Exhibit D

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 1 of 98 PageID #: 6954
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: IPR2024-00944

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 2 of 98 PageID #: 6955
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1

II. STANDING.....................................................................................................1

III. RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................................1

IV. THE ’541 PATENT.........................................................................................1

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

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

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

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................3

VI. PRIOR ART.....................................................................................................3

VII. Ground 1: Rao Anticipates and/or Renders Obvious Claims 1, 24-25, 

28, 34-35, 39, 61-62, 79-83, 87-90, and 172...................................................6

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

B. Claim 24 ..............................................................................................19

C. Claim 25 ..............................................................................................19

D. Claim 28 ..............................................................................................19

E. Claim 34 ..............................................................................................20

F. Claim 35 ..............................................................................................21

G. Claim 39 ..............................................................................................21

H. Claim 61 ..............................................................................................22

I. Claim 62 ..............................................................................................22

J. Claim 79 ..............................................................................................22

K. Claim 80 ..............................................................................................23

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 3 of 98 PageID #: 6956
ii

L. Claim 81 ..............................................................................................24

M. Claim 82 ..............................................................................................24

N. Claim 83 ..............................................................................................25

O. Claim 87 ..............................................................................................25

P. Claim 88 ..............................................................................................27

Q. Claim 89 ..............................................................................................28

R. Claim 90 ..............................................................................................28

S. Claim 172 ............................................................................................30

VIII. Ground 2: Rao-Fadell Renders Obvious Claims 1, 27, 30-33, 36-38, 

40, 65-78, 153-154, and 173-174 ..................................................................30

A. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................30

B. Claim 1 ................................................................................................32

C. Claim 27 ..............................................................................................41

D. Claim 30 ..............................................................................................42

E. Claim 31 ..............................................................................................43

F. Claim 32 ..............................................................................................44

G. Claim 33 ..............................................................................................44

H. Claim 36 ..............................................................................................45

I. Claim 37 ..............................................................................................47

J. Claim 38 ..............................................................................................47

K. Claim 40 ..............................................................................................48

L. Claim 65 ..............................................................................................48

M. Claim 66 ..............................................................................................50

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 4 of 98 PageID #: 6957
iii

N. Claim 67 ..............................................................................................51

O. Claim 68 ..............................................................................................52

P. Claim 69 ..............................................................................................52

Q. Claim 70 ..............................................................................................53

R. Claim 71 ..............................................................................................54

S. Claim 72 ..............................................................................................54

T. Claim 73 ..............................................................................................55

U. Claim 74 ..............................................................................................55

V. Claim 75 ..............................................................................................57

W. Claim 76 ..............................................................................................58

X. Claim 77 ..............................................................................................60

Y. Claim 78 ..............................................................................................61

Z. Claim 153 ............................................................................................62

AA. Claim 154 ............................................................................................62

BB. Claim 173 ............................................................................................62

CC. Claim 174 ............................................................................................63

IX. Ground 3: Rao-Freund Renders Obvious Claims 29 and 84-86 ...................63

A. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................63

B. Claim 29 ..............................................................................................64

C. Claim 84 ..............................................................................................67

D. Claim 85 ..............................................................................................70

E. Claim 86 ..............................................................................................71

X. 35 U.S.C. § 314..............................................................................................71

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 5 of 98 PageID #: 6958
iv

XI. 35 U.S.C. § 325..............................................................................................72

XII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.................................73

A. Real Party-in-Interest ..........................................................................73

B. Related Matters....................................................................................74

C. Lead and Backup Counsel Information...............................................74

XIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................76

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 6 of 98 PageID #: 6959
v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

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

IPR2021-01195, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2021).............................................72

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 314........................................................................................................71

35 U.S.C. § 315........................................................................................................74

35 U.S.C. § 325........................................................................................................72

Regulations

37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................73

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 7 of 98 PageID #: 6960
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/viadison-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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 8 of 98 PageID #: 6961
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 9 of 98 PageID #: 6962
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 24

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

1, wherein the network element is communicatively coupled to the 

wireless end-user device over the wireless network.

Dependent Claim 25

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

1, wherein the policy is based on an amount of time, a time of day, a 

day of a week, a schedule, a network busy state, a network performance 

state, a network quality-of-service state, a priority of the service usage 

activity, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 27

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

1, wherein the policy is based on at least an aspect of a service plan.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 10 of 98 PageID #:

6963
ix

Dependent Claim 28

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a behavior of the first software 

component, a behavior of the service usage activity, a messaging layer 

behavior, a random back-off, a power state of the wireless end-user 

device, a usage state of the wireless end-user device, or a combination 

of these.

Dependent Claim 29

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a user interaction with the first 

software component, a user interaction with the service usage activity, a 

user interaction with the wireless end-user device, a user interface 

priority of the service usage activity, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 30

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

1, wherein the wireless end-user device is part of a device group, and 

wherein the policy is associated with the device group.

Dependent Claim 31

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a type of the wireless network.

Dependent Claim 32

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

31, wherein the type of the wireless network is cellular, 2G, 3G, 4G, 

home, roaming, wireless fidelity (WiFi), or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 33

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a roaming condition of the wireless 

end-user device, a cost associated with communicating over the wireless 

network, or a combination of these.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 11 of 98 PageID #:

6964
x

Dependent Claim 34

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

1, wherein controlling the service usage activity comprises preventing 

the first software component from launching, executing, or running.

Dependent Claim 35

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

1, wherein the at least an aspect of the policy is based on the user input 

obtained through the user interface of the wireless end-user device, and 

wherein the user input identifies the first software component or the 

service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 36

[36a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the at least an aspect of the policy is based on the user input 

obtained through the user interface of the wireless end-user device, and 

[36b] wherein the user input identifies a network parameter or a network type.

Dependent Claim 37

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a usage limit or a threshold.

