Exhibit F

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 112 PageID #:

7336
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: IPR2024-00942

U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541

Issue Date: Nov. 19, 2013

Title: Device-Assisted Services for Protecting Network Capacity

——————————

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 112 PageID #:

7337
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STANDING.....................................................................................................1

II. RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................................1

III. THE ’541 PATENT.........................................................................................1

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

B. Prosecution History ..............................................................................2

C. POSITA.................................................................................................2

IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................3

V. PRIOR ART.....................................................................................................3

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

B. Fadell.....................................................................................................4

C. Freund....................................................................................................6

VI. Ground 1: Rao Anticipates and/or Renders Obvious Claims 1, 3-6, 8-

23, 26, 45, 49, 50, 58-60, 64, 157, 165, 169, and 171 ....................................6

A. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................7

B. Claim 3 ................................................................................................19

C. Claim 4 ................................................................................................19

D. Claim 5 ................................................................................................20

E. Claim 6 ................................................................................................20

F. Claim 8 ................................................................................................21

G. Claim 9 ................................................................................................21

H. Claim 10 ..............................................................................................23

I. Claim 11 ..............................................................................................23

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 112 PageID #:

7338
ii

J. Claim 12 ..............................................................................................23

K. Claim 13 ..............................................................................................24

L. Claim 14 ..............................................................................................25

M. Claim 15 ..............................................................................................28

N. Claim 16 ..............................................................................................28

O. Claim 17 ..............................................................................................29

P. Claim 18 ..............................................................................................30

Q. Claim 19 ..............................................................................................30

R. Claim 20 ..............................................................................................30

S. Claim 21 ..............................................................................................31

T. Claim 22 ..............................................................................................32

U. Claim 23 ..............................................................................................33

V. Claim 26 ..............................................................................................33

W. Claim 45 ..............................................................................................34

X. Claim 49 ..............................................................................................35

Y. Claim 50 ..............................................................................................35

Z. Claim 58 ..............................................................................................35

AA. Claim 59 ..............................................................................................36

BB. Claim 60 ..............................................................................................36

CC. Claim 64 ..............................................................................................37

DD. Claim 157 ............................................................................................38

EE. Claim 165 ............................................................................................39

FF. Claim 169 ............................................................................................40

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 112 PageID #:

7339
iii

GG. Claim 171 ............................................................................................42

VII. Ground 2: Rao-Fadell Render Obvious Claims 1, 2, 7, 41-43, 46, 63, 

155, 156, 160-164, 166-168, and 170............................................................42

A. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................42

B. Claim 1 ................................................................................................44

C. Claim 2 ................................................................................................53

D. Claim 7 ................................................................................................54

E. Claim 41 ..............................................................................................56

F. Claim 42 ..............................................................................................58

G. Claim 43 ..............................................................................................58

H. Claim 46 ..............................................................................................59

I. Claim 63 ..............................................................................................60

J. Claim 155 ............................................................................................61

K. Claim 156 ............................................................................................62

L. Claim 160 ............................................................................................63

M. Claim 161 ............................................................................................64

N. Claim 162 ............................................................................................65

O. Claim 163 ............................................................................................65

P. Claim 164 ............................................................................................66

Q. Claim 166 ............................................................................................66

R. Claim 167 ............................................................................................67

S. Claim 168 ............................................................................................68

T. Claim 170 ............................................................................................69

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 112 PageID #:

7340
iv

VIII. Ground 3: Rao-Freund Render Obvious Claims 44, 47, 48, and 51-57........70

A. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................70

B. Claim 44 ..............................................................................................72

C. Claim 47 ..............................................................................................72

D. Claim 48 ..............................................................................................74

E. Claim 51 ..............................................................................................75

F. Claim 52 ..............................................................................................75

G. Claim 53 ..............................................................................................75

H. Claim 54 ..............................................................................................76

I. Claim 55 ..............................................................................................76

J. Claim 56 ..............................................................................................78

K. Claim 57 ..............................................................................................79

IX. 35 U.S.C. § 314..............................................................................................79

X. 35 U.S.C. § 325..............................................................................................80

XI. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.................................81

A. Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................81

B. Related Matters....................................................................................82

C. Lead and Backup Counsel Information...............................................82

XII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................85

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 6 of 112 PageID #:

7341
v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

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

IPR2021-01195, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2021).............................................80

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 314........................................................................................................79

35 U.S.C. § 315........................................................................................................82

35 U.S.C. § 325........................................................................................................80

Regulations

37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................81

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 7 of 112 PageID #:

7342
vi

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Description

EX-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541 (“the ’541 patent”)

EX-1002 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0039354 to Rao et al. (“Rao”)

EX-1003 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0017506 to Fadell (“Fadell”)

EX-1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,987,611 to Freund (“Freund”)

EX-1005 U.S. Patent No. 8,028,060 to Wyld et al. (“Wyld”)

EX-1006 File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541 (Excerpted) 

EX-1007 Curriculum Vitae of Andrew Wolfe

EX-1008

Enable-ExchangeCertificate, Microsoft, https://learn.microsoft.com/

en-us/powershell/module/exchange/enable-exchangecertificate?view

=exchange-ps (last visited May 15, 2024)

EX-1009 Larry L. Peterson & Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A Systems 

Approach (3d ed. 2003)

EX-1010 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0038763 to Oestvall (“Oestvall”)

EX-1011 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0207817 to Montemurro et al. 

(“Montemurro”)

EX-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)

EX-1013

Madison Avenue Calling, Gainesville Sun (Jan. 19, 2007, 11:00 PM),

https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2007/01/20/madison-avenuecalling/31509806007/ (last visited May 15, 2024)

EX-1014

Spyros Sakellariadis, Using Exchange Server with SMTP and POP3, 

ITPro Today (May 31, 1998), https://www.itprotoday.com/email-andcalendaring/using-exchange-server-smtp-and-pop3#close-modal (last 

visited May 16, 2024)

EX-1015 Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Andrew Wolfe (“Wolfe

Declaration”)

EX-1016 U.S. Patent No. 8,914,783 to Van Camp (“Van Camp”)

EX-1017 Eastern District of Texas Model Order Focusing on Claim and Prior 

Art Reduction

EX-1018

Docket Control Order, Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon 

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

Oct. 24, 2023)

EX-1019 [Reserved]

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 8 of 112 PageID #:

7343
vii

Exhibit Description

EX-1020 Defendants’ Motion to Focus Patent Claims, Headwater Research 

LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00397, ECF No. 53 (E.D. 

Tex. Apr. 11, 2024)

EX-1021 Defendants’ Motion for Entry of an Order Focusing Asserted Patent 

Claim and Prior Art, Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile USA, 

Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00379, ECF No. 58 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2024)

EX-1022 Defendants’ Motion for Entry of an Order Focusing Asserted Patent 

Claim and Prior Art, Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon 

Communications Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00352, ECF No. 63 (E.D. Tex. 

May 1, 2024)

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 9 of 112 PageID #:

7344
viii

CLAIM LISTINGS

Independent Claim 1

[1a] A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing machineexecutable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors 

of a wireless end-user device, cause the one or more processors to:

[1b] identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, the 

service usage activity being associated with a first software component 

of a plurality of software components on the wireless end user device,

[1c] the service usage activity comprising one or more prospective or 

successful communications over a wireless network;

[1d] determine whether the service usage activity comprises a background 

activity;

[1e] determine at least an aspect of a policy based on a user input obtained 

through a user interface of the wireless end-user device or based on 

information from a network element,

[1f] the policy to be applied if the service usage activity is the background 

activity, the policy at least for controlling the service usage activity; and

[1g] if it is determined that the service usage activity is the background 

activity, apply the policy. 

Dependent Claim 2

[2a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises at least a portion of 

an application component or at least a portion of an operating system 

component, and 

[2b] wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network comprise an update to the first software 

component.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 10 of 112 PageID #:

7345
ix

Dependent Claim 3

3 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications 

over the wireless network comprise a communication associated with a 

network access, background signaling, a cloud synchronization service, 

an information feed, a download, an e-mail, a chat client, a security 

update, a peer-to-peer networking application update, a report of a 

behavior associated with the wireless end-user device, or a combination 

of these.

Dependent Claim 4

4 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications 

over the wireless network comprise a communication associated with a 

content update or a content download.

Dependent Claim 5

5 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications 

over the wireless network comprise a communication associated with an 

image, music, a video, an electronic book, an e-mail attachment, a 

content or media subscription, a news feed, a text message, a video chat, 

or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 6

6 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications 

over the wireless network comprise a communication associated with a 

device application or widget, a device operating system function, a file 

download, streaming media, a software update, a firmware update, a 

website, a connection to a server, a web browser, or a synchronization 

service.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 11 of 112 PageID #:

7346
x

Dependent Claim 7

7 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises identify an intention to launch or start the first 

software component.

Dependent Claim 8

8 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises identify: an application identifier associated with the 

service usage activity or the first software component, an operating 

system function identifier associated with the service usage activity or 

the first software component, an aggregate service activity identifier, a 

component service activity identifier, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 9

[9a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity results from cooperation between 

the first software component and at least one other software component, 

application, process, function, activity, or service, and 

[9b] wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user device 

comprises: 

identify a data flow to or from the at least one other software 

component, application, process, function, activity, or service; and

associate the data flow with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 10

10 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

9, wherein the first software component comprises at least a portion of 

an application, and wherein the at least one other software component, 

application, process, function, activity, or service performs a proxy 

function.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 12 of 112 PageID #:

7347
xi

Dependent Claim 11

11 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

9, wherein the at least one other software component, application, 

process, function, activity, or service performs a proxy function.

Dependent Claim 12

12 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

9, wherein the at least one other software component, application, 

process, function, activity, or service comprises a media service 

manager, an e-mail service manager, a domain name service (DNS) 

function, a software download service manager, a media download 

manager, a data download service manager, a media library function, a 

simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) proxy, an Internet message access 

protocol (IMAP) proxy, a post office protocol (POP) proxy, a hypertext 

transfer protocol (HTTP) proxy, an instant messaging (IM) proxy, a 

virtual private network (VPN) service manager, or a secure socket layer 

(SSL) proxy.

Dependent Claim 13

[13a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises:

monitor an application proxy service flow; and

[13b] classify the application proxy service flow as being initiated by or 

belonging to the first software component.

Dependent Claim 14

[14a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises:

associate an identifier identifying the first software component with a 

request to a proxy service;

[14b] associate the request to the proxy service with a traffic flow, the traffic 

flow comprising the service usage activity; and

[14c] associate the traffic flow with the identifier.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 13 of 112 PageID #:

7348
xii

Dependent Claim 15

15 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

14, wherein the identifier comprises a name, a fingerprint, an 

identification tag, a process number, or a credential.

Dependent Claim 16

[16a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity results from cooperation between 

the first software component and a proxy function, and

[16b] wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user device 

comprises:

identify a data flow to or from the proxy function; and

associate the data flow with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 17

17 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises identify the service usage activity based on a stream, a 

flow, a destination, a port, a packet inspection, or a combination of 

these.

Dependent Claim 18

18 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user 

device comprises determine an identifier associated with the first 

software component, a number associated with the first software 

component, a name associated with the first software component, or a 

signature associated with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 19

19 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises at least a portion of 

an application on the wireless end-user device.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 14 of 112 PageID #:

7349
xiii

Dependent Claim 20

20 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises an operating system 

component, function, or service.

Dependent Claim 21

21 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises a software function, 

utility, process, or tool.

Dependent Claim 22

22 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises a plurality of 

applications, processes, functions, activities, or services.

Dependent Claim 23

23 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the first software component comprises a Java archive (JAR) 

file, an application that uses an operating system (OS) function, an 

application that uses a proxy service function, or an OS process function 

that supports an application or OS function.

Dependent Claim 26

26 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the policy is based on a background service class, a 

background service state, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 41

[41a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the wireless network is a first wireless network, and wherein 

the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and

[41b] wherein the policy assists the one or more processors to control the first 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 15 of 112 PageID #:

7350
xiv

service usage activity when the wireless end-user device is connected to 

the first wireless network and

[41c] refrain from controlling a second service usage activity when the 

wireless end-user device is connected to a second wireless network, the 

second service usage activity being associated with the first software 

component.

Dependent Claim 42

42 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

41, wherein control the first service usage activity comprises prevent, 

restrict, or block the first service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 43

43 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

41, wherein the second wireless network is a wireless fidelity (WiFi) 

network or a home network.

Dependent Claim 44

44 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether a user is interacting 

with or has interacted with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 45

45 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is in a user interface foreground.

Dependent Claim 46

46 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the service usage 

activity is a software update.

Dependent Claim 47

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 16 of 112 PageID #:

7351
xv

47 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is or has been classified as being in a background state or 

the service usage activity is or has been classified as a background 

service.

Dependent Claim 48

48 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the service usage 

activity is identified by a list specifying one or more background 

activities.

Dependent Claim 49

49 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the service usage 

activity is a foreground activity.

Dependent Claim 50

50 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is a foreground component.

Dependent Claim 51

51 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises:

determine a classification of the service usage activity, and

based on the classification of the service usage activity, determine 

whether the service usage activity comprises the background activity.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 17 of 112 PageID #:

7352
xvi

Dependent Claim 52

52 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

51, wherein the classification of the service usage activity is based on: 

whether the first software component requires access to the wireless 

network, whether the one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the wireless network comprise an update to the 

first software component, whether the first software component requires 

information about the wireless network, whether the first software 

component requires location information, whether the one or more 

prospective or successful communications over the wireless network 

comprise an operating system software update, whether the one or more 

prospective or successful communications over the wireless network 

comprise a security software update, whether the one or more 

prospective or successful communications over the wireless network 

comprise a communication associated with a network-based back-up, 

whether the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network comprise a communication associated with an email download, whether the one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the wireless network comprise communications 

associated with a cloud synchronization service, or a combination of 

these.

