 

institution. EX-1021, 4. Petitioners diligently brought this challenge approximately 

6 months after receiving contentions for all claims. CoolIT Sys., Inc. v. Asetek 

Danmark A/S, IPR2021-01195, Paper 10 at 11-14 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2021). 

Factor 4 favors institution. This Petition challenges all 24 claims, which will 

likely be greater than the number of claims tried. EX-1020 ¶¶3-4. Moreover, Patent 

Owner asserts the patent in multiple litigations, and resolving invalidity questions 

here would mitigate duplicative efforts. 

If Factor 6 is considered, the compelling merits of this petition outweigh any 

concerns that might arise under Factors 1-5. Petitioners rely on prior art that the 

Office never applied, presents significantly different invalidity grounds, and relies 

on Dr. Houh’s declaration explaining each claim’s invalidity. 

IX. 35 U.S.C. § 325

These grounds were not previously considered by the Office. None of 

Montemurro, Freund, or Araujo were before the Examiner.2 Although a related Rao 

reference was submitted with over 1,200 prior art references, the Examiner did not 

2 An Araujo patent was before the Examiner, but it was not discussed and, further, it 

is unrelated to the Araujo publication raised here. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 82 of 88 PageID #:

7685
67

apply or discuss any reference. The claims were allowed in a first office action 

allowance without substantive comment.

X. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8

A. Real Party-in-Interest

Google LLC,3, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Corporate 

Services Group Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint LLC f/k/a Sprint Corp., AT&T 

Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Enterprises LLC4 are the real 

parties-in-interest for this petition.5

3 Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a subsidiary of 

Alphabet Inc. XXVI Holdings Inc. and Alphabet Inc. are not real parties-in-interest 

to this proceeding. 

4 Related-Matter Defendant AT&T Corp. has undergone a corporate transaction and 

is now merged and converted into AT&T Enterprises, LLC.

5 Defendant-Petitioners Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon 

Corporate Services Group Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint LLC f/k/a Sprint Corp., 

and AT&T Services, Inc. also acknowledge that each petitioner has a number of 

affiliates and state that no unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has 

an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or their participation in any resulting 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 83 of 88 PageID #:

7686
68

B. Related Matters

The ’613 patent is, or has been, involved in the following proceedings:

Name Number Forum Filed

Headwater Research LLC v 

Verizon Communications Inc.

2:23-cv-00352 E.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v 

AT&T Inc.

2:23-cv-00397 E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v 

AT&T Inc.

2:23-cv-003986 E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v TMobile US, Inc.2:23-cv-003777 E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v TMobile US, Inc.2:23-cv-00379 E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2023

C. Lead and Backup Counsel Information 

Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:

IPR. Defendant-Petitioners Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon 

Corporate Services Group Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint LLC f/k/a Sprint Corp., 

and AT&T Services, Inc. are also not aware of any affiliate that would be barred 

from filing this Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). 

6 The -00398 case has been consolidated with the -00397 case. 

7 The -00377 case has been consolidated with the -00379 case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 84 of 88 PageID #:

7687
69

Lead Counsel Back-Up Counsel

Erika H. Arner (Reg. No. 57,540)

erika.arner@finnegan.com

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP

1875 Explorer Street

Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190-6023

Tel: 571-203-2700

Fax: 202-408-4400

Daniel C. Tucker (Reg. No. 62,781)

daniel.tucker@finnegan.com

Alexander M. Boyer (Reg. No. 66,599)

alexander.boyer@finnegan.com

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP

1875 Explorer Street

Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190-6023

Tel: 571-203-2700; Fax: 202-408-4400

Cara E. Regan (Reg. No. 70,209)

cara.regan@finnegan.com

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP

901 New York Ave. NW

Washington DC, 20001

Tel: 202-408-4000; Fax: 202-408-4400

Patrick D. McPherson (Reg. No. 46,255)

PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

901 New York Ave. NW, Suite 700 East

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-776-7800; Fax: 202-776-7801

Kevin P. Anderson (Reg. No. 43,471)

KPAnderson@duanemorris.com

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

901 New York Ave. NW, Suite 700 East

Washington, DC 20001

Tel: 202-776-7800; Fax: 202-776-7801

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 85 of 88 PageID #:

7688
70

In concurrently filed Powers of Attorney Google LLC has granted Power of 

Attorney to Practitioners at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 

and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Corporate Services Group 

Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint LLC f/k/a Sprint Corp., and AT&T Services, Inc. 

have granted Power of Attorney to Practitioners at Duane Morris LLP.

Petitioners consent to service by email at the addresses listed above and 

Headwater-613-IPR@finnegan.com; PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com; and 

KPAnderson@duanemorris.com. 

XI. CONCLUSION

Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant IPR and find all 

challenged claims unpatentable.

Dated: June 7, 2024 By: /Erika H. Arner/ 

Erika H. Arner (Reg. No. 57,540)

 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 86 of 88 PageID #:

7689
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that 

the foregoing PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 

9,215,613 contains 13,581 words, excluding parts of this Petition exempted under 

§ 42.24(a), as measured by the word-processing system used to prepare this paper.

Dated: June 7, 2024 /Daniel C. Tucker/ 

Daniel C. Tucker (Reg. No. 62,781)

Counsel for Petitioner 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 87 of 88 PageID #:

7690
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), the undersigned certifies 

that on June 7, 2024, a copy of the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review, the 

associated powers of attorney, and Exhibits 1001-1012, 1014-1015, and 1019-

1021 were served by FedEx Priority Overnight on the correspondence address of 

record indicated in the Patent Office’s public Patent Center system for U.S. Patent 

No. 9,215,613: 

Michael Farjami

Headwater Research LLC

c/o Farjami & Farjami LLP

26522 La Alameda Ave., Suite 360

Mission Viejo, CA 92691

Dated: June 7, 2024 By: /William Esper/ 

William Esper

Case Manager and PTAB Coordinator

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 101-3 Filed 10/25/24 Page 88 of 88 PageID #:

7691