Dependent Claim 38

[38a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the policy is based on a limit, 

[38b] wherein the limit is based on the user input obtained through the user 

interface of the wireless end-user device, a user preference, an 

indication of a threshold, a total traffic, a type of traffic, a destination, a 

port, a frequency of access, an access behavior, or a combination of 

these.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 12 of 98 PageID #:

6965
xi

Dependent Claim 39

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

1, wherein the policy is based on a type of the service usage activity, a 

priority of the service usage activity, a duration of the service usage 

activity, a characteristic of the wireless network, a quality-of-service 

(QoS) rule associated with the service usage activity, or a combination 

of these.

Dependent Claim 40

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

1, wherein the policy comprises one or more filters, wherein the one or 

more filters provide filtering based on: a characteristic of the wireless 

network, a service plan applicable to the wireless end-user device, a 

characteristic of the first software component, a time of day, a network 

busy state, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 61

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in: blocking access 

to the wireless network, restricting access to the wireless network, 

delaying access to the wireless network, or aggregating and holding the 

service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 62

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in queuing, timewindowing, suspending, quarantining, killing, or removing the service 

usage activity.

Dependent Claim 65

[65a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the information from the network element is first 

information, and

[65b] wherein apply the policy comprises provide second information to the 

first software component.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 13 of 98 PageID #:

6966
xii

Dependent Claim 66

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

65, wherein provide second information to the first software component 

comprises provide the second information through an application 

programming interface.

Dependent Claim 67

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

65, 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:

provide third information to a second software component on the 

wireless end-user device, the third information being different from the 

second information.

Dependent Claim 68

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

67, wherein provide third information to a second software component 

on the wireless end-user device comprises provide the third information 

through an application programming interface.

Dependent Claim 69

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

67, wherein the third information enables the second software 

component to communicate over the wireless network.

Dependent Claim 70

[70a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

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

[70b] wherein the second information comprises a network access condition 

of the first wireless network, a network busy state associated with the 

first wireless network, a network availability state associated with the 

first wireless network, a network busy state associated with a second 

wireless network, a network availability state associated with the second 

wireless network, or information about the policy.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 14 of 98 PageID #:

6967
xiii

Dependent Claim 71

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

65, wherein the second information comprises a setting for assisting the 

first software component in restricting, allowing, blocking, throttling, 

deferring, time-scheduling, or queuing the service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 72

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

71, wherein the setting is based on a characteristic of the wireless 

network, a network busy state associated with the wireless network, a 

time, a service plan associated with the wireless end-user device, a 

classification of the service usage activity, or a combination of these.

Dependent Claim 73

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the first software 

component whether the first software component is allowed to access 

the wireless network.

Dependent Claim 74

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the first software 

component whether the wireless network is available.

Dependent Claim 75

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the first software 

component of a traffic control to be implemented or applied by the first 

software component.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 15 of 98 PageID #:

6968
xiv

Dependent Claim 76

[76a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the information from the network element is first 

information, and

[76b] wherein apply the policy comprises obtain second information from the 

first software component.

Dependent Claim 77

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

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

controlling, blocking, modifying, removing, or replacing a notification 

associated with the first software component or the service usage 

activity, the notification for presentation through a user interface of the 

wireless end-user device.

Dependent Claim 78

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

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

controlling, blocking, modifying, removing, or replacing a notification 

for presentation through a user interface of the wireless end-user device.

Dependent Claim 79

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in intercepting a 

stack application programming interface (API) level or application 

messaging layer request.

Dependent Claim 80

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in killing or 

suspending the service usage activity or the first software component.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 16 of 98 PageID #:

6969
xv

Dependent Claim 81

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in changing or 

setting a priority of the service usage activity.

Dependent Claim 82

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least assist in emulating a 

network application programming interface (API) message.

Dependent Claim 83

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

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

modifying, blocking, removing, injecting, swapping, or replacing an 

application interface message.

Dependent Claim 84

[84a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein apply the policy comprises:

at least assist in preventing initiation of the service usage activity by the 

first software component; and

[84b] send a message to the first software component.

Dependent Claim 85

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

84, wherein initiation of the service usage activity by the first software 

component comprises opening of a connection, opening of a socket, 

initiating transmission, initiating a data flow, or initiating a data stream.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 17 of 98 PageID #:

6970
xvi

Dependent Claim 86

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

84, wherein the message comprises a reset message, an indication that 

the service usage activity is not allowed, or an indication that the 

wireless network is not available.

Dependent Claim 87

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

1, wherein apply the policy comprises:

identify a socket to be opened for the service usage activity; and

based on a condition, block the service usage activity or terminate the 

socket.

Dependent Claim 88

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

1, wherein controlling the service usage activity comprises: blocking a 

network access event or attempt associated with the first software 

component, modulating a number of access events or attempts 

associated with the first software component, aggregating a plurality of 

access events or attempts associated with the first software component, 

or time-windowing the number of access events or attempts associated 

with the first software component.

Dependent Claim 89

89 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:

if it is determined that the service usage activity is not the background 

activity, refrain from applying the policy.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 18 of 98 PageID #:

6971
xvii

Dependent Claim 90

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

1, 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:

if it is determined that the service usage activity is not the background 

activity, apply a second policy.

Dependent Claim 153

[153a] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 

1, wherein the at least an aspect of a policy is based on the user input 

obtained through the user interface of the wireless end-user device, and 

[153b] wherein the user input specifies a user preference associated with one or 

more network types.

Dependent Claim 154

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

153, wherein the one or more network types comprise wireless fidelity 

(WiFi), home, roaming, 4G, 3G, wireless, wired, or a combination of 

these.

Dependent Claim 172

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

1, wherein the network element comprises a service controller, a server, 

a cloud element, or a billing element.