Dependent Claim 53

[53a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

51, wherein the user input obtained through the user interface of the 

wireless end-user device is a first user input, and 

[53b] wherein determine a classification of the service usage activity is based 

on a characteristic of the first software component, a content type 

associated with the service usage activity, a characteristic of the 

wireless network, a service plan, a user preference, the first user input, a 

second user input, the information from the network element, or a 

combination of these.

Dependent Claim 54

54 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity is based on a user interaction with the wireless enduser device.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 18 of 112 PageID #:

7353
xvii

Dependent Claim 55

55 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether a value comprising a 

measure of the service usage activity satisfies a condition relative to a 

threshold.

Dependent Claim 56

56 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is a foreground component or an unclassified component.

Dependent Claim 57

57 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is in a foreground of user interaction or determine whether 

the first software component is in a background of user interaction.

Dependent Claim 58

58 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether content associated 

with the service usage activity is in a foreground of a user interface of 

the wireless end-user device.

Dependent Claim 59

59 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein determine whether the service usage activity comprises a 

background activity comprises determine whether the first software 

component is active.

Dependent Claim 60

60 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 19 of 112 PageID #:

7354
xviii

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in allowing, 

restricting, delaying, throttling, or preventing the service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 63

63 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in preventing an 

update associated with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 64

[64a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications 

over the wireless network comprise one or more Internet protocol (IP) 

address requests, and 

[64b] wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in withholding, 

delaying, time-windowing, reducing in frequency, or aggregating at 

least a portion of the service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 155

155 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the user input obtained through the user interface of the 

wireless end-user device is a first user input, and wherein the policy is a 

first policy, and wherein the first user input or a second user input 

comprises a directive to apply a second policy to a second software

component of the plurality of software components on the wireless enduser device.

Dependent Claim 156

156 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the user input obtained through the user interface of the 

wireless end-user device is a first user input, and wherein the first user 

input or a second user input comprises a directive to refrain from 

applying the policy to a second software component of the plurality of 

software components on the wireless end-user device.

Dependent Claim 157

157 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 20 of 112 PageID #:

7355
xix

1, wherein the user input obtained through the user interface of the 

wireless end-user device comprises a directive to apply the policy to a 

second software component of the plurality of software components on 

the wireless end-user device.

Dependent Claim 160

160[a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the wireless network is a first wireless network, and wherein, 

when executed by the one or more processors of the wireless end-user 

device, the machine-executable instructions further cause the one or 

more processors to:

160[b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with the first software 

component or with a second software component of the plurality of 

software components on the wireless end-user device, the second 

service usage activity comprising one or more prospective or successful 

communications over a second wireless network; and

refrain from applying the policy to the second service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 161

[161a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the background activity is a first background activity, and 

wherein the wireless network is a first wireless network, and wherein 

the policy is a first policy, and wherein, when executed by the one or 

more processors of the wireless end-user device, the machineexecutable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:

[161b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with the first software 

component or with a second software component of the plurality of 

software components on the wireless end-user device, the second 

service usage activity comprising one or more prospective or successful 

communications over a second wireless network; and

[161c] determine whether the second service usage activity is a second 

background activity;

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 21 of 112 PageID #:

7356
xx

[161d] if it is determined that the second service usage activity is the second 

background activity, apply a second policy to the second service usage 

activity.

Dependent Claim 162

162 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

161, wherein the first policy restricts or prevents the first background 

activity, and wherein the second policy allows the second background 

activity.

Dependent Claim 163

[163a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the wireless network is a first wireless network, and wherein 

the policy is a first policy, and wherein, when executed by the one or 

more processors of the wireless end-user device, the machineexecutable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:

[163b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with the first software 

component or with a second software component of the plurality of 

software components on the wireless end-user device, the second 

service usage activity comprising one or more prospective or successful 

communications over a second wireless network; and

[163c] apply a second policy to the second service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 164

164 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

163, wherein the second policy comprises a control policy, a 

notification policy, or an accounting policy associated with the first 

software component or the second software component.

Dependent Claim 165

[165a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 22 of 112 PageID #:

7357
xxi

the wireless network are first one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the first wireless network, and wherein the 

background activity is a first background activity, and wherein the user 

input obtained through the user interface of the wireless end-user device 

is a first user input, and wherein, when executed by the one or more 

processors of the wireless end-user device, the machine-executable 

instructions further cause the one or more processors to:

[165b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with a second 

software component of the plurality of software components on the 

wireless end-user device, the second service usage activity comprising 

second one or more prospective or successful communications over the 

wireless network;

[165c] determine whether the second service usage activity is a second 

background activity; and

if it is determined that the second service usage activity is the second 

background activity, apply at least a portion of the policy, wherein the 

at least a portion of the policy is based on a second user input.

Dependent Claim 166

[166a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network are first one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the wireless network, and wherein, when 

executed by the one or more processors of the wireless end-user device, 

the machine-executable instructions further cause the one or more 

processors to:

[166b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with a second 

software component of the plurality of software components on the 

wireless end-user device, the second service usage activity comprising 

second one or more prospective or successful communications over the 

wireless network;

[166c] determine whether the second service usage activity is the background 

activity; and

[166d] if it is determined that the second service usage activity is the 

background activity, refrain from applying at least a portion of the 

policy.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 23 of 112 PageID #:

7358
xxii

Dependent Claim 167

[167a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the background activity is a first background activity, and 

wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network are first one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the wireless network, and wherein the policy is a 

first policy, and wherein, when executed by the one or more processors 

of the wireless end-user device, the machine-executable instructions 

further cause the one or more processors to:

[167b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with a second 

software component of the plurality of software components on the 

wireless end-user device, the second service usage activity comprising 

second one or more prospective or successful communications over the 

wireless network;

[167c] determine whether the second service usage activity is a second 

background activity;

[167d] obtain a second policy, the second policy to be applied when the second 

service usage activity is the second background activity, the second 

policy for controlling the second service usage activity; and

[167e] if it is determined that the second service usage activity is the second 

background activity, apply the second policy.

Dependent Claim 168

168 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

167, wherein the first policy, the second policy, or both are based on a 

network busy state, a network availability state, or a cost associated 

with the wireless network.

Dependent Claim 169

[169a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the service usage activity is a first service usage activity, and 

wherein the one or more prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network are first one or more prospective or successful 

communications over the wireless network, and wherein, when 

executed by the one or more processors of the wireless end-user device, 

the machine-executable instructions further cause the one or more 

processors to:

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 24 of 112 PageID #:

7359
xxiii

[169b] identify a second service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, 

the second service usage activity being associated with the first software 

component, the second service usage activity comprising second one or 

more prospective or successful communications over the wireless 

network;

[169c] determine whether the second service usage activity is the background 

activity; and

if it is determined that the second service usage activity is the 

background activity, apply at least a portion of the policy.

Dependent Claim 170

170 The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein, when executed by the one or more processors of the 

wireless end-user device, the machine-executable instructions further 

cause the one or more processors to monitor the service usage activity, 

account for the service usage activity, report information about the 

service usage activity, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 171

171 The wireless end-user device embodying the non-transitory computerreadable storage medium recited in claim 1.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 25 of 112 PageID #:

7360
1 

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioners request IPR of claims 1-23, 26, 41-60, 63-64, 155-157, and 

160-171 of U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541. 

II. STANDING

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

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

Grounds

1 Rao anticipates and/or renders obvious claims 1, 3-6, 8-23, 26, 45, 

49-50, 58-60, 64, 157, 165, 169, and 171.

2 Rao in view of Fadell renders obvious claims 1, 2, 7, 41-43, 46, 63, 

155-156, 160-164, 166-168, and 170. 

3 Rao in view of Freund renders obvious claims 44, 47-48, and 51-57. 

IV. THE ’541 PATENT

A. Overview 

The ’541 patent discloses “differentially controlling . . . network service 

usage activities” based on “the type of service activity requesting network access.” 

EX-1001, 15:13-18. A service usage control policy is applied “to protect network 

capacity.” Id., 18:8-19:58. If a service usage activity is classified as a background 

activity, the control policy may assign it a priority. Id., 18:8-20:43. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 26 of 112 PageID #:

7361
2

 

Id., Figs. 14, 18. 

B. Prosecution History 

The original claims were rejected. EX-1006, 192-214, 579-84. The applicant 

rewrote the independent claim and added 173 new dependent claims. Id., 647-701.

With an Examiner’s amendment, the Examiner allowed all 174 claims. Id., 744-56.

C. POSITA

A POSITA at the time of the invention would have 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-1015 ¶¶50-52. Work experience can 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 27 of 112 PageID #:

7362
3

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

Id.

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

No terms require construction to resolve this Petition.

VI. PRIOR ART 

A. Rao

Rao discloses remote access client 120 that intercepts inbound or outbound 

network packets associated with applications of client 105. Rao ¶¶38-43, 99-110, 

184-86. Intercepted packets are queued according to priority policies. Id. ¶¶38-46, 

80, 184-94. Rao prioritizes by criteria, including by application and whether the 

application is “running in the foreground or the background.” Id. ¶¶182, 188-93.

Id., Fig. 1A. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 28 of 112 PageID #:

7363
4

Rao describes some of its disclosures as “embodiments,” but invites a POSITA 

to combine them. Id. ¶¶218-19; id. ¶¶74, 131. A POSITA would have therefore 

understood Rao to disclose various aspects of a single system. EX-1015 ¶¶56-59. A 

POSITA also would have been motivated and found it obvious to combine Rao’s 

“embodiments” in view of Rao’s express invitation and taught benefits. Id.

B. Fadell

Fadell discloses controlling network usage. Fadell ¶¶16-17. Resource 

utilization component 110 monitors “utilization,” provides alerts, and “performs 

utilization shifting” to manage data/bandwidth consumption. Id.

Id., Fig. 1. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 29 of 112 PageID #:

7364
5 

Fadell gives users notices, including the following, providing service plan 

information and options to purchase resources, limit use, and/or switch networks. Id.

¶¶17-29, 50-70. 

Id., Fig. 3 (annotated). 

Id., Fig. 4 (annotated). 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 30 of 112 PageID #:

7365
6 

Id., Fig. 5 (annotated). 

C. Freund

Freund’s client monitor application 311 intercepts, monitors, logs, and filters 

network communications associated with applications. Freund, 1:58-3:59, 

13:23-15:30. Access rules with specified application criteria govern Internet access. 

Id., 3:60-4:28. The monitor restricts rule-violating network traffic by, e.g. “denying 

Internet access” or “issu[ing] a warning.” Id., 4:26-5:64, 19:57-60, 21:12-20. 

VII. Ground 1: Rao Anticipates and/or Renders Obvious Claims 1, 3-6, 8-23, 

26, 45, 49-50, 58-60, 64, 157, 165, 169, and 171 

Rao anticipates most of the limitations discussed under this Ground for the 

reasons provided below. Rao renders these same limitations obvious for the same 

reasons. Rao also renders obvious the remaining limitations discussed under this 

Ground. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 31 of 112 PageID #:

7366
7 

A. Claim 1

1. [1a] “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 

storing machine-executable instructions that, when 

executed by one or more processors of a wireless end-user 

device, cause the one or more processors to:”

To the extent the preamble is limiting, Rao discloses “computing device 102” 

of client 105 (“wireless end-user device”) that includes a non-volatile “main memory 

unit” (“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”) and a “central 

processing unit” (“one or more processors”). Rao ¶¶118-25, 99-100, 130, 79-116, 

83-84, Figs. 1A-1E. Computing device 102 includes storage device 128 storing 

remote access client software 120. Id. ¶124, Fig. 1D. Rao’s memory and/or storage 

device stores instructions the CPU executes. Id. ¶¶116, 119, 124; EX-1015 ¶¶68-73. 

2. [1b] “identify a service usage activity of the wireless enduser device, the service usage activity being associated with 

a first software component of a plurality of software 

components on the wireless end-user device,”

Rao discloses service usage activity: network packets communicated via 

network 104, which may be a wireless network. Rao ¶¶41-46, 52, 101-16; EX-1015

¶¶74-75, 83; also EX-1001, 19:8-37. The network packets are associated with “a 

first software component” of many: “one or more applications 338a-338n, which 

access the network 104” and provide “real-time data communications.” Rao ¶¶179-

95, 87-91; EX-1015 ¶77. Each application is or includes a software component on 

the wireless end-user device. Rao ¶¶184, 188; EX-1015 ¶76. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 32 of 112 PageID #:

7367
8

Rao discloses identifying a service usage activity associated with the software 

components because it teaches “intercepting” the network packets, “storing” the 

network packets, and “inspecting” the network packets to associate an application

with the network packets. EX-1015 ¶78.

Rao, Fig. 5B (annotated). 

Filter 322 “intercept[s] any of the network traffic . . . such as network packets 

associated with the application 338” to route the packets. Id. ¶¶99, 101-16, 179-81,

Fig. 1C, 5A; EX-1015 ¶¶78-79. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 33 of 112 PageID #:

7368
9

Rao, Fig. 1C (annotating remote access client 120).

Id., Fig. 5A (annotating remote access client 120).

Rao further stores intercepted packets in a queue, id. ¶¶186, 180-84, 191-93,

Fig. 5C, and filter 322 “can inspect the contents of the packets” to, e.g., identify the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 34 of 112 PageID #:

7369
10

network or verify the application(s) that generated the packets, id. ¶¶102-07, 186-

87; EX-1015 ¶¶80-82. Based on this inspection, “agent 326 identifies the network 

packet as generated from an application 338a-338n by any of the content of the 

network packet” (e.g., “headers, fields, or the type and content of data”). Rao ¶187. 