Dependent Claim 173

173 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 provide information about the 

service usage activity to the network element.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 19 of 98 PageID #:

6972
xviii

Dependent Claim 174

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

173, wherein the information about the service usage activity comprises 

a count of data traffic associated with the service usage activity, a 

transaction count, a message count, a connection time, a connection 

duration, a classification of traffic, an indication that a measure of the 

service usage activity satisfies a condition relative to a threshold, a 

parameter associated with the service usage activity, an indication that 

the background activity is restricted, or a combination of these.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 20 of 98 PageID #:

6973
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioners request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 24-25, 27-40, 

61-62, 65-90, 153-154, and 172-174 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, 24-25, 28, 34-35, 

39, 61-62, 79-83, 87-90, and 172-174.

2 Rao in view of Fadell renders obvious claims 1, 27, 30-33, 36-38, 

40, 65-78, and 153-154.

3 Rao in view of Freund renders obvious claims 29 and 84-86.

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 21 of 98 PageID #:

6974
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 22 of 98 PageID #:

6975
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 23 of 98 PageID #:

6976
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 24 of 98 PageID #:

6977
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 25 of 98 PageID #:

6978
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, 24-25, 28, 

34-35, 39, 61-62, 79-83, 87-90, and 172

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 26 of 98 PageID #:

6979
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 27 of 98 PageID #:

6980
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 28 of 98 PageID #:

6981
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 29 of 98 PageID #:

6982
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 30 of 98 PageID #:

6983
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 31 of 98 PageID #:

6984
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 32 of 98 PageID #:

6985
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 33 of 98 PageID #:

6986
14

Rao, Fig. 1A (annotated).

Id., Fig. 5A (annotated). 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 34 of 98 PageID #:

6987
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 35 of 98 PageID #:

6988
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 36 of 98 PageID #:

6989
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 37 of 98 PageID #:

6990
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 38 of 98 PageID #:

6991
19

B. Claim 24

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the network element is 

communicatively coupled to the wireless end-user device 

over the wireless network.”

Client 105 (the wireless end-user device) and gateway 340 (the network 

element) are communicatively coupled over wireless network 104. Supra [1e], [1c];

EX-1015 ¶¶189-91. 

C. Claim 25

2. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is based on . . . a priority of 

the service usage activity, . . . .”

Rao’s policies assign specific priorities (an aspect of the policy) to intercepted 

packets, and therefore the policy is based on a priority of the service usage activity.

Supra [1e], [1c]; EX-1015 ¶¶192-94; Rao ¶¶41, 46, 184-93.

D. Claim 28

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

the first software component, . . . .”

The ’541 patent describes “application behavior[s]” as including “conference 

meeting services, video streaming, content update[s], software update[s], and/or 

other similar application behavior[s].” EX-1001, 14:44-47. Rao similarly

characterizes “type[s] of application[s]” by their “behavior” as that term is used in 

the ’541 patent. Rao ¶192 (“email or voice application[s]” are “type[s] of 

application[s]”); EX-1015 ¶¶197-200. Rao’s policies are based on the types of 

applications, i.e., their behaviors. Rao ¶¶182, 179, 184, 191-93.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 39 of 98 PageID #:

6992
20

Rao also queues and prioritizes applications based on whether they are in the 

foreground or background (also behaviors), id. ¶182, and to the extent these 

embodiments are distinct, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine them 

based on Rao’s express invitation, EX-1015 ¶¶66-67. This would have improved

control over queuing and been an exercise of routine skill. Id.

E. Claim 34

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein controlling the service usage activity 

comprises preventing the first software component 

from . . . executing, or running.”

Rao arranges “intercepted network packets” in a “packet by packet 

prioritization across all applications 338a-338n” based on policies 520. Rao ¶191. 

The packets are “organized into priority queues 540a-540b” and communicated 

according to priority. Id. ¶194. Rao’s policies also determine whether packets should 

be queued or “discard[ed].” Id. ¶¶207, 102. 

A POSITA would have been motivated and found it routine to combine Rao’s 

prioritization and discarding disclosures to identify queued packets to discard during

network disruptions, thereby improving network efficiency. EX-1015 ¶¶201-05; Rao 

¶218. This prevents lower-priority applications (software components) from 

executing or running (e.g., by discarding packets that would allow their processes to 

be executed and inbound packets that would otherwise cause their processes to run) 

and thus teaches claim 34. EX-1015 ¶¶201-05; Oestvall ¶¶15, 23. Rao’s teachings 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 40 of 98 PageID #:

6993
21

related to discarding apply in addition to policies defining “prioritization” and do 

not impact prioritization, Rao ¶182; supra [1a]-[1g], and to the extent these 

embodiments are distinct, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine them 

in view of Rao’s express invitation, EX-1015 ¶¶201-05. This allows more granular 

control over queuing and would have been a routine exercise. Id.

F. Claim 35

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the at least an aspect of the policy is 

based on the user input obtained through the user interface 

of the wireless end-user device, and wherein the user input 

identifies the first software component . . . .”

Rao discloses an aspect of the policy is based on user input obtained through 

the user interface. Supra [1e]. Rao also discloses that the user input identifies the 

first software component because it “specif[ies] the priority of [a] first application 

or [a] second application,” which requires it to identify an application and thus a first 

software component. Id. ¶¶42, 46; EX-1015 ¶¶206-08.

G. Claim 39

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

the service usage activity . . . .”

Supra claim 25; EX-1015 ¶209; also Rao ¶¶41, 46, 179-80, 182, 184-93.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 41 of 98 PageID #:

6994
22

H. Claim 61

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in: . . . delaying access to the wireless network, or 

aggregating and holding the service usage activity.”

In Rao, lower priority packets are communicated later, delaying access to the 

network. Supra [1f]-[1g]; EX-1015 ¶¶239-40. Rao’s “storing and/or arranging 

network packets” in lower-priority queues teaches “aggregating and holding” 

network packets (the service usage activity). Rao ¶¶180, 40, 191; EX-1015 ¶241.

I. Claim 62

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in queuing . . . .”

Rao’s policy includes queuing packets. Supra [1f]-[1g]; EX-1015 ¶¶242-43; 

Rao ¶¶189-95, 38, 43. 

J. Claim 79

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in intercepting a stack application programming 

interface (API) level or application messaging layer 

request.”

Rao’s filter 322 “appl[ies] the . . . priorities” to the network packets (i.e., 

applies the policy). Supra [1f]-[1g]; Rao ¶¶189-93; EX-1015 ¶¶252-57. Rao’s agent 

326 communicates the priorities to the filter via an API. Rao ¶¶190, 106. This 

communication requires the filter to send a call (i.e., request) to the agent 326 

through the API to transmit the priorities. EX-1015 ¶¶252-57.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 42 of 98 PageID #:

6995
23

Because the filter is a “network driver” operating on a “layer . . . of a network 

stack 310,” Rao ¶101, the filter’s request to the agent would constitute a “stack 

application programming interface (API) level” request, as described in the ’541 

patent. EX-1015 ¶¶252-57; EX-1001, 16:38-45. 

The agent must intercept (or assist in intercepting) the filter’s stack API level 

request so that the agent can return the priorities to the filter. EX-1015 ¶¶252-57; 

Rao ¶¶116 (explaining the agent and filter are applications), 88 (providing examples 

of APIs incorporated into applications); EX-1015 ¶¶252-57 (explaining that Rao’s 

exemplary APIs include callback functions that at least assist in intercepting stack 

API level requests); Wyld, 7:36-40.

K. Claim 80

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in killing or suspending the service usage activity . . . 

.”

Rao delays (queues) or discards network packets. Supra claim 34. Delaying

(queuing) or discarding network packets constitutes suspending or killing the service 

usage activity, respectively. EX-1015 ¶¶258-61; Rao ¶¶194, 207.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 43 of 98 PageID #:

6996
24

L. Claim 81

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in changing or setting a priority of the service usage 

activity.”

Rao’s applying priorities to network packets constitutes assisting in changing 

or setting a priority of the service usage activity. Supra [1g], [1e]; EX-1015

¶¶262-65; Rao ¶¶189-90. 

M. Claim 82

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in emulating a network application programming 

interface (API) message.”

Rao’s network capacity control is “transparent[]” to its applications and client

such that the impacted service usage activities are unaware of the network capacity 

control. Rao ¶¶41, 46, 52, 57; EX-1015 ¶¶266-69. Rao’s client provides a false 

acknowledgement of receipt of a lossless protocol packet. Rao ¶¶150, 154-56, 

160-62. This false acknowledgement is a spoofed API message and is accordingly 

“emulating a network [API] message,” consistent with the ’541 patent’s description 

of “emulating” as providing a spoofed API. EX-1015 ¶¶266-69; EX-1001, 

97:55-98:5 (defining “emulating network API messaging” as “effectively providing 

a spoofed or emulated network API” or intercepting, modifying, and/or replacing 

various messages related to the network service activity). Rao’s false 

acknowledgement technique is practiced in conjunction with its prioritization 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 44 of 98 PageID #:

6997
25

methods, supra [1a]-[1g], such that the technique would be practiced as part of 

transmitting packets according to Rao’s prioritization policy, EX-1015 ¶¶266-69.

N. Claim 83

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in intercepting . . . an application interface message.”

Supra [1f]-[1g], claim 79; EX-1015 ¶270.

O. Claim 87

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises: identify a 

socket to be opened for the service usage activity; and based 

on a condition, block the service usage activity . . . .”

Rao queues and communicates the intercepted network packets according to 

their priority. Supra [1g]; EX-1015 ¶¶271-79. To do so, Rao’s remote access client 

may use a routing table with information “to identify a communication path or 

connection,” including “a source IP address and a source port” and a “destination 

port.” Rao ¶¶181, 192. The source port represents “the port by which an 

application . . . communicates on the network.” Id. ¶181. The destination port is used 

by the peer device to communicate. Id. A POSITA would have understood that 

source and destination ports identify portsto be opened for the service usage activity, 

where the open ports permit communication of the packet. EX-1015 ¶¶271-79. 

A POSITA would have further understood that a “socket” is a connection to a 

port, id. ¶¶271-79; EX-1009, 31-33, and that, by identifying ports, Rao also 

identifies sockets to be opened for the service usage activity (so that the packet can 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 45 of 98 PageID #:

6998
26

be sent and received), EX-1015 ¶¶271-79. This is consistent with the ’541 patent, 

which uses the term “socket” to refer to an “IP address, protocol, and/or port.” Id.; 

EX-1001, 22:29. 

Moreover, even if Rao did not expressly disclose identifying a socket to be 

opened, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to do so in view of Rao’s 

disclosures related to source and destination ports and the relationship between 

sockets and ports. Rao ¶¶192, 112 (“the port monitored by the application 338 that 

originally generated the IP packet on the client 105”), 167 (describing transmission 

“by opening a specific TCP port”), 181; EX-1015 ¶¶271-79. The ’541 patent uses 

“port” as an example of a “socket,” confirming this understanding. EX-1015 

¶¶271-79.

Rao further discloses that, based on some conditions (e.g., a network 

disruption), it discards network packets, blocking them from being sent, which a 

POSITA would have understood blocks service usage activity. Supra claims 34, 80;

EX-1015 ¶¶277-79. To the extent it is argued Rao’s prioritization and discarding 

disclosures relate to different embodiments, it would have been obvious to 

implement them together. EX-1015 ¶¶66-67.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 46 of 98 PageID #:

6999
27

P. Claim 88

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein controlling the service usage activity 

comprises: . . . modulating a number of access events or 

attempts associated with the first software component . . . .”