Agent 326 may inspect the packet and “verify that the identified application actually 

generated the packet.” Id. ¶187; id. ¶¶105-09, 187. Agent 326 may associate the

packet “with an application 338a-338n by matching information from the routing 

table 538.” Id. ¶187; EX-1015 ¶81. Rao teaches “indicating” a priority for the 

packets based on the associated application (step 570), confirming that they are 

identified as claimed. Rao, Fig. 5B; EX-1015 ¶82.

Intercepting, storing, and inspecting a network packet is (or requires) 

identifying the network packet; this understanding is consistent with the ’541 patent. 

E.g., EX-1001, 69:5-35, 70:57-71:3, 72:22-28, 87:54-65, 96:66-97:54, Figs. 14, 18, 

claims 8, 17 (describing similar activities, e.g., “packet inspection” as “identifying”); 

EX-1015 ¶82. 

3. [1c] “the service usage activity comprising one or more 

prospective or successful communications over a wireless 

network;”

Rao’s network packets disclose “service usage activity 

comprising . . . communications over a wireless network.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 35 of 112 PageID #:

7370
11

Remote access client 120 intercepts in-and-outbound network traffic 

associated with applications 338a-338n of client 105, which is “connected to 

network 104.” Rao ¶¶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).

Rao’s intercepting, inspecting, and/or storing packets in queues before

communicating them from the queues discloses identifying one or more prospective

communications. Id. ¶¶184-86, 105, 110-11, 180, 194-95; EX-1015 ¶¶84-86. 

Intercepting “inbound . . . [packets] . . . associated with application 338” 

discloses identifying one or more successful communications over a wireless 

network. Rao ¶184; EX-1015 ¶86. Communicating outbound network packets from 

the queues also discloses successful communications. Rao ¶¶189-95, Figs. 1A-C, 

5A; EX-1015 ¶86.

4. [1d] “determine whether the service usage activity 

comprises a background activity;”

After intercepting, Rao’s remote access client 120 “determinesthe association 

of network packets with applications 338a-338n in order to determine priorities and 

apply any priority based policies 520.” Rao ¶187; EX-1015 ¶87. This includes

“determin[ing] whether the application 338a-338n associated with the network 

packet is running in the foreground or the background of the client 105.” Rao ¶¶188,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 36 of 112 PageID #:

7371
12

38-41, 182. This determination is made during step 565, when network packets are

associated with an application. Id. ¶¶187-88; EX-1015 ¶¶87-88.

Rao, Fig. 5B (annotated).

By determining whether network packets are associated with an application 

“running in the background,” Rao determines whether the associated service usage 

activity “comprises a background activity,” id. ¶¶41, 188, and therefore determines 

whether the service usage activity associated with a first software component 

comprises a background activity, EX-1015 ¶89.

Determining whether an activity is a background activity was well known, as 

Rao discloses, and the methodology for making that determination would have been 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 37 of 112 PageID #:

7372
13

a simple design choice among finite, known options, for which a POSITA would 

have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶90. 

5. [1e] “determine at least an aspect of a policy based on a user 

input obtained through a user interface of the wireless enduser device or based on information from a network 

element,”

Rao discloses remote access client 120 may include “one or more policies 

520 [a policy] for specifying client-side prioritization of network communications 

related to applications 338a-338n.” Rao ¶182. Rao’s prioritization is a policy, and 

the specific priority assigned to intercepted packets is an aspect of that policy. EX1015 ¶¶91-92, 95; Rao ¶¶38-43, 180, 182.

Policies 520 may be “provided by or downloaded [to agent 326] via the 

gateway 340” (a network element) over network 104. Rao ¶183; id. ¶¶87, 90-96

(“communicat[ing] over the network 104 to the gateway 340”). Accordingly, the 

policy would be based on information from a network element. EX-1015 ¶93.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 38 of 112 PageID #:

7373
14

Rao, Fig. 1A (annotated).

Id., Fig. 5A (annotated). 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 39 of 112 PageID #:

7374
15

Further, 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.” Id. ¶183; EX-1015 ¶94.

If Rao does not expressly disclose determining at least an aspect of the policy, 

Rao renders this obvious. Rao emphasizes prioritization on an application-byapplication basis, Rao ¶¶182, 191, and a POSITA would therefore have been 

motivated to obtain information from the network or the user to determine the 

prioritization to be applied (both generally and to the specific application and 

associated packets) to implement the system as Rao suggests, EX-1015 ¶96; Rao 

¶184.

6. [1f] “the policy to be applied if the service usage activity is 

the background activity, the policy at least for controlling 

the service usage activity; and”

Rao’s policies 520 may “define [packet] prioritization based on whether an 

application is running in the foreground or the background.” Rao ¶¶182, 188-89, 

40-42, 193 (“packets may be further prioritized by the characteristic of the 

application . . . , e.g., a foreground application”). “The policies 520 may be 

specified conditionally,” so that no policy applies to some packets, and packets 

associated with different applications may have higher or lower priority. Id. ¶¶182, 

193; EX-1015 ¶¶97-99.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 40 of 112 PageID #:

7375
16

Rao therefore discloses conditional policies based on whether the application 

(and, as a POSITA would have understood, its associated network 

communication/service usage activity) is background activity. EX-1015 ¶100. By 

defining prioritization based on whether an application is running in the background 

(e.g., assigning specific priority to the service usage activity associated with the 

application), Rao discloses its policy is to be applied if the service usage activity is 

the background activity. Id. The policy “controls” the service usage activity by 

prioritizing and communicating the packets “according to the determined priority.”

Rao ¶¶189-95, 40-41, Fig. 5B (steps 570, 575); EX-1015 ¶¶100-01.

Alternatively, these disclosures at least render obvious applying prioritization 

(the policy) to queued packets “if” they are associated with background applications 

such as background service usage activity (e.g., for remote access client 120 to focus 

on deprioritizing background applications associated with background service usage 

activity). Rao ¶¶182, 188-89, 193, 40-42; EX-1015 ¶¶102-03. This would have 

improved Rao and furthered its objectives of, e.g., reducing network congestion, 

improving bandwidth available to foreground applications, and improving system 

speed/efficiency by assigning background activity, including 

unnecessary/unwanted/unknown activity, a lower priority than actively used 

applications. Rao ¶¶3, 80, 184; EX-1015 ¶¶104-05.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 41 of 112 PageID #:

7376
17

7. [1g] “if it is determined that the service usage activity is the 

background activity, apply the policy.”

Rao assigns priority to network packets associated with background activity 

(service usage activity determined to be background activity) and transmits those 

packets according to that priority, thus applying the policy. EX-1015 ¶¶106-09.

“[A]gent 326 uses the policies 520 to apply a priority to network packets of 

applications 338a-338n in accordance with the prioritization rules specified or 

indicated by the policies 520,” including those based on “characteristics . . . such as 

running in the foreground or background, to indicate priority for a network packet 

of the application.” Rao ¶189, Fig. 5 (Step 570). Agent 326 then “indicates the 

priority to the filter 322 . . . to apply the indicated priorities.” Id. ¶¶189-93; EX-1015 

¶108. The packets are communicated “according to the determined priorities.” Rao

¶¶194-95, Fig. 5 (Step 575); EX-1015 ¶108.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 42 of 112 PageID #:

7377
18

Rao, Fig. 5B (annotated).

At minimum, Rao renders obvious applying a policy if it is determined the 

service usage activity is the background activity for the reasons discussed. Supra 

[1f]; EX-1015 ¶110. For example, applying prioritization (e.g., lower priority) to 

queued packets received from background applications would further Rao’s

objectives, and a POSITA would have been motivated to do so. Supra [1f]; Rao ¶¶3, 

80, 184; EX-1015 ¶110. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 43 of 112 PageID #:

7378
19

B. Claim 3 

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the . . . communications over the 

wireless network comprise . . . an e-mail . . . .” 

Rao discloses “applications 338a-338n may provide email.” Rao ¶¶179, 192 

(network packets for “email . . . application” in queue “for email related 

applications”). Rao discloses client 105 communicating via the wireless network 

with “an application server providing email services such as Microsoft Exchange.” 

Id. ¶90. Rao therefore discloses communications “associated with . . . an e-mail,” 

among other claimed items. EX-1015 ¶¶111-14; also id. (explaining others). 

C. Claim 4 

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the . . . communications . . . comprise a 

communication associated with . . . a content download.”

Rao’s applications 338 may comprise “real-time data communications, such 

as applications for streaming video and/or audio.” Rao ¶88. Applications 338 may 

also include email applications. Id. ¶¶179, 192. Both an email application that, as a 

POSITA would have recognized, requests and receives emails and email 

attachments, which would be downloaded, and a streaming video application that 

receives downloaded video, disclose “a content download.” EX-1015 ¶¶115-16. 

This is consistent with the ’541 patent’s disclosure of “content.” EX-1001, 14:52-

15:5, 93:29-45, 94:53-95:37; EX-1015 ¶117. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 44 of 112 PageID #:

7379
20

D. Claim 5

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the . . . communications . . . comprise a 

communication associated with . . . a video . . . an e-mail

attachment . . . [or] a video chat . . . .” 

Rao discloses network traffic may be associated with an email application, 

supra claim 3, which discloses or renders obvious communications associated with 

“an e-mail attachment.” EX-1015 ¶¶118-19. Rao also discloses “applications for

streaming video and/or audio,” Rao ¶88, and those offering “online meeting[s],” id.

¶¶179, 4, 75, 90, 117. A POSITA would have understood these communications to 

include “a video” and/or “a video chat,” as claimed. EX-1015 ¶120. 

E. Claim 6

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the . . . communications . . . comprise a 

communication associated with a device application . . . , a 

file download, . . . [or] a web browser . . . .” 

Rao’s computing device 102/client 105 may be a “mobile telephone,” laptop, 

“handheld computer,” or “any other computer[] or other form of computing or 

telecommunications device.” Rao ¶130; supra [1a]. Rao’s device also includes 

applications associated with network packets that Rao intercepts, queues, and 

prioritizes. Rao ¶¶179, 87-91, 180-95. Rao therefore discloses communications 

associated with a “device application.” EX-1015 ¶¶121-22. Rao also discloses 

communications associated with “a file download,” supra claims 3-5, and that its

applications can be “any type and/or form of web browser,” Rao ¶88. Sending and 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 45 of 112 PageID #:

7380
21

receiving network packets from a web browser application discloses communication 

associated with “a web browser.” EX-1015 ¶123. 

F. Claim 8

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify a service usage 

activity . . . comprises identify: an application identifier 

associated with the service usage activity or the first 

software component . . . .” 

Supra [1b]; EX-1015 ¶124. Identifying a network packet’s header, field, 

and/or the type or content of data that may be associated with background activity 

discloses an “application identifier” associated with the service usage activity and/or 

the first software component. EX-1015 ¶125. 

G. Claim 9

1. [9a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the service usage activity results 

from cooperation between the first software component and 

at least one other software component, application, process, 

function, activity, or service, and”

Rao discloses or renders obvious [9a]. Client 105 may execute one or more 

applications that “access the network 104” and “provide . . . real-time data 

communications,” (e.g., “VoIP,” “email, collaboration, online meeting, and/or 

desktop sharing related services or functionality”). Rao ¶¶179, 184, 192; supra 

[1b]-[1c]. 

Certain of Rao’s applications cooperate with other software components, 

applications, processes, functions, activities, or services. EX-1015 ¶¶126-28. For 

example, Rao discloses that certain applications are email applications, and that 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 46 of 112 PageID #:

7381
22

client 105 communicates across a network with “an application server providing 

email services such as Microsoft Exchange” to facilitate the provision of email 

services. Rao ¶¶90, 179, 192. This constitutes a service usage activity resulting from 

cooperation between the email application on client 105 (e.g., first software 

component) and the application server (“other,” e.g., application/software 

component/service). Id.; EX-1015 ¶129.

2. [9b] “wherein identify a service usage activity . . . comprises: 

identify a data flow to or from the at least one other 

software component, application, process, function, activity, 

or service; and associate the data flow with the first 

software component.”

Rao’s remote access client 120 intercepts packets sent from an application 

(e.g., email application) to an application server (e.g., “an application server 

providing email services such as Microsoft Exchange”) and identifies them as

associated with the email application. Rao ¶¶90, 179, 192; EX-1015 ¶¶130-32. Rao’s 

remote access client therefore identifies a data flow (network packets) sent from the 

email application (first software component) to the application server providing 

email services (the other application/software component) and associates the flow 

with the email application. Rao ¶¶187, 192; EX-1015 ¶132. To the extent Rao does 

not expressly disclose this, it would have been obvious based on Rao and a POSITA’s 

knowledge of applications, including email applications. EX-1015 ¶132.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 47 of 112 PageID #:

7382
23

H. Claim 10

1. “ . . . claim 9, wherein the first software component 

comprises at least a portion of an application, and wherein 

the at least one other software component, application, 

process, function, activity, or service performs a proxy 

function.” 

As discussed for claim 9, Rao discloses or renders obvious claim 10. EX-1015 

¶133; supra claim 9. An email application, as Rao discloses (Claim 9), is at least a 

portion of an application. EX-1015 ¶¶134-35. An application server that provides 

email services (e.g., Microsoft Exchange) is an “email service manager,” as that term 

is used in the ’541 patent. EX-1001, 76:1; EX-1015 ¶136. Such an application server 

(i.e., other application/software component) is a “[p]roxy [s]ervice [m]anager,” as 

that term is used in the ’541 patent, and it accordingly performs proxy service 

functions as claimed. EX-1001, 75:56-76:9 (“Example Proxy Service Managers 

include . . . email service manager”); EX-1015 ¶137. 

I. Claim 11

1. “ . . . claim 9, wherein the at least one other software 

component, application, process, function, activity, or 

service performs a proxy function.”