Rao intercepts and stores network packets associated with applications 338a338n in queues 540a-540n. Supra [1b]-[1g]. One or more of Rao’s intercepted 

network packets (e.g., one or multiple, each of which is a number) constitutes “a 

number of access events or attempts associated with the first software component” 

because the packets are associated with applications 338a-338n accessing or 

attempting to access network 104. Rao ¶¶87-89, 95, 179; EX-1015 ¶¶280-84.

After storing the packets, Rao assigns priority to them. Rao ¶¶180, 184-95, 

40; supra [1f]-[1g]. Higher-priority packets are communicated before lower-priority 

packets. Supra [1e]-[1g]. This “modulat[es]” network packets because packets are 

selectively sent from the queues according to priority and not when first requested 

by an associated application. EX-1015 ¶¶280-84. Moreover, other factors, such as 

network congestion, may prompt “throttl[ing]” network packets—even those with a 

higher priority. Rao ¶195. This consideration of network congestion also teaches a 

policy that includes a prioritization policy that “modulat[es]” network packets. EX1015 ¶¶280-84.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 47 of 98 PageID #:

7000
28

Q. Claim 89

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein . . . the one or more processors[,] . . . if 

it is determined that the service usage activity is not the 

background activity, refrain from applying the policy.”

As discussed, supra [1d]-[1g], Rao teaches applying the policy (to deprioritize 

packets) if the service usage activity is the background activity. Thus, Rao discloses 

refraining from applying the policy (not deprioritizing packets) if it is determined 

that the service usage activity is not the background activity. EX-1015 ¶¶285-89.

If it is argued Rao does not disclose this, a POSITA would have been 

motivated and found it obvious to do so to further Rao’s objectives, such as 

prioritizing active or foreground activity, improving efficiency and speed of the 

system, and minimizing user burden. Id.; supra [1f]-[1g]. Rao recognizes the 

benefits of doing so and that deprioritizing background activity relative to other 

applications can improve system efficiency. EX-1015 ¶¶285-89; Rao ¶3, 80.

R. Claim 90

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is a first policy, and 

wherein . . . if it is determined that the service usage activity 

is not the background activity, apply a second policy.”

Rao teaches this limitation. Supra [1e], [1f]-[1g] (applying a “first” 

de-prioritization policy if service usage activity is background activity), claim 89

(teaching not deprioritizing if the service usage activity is not the background 

activity); EX-1015 ¶¶290-93. Rao’s de-prioritization policy is consistent with 

policies described in the ’541 patent. EX-1001, claim 60 (noting a policy “allow[s], 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 48 of 98 PageID #:

7001
29

restrict[s], delay[s], throttl[es], or prevent[s] the service usage activity”). Rao’s 

de-prioritization policy constitutes restricting, delaying, or throttling the service 

usage activity. EX-1015 ¶¶290-93.

Rao further discloses, or at least renders obvious, a second policy of allowing 

packets of foreground activity (e.g., if the service activity is not the background 

activity) to be communicated without de-prioritization. Id.; EX-1001, claim 60 

(reciting a policy that “allow[s]” the service usage activity). Not applying the policy 

if the service usage activity is not the background activity is a second policy. EX1015 ¶¶290-93.

A POSITA would have understood that implementing such functionality as a 

single policy (e.g., with multiple aspects that deprioritize background activities but

allow foreground activities to proceed unaltered) or as two separate policies (e.g., 

one that deprioritizes background activities and another that allows foreground 

activities to proceed unaltered) and the decision as to which approach to take was a 

simple design choice among known alternatives. Id. ¶293. Moreover, implementing

this functionality as separate policies (as opposed to a single policy) is one of two 

possible approaches to the problem, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable 

expectation of success in using separate policies. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 49 of 98 PageID #:

7002
30

S. Claim 172

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the network element comprises . . . a 

server . . . .”

Rao’s gateway 340 teaches a network element. Supra [1e]. This gateway is a 

“remote access server.” Rao ¶¶92-93, 1A-1C, 2A; EX-1015 ¶¶315-16. 

VIII. Ground 2: Rao-Fadell Renders Obvious Claims 1, 27, 30-33, 36-38, 40, 

65-78, 153-154, and 173-174

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.

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, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 50 of 98 PageID #:

7003
31

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., those associated with Rao’s remote access client and 

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 

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 51 of 98 PageID #:

7004
32

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.

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 52 of 98 PageID #:

7005
33

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 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 53 of 98 PageID #:

7006
34

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 54 of 98 PageID #:

7007
35

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 55 of 98 PageID #:

7008
36

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 56 of 98 PageID #:

7009
37

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 57 of 98 PageID #:

7010
38

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 58 of 98 PageID #:

7011
39

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 59 of 98 PageID #:

7012
40

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 60 of 98 PageID #:

7013
41

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 27

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is based on at least an 

aspect of a service plan.”

The Rao-Fadell policy applies priority and issues notifications when the usage 

limit is reached. Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2) (explaining combination and motivation 

for same), §VIII.A.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 61 of 98 PageID #:

7014
42

Fadell’s usage limit is based on a data provider’s “resource consumption tiers 

or plans,” which provide a “particular amount of data resources. . .  for a particular 

period.” Fadell ¶¶43, 16-18, 44, 51, 53, 56-57, 63, 65, 70, 72. Fadell’s resource 

consumption plan is a “service plan,” and the resource usage limit on which the plan

is based is an “aspect of the service plan.” EX-1015 ¶¶374-79. 

D. Claim 30

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the wireless end-user device is part of 

a device group, and wherein the policy is associated with the 

device group.”

Fadell’s resource utilization component “manage[s] data transfers to different 

devices owned or operated by a same user” and allocates data resources on a userby-user basis for use among devices. Fadell ¶¶67-69. “[D]evices owned or operated 

by a same user” constitute a device group at least because these devices share an 

allocation of data resources. Id. A POSITA would have understood that the “devices 

owned or operated by a same user” constitute a device group at least because these 

devices, as disclosed by Fadell, share an allocation of data resources. EX-1015

¶¶380-83; Fadell ¶67; supra claim 21.

A POSITA would thus have been motivated to associate the Rao-Fadell policy 

with a group of user-owned devices. EX-1015 ¶¶384-85. The policy would apply to 

all the devices of that user (e.g., all the devices in the group), e.g., applying lower 

priority to background packets and notifying the user when the total data 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 62 of 98 PageID #:

7015
43

consumption approaches the limit. Id. Applying the common policy to the group 

would (i) prevent inadvertent overages and reduce related costs, and (ii) effectively 

manage the data resources and identify any device overconsuming resources, as 

Fadell suggests. Id.; Fadell ¶¶69-70. A POSITA would have applied these teachings 

in Rao-Fadell with a reasonable expectation of success. EX-1015 ¶¶384-85.

E. Claim 31

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

wireless network.”

Fadell discloses, e.g., ethernet networks, 3G and other cellular networks, 

EDGE networks, and Wi-Fi networks and teaches that data limits may differ “based 

on the particular network used” (i.e., by network type). Fadell ¶¶62, 44, 19, 64, Fig. 

5. Fadell also suggests reserving background tasks (e.g., “receiving email”) for 

particular types of networks. Id. ¶¶19, 64; EX-1015 ¶¶386-88. For example, “the 

consumer may have a large resource limit associated with [a] Wi-Fi connection, and 

no resource limit associated with [a] cellular connection.” Fadell ¶62.

It would have been obvious to apply Fadell’s teachings to Rao-Fadell and 

apply the prioritization and notification policy in a network-dependent manner. 

EX-1015 ¶389. For instance, a POSITA would have found it obvious to prioritize 

network packets associated with background activities and notify a user to avoid 

exceeding a low(er) resource usage limit associated with a first network, but not do 

so in other networks based on different resource limitations, as Fadell suggests. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 63 of 98 PageID #:

7016
44

¶¶388-89; Fadell ¶¶19, 62, 64. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation 

of success in doing so. EX-1015 ¶389.

F. Claim 32

1. “ . . . claim 31, wherein the type of the wireless network is 

cellular . . . 3G, [or] . . . wireless fidelity (WiFi) . . . .”

Supra claim 31; Fadell ¶¶44, 62; also id. ¶¶19, 64, Fig. 5; EX-1015 ¶¶386-92.

G. Claim 33

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

associated with communicating over the wireless 

network . . . .”

Rao-Fadell bases its policy on a service plan limit. Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2)

(explaining combination and motivation for same), claim 27, §VIII.A. Fadell

explains that users pay “a fixed fee” for consuming resources up to a certain limit or 

threshold and additional fees based on use of the wireless network “in excess of the 

limit” or threshold. Fadell ¶¶16, 18, 43, 51, 53, 57, 63, 65, 72; EX-1015 ¶¶393-95.

A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the policy in Rao-Fadell to 

“assist the consumer in avoiding excess fees or penalties” associated with exceeding 

a plan resource limit, as Fadell discloses. Fadell ¶51; EX-1015 ¶396. Indeed, Fadell 

discloses that its resource utilization component is capable of “perform[ing] 

utilization shifting actions” to help a user “manag[e] their usage under [data 

providers’] pricing mechanisms.” Fadell ¶17; also id. ¶¶18, 51; EX-1015 ¶397. In 

applying the policy as Fadell teaches and suggests, the policy in the combined 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 64 of 98 PageID #:

7017
45

system would be based on a cost associated with communicating over a wireless 

network. EX-1015 ¶¶396-97; supra §VIII.A. 

H. Claim 36

1. [36a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the at least an aspect of the 

policy is based on the user input obtained through the user 

interface of the wireless end-user device, and”

Supra [1e] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶398.

2. [36b] “wherein the user input identifies . . . a network type.”

In Rao-Fadell, at least an aspect of the prioritization and notification policy is 

based on user input, supra [1e] (Ground 2), and it would have been obvious to 

modify Rao-Fadell to apply this policy in a network-dependent manner, supra

claim 31; EX-1015 ¶¶399-400.

Further, Fadell’s screen 500 provides users options to select various types of 

networks, including “Ethernet option 510, Wi-Fi option 512, 3G cellular network

option 514 and EDGE cellular network option 516.” Fadell ¶63. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 65 of 98 PageID #:

7018
46

Id., Fig. 5. 

Screen 500 also includes “any suitable information associated with each 

identified network,” such as the “amount of resources available for each network” 

and “the penalty for exceeding the resources on each network.” Id. A user’s selection 

of a network type on screen 500 provides the user’s preference for a specific network 

type. EX-1015 ¶401.

A POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Rao-Fadell to receive user 

input identifying a type of network (e.g., ethernet network, 3G or other cellular 

network, EDGE network, Wi-Fi network) to apply a network-dependent 

prioritization and notification policy in Rao-Fadell. See Fadell ¶¶19, 44, 62, 64, Fig. 

5; supra claim 31; EX-1015 ¶401. This would have allowed a user to optimize use 

of network resources available on a given network. EX-1015 ¶401. Fadell’s 

disclosures teach and suggests this, as Fadell’s resource utilization component

receives user selections of network types and automatically acts in response to those 

selections. Fadell ¶¶63-64, Fig. 5. In doing so, a POSITA would have found it 

obvious to deprioritize network packets associated with background activities and 

notify a user to avoid exceeding a low(er) resource usage limit associated with a first 

network, but not do so in other networks based on different resource limitations, as 

Fadell teaches and suggests. Id. ¶¶19, 62, 64; EX-1015 ¶401. Fadell itself teaches 

such a differential application of policies by noting that certain background tasks 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 66 of 98 PageID #:

7019
47

(e.g., “receiving email”) may be reserved for certain types of networks. E.g., Fadell 

¶¶19, 64. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the 

modification. EX-1015 ¶401.