Supra claim 10; EX-1015 ¶138. 

J. Claim 12

1. “ . . . claim 9, wherein the at least one other software 

component, application, process, function, activity, or 

service comprises . . . , an e-mail service manager . . . .” 

Supra claim 10; EX-1015 ¶¶139-40. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 48 of 112 PageID #:

7383
24

K. Claim 13

1. [13a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify a service usage 

activity . . . comprises: monitor an application proxy service 

flow; and”

As explained for claim 10, an application server providing email services 

(e.g., Microsoft Exchange) is a “[p]roxy [s]ervice [m]anager.” EX-1001, 75:56-76:9;

supra claim 10. A POSITA would have understood that network packets 

communicated from Rao’s email application to an application server to facilitate 

email services form a data flow from an application to a proxy service manager and

thus constitute an “application proxy service flow.” EX-1015 ¶¶141-43. And Rao’s 

“identifying” (e.g., intercepting, inspecting, and associating network packets with 

their originating applications) constitutes or involves “monitoring” those packets 

(i.e., the application proxy service flow, in the case of an email application). Rao 

¶¶187, 185, 104, 109, 193; supra [1b]; EX-1015 ¶144.

2. [13b] “classify the application proxy service flow as being 

initiated by or belonging to the first software component.”

Rao’s remote access client identifies network packets’ associated application 

(e.g., an email application) by inspecting the network packets’ content, Rao ¶187; 

id. ¶¶109, 193; supra [1b], which discloses identifying packets flowing from an 

email application to an application server (e.g., Microsoft Exchange) that provides 

email services (“application proxy service flow”), EX-1015 ¶145. Rao therefore 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 49 of 112 PageID #:

7384
25

discloses identifying network packets as generated by (initiated by or belonging to) 

an email application. Supra [9b]; EX-1015 ¶146.

By “determin[ing] the association of network packets with applications 338a338n,” remote access client 120 “classif[ies]” the network packets as belonging to, 

e.g., an email application. Supra [1d], [1f]-[1g]; Rao ¶187; EX-1015 ¶147. This 

allows the system to determine whether the packets are associated with background 

activities and permits proper prioritization. EX-1015 ¶147. 

L. Claim 14

1. [14a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify a service usage activity 

. . . comprises: associate an identifier identifying the first 

software component with a request to a proxy service;”

In the case of Rao’s email application and “application server providing email 

services,” supra claim 9, an application server is a “[p]roxy [s]ervice [m]anager,” 

supra claim 10, and the email services the application server provides are “proxy 

services,” supra claim 10; EX-1015 ¶¶148-49. The client-side email application 

would communicate with the application server (e.g., send a “request to a proxy 

service”), and the packets sent per that request would be a service usage activity. 

EX-1015 ¶150. 

Rao’s outgoing network packets, including those comprising requests to the 

proxy service, are associated with an identifier identifying the application (e.g., an 

email application). Id. ¶¶151-52. Agent 326 “can associate network traffic with 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 50 of 112 PageID #:

7385
26

applications 338a-338n,” including by identifying “any of the content of the network 

packet, such as any headers, fields, or the type and content of data in the payload 

of the network packet.” Rao ¶187. Rao also associates a network packet with an 

application by matching information from a routing table 538, including “the IP 

addresses and ports numbers of the network packet.” Id.; id. ¶181

(source/destination IP addresses represent client/computing device by/to which 

application communicates on the network). EX-1015 ¶151.

Rao therefore discloses associating an identifier (e.g., a packet’s header, field, 

or content or an IP address or port number) identifying the first software component 

(e.g., an email client) with a request to a proxy service (e.g., a request to Microsoft 

Exchange). Id. ¶152.

2. [14b] “associate the request to the proxy service with a 

traffic flow, the traffic flow comprising the service usage 

activity; and”

Rao discloses or renders obvious [14b]. Rao discloses that “packets for a type 

of application 338a-338n, such as an email  . . .  may be placed in a queue 540a-540n

for prioritizing network[] packets for one or more applications.” Rao ¶192; supra 

[14a], claim 10. Similarly, “online collaboration related applications 338a-338n may 

be placed and prioritized in a first queue 540[,] . . . [and a] second queue 540b may 

be used for email related applications 338a-338n.” Rao ¶192. Rao thus associates a

request to the proxy service with a traffic flow by identifying and queuing emailCase 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 51 of 112 PageID #:

7386
27

related packets (which correspond to service usage activities of email applications) 

into a queue for email applications to an email exchange server. Id.; also id. ¶184;

supra [14a], claim 10; EX-1015 ¶¶153-56.

3. [14c] “associate the traffic flow with the identifier.”

Rao discloses or renders obvious [14c]. Rao explains that traffic flows (e.g., 

network packets to/from, e.g., the email client and email application server) are 

associated with identifiers. Supra [14a], claim 10; Rao ¶¶187, 109, 193; EX-1015 

¶¶157-58. Remote access client 120 may “identif[y] . . . network packet[s] as 

generated from an application” (e.g., an email application) by inspecting the packets’ 

content. Rao ¶¶187, 109, 193; supra [1b], [14a]. It may “match[] information from 

routing table 538, such as source and destination IP addresses,” “with the IP 

addresses . . . of the network packet[s],” which together form the traffic flow. Rao

¶187. By identifying the packets in the traffic flow associated with the email 

application’s communications with the application server (e.g., Microsoft Exchange) 

using routing table 538, Rao’s remote access client associates the traffic flow with 

the source and/or destination IP addresses associated with the email application (the 

identifier). EX-1015 ¶¶159-60.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 52 of 112 PageID #:

7387
28

M. Claim 15

1. “ . . . claim 14, wherein the identifier comprises . . . a 

credential.” 

Rao discloses or renders obvious claim 15. Rao’s identifier includes an 

IP address and/or port number, which the ’541 patent describes as device credentials. 

Rao ¶¶181, 187; supra [14a]-[14c]; EX-1001, 28:59-61 (“device credentials 

(e.g., . . . IP address)”); EX-1015 ¶¶161-63. 

N. Claim 16

1. [16a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the service usage activity results 

from cooperation between the first software component and 

a proxy function, and” 

Rao’s email application communicating with an application server providing 

email services (e.g., Microsoft Exchange) constitutes a service usage activity 

resulting from cooperation between the email application (e.g., the first software 

component) and the proxy service functions provided by the application server

(which performs proxy functions as network packets are sent from the email 

application to the application server). Supra [9a], claim 10; EX-1015 ¶¶164-65. 

2. [16b] “wherein identify a service usage activity . . .

comprises: identify a data flow to or from the proxy 

function; and associate the data flow with the first software 

component.” 

Because the application server providing email services (e.g., Microsoft 

Exchange) performs proxy functions, supra claim 10, Rao’s remote access client 

identifies a data flow to or from the proxy function and associates the data flow with 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 53 of 112 PageID #:

7388
29

the first software component (e.g., the email application). Supra [9b], [16a]; EX1015 ¶¶166-67. 

O. Claim 17

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify a service usage 

activity . . . comprises identify the service usage activity 

based on . . . a destination, a port, [or] a packet 

inspection . . . .” 

Rao discloses that filter 322 of packet capture mechanism 365 can “inspect 

the contents of the packets, such as routing information, to determine the action to 

take based on the filtering table.” Rao ¶¶102, 105-09. Agent 326 “identifies the 

network packet [service usage activity] . . . by any of the content of the network 

packet, such as any headers, fields, or the type and content of data.” Id. ¶187; EX1015 ¶¶168-69. Identification may also be via matching routing table 538’s “source 

and destination IP addresses and ports numbers with the IP addresses and ports 

numbers of the network packet.” Rao ¶187. Routing table 538 includes “information 

about . . . a destination computing device,” including “source port, 

and . . . destination port to identify a communication path.” Id. ¶¶181-82, 187, 190, 

192; EX-1015 ¶170. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 54 of 112 PageID #:

7389
30

P. Claim 18

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify a service usage 

activity . . . comprises determine an identifier associated 

with the first software component . . . .” 

Supra claim 17. Rao determines an identifier (e.g., “headers, fields, or the type 

and content of data in the payload”) by inspecting the packets. Rao ¶187; EX-1015 

¶¶171-72. And Rao explains this inspection allows it to “associate network traffic” 

with the applications, confirming the identifiers are associated with the first software 

component. Rao ¶187; EX-1015 ¶¶172-73. 

Q. Claim 19 

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the first software component 

comprises at least a portion of an application on the wireless 

end-user device.”

Rao’s applications disclose this. Rao ¶¶179, 87-91, 180-95; supra [1b]; EX1015 ¶¶174-75. 

R. Claim 20

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the first software component 

comprises an operating system component, function, or 

service.”

Rao discloses “computing device 102 (herein also referred to as a client 105) 

ha[s] an operating system.” Rao ¶¶99, 106, 124, 128-29. Rao thus discloses or 

renders obvious an application that includes an OS function, component, or service 

with associated service usage activity. For example, one common function, 

component, or service of an OS is an OS update or auto-update. E.g., Fadell ¶¶60-

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 55 of 112 PageID #:

7390
31

61; Van Camp, 3:61-64; EX-1015 ¶¶176-78. These keep the OS up-to-date. EX-1015 

¶178. Given Rao’s disclosure of a client with an OS and applications and a POSITA’s 

knowledge of OS auto-updates, it would have been obvious to implement one or 

more of Rao’s applications as an OS auto-update application to communicate

packets (e.g., service usage activity) for an OS function, component, or service (e.g., 

an OS update). Id.

A POSITA would have been motivated to do so to enable monitoring of 

software versions and updating the OS as necessary via network 104. Id. ¶179. This 

would have maintained the usability of client 105, including by addressing security 

or usability issues, and providing ongoing OS updates. Id. Doing so would have been

nothing more than a routine, predictable application of a POSITA’s knowledge to 

Rao’s client and applications. Id. A POSITA would have recognized the benefits, 

including prioritizing foreground OS updates over background activity, 

deprioritizing background OS updates, and improving update efficiency. Id. 

S. Claim 21

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the first software component 

comprises a . . . process . . . .” 

Rao discloses or renders obvious claim 21. Rao’s applications may “provide 

one or more real-time data communications, such as VoIP” or “email, collaboration, 

online meeting, and/or desktop sharing related services or functionality.” Rao ¶¶179, 

184, 192. To do so, applications 338a-338n must each comprise a plurality of

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 56 of 112 PageID #:

7391
32

“process[es]” that run on client 105. EX-1015 ¶¶180-81. For instance, an application 

that provides email services must run processes to send/receive emails and 

associated attachments. Id. Similarly, an online meeting application must run 

processes that allow client 105 to receive, transmit, and play/display audio and 

video. Id. 

Rao confirms this: “remote access client 120 may determine any priorities, 

such as process task priority, assigned to the application.” Rao ¶188. Client 105 

could not assign “process task priorit[ies]” to applications unless they include

underlying processes to prioritize. See id.; EX-1015 ¶182. Similarly, Rao’s agent 326 

may “provide[] to the filter 322 a mapping between applications 338a-338n, such 

as by application name or process id,” confirming the applications comprise 

processes. Rao ¶190; EX-1015 ¶183. 

T. Claim 22

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the first software component 

comprises a plurality of . . . processes.”

Supra claim 21. Rao discloses or renders obvious that its applications 

comprise a plurality of “processes.” EX-1015 ¶¶184-85. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 57 of 112 PageID #:

7392
33

U. Claim 23

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the first software component 

comprises a Java archive (JAR) file . . . , [or] an application 

that uses a proxy service function . . . .” 

Rao’s applications “can be any type . . . , such as . . . a Java applet.” Rao ¶88. 

The files associated with Java applets are typically in Java Archive (JAR) files. EX1015 ¶¶186-87. Rao’s applications may also be email applicationsin communication 

with, e.g., a “server providing email services such as Microsoft Exchange,” which is 

a proxy service manager that performs proxy service functions. Rao ¶¶90, 179, 192;

supra [9a], [13a], claims 10-12; EX-1015 ¶188. Rao thus discloses or renders 

obvious a first software component comprising a JAR file or an application using a 

proxy service function. EX-1015 ¶¶187-88.

V. Claim 26

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is based on a background 

service class . . . .” 

Rao’s policies 520 may “define prioritization” for network packets “based on 

whether an application is running in the foreground or the background.” Rao ¶182; 

id. ¶¶38-43, 180, 182, 188-89, 193, Figs. 5A, 5B. Each packet “may be placed and 

arranged in a priority order respective to all other . . . packets to provide a packet by 

packet prioritization across all applications 338a-338n and . . . network packets.” Id.

¶191. It would have been obvious to determine and apply a policy assigning a 

specific priority to packets associated with background applications, supra [1e]-[1f], 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 58 of 112 PageID #:

7393
34

and Rao thus discloses or renders obvious assigning a priority to network 

communications based on whether they are characterized as background services 

(class of services associated with application(s) running in the background of client 

105), EX-1015 ¶¶195-96; supra [1e], [1f]. 

W. Claim 45

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . . 

comprises determine whether the first software component 

is in a user interface foreground.”

Rao discloses “remote access client 120 may determine whether the 

application 338a-338n associated with the network packet is running in the 

foreground or the background.” Rao ¶188; id. ¶¶182, 187-89; supra [1d].

To prioritize network packets based on whether the associated application is 

running in the foreground, client 120 determines whether that application is in the 

foreground of the user interface (e.g., visible to a user using the application). EX1015 ¶¶210-13. To the extent it is argued Rao does not expressly disclose this, it 

would have been obvious to configure Rao to determine whether an application is in 

the user interface foreground so that applications currently being used are 

characterized as foreground and not background activity and associated packets are

prioritized as Rao describes in accordance with Rao’s goal of prioritizing active 

applications over background ones. Id. ¶214; Rao ¶¶3, 133, 140. Determining (e.g., 

via user inputs) whether a user is interacting with an application (and therefore the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 59 of 112 PageID #:

7394
35

application is in the user interface foreground) was well known and routine. EX1015 ¶¶214-15; also infra claim 58.