I. Claim 37

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is based on a usage limit or 

a threshold.”

Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2), claims 27, 33 (teaching a policy that prioritizes 

network packets and notifies a user when such a resource usage limit or threshold is 

reached), §VIII.A; EX-1015 ¶¶402-04; Fadell ¶¶16-19, 22, 42-45, 48-56, 58-59, 61-

63, 71-72.

J. Claim 38

1. [38a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy is based on a limit,”

Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2), claim 37; EX-1015 ¶405.

2. [38b] “wherein the limit is based on the user input obtained 

through the user interface of the wireless end-user device, 

[or] . . . an indication of a threshold . . . .”

Supra [1e]-[1g] (Ground 2), claim 37 (teaching user input to specify the 

resource usage limit/threshold), §VIII.A; EX-1015 ¶¶406-08 (explaining that user 

input of a threshold constitutes an indication of a threshold); Fadell ¶51. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 67 of 98 PageID #:

7020
48

K. Claim 40

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein the policy comprises one or more 

filters, wherein the one or more filters provide filtering 

based on: . . . a service plan applicable to the wireless enduser device . . . .”

Rao’s “agent 326 indicates the priority to the filter 322 for management of 

network packet queues 540a-540n to apply the indicated priorities.” Rao ¶190; also 

id. ¶¶99, 190-91; supra [1b], [1g] (Ground 2) (explaining combination and 

motivation for same), §VIII.A. 

In Rao-Fadell, the prioritization applied by the filter is based on a service plan 

applicable to the wireless end-user device. Supra [1g], claim 27; EX-1015 ¶¶409-14.

Because a resource usage threshold associated with a service plan triggers the 

prioritization in Rao-Fadell, the filtering is based on a service plan applicable to the 

wireless end-user device. EX-1015 ¶¶409-14. A POSITA would have been motivated 

to implement Rao-Fadell in this way given Rao’s teachings and would have had a 

reasonable expectation of success in implementing such a policy in Rao-Fadell. Id.

¶¶413-14; supra §VIII.A.

L. Claim 65

1. [65a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the information from the 

network element is first information, and”

Supra [1e] (Ground 2). A POSITA would have recognized the policies 

provided by or downloaded via gateway 340 (information from the network element)

encompass “first information.” EX-1015 ¶432. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 68 of 98 PageID #:

7021
49

2. [65b] “wherein apply the policy comprises provide second 

information to the first software component.”

As part of applying the policy, Rao-Fadell issues a notification to the user 

when a resource usage threshold is reached. Supra [1b], [1f]-[1g] (Ground 2). These 

notifications may include options to, for example, exceed the threshold (e.g., by 

overriding the limit or purchasing additional resources) or “restrict[] resource usage 

to stay within the resource allocation,” e.g., by rescheduling, canceling, delaying, 

slowing down, enabling, or disabling “processes requesting data of lesser 

importance.” Fadell ¶¶53, 56, 58-62, 18, 52, 64, Fig. 4. The notifications may also 

allow the user to “switch” processes to different networks. Id. ¶¶64, 18-19, 62, 52, 

62; EX-1015 ¶¶433-35. 

In Rao-Fadell, it would have been obvious to apply Fadell’s teachings 

regarding user options to, e.g., override, restrict, or switch networks to allow users 

to stay within their resource limits and provide users options to control their resource 

usage, as suggested by Fadell. EX-1015 ¶436. A POSITA would have recognized 

that a user’s selection of an option to reschedule, cancel, delay, and/or switch a 

process of “lesser importance” (e.g., background activity) is “second information.” 

See Fadell ¶¶60-61; EX-1015 ¶436.

A POSITA implementing Rao-Fadell would have been motivated and found it 

obvious to, when the user selected such an option, inform the application associated 

with the process being allowed (e.g., by an override), rescheduled, canceled, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 69 of 98 PageID #:

7022
50

delayed, switched, etc., of that instruction in order to ensure the application 

responded appropriately (e.g., continued sending packets, stopped sending packets, 

delayed sending packets, etc.). EX-1015 ¶437. A POSITA would have recognized 

that providing this information would avoid gaps and backlogs in Rao-Fadell’s 

queues and would have allowed the applications to properly format and route packets 

associated with any processes switched to a different network. Id. ¶438.

Implementing Rao-Fadell in this way would have been no more than an 

exercise of routine skill. Id. ¶439. Both Rao and Fadell teach this type of intra- and 

inter-application communication, including via application programming interfaces 

(APIs), e.g., Rao ¶¶106, 116, 190; Fadell ¶56, and a POSITA would have been 

familiar with how to facilitate such communications, particularly given that Fadell 

already teaches that applications may receive information in this manner, EX-1015

¶439; Fadell ¶56; also Wyld, 7:30-33 (APIs can permit interactions between 

applications and other software components). 

M. Claim 66

1. “ . . . claim 65, wherein provide second information to the 

first software component comprises provide the second 

information through an application programming 

interface.”

Supra claim 65; EX-1015 ¶¶440-43. A POSITA would have understood that 

communications between applications and other software components were 

routinely implemented via application programming interfaces, as Rao expressly 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 70 of 98 PageID #:

7023
51

discloses. EX-1015 ¶¶442-43; Rao ¶¶106, 116, 190; Wyld, 7:30-33. A POSITA 

implementing Rao-Fadell as described, supra claim 65, would have recognized that 

APIs are among a finite number of known solutions for communicating information 

between system components and would have been motivated to implement RaoFadell to provide the second information to the software component via an API, EX1015 ¶¶442-43.

N. Claim 67

1. “ . . . claim 65, wherein . . . the one or more 

processors . . . provide third information to a second 

software component on the wireless end-user device, the 

third information being different from the second 

information.”