X. Claim 49

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . . 

comprises determine whether the service usage activity is a 

foreground activity.”

Supra claim 45; Rao ¶¶187-88, 3, 38-41; EX-1015 ¶¶216-20. Activity 

associated with an application in a user interface foreground is foreground activity.

EX-1015 ¶218. 

Y. Claim 50

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether the first software component 

is a foreground component.”

Supra claim 45; Rao ¶¶187-88, 3, 38-41; EX-1015 ¶¶221-26. An application 

running in the foreground of a user interface in active use, as Rao teaches,

encompasses a foreground component. EX-1015 ¶223.

Z. Claim 58

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether content associated with the 

service usage activity is in a foreground of a user interface 

of the wireless end-user device.”

Supra claim 45; Rao ¶¶182, 187-89, 3, 38-41; EX-1015 ¶¶227-31. Rao’s

foreground applications are “in active use by the user.” Rao ¶3. Rao describes 

“interactive” user sessions, “involv[ing] multimedia elements such as video.” Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 60 of 112 PageID #:

7395
36

¶¶133, 140. These are exemplary “active use[s]” classified as foreground activities. 

EX-1015 ¶229. “Interactive” applications, such as video, display user-interfaceforeground content when the application is used (e.g., making a telephone call or a 

video call). Id. It would have been obvious to rely on whether an application’s

content is displayed in the foreground of the device user interface to determine 

whether the service usage activities associated with that content are foreground or 

background activities. Id. ¶230. 

AA. Claim 59

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine whether . . . background . . . 

comprises determine whether the first software component 

is active.”

Supra claims 58, 45; Rao ¶¶187-88, 3, 38-41; EX-1015 ¶¶232-35. Rao 

describes exemplary foreground applications “in active use by the user.” Rao ¶3. 

Rao’s agent determines whether the application packets “comprise[] real-time data” 

Id. ¶44. A foreground application in “active use” and generating network packets 

comprising real-time data is a software component that is “active” and thus not 

background activity. EX-1015 ¶¶234. 

BB. Claim 60

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in . . . delaying . . . the service usage activity.” 

Rao forms queues so the “network packets of the highest priority queue 540a540n are communicated first, and then the next highest priority queue 540a-540n

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 61 of 112 PageID #:

7396
37

second, and so on.” Rao ¶194. This discloses or renders obvious delaying lowpriority packets in favor of high-priority packets. EX-1015 ¶¶236-37. Indeed, Rao 

discloses “holding, by the client, in the queue a network packet associated with the 

second application [until] communication of . . . packets associated with the first 

application.” Rao ¶40. The network packet (service usage activity) associated with 

the second application (e.g., background activity) is thus delayed. EX-1015 ¶238.

CC. Claim 64

1. [64a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the . . . communications over the 

wireless network comprise one or more Internet protocol 

(IP) address requests, and”

Rao discloses communication sessions between first and second devices that 

occur via a tunneling session with a third computing device (e.g., an SSL VPN 

gateway). Rao ¶¶5, 11, 136-37. When the first device sends a request to initiate the

connection, the third device intercepts the request and sends the “last known public 

IP address of the second computing device” to the first device. Id. ¶137; id. ¶¶5, 11. 

The request from the first computing device includes an IP address request 

because in response, the IP address is sent. Id.; EX-1015 ¶¶244-45. If not expressly 

disclosed, this would have been obvious. EX-1015 ¶246. 

To the extent Rao’s prioritization and tunneling disclosures are separate, it 

would have been obvious to combine them, as Rao suggests, to establish a secure 

connection with better quality and reduced latency. Id. ¶247; Rao ¶¶135, 218. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 62 of 112 PageID #:

7397
38

Utilizing these techniques in a combined system would have been well within the 

skill of a POSITA and would have yielded predictable results. EX-1015 ¶247. 

2. [64b] “wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in

. . . delaying . . . at least a portion of the service usage 

activity.”

Rao discloses delaying its packets (e.g., service usage activity) and likewise

discloses delaying at least a portion of the service usage activity. Supra claim 60; 

Rao ¶¶189-95; EX-1015 ¶¶248-51. 

DD. Claim 157

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the user input obtained through the 

user interface . . . comprises a directive to apply the policy to 

a second software component . . . on the wireless end-user 

device.” 

Rao discloses or renders obvious obtaining user input (directive) to apply a 

priority to a second application (second software component), because Rao applies 

the prioritization policy, which is based on user input, to multiple applications. Supra 

[1e]; Rao ¶¶182-83; EX-1015 ¶¶294-96. Rao’s user input therefore directs 

application of prioritization to at least two applications, e.g., two applications 

running in the background. Rao ¶¶40-42; EX-1015 ¶296. The policy would apply a 

prioritization order for second-application-associated packets relative to firstapplication-associated packets. EX-1015 ¶296. 

To the extent the claim requires the user input to specify a particular 

application, Rao discloses and renders this feature obvious because it discloses that 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 63 of 112 PageID #:

7398
39

its policies may “be specified by the name of the application 338a-338n.” Rao ¶182; 

EX-1015 ¶297. It would have been obvious to determine at least an aspect of a policy 

based on user input directing policy application to a particular application (e.g., a 

second software component), e.g., prioritizing particular applications at a higher or 

lower priority based on user preference, to increase Rao’s useability and 

functionality by increasing user control. EX-1015 ¶297.

EE. Claim 165

1. [165a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the service usage activity is a 

first service usage activity, . . . the . . . communications . . . are 

first . . . communications . . . , the background activity is a 

first background activity, and wherein the user input . . . is a 

first user input . . . ” 

Supra [1a]-[1g]; EX-1015 ¶298. 

2. [165b] “identify a second service usage 

activity . . . associated with a second software 

component . . . comprising second . . . communications over 

the wireless network;”

Rao discloses “intercepting, by the client, the one or more network packets 

transparently to the one or more applications on the client.” Rao ¶¶41-46, 184-85, 

Fig. 5B (Step 555). Intercepting network packets associated with multiple

applications renders obvious identifying first and second service usage activities

associated with respective first and second software components. EX-1015 ¶¶299-

300. Rao also discloses “identify[ing],” “service usage activity,” a “wireless enduser device,” and “prospective or successful communications over the wireless 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 64 of 112 PageID #:

7399
40

network” related to a second software component for the same reasons it discloses 

these elements related to a first software component. Id. ¶300; supra [1b]. 

3. [165c] “determine whether the second service usage activity 

is a second background activity; and . . . apply at least a 

portion of the policy . . . based on a second user input.”

Rao discloses or renders obvious determining whether a service usage activity 

is background activity and applying a policy based on that determination because 

Rao teaches intercepting and prioritizing network packets from multiple

applications. Supra [1e]-[1g]. It therefore would have been obvious to apply the 

policy to a second software component based on second user input. EX-1015 ¶¶301-

03. Rao discloses users may specify a policy based on several different aspects, 

including particular applications, application/protocol type, packet destination or 

size, time, or foreground/background status. Rao ¶¶182, 191, 193. It would have 

been obvious to receive a second user input specifying a policy aspect applicable to 

a second application, as Rao suggests in examples. EX-1015 ¶303; Rao ¶¶182, 191, 

193. Doing so would have allowed a user to apply a priority to packets based on 

different variables, increasing functionality and user control. EX-1015 ¶304; Rao 

¶¶182, 191, 193.

FF. Claim 169

1. [169a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first service usage activity, . . . first 

one or more prospective or successful 

communications . . . cause the one or more processors to:”

Supra [1a]-[1g]; EX-1015 ¶305. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 65 of 112 PageID #:

7400
41

2. [169b] “identify a second service usage activity . . . 

associated with the first software component . . . comprising 

second . . . communications over the wireless network;”

Rao discloses identifying a service usage activity associated with the first 

software component. Supra [1b]. Rao further discloses or renders obvious the 

service usage activity being a second service usage activity from the first software 

component because it “intercept[s] . . . one or more network packets.” Rao ¶¶41-46, 

184-85; EX-1015 ¶¶306-08. Rao’s intercepting more than one packet from the same 

application discloses or renders obvious identifying first and second service usage 

activities associated with a first software component. EX-1015 ¶308. A POSITA 

would have understood that a software component may conduct a first and then a 

second service usage activity, Rao would intercept the second packet (second service 

usage activity), in the same way as the first. See Rao ¶¶41-46, 102, 105, 184-86; EX1015 ¶308. 

3. [169c] “determine whether the second service usage activity 

is the background activity; and . . . apply at least a portion 

of the policy.”

Supra [1d], [1g], [169b]. Rao “determines” to facilitate its disclosed 

prioritization, which applies to multiple network packets (e.g., first and second 

service usage activities). Rao ¶¶189-90; supra [165b]; EX-1015 ¶¶309-11. Rao thus

discloses or renders obvious making a corresponding background determination and 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 66 of 112 PageID #:

7401
42

applying the policy to a second service usage activity in the same way as it makes 

the background determination and applies the policy to the first. EX-1015 ¶311. 

GG. Claim 171

1. “The wireless end-user device embodying the non-transitory 

computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 1.”

Rao discloses that client 105 may be a wireless end-user device (supra [1a]; 

Rao ¶¶116-21) with “sufficient processor power and memory capacity to perform 

[Rao’s] operations” (claim 1’s limitations). Rao ¶130; supra claim 1; EX-1015 

¶¶312-14.

VIII. Ground 2: Rao-Fadell Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 7, 41-43, 46, 63, 

155-156, 160-164, 166-168, and 170

A. Motivation to Combine 

It would have been obvious to combine Rao and Fadell, which disclose 

complementary methods for controlling network communications. EX-1015 

¶¶317-18; Rao ¶¶85-89, 97-105, 179-95, Figs. 5A-5B; Fadell ¶¶21-22, 47-72, Figs. 

1, 3-6.

Like Rao’s “remote access client,” Fadell’s “resource utilization component” 

monitors resource usage and notifies users when usage reaches a limit to avoid 

penalties. Fadell ¶¶16, 21-27, 47-72, Figs. 1, 3-6. Fadell’s resource utilization 

component may enable, disable, cancel, delay, or reschedule network processes or 

communications based on, e.g., importance, type of data transferred, associated 

application or protocol, and/or resources available. Id.; EX-1015 ¶¶319-20.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 67 of 112 PageID #:

7402
43

A POSITA would have looked to Fadell to improve Rao given their 

similarities and benefits. EX-1015 ¶¶321-22. The combined system would apply a 

prioritization to network packets from a background activity and notify a user when 

resource usage approaches a threshold. Id. When the threshold is met in Rao-Fadell, 

background activity network packets would be queued and deprioritized (Rao 

¶¶180-95), and the user would be notified and given options to proceed (Fadell ¶¶47-

72, Figs. 1, 3-6). EX-1015 ¶¶321-23. In one example, when a threshold (e.g., 

monthly data limit) is reached, the policy would cause the user to be notified and the 

system to intercept/queue background activity (e.g., email pulls, auto-update 

processes, RSS feeds). Id.

A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the functionalities of Rao 

and Fadell (including, e.g., that associated with Rao’s remote access client and with 

Fadell’s resource utilization component) to deprioritize “low-priority” background 

activity, as both Rao and Fadell suggest, Rao ¶¶179, 182, 188-89, 192; Fadell ¶¶60, 

64, 66, while providing the user information and options for how to proceed, as 

Fadell suggests, Fadell ¶¶47-72, Figs. 1, 3-6; EX-1015 ¶323. This would have 

minimized data-overage costs by rescheduling/delaying background activity near 

resource limits while providing the user with options for proceeding, e.g., by 

reducing resource usage, purchasing additional data, or switching networks. EX1015 ¶¶323-26; Fadell ¶¶2-7, 16-18, 56-57, 63-65. Rao and Fadell contemplate 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 68 of 112 PageID #:

7403
44

cellular use, and Rao’s prioritization would have benefited from Fadell’s usage limits 

and notifications in this “pay to use” context. EX-1015 ¶¶323-26; Rao ¶¶198, 130; 

Fadell ¶¶2-7, 16-18, 23, 42-46.

Combining Rao and Fadell would have been nothing more than the simple 

combination of known elements to obtain predictable results. EX-1015 ¶¶327-28.

For example, the combination of Fadell’s resource usage thresholds and notifications 

with Rao’s network packet prioritization techniques would have yielded the 

predictable result of a system that applies a prioritization of network packets 

associated with background activity and notifies the user when resource usage limits 

reach a threshold. Id. This also would have been nothing more than the use of the

known techniques of monitoring resource usage limits and notifying the user to 

improve Rao in the same way and apply prioritization to background activity to 

avoid data overages. Id. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of 

success in combining Rao with Fadell because both disclose monitoring network 

activity from handheld devices and mobile telephones and policies relating to 

associated network traffic. Id.

B. Claim 1

1. [1a] “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 

storing machine-executable instructions that, when 

executed by one or more processors of a wireless end-user 

device, cause the one or more processors to:”

Rao teaches [1a]. Supra §VII.A.1.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 69 of 112 PageID #:

7404
45

Like Rao, supra §VII.A, Fadell’s wireless end-user device may include “a 

cellular telephone,” Fadell ¶¶29, 37. Fadell also discloses a “resource utilization 

component.” Id. ¶31; EX-1015 ¶¶329-32.

Fadell, Fig. 2. 

It would have been obvious to implement the Rao-Fadell device as a cellular 

phone or handheld computer that communicates over wireless (e.g., cellular)

networks. Id. ¶¶29, 37. The Rao-Fadell device includes memory, storage, and a 

processor to execute stored instructions associated with the disclosed 

software/applications (e.g., Rao’s remote access client 120 and/or Fadell’s resource 

utilization component 110). EX-1015 ¶¶329-32. It would have been obvious to 

include functionalities associated with both Rao’s remote access client 120 and

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 70 of 112 PageID #:

7405
46

Fadell’s resource utilization component 110 in the combined instructions. Id. Rao 

explains that its policies are non-exclusive, Rao ¶182, and a POSITA would have 

found it obvious to combine Rao’s prioritization policies and Fadell’s resource usage 

notification policies, EX-1015 ¶¶329-32; supra §VIII.A.

2. [1b] “identify a service usage activity of the wireless enduser device, the service usage activity being associated with 

a first software component of a plurality of software 

components on the wireless end-user device,”

Rao teaches [1b]. Supra §VII.A.2.

Like Rao, supra §VII.A, Fadell discloses data transfers to/from device 120 

via wireless network 102 (“service usage activity of the wireless end-user device”),

Fadell ¶¶17-22, 26-32, 46-47, 62, 71-72. 

Like Rao, Fadell identifies service usage activity. To monitor and limit 

resource usage, Fadell’s resource utilization component “identif[ies]” data requests 

and/or transfers (service usage activity). EX-1015 ¶¶333-37. This includes 

associating data requests and/or transfers with data types, applications, and/or 

protocols. Fadell ¶¶18, 56, 59-61, 64. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 71 of 112 PageID #:

7406
47

Id., Fig. 1.

Given these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement 

functionalities from both Rao’s remote access client 120 and Fadell’s resource 

utilization component 110 in the combined instructions to identify service usage 

activity in order to implement the Rao-Fadell policy. EX-1015 ¶¶333-37; supra 

§VIII.A.

3. [1c] “the service usage activity comprising one or more 

prospective or successful communications over a wireless 

network;”

Rao teaches [1c]. Supra §VII.A.3.

Like Rao, supra §VII.A, Fadell discloses that “[e]lectronic device 120 may 

connect to network 102 using . . . any suitable wired or wireless communications 

path,” Fadell ¶28; EX-1015 ¶¶338-41. Fadell discloses that communications 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 72 of 112 PageID #:

7407
48

between electronic devices 120 and network 102 may be routed through its resource 

utilization component, the functionality of which would have been incorporated with 

that of Rao’s remote access client in Rao-Fadell. Fadell ¶¶27-28; supra §VIII.A. 

Fadell, Fig. 1.

Fadell’s resource utilization component monitoring device data requests 

and/or transfers to or from network 102 (service usage activity) discloses identifying 

service usage activity comprising prospective or successful communications over 

the wireless network. Id. ¶¶24-28, 46-47; EX-1015 ¶¶338-41. 

4. [1d] “determine whether the service usage activity 

comprises a background activity;”

Rao teaches [1d]. Supra §VII.A.4. Rao’s teachings would have been 

implemented in Rao-Fadell to enable a policy that applies prioritization (e.g., a lower 

priority) as suggested by Rao and Fadell. Supra §§VII.A, VIII.A; EX-1015 ¶342.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 73 of 112 PageID #:

7408
49

5. [1e] “determine at least an aspect of a policy based on a user 

input obtained through a user interface of the wireless enduser device or based on information from a network 

element,”

Rao teaches[1e]. Supra §VII.A.5. Rao’s teachings, including those associated 

with Rao’s remote access client, would be incorporated into Rao-Fadell. Supra

§VII.A; EX-1015 ¶343. To the extent it is argued Rao alone does not disclose this 

limitation, it would have been obvious to combine Rao and Fadell to provide a policy 

that specifies a prioritization for network packets and notifies a user when a resource 

usage threshold is reached. EX-1015 ¶¶344-50; supra §VIII.A.

Fadell discloses that a user may receive “reminders or alarms” that the user 

has reached a resource limit or threshold. Fadell ¶¶51-53, 48-50, 54-70. Fadell thus

discloses a “policy” (e.g., providing notifications at a threshold) and an “aspect of a 

policy” (e.g., threshold value). EX-1015 ¶¶344-50.

Fadell determines the usage threshold and whether it has been reached based

on (1) information regarding resource use from “a router or network component

downstream” (network element) and/or (2) user-defined ranges (user input) provided 

via “component[s] for allowing a user to provide inputs” (user interface). Fadell

¶¶36-37, 50-51; EX-1015 ¶¶344-50. At least an aspect of the policy is based on the 

range/threshold (user input) or the resource use information (information from a 

network element). EX-1015 ¶¶344-50. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 74 of 112 PageID #:

7409
50

The Fadell policy notifies the user when a resource usage threshold is reached,

and these notifications are thus based on the limit/threshold information received 

from the network element or user:

Fadell, Fig. 3.

Id., Fig. 4.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 75 of 112 PageID #:

7410
51

Id., Fig. 5, ¶¶50-70; EX-1015 ¶347.

For the reasons discussed, supra §VIII.A, a POSITA would have combined 

Rao and Fadell to provide a system with a policy that controls network activity and 

alerts a user when resource usage limits approach a threshold, implementing these 

features in Rao-Fadell, which discloses [1e]. A POSITA also would have combined 

Rao with Fadell for the reasons explained in Fadell: to “assist the consumer in 

avoiding excess fees or penalties[] the consumer may receive (e.g., from the data 

provider or from the resource utilization component).” Fadell ¶51; EX-1015 ¶¶348-

49. This would have allowed a user to control resource usage, avoid overage charges, 

and prioritize foreground activity when resource usage limits are reached. EX-1015 

¶¶348-49.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 76 of 112 PageID #:

7411
52

6. [1f] “the policy to be applied if the service usage activity is 

the background activity, the policy at least for controlling 

the service usage activity; and”

Rao teaches [1f]. Supra §VII.A.6. Rao’s teachings would be incorporated into 

Rao-Fadell. Supra §VII.A; EX-1015 ¶¶351-55. 

To the extent it is argued Rao does not expressly disclose applying a policy 

“if” the service usage activity is the background activity, as discussed in Ground 1, 

it would have been obvious to modify Rao to apply a policy in this manner. Supra

§VII.A.6; EX-1015 ¶¶351-55.

In the combined Rao-Fadell system, it would have been obvious to implement 

Rao’s policy of assigning a priority to network packets based on the packets being 

background activity when a resource usage limit or threshold is reached and a user 

is notified, as taught by Fadell. Fadell ¶¶49-72, Figs. 3-6; EX-1015 ¶¶354-55. As 

discussed, supra §VIII.A, in Rao-Fadell, a POSITA would have been motivated to 

apply a lower prioritization to background activity and notify a user when a resource 

usage limit or threshold is reached to prevent inadvertent overages, reduce consumer

costs, and provide Fadell’s notifications that include options for proceeding. EX1015 ¶¶354-55.

7. [1g] “if it is determined that the service usage activity is the 

background activity, apply the policy.”

Rao teaches [1g]. Supra §VII.A.7.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 77 of 112 PageID #:

7412
53

In Rao-Fadell, it would have been obvious to apply Rao’s prioritization to 

network packets determined to be background activity at least when a threshold is 

reached. EX-1015 ¶¶356-63; supra §VII.A.7 (explaining Rao’s prioritization). 

In doing so, it would have been obvious to apply prioritization (e.g., lower 

priority) to background activity packets and notify a user of data resources (e.g., via 

Fadell’s screens 300-500) to enable the user to control how to proceed. Fadell 

¶¶50-71, Figs. 3-6; EX-1015 ¶¶360-63. For example, a user may elect, as Fadell 

teaches, to “reschedule or cancel processes requesting data of lesser importance” via 

screen 400 and cause intercepted and/or future intercepted background activity 

packets to remain in a queue, as taught by Rao. Fadell ¶¶57-60; Rao ¶¶180-95; 

EX-1015 ¶¶360-63. A POSITA would have applied and/or modified Rao in this 

manner to prevent inadvertent overages and reduce costs for the consumer, and been 

motivated to do so for the reasons discussed above. Supra [1f] (Ground 2), §VIII.A;

EX-1015 ¶¶360-63.

C. Claim 2

1. [2a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . the first software component comprises

at least a portion of an application component . . . ”

Rao-Fadell teaches [2a] by disclosing applications. Rao ¶¶179, 87-91, 180-

95; Fadell ¶¶56, 59; EX-1015 ¶¶364-65.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 78 of 112 PageID #:

7413
54

2. [2b] “wherein the . . . communications . . . comprise an 

update to the first software component.”

Rao-Fadell teaches [2b]. Supra [1c] (Ground 2). Fadell further discloses the 

communications include “auto-update processes.” Fadell ¶¶60-61. In Rao-Fadell, 

Fadell’s auto-update processes would update, for example, Rao’s applications 338a338n, which would involve transferring network packets over network 104. EX1015 ¶¶366-67. This teaches [2b]. A POSITA would have been motivated and found 

it obvious to update applications 338a-338n using Fadell’s auto-update processes, 

as was known in the art. Id. These updates would ensure the applications’ continued 

operability, usability, and security. Id. 

A POSITA would have been motivated to determine whether Fadell’s autoupdate processes are background activities and apply Rao’s prioritization policy to 

associated network packets when a resource usage threshold is reached. Supra [1e]

(Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶368. Fadell identifies auto-updates as “less[] importan[t]” 

and contemplates downgrading their priority by “reschedul[ing],” “cancel[ling],” or 

“delay[ing]” them. EX-1015 ¶368; Fadell ¶¶60-61.

D. Claim 7 

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein identify . . . comprises identify an 

intention to launch or start the first software component.”

Rao-Fadell teaches claim 7. Fadell discloses when a user “load[s] a web page 

that includes video or audio, [the application] may not automatically start playing 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 79 of 112 PageID #:

7414
55

back the video or audio but await an instruction from the user (e.g., a selection of 

the video or audio).” Fadell ¶59.

A POSITA would have understood that, to offer the user the choice of playing 

back video or audio, Fadell must identify an intention to launch or start a software 

component that provides the video or audio (e.g., a video or audio plug-in for the 

web browser). Id.; EX-1015 ¶¶369-71. Fadell thus discloses identifying a service 

usage activity (e.g., associated with streaming the audio or video) by identifying an 

intention to launch or start a first software component (e.g., the audio or video plugin). EX-1015 ¶371. Fadell’s waiting for the user to indicate an “interest in the media 

(instead of indeterminately providing audio)” would conserve resources and avoid 

unnecessary data expenditure. Id.

A POSITA also would have recognized that an application may prompt other 

components to engage in background activity (e.g., automatic updates, virus scan 

updates, RSS feed detectors). Id. ¶372; Fadell ¶¶56, 60. A POSITA would have been 

motivated to apply Fadell’s teachings to identify an intention to launch these 

components and allow the user to decide whether to start these processes. EX-1015 

¶372.

Applying these teachings in Rao-Fadell would have allowed user control over 

resource usage and the ability to reduce resource consumption. Id. ¶373. A POSITA 

would have been motivated to do so to prevent software components from 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 80 of 112 PageID #:

7415
56

consuming data and bandwidth, potentially without the user’s knowledge (e.g., in 

the background and automatically). Id. Combining Fadell’s teachings in this way 

with Rao would have been simply combining known elements in the prior art 

according to understood principles to yield predictable results. Id.

E. Claim 41

1. [41a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first wireless network, and . . . a first 

service usage activity, and”

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶415.

2. [41b] “wherein the policy assists . . . control[ling] the first 

service usage activity when the . . . device is connected to the 

first wireless network and”

Rao-Fadell teaches [41b]. Supra [1c]-[1g] (Ground 2). The policy in RaoFadell assists the processor to control the first service usage activity by intercepting, 

queuing, and assigning a priority to network packets associated with background 

activity. Supra [1c]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶416. This corresponds with claim 

42, which defines control as “restrict[ing]” a service usage activity. EX-1015 ¶416.

3. [41c] “refrain from controlling a second service usage 

activity when . . . connected to a second wireless network, 

the second service usage activity being associated with the 

first software component.”

Rao-Fadell renders [41c] obvious. For example, Fadell’s screen 500 prompts 

a user to “switch networks” when a data resource limit “for the current 

network . . . has been reached.” Fadell ¶63, Fig. 5. This includes choosing a Wi-Fi 

network. Id. Communications circuitry may then “switch to the selected network.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 81 of 112 PageID #:

7416
57

Id. Fadell therefore teaches switching from one wireless (e.g., cellular) network, 

which may be data-limited and trigger expenses after a limit, to a second that is not 

so limited (e.g., Wi-Fi). EX-1015 ¶¶417-18.

A POSITA would have applied these teachings in Rao-Fadell to cease 

intercepting, queuing, and assigning a priority to network packets associated with 

background activity (e.g., second service usage activity associated with the first 

software component) when a user switches from cellular to Wi-Fi. Id. ¶419. The 

system would control a first service usage activity over a first wireless network but 

“refrain” from doing so for service usage activity over a second wireless network. 

Id. The resulting system would benefit by preventing overages and charges on 

resource-limited networks. Id. ¶420; Fadell ¶¶23, 43-44.

A POSITA would have understood that typical cellular data restrictions may 

not be present or may differ on a Wi-Fi network. EX-1015 ¶420; Fadell ¶19. Thus, 

a POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the Rao-Fadell policy over a cellular 

network (e.g., first wireless network) but refrain from doing so over a Wi-Fi network. 

EX-1015 ¶420. Furthermore, background activity, like software and email updates, 

would proceed over Wi-Fi, keeping software up-to-date with less restrictions while 

not competing for limited resources. Id.

A POSITA would have applied the policy in this way based on Fadell’s 

teachings. Id. ¶421. This would have been combining prior art elements with 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 82 of 112 PageID #:

7417
58

predictable results, providing network-centric and selective control of backgroundactivity communications based on the network. Id. This would have assisted users 

avoiding data overages over cellular networks, while allowing important updates and 

other background activity while on Wi-Fi networks without prioritization-based 

delay. Id. 

F. Claim 42

1. “ . . . claim 41, wherein 

control . . . comprises . . . restrict . . . the first service usage 

activity.”

Rao-Fadell’s intercepting, queueing, and assigning a priority to network 

packets associated with background activity restricts network packets (e.g., first 

service usage activity) until higher-priority packets have been processed. EX-1015 

¶¶422-23; supra [1c]-[1g] (Ground 2). 

G. Claim 43

1. “ . . . claim 41, wherein the second wireless network is a 

wireless fidelity (WiFi) network . . . .” 

Supra claim 41, [1b]-[1c] (Ground 2); EX-1001 (Certificate of Correction); 

EX-1015 ¶424.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 83 of 112 PageID #:

7418
59

H. Claim 46

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein 

determine . . . background . . . comprises determine whether 

the service usage activity is a software update.”

Rao-Fadell discloses or renders obvious claim 46. Fadell discloses 

“reschedul[ing] or cancel[ing] processes requesting data of lesser importance.” 

Fadell ¶60. This includes “cancel[ing] or delay[ing] auto-update processes.” Id.

¶¶60-61. These updates disclose a “software update.” Id.; EX-1015 ¶¶425-26. 

Rao’s restricting background activity corresponds to Fadell’s restricting tasks 

of “lesser importance.” EX-1015 ¶427; Rao ¶¶40-41, 182, 188-89; Fadell ¶¶60-61. 

A POSITA would have applied these teachings to identify background activity that 

includes software updates in Rao-Fadell and been motivated to do so based on 

Fadell’s teaching and suggestion that software updates are exemplary background 

activity. EX-1015 ¶427. A POSITA also would have had general knowledge that 

software updates are typical background activity. Id.

A POSITA also would have been motivated to identify background software 

updates for the reason Fadell and Rao disclose: these are “less[] importan[t]” tasks 

compared to processes in “active use.” Fadell ¶¶60-61; Rao ¶3; EX-1015 ¶428. This 

would have benefited users because these updates can start in the background, 

sometimes without notice, and compete with active applications for 

resources/bandwidth. EX-1015 ¶428. A user would have benefitted from the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 84 of 112 PageID #:

7419
60

additional control over software updates because a user could prioritize active 

applications over these updates. Id. This would have involved nothing more than 

combining known elements of the prior art with an expectation of success. Id.

I. Claim 63

2. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in preventing an update associated with the first 

software component.”

Rao-Fadell discloses a software update may be a background activity. Supra

claim 46. In Rao-Fadell, a background update activity (e.g., “an update associated 

with the first software component”) packet would be intercepted, placed in a queue, 

and assigned a priority. Supra claim 46, [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2). Placing these network 

packets in a lower-priority queue discloses, or renders obvious, assisting in 

preventing an update associated with the first software component because the 

packets associated with that update are delayed until they are ready to be 

communicated based on their priority (a temporary prevention). EX-1015 ¶¶430-31. 

Ahigher-priority packet would consume the network resource and prevent the lowerpriority packet from accessing the network at that time. Id. ¶431; Oestvall ¶15.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 85 of 112 PageID #:

7420
61

J. Claim 155

1. “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first user input, . . . a first policy, and 

wherein the first user input or a second user input 

comprises a directive to apply a second policy to a second 

software component . . . .”

Rao-Fadell discloses or renders obvious claim 155, including a first user input 

and a first policy. Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶¶710-14.

Fadell discloses a second user input including a directive to apply a second 

policy to a second software component. Fadell discloses that the user “may change 

the properties of the data being downloaded, such as by changing the display 

resolution of a media file to be displayed or by switching from a more resource 

intensive Codec to a less resource intensive Codec for playing back the media.” 

Fadell ¶¶53, 59. A POSITA would have understood that because the user is 

“changing” aspects of the system, the user is providing input, and would have further 

understood that the input comprises a directive because the user is causing the 

application (e.g., a second software component) to operate differently. EX-1015 

¶¶715-16. This different operation constitutes a second policy, e.g., using a changed 

display resolution to download a media file when the device nears a resource 

threshold. Fadell ¶¶53, 59; EX-1015 ¶716. The decision whether to implement 

logical criteria as part of a first or second policy would have been a simple design 

choice and an approach for which a POSITA would have had a reasonable 

expectation of success. EX-1015 ¶716.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 86 of 112 PageID #:

7421
62

In Rao-Fadell, a POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to 

implement Fadell’s changing the properties of data being downloaded. Id. ¶717. 

Allowing the user to set additional policies to control resource use would have 

beneficially given users greater control over data resources. Id. For example, the user 

would have the option to not only deprioritize lower-priority network packets (e.g., 

from background activity), but also change the display resolution of a media file 

downloaded in the foreground, allowing the user to conserve additional resources, 

as Fadell suggests. Supra [1g] (Ground 2); Fadell ¶¶53, 59; EX-1015 ¶717. A

POSITA would have been able to implement these concepts with likely success. EX1015 ¶717. 

K. Claim 156 

1. “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first user input, . . . the first user input or 

a second user input compris[ing] a directive to refrain from 

applying the policy to a second software component . . . .”

Rao-Fadell discloses or renders obvious claim 156, including a first user input 

and first policy. Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶¶718-20.

Fadell further discloses “an option for the consumer to exceed the allocated 

resources,” Fadell ¶53, including “allowing particular users or devices to access data 

provider resources,” id. ¶¶54-62, Fig. 4. This also includes “option 414 for 

purchasing additional data provider resources.” Id. ¶57. Screen 400 may allow a 

user to “allow or permit the download of web pages or other non-media intensive 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 87 of 112 PageID #:

7422
63

transfers.” Id. ¶59. Fadell discloses exercising these options on an application-byapplication basis. Id.

Fadell’s options disclose or render obvious a second user input that comprises 

a directive to refrain from applying the policy to a second software component. 

EX-1015 ¶¶721-23. By allowing an application to continue using data, the user is 

providing a second user input (by choosing that option) that directs the system to 

override the policy as it relates to that application (e.g., the second software 

component). Id. ¶723.

A POSITA would have implemented Fadell’s options in Rao-Fadell such that, 

on receiving notification that a threshold approaches, the user could override the 

policy for particular applications. Id. ¶724; Fadell ¶59. A POSITA would have been 

motivated to implement these options in Rao-Fadell to provide users greater control 

of resources and options for implementing the policy, which would have required 

nothing more than routine skill. EX-1015 ¶724. 

L. Claim 160

1. [160a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first service usage activity, . . . a 

first wireless network, and . . . cause the one or more 

processors to:”

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶733. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 88 of 112 PageID #:

7423
64

2. [160b]/[160c] “identify a second service usage 

activity . . . associated with the first software 

component . . . over a second wireless network; and refrain 

from applying the policy to the second service usage 

activity” 

Rao-Fadell discloses and/or renders obvious refraining from applying the 

policy to a second service usage activity of the first software component (e.g., refrain 

from controlling a second service usage activity) when connected to a second 

wireless network, as discussed in claim 41. Supra [41b]-[41c]; EX-1015 ¶¶734-43. 

M. Claim 161

1. [161a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first service usage activity, . . . a 

first background activity, . . . a first wireless network, 

and . . . a first policy, and . . . cause the one or more 

processors to:”

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶744. 

2. [161b] “identify a second service usage activity . . .

associated with the first software component . . . over a 

second wireless network; and”

Supra [160b]; EX-1015 ¶745. 

3. [161c] “determine whether the second service usage activity 

is a second background activity;”

Supra [169c], [1d] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶¶746-48. 

4. [161d] “if . . . the second service usage activity is the second 

background activity, apply a second policy . . . .” 

Rao-Fadell discloses or renders obvious [161d]. Fadell discloses “the 

consumer may prevent the download of media data, but allow or permit the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 89 of 112 PageID #:

7424
65

download of web pages or other non-media intensive transfers.” Fadell ¶59. This is 

a second policy. EX-1015 ¶¶749-51. 

A POSITA would have included this second policy so that background 

activity (e.g., first background activity) would be restricted by application of the first 

policy, while non-media intensive transfers (e.g., a second background activity) 

would be allowed to proceed. Id. ¶752. This would have given users greater control 

over resource use and provided users options to determine how the policy is 

implemented and how to proceed, while better preventing overages. Fadell ¶¶49-52; 

EX-1015 ¶¶752-53. 

N. Claim 162

1. “ . . . claim 161, wherein the first policy restricts or prevents 

the first background activity, and wherein the second policy 

allows the second background activity.”

Supra [161d], [41b]-[41c]; EX-1015 ¶¶754-55. 

O. Claim 163

1. [163a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first service usage activity, . . . a 

first wireless network, and . . . a first policy . . . cause the one 

or more processors to:” 

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶756. 

2. [163b] “identify a second service usage 

activity . . . associated with the first software 

component . . . over a second wireless network; and”

Supra [160b]; EX-1015 ¶757. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 90 of 112 PageID #:

7425
66

3. [163c] “apply a second policy to the second service usage 

activity.”

Supra [161d]; EX-1015 ¶¶758-59. 

P. Claim 164 

1. “ . . . claim 163, wherein the second policy comprises a 

control policy . . . associated with the first software 

component . . . .”

Supra [161d]; EX-1015 ¶¶760-63. 

Q. Claim 166

1. [166a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first service usage activity, . . . first 

one or more prospective or successful communications . . . , 

and . . . cause the one or more processors to:”

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶764. 

2. [166b] “identify a second service usage 

activity . . . associated with a second software 

component . . . comprising second . . . communications over 

the wireless network;”

Rao-Fadell teaches that the identified service usage activity may be a 

“second” service usage activity associated with a second software component. Rao 

¶¶4, 41-46, 184-85, Fig. 5B (Step 555); Fadell ¶¶4, 22, 26-29, 32, 46-47, 59, 62, 64. 

The “second” service usage activity would comprise “second” communications over 

the wireless network, and the identification of such activity would occur in the same 

way. Supra [1b] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶¶765-68. 

3. [166c] “determine whether the second service usage activity 

is the background activity; and”

Supra [161c], [1d] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶¶769-71. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 91 of 112 PageID #:

7426
67

4. [166d] “if it is determined that the second service usage 

activity is the background activity, refrain from applying at 

least a portion of the policy.”

Supra [41c], [156]; EX-1015 ¶¶772-73. Fadell also discloses that “the 

consumer may prevent the download of media data, but allow or permit the 

download of web pages or other non-media intensive transfers.” Fadell ¶59.

Permitting the download of web pages or other non-media-intensive transfers in the 

background may be part of the system prioritization policy. EX-1015 ¶774. A 

POSITA would have included this aspect of the policy (e.g., permitting the 

download of web pages or other non-media-intensive transfers in the background), 

as suggested by Fadell, to permit certain background activities while restricting 

others (e.g., from a first software component). Id. ¶775. This would have given users 

greater control to limit resource use by applications and provided options for the user 

regarding how the policy is implemented, how to proceed, and how to prevent 

overages. Id.

R. Claim 167

1. [167a] “ . . . claim 1, . . . a first background activity, . . . a first 

service usage activity, . . . first . . . communications over the 

wireless network, and . . . a first policy, and . . . cause the one 

or more processors to:”

Supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶776. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 92 of 112 PageID #:

7427
68

2. [167b] “identify a second service usage 

activity . . . associated with a second software 

component . . . comprising second . . . communications over 

the wireless network;” 

Supra [166b]; EX-1015 ¶777. 

3. [167c] “determine whether the second service usage activity 

is a second background activity;”

Supra [166c]; EX-1015 ¶778. 

4. [167d] “obtain a second policy . . . to be applied when the 

second service usage activity is the second background 

activity . . . for controlling the second service usage activity; 

and

Supra [161d]; EX-1015 ¶¶779-84. 

5. [167e] “if . . . the second service usage activity is the second 

background activity, apply the second policy.”

Supra [161d], [167d]; EX-1015 ¶785. 

S. Claim 168

1. “ . . . claim 167, wherein the first policy . . . [is] based on . . . a 

cost associated with the wireless network.” 

The first policy in Rao-Fadell queues and prioritizes network packets 

associated with background activity and notifies the user when a resource usage limit 

is reached. Supra claim 1 (Ground 2). The limit is based on a data plan. Fadell ¶¶16, 

18, 43-44. Fadell’s notifications “assist a subscriber in managing their usage under 

such pricing mechanisms.” Id. ¶¶16-17, 23, 42-44, 51-53, 57, 63-65, 72. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 93 of 112 PageID #:

7428
69

Given Fadell’s user notifications based on data plan limits or ranges to 

“avoid[] excess fees or penalties” (id. ¶51), a POSITA would have understood that 

at least the first policy in Rao-Fadell is based on a “cost associated with the wireless 

network.” EX-1015 ¶¶786-88. A POSITA would have applied the policy in RaoFadell to reduce unwanted costs, as Fadell discloses. Id. ¶788; Fadell ¶51. Doing so 

would have been desirable, and the result, predictable. EX-1015 ¶788.

T. Claim 170

1. “ . . . claim 1, . . . cause the one or more processors 

to . . . account for the service usage activity, [or] report 

information about the service usage activity . . . .” 

Fadell discloses that “[s]creen 300 may include notifications 305 with data 

resource usage information,” including “notification 310 of the data consumed for 

the current period (e.g., current month) and notification 312 of the data remaining 

for the current period,” as well as “an estimation of expected resource usage.” Fadell 

¶50. Screen 300 may also provide “any other information related to the consumption 

of data provider resources.” Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 94 of 112 PageID #:

7429
70

Id., Fig. 3.

Screen 300 discloses or renders obvious a “report” of information related to 

the consumption of data provider resources that is “information about the service 

usage activity” and/or an “account for the service usage activity.” Id. ¶31; EX-1015 

¶¶789-93. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply these teachings to RaoFadell so users could control their resource usage and stay within/below resource 

usage limits. EX-1015 ¶794. Reporting information about the service usage activity 

and accounting for it gives users the ability to reduce their resource usage or 

purchase additional resources. Id. 

IX. Ground 3: Rao-Freund Renders Obvious Claims 44, 47-48, and 51-57

A. Motivation to Combine 

Rao and Freund disclose complementary methods of classifying and 

controlling network communications. EX-1015 ¶¶800-06. Like Rao, Freund 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 95 of 112 PageID #:

7430
71

monitors network communications and distinguishes between foreground and 

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

list of actively used processes to “determine if [a] process . . . should have access to 

the Internet.” Id., 4:5-5:5. This enables the system to “monitor TCP/IP activities on 

a per process or per application basis.” Id. Freund, like Rao, discloses a system with 

a “client-side filter.” Id., 3:36-4:4; Rao ¶180.

A POSITA would have combined Freund’s and Rao’s teachings given their 

similarities. EX-1015 ¶¶800-06. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this 

combination, for example, in environments where an employer may measure 

productivity and monitor user devices (e.g., on an employer network or employer 

user device), as Freund suggests. Freund, 8:63-9:3, 10:16-43. In these environments, 

it is necessary to accurately characterize active and background activities. Id. In 

Rao-Freund, actively used applications would be tracked, as Freund discloses, and 

applications not in use would be classified as background activity. EX-1015 ¶¶804, 

807-09. This would have enabled accurate measurement of application/Internet use

and ensured only those applications not in active use are prioritized according to 

Rao’s policies. Id. ¶¶807-09. This would have involved nothing more than 

combining known elements in the prior art according to understood principles to 

yield predictable results. Id. ¶809.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 96 of 112 PageID #:

7431
72

B. Claim 44

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether a user is interacting with or 

has interacted with the first software component.”

Freund discloses claim 44 by disclosing examining an “application 

itself . . . for determining 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, 30:11-49. A POSITA would have combined Freund’s 

application examination with Rao to accurately determine whether network packets 

correspond to background applications (and not active applications), as Freund 

discloses. Id., 10:16-43; EX-1015 ¶¶818-22. This would have enabled accurate

identification and prioritization of background packets, ensuring user access is not 

“mistakenly block[ed] . . . based on excessive use, when in fact a background 

application is instead responsible for the activity.” Freund, 8:63-9:3. Using Freund’s 

“focus” and “user inputs” to determine activity would have improved Rao by 

ensuring no false positives (e.g., active applications) are characterized as 

background activity and deprioritized. EX-1015 ¶¶822-24. 

C. Claim 47

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether . . . the service usage activity is 

or has been classified as a background service.”

Freund discloses a client monitor that classifies processes/applications as 

“active” using a list. Freund, Abstract, 4:5-63, 8:63-9:3, 10:16-43, 13:23-55, 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 97 of 112 PageID #:

7432
73

30:13-49. Each process on the list “can be checked for various characteristics” to 

determine whether the process “should have access to the Internet and what kind of 

access.” Id. Freund’s monitoring activity and maintaining a list of active applications 

discloses determining “whether” a service usage activity is or has been classified as 

a background service (e.g., whether applications are or are not background activity). 

In the case of service usage activity associated with applications in active use, the 

service usage activity is not classified as a background service in Freund. EX-1015 

¶¶825-28. This also corresponds with claims 56 and 57, which recite “determin[ing]

whether the service usage activity comprises a background activity” comprises

“determin[ing] whether the first software component is a foreground component”

or “determin[ing] whether the first software component is in a foreground of user 

interaction.” EX-1001, cl. 56-57; EX-1015 ¶¶828-30.

A POSITA alternatively would have understood Freund’s list of active 

applications renders obvious maintaining a list of other applications that are not in 

active use, and therefore renders obvious a background activity/service

“classif[ication].” EX-1015 ¶831. A POSITA would have been motivated to maintain 

a background activity/service classification in Rao-Freund based on Freund’s 

teaching and suggestion to accurately distinguish between active/background 

activity. Freund, 10:16-43. For example, Freund’s exemplary background activity

includes an email client “intermittently poll[ing] an Internet-based mail server” (e.g., 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 98 of 112 PageID #:

7433
74

a communication associated with an email download). Id.; EX-1015 ¶832. A 

POSITA would have understood that Freund suggests classifying background 

activity based on, for example, a type of the application. EX-1015 ¶832. The 

resulting combination with Rao would have enabled “each client process [to] be 

checked for various characteristics, including checking executable names,” as 

Freund teaches, to determine whether a process is a background activity/service. 

Freund, 13:34-43. Rao also suggests such a classification by disclosing that it

distinguishes between foreground and background applications. Rao ¶¶182-88.

A POSITA would have been motivated to maintain a background 

activity/service classification in Rao-Freund for accounting purposes, including 

enabling review of the active and background list(s) to avoid false positives (e.g., a 

process/application being listed inaccurately on the active-use list and vice versa).

EX-1015 ¶¶833-34. This would have ensured only background network packets are 

subject to Rao’s prioritization policies. Id.

D. Claim 48

1. “ . . . claim 1, . . . determine . . . background . . . comprises 

determine whether the service usage activity is identified by 

a list specifying one or more background activities.”

Supra claim 47; Id. ¶¶835-37.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 99 of 112 PageID #:

7434
75

E. Claim 51

1. “ . . . claim 1, . . . determine a classification of the service 

usage activity, and based on the classification . . . , determine 

whether the service usage activity comprises the 

background activity.”

Supra claim 47; EX-1015 ¶838.  

F. Claim 52

1. “ . . . claim 51, wherein the classification of the service usage 

activity is based on . . . whether . . . communications over the 

wireless network comprise a communication associated with 

an e-mail download . . . .” 

Rao-Freund discloses or renders obvious this limitation for the reasons 

discussed in connection with email activity in claim 47. Supra claim 47; EX-1015 

¶839. 

G. Claim 53

1. [53a] “ . . . claim 51, . . . a first user input, and” 

Supra §VII.A.e; EX-1015 ¶840. 

2. [53b] “wherein determine a classification of the service 

usage activity is based on . . . a second user input . . . .”

Supra claims 44, 47. By disclosing classifying applications based on “focus” 

and/or user clicks, Freund discloses a classification based on “second user input.”

EX-1015 ¶841. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 100 of 112 PageID #:

7435
76

H. Claim 54

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . . based on 

a user interaction with the wireless end-user device.”

Supra claims 44, 47, [53b]. Freund classifying whether applications are or are 

not background activity based on “focus” and/or user clicks discloses a classification 

based on “a user interaction.” EX-1015 ¶842.

I. Claim 55

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether a value comprising a measure 

of the service usage activity satisfies a condition relative to a 

threshold.”

Freund discloses that, when an application makes a call via a WinSock API, 

the client monitor intercepts the call and “[m]arks the time of the call in a 

LastInternetAccess field.” Freund, 30:16-19. The client monitor then determines 

whether the call “uses an Internet protocol usually associated with interactive 

activity,” and, if it does, “marks the time of the call in a LastInteractiveAccess field 

of the [a]pplication’s list entry.” Id., 30:19-24. Similarly, when the client’s operating 

system sends keyboard and/or mouse messages, the client monitor intercepts the 

messages, “identifies the target . . . [a]pplication of the messages,” and “marks the 

time” in a “LastInteractiveUse field of the [a]pplication’s list entry.” Id., 30:30-36. 

Every five minutes, the client monitor determines whether the LastInteractiveAccess 

or LastInteractiveUse fields have changed and, if so, “add[s] one minute to a 

TotalInteractiveUse field.” Id., 30:39-43. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 101 of 112 PageID #:

7436
77

Freund’s determining whether either the LastInteractiveAccess field or the 

LastInteractiveUse field has changed, and whether time should be added to 

TotalInteractiveUse, within a five-minute window discloses claim 55. EX-1015 

¶¶843-47. Freund uses these fields to determine whether the time of an application’s 

active use (including its service usage activity) exceeds a threshold value of zero 

minutes within a five-minute span. Id. ¶848; Freund, 30:19-43. If time of active use 

exceeds the threshold within a five-minute span, Freund classifies the application as 

a foreground application. If not, the application is not classified, and the application

is treated as background activity. EX-1015 ¶848.

Understanding that applications generally use API (e.g., WinSock API) calls

to engage in network communications, a POSITA would have been motivated and 

found it obvious to apply Freund’s teachings to accurately determine whether an 

application is in the foreground or not. Id. ¶¶849-51. A POSITA would have 

understood that implementing these teachings in Rao-Freund would allow the 

system to distinguish between foreground and background applications, as Rao and 

Freund suggest. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 102 of 112 PageID #:

7437
78

J. Claim 56

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether the first software component 

is a foreground component or an unclassified component.”

Rao teaches determining whether the first software component is a foreground 

component. Supra claim 50. Freund likewise teaches classifying applications as 

“active” if it receives user focus and/or input (e.g., is a foreground component), 

Freund, 3:12-16, 3:42-48, 8:63-67, 10:17-43, and provides an exemplary method for 

detecting such interaction, id., 30:11-49, Figs. 13A-13B, 6:7-14. Under this method, 

if user interaction with the application is detected, the application is classified as a 

foreground application. Id. If user interaction with the application is not detected, 

the application is not classified by the system, id., 30:11-49, Figs. 13A-13B, and is 

simply treated as something “other” than a foreground application (i.e., as a 

background application), EX-1015 ¶¶852-55.

It would have been obvious to implement these teachings by configuring the 

Rao-Freund system to classify applications as foreground applications (and treat 

their associated processes as foreground activities) or leave them unclassified (and 

treat their associated processes as background activities) based on user interaction. 

Id. ¶856. Doing so would allow the Rao-Freund system to distinguish between 

foreground and background packets and correctly prioritize them, and a POSITA 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 103 of 112 PageID #:

7438
79

would have been able to implement Freund’s decade-old method with a reasonable 

expectation of success. Id. ¶¶857-58. 

K. Claim 57

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein determine . . . background . . .

comprises determine whether the first software component 

is in a foreground of user interaction . . . .”

Rao’s foreground applications are “in active use by the user.” Rao ¶3. Rao

teaches exemplary “interactive” applications that display user-interface-foreground 

content when the applications are used. Supra claim 54; Rao ¶¶118, 133, 140, 182, 

188, 210. Freund likewise discloses examining an application to determine whether 

it is “active” based on “focus” and/or “user input.” Freund, 10:37-43, 30:11-49. 

Rao-Freund thus suggests identifying background applications based on 

whether the user is interacting with an application in the foreground, and a POSITA 

would have been motivated to apply this suggestion to determine whether service 

usage activity comprises background activity. Supra, e.g., claim 44. EX-1015 

¶¶859-63. 

X. 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 104 of 112 PageID #:

7439
80

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 

because, in EDTX, multiple trials are commonly scheduled on the same date.

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-1018, 4. Petitioners diligently brought this challenge approximately 

6 months after receiving contentions for all 174 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 61 claims, which will 

likely be greater than the number of claims tried. EX-1017 ¶¶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, present significantly different invalidity grounds, and rely on 

Dr. Wolfe’s declaration explaining each claim’s invalidity. 

XI. 35 U.S.C. § 325

These grounds were not previously considered by the Office. Rao and Freund 

were not before the Examiner, and he did not discuss Fadell, which was submitted 

with over 700 references. After just one rejection, the independent claim was 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 105 of 112 PageID #:

7440
81

rewritten, all 173 dependent claims were added, and the claims were allowed after a 

minor amendment with only a conclusory supporting rationale. EX-1015 ¶¶42-46. 

XII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8

A. Real Party-in-Interest

Google LLC,1 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 LLC2 are the real 

parties-in-interest for this petition.3

1 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. 

2 Related-Matter Defendant AT&T Corp. has undergone a corporate transaction and 

is now merged and converted into AT&T Enterprises, LLC.

3 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, is controlling, or otherwise has 

an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or their participation in any resulting 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 106 of 112 PageID #:

7441
82

B. Related Matters

The ’541 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-003984 E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v.

T-Mobile US, Inc.

2:23-cv-003775 E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2023

Headwater Research LLC v.

T-Mobile 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:

Lead Counsel Back-Up Counsel

Erika H. Arner (Reg. No. 57,540)

erika.arner@finnegan.com

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Daniel C. Tucker (Reg. No. 62,781)

daniel.tucker@finnegan.com

Alexander M. Boyer (Reg. No. 66,599)

alexander.boyer@finnegan.com

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). 

4 The -00398 case has been consolidated with the -00397 case. 

5 The -00377 case has been consolidated with the -00379 case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 107 of 112 PageID #:

7442
83

1875 Explorer Street

Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190-6023

Tel: 571-203-2700; Fax: 202-408-

4400

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

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 108 of 112 PageID #:

7443
84

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-541-IPRs@Finnegan.com, PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com, and 

KPAnderson@duanemorris.com. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 109 of 112 PageID #:

7444
85

XIII. 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-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 110 of 112 PageID #:

7445
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. 

8,589,541 contains 13,957 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-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 111 of 112 PageID #:

7446
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 1001-1018, and 1020-1022 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. 

8,589,541: 

Dr. Greg Raleigh

Headwater Research LLC

110 North College Avenue, Suite 1116

Tyler, TX 75702

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-00379-JRG-RSP Document 99-6 Filed 10/25/24 Page 112 of 112 PageID #:

7447