It would have been obvious to provide a second application 338a-338n 

(second software component) with “second information.” Supra [65b]. Each of Rao 

and Fadell contemplates multiple applications, see, e.g., Rao ¶38; Fadell ¶59, and 

Fadell teaches that its resource utilization component may take different actions with 

respect to different applications/processes, e.g., Fadell ¶¶53, 56, 59, 60; EX-1015

¶¶444-48. For the same reasons a POSITA would have found it obvious to provide 

“second information” to a first software component, it would have been obvious to, 

and a POSITA would have been motivated to, provide “third information” to a 

second software component to inform that component that its associated processes 

were, e.g., being allowed or resumed. EX-1015 ¶¶444-48; Rao ¶¶106, 116, 190; 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 71 of 98 PageID #:

7024
52

Wyld, 7:30-33. A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in doing so. EX1015 ¶¶444-48; supra [65b]. 

O. Claim 68

1. “ . . . claim 67, wherein provide third information to a 

second software component on the wireless end-user device 

comprises provide the third information through an 

application programming interface.”

For the same reasons it would have been obvious to a POSITA to provide 

second information to the first software component via an API, it would have been 

obvious to a POSITA to provide third information to the second software component 

via an API. Supra claim 66; EX-1015 ¶¶449-52; Rao ¶¶106, 116, 190; Wyld, 

7:30-33.

P. Claim 69

1. “ . . . claim 67, wherein the third information enables the 

second software component to communicate over the 

wireless network.”

Rao-Fadell allows the user to opt to allow a communication (e.g., by 

overriding the limit or purchasing additional data). See, e.g., supra claims 65, 67; 

Fadell ¶¶53, 59; EX-1015 ¶¶453-56. A POSITA would have understood that this may 

be “third information,” as discussed, and would enable the second software 

component to communicate over the wireless network, e.g., by sending an API 

message confirming the socket. Supra claims 65, 67; EX-1015 ¶¶456-57. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 72 of 98 PageID #:

7025
53

Q. Claim 70

1. [70a] “ . . . claim 65, wherein the wireless network is a first 

wireless network, and”

Supra [1c] (Ground 2) (disclosing “wireless network”). The “wireless 

network” constitutes a “first wireless network.” EX-1015 ¶¶458-59. 

2. [70b] “wherein the second information comprises . . . a 

network availability state associated with the second 

wireless network, or information about the policy.”

Rao-Fadell discloses second information including whether a particular 

process is being rescheduled, canceled, delayed, etc. Supra [65b]; EX-1015

¶¶460-61. A POSITA would have understood this “second information” is 

information about the policy (e.g., that it is being applied). EX-1015 ¶¶460-61.

Rao-Fadell further discloses second information permitting switches

“between available networks.” Supra [65b]; EX-1015 ¶¶462-64; Fadell ¶¶64, 19, 62. 

A POSITA would have understood that an application whose processes were being 

redirected to a different network would need at least information identifying the 

target network, and this information would obviously indicate the availability state 

associated with the second wireless network. EX-1015 ¶¶462-64. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 73 of 98 PageID #:

7026
54

R. Claim 71

1. “ . . . claim 65, wherein the second information comprises a 

setting for assisting the first software component in . . .

deferring [or] time-scheduling . . . the service usage activity.”

Rao-Fadell teaches that the second information may include that the 

application or process is being rescheduled. Supra [65b]; Fadell ¶¶60-62; EX-1015

¶¶465-69. A POSITA would have understood a rescheduled process to be a deferred 

or time-scheduled service usage activity because the activity would occur at a later 

time than otherwise, and a POSITA would further have understood that the second 

information would obviously include details such as the time when the process 

should resume (a setting for assisting the first software component in deferring/timescheduling as indicated). EX-1015 ¶¶465-69.

S. Claim 72

1. “ . . . claim 71, wherein the setting is based on . . . a time . . . .”

Rao-Fadell teaches that the second information would include the time the 

service usage activity is scheduled to resume, which is a setting for assisting the first 

software component in deferring/time-scheduling that is “based on” a time. Supra 

[65b], claim 71; EX-1015 ¶¶470-71. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 74 of 98 PageID #:

7027
55

T. Claim 73

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the 

first software component whether the first software 

component is allowed to access the wireless network.”

Rao-Fadell informs applications 338a-338n that their background processes 

are being rescheduled, canceled, delayed, slowed down, enabled, disabled, and/or 

switched to other networks to remain within/below limits/thresholds. Supra [65b]. 

For example, depending on the resources available, a more important background 

process associated with an application 338a might remain enabled. See Fadell ¶60; 

supra claim 67. To avoid generating gaps in Rao-Fadell’s queues, a POSITA would 

have ensured that application 338a received information indicating that it should 

start or keep sending network packets to remote access client 120. Supra Claim 67; 

EX-1015 ¶¶472-75. 

A POSITA would have understood that the information received by 

application 338a in this scenario—which would enable it to communicate over 

network 104 (i.e., the wireless network)—would also indicate that the network was 

available and that the application was allowed to access it. EX-1015 ¶¶472-75 (citing 

[1c] (Ground 2); claim 67).

U. Claim 74

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the 

first software component whether the wireless network is 

available.”

Supra claim 73; also supra claim 67, [65b]; EX-1015 ¶¶476-80; Fadell ¶60.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 75 of 98 PageID #:

7028
56

Rao-Fadell teaches informing applications 338a-338n that their associated 

background processes are being rescheduled, canceled, delayed, slowed down, 

enabled, disabled, and/or switched to other networks to remain within/below 

resource usage limits/thresholds. Supra [65b]. Moreover, Fadell teaches that its 

resource utilization component may switch between available networks, 

automatically and/or in response to user input, to avoid exceeding resource limits. 

Supra [70b]; Fadell ¶62. 

It would have been obvious to apply Fadell’s teachings to enable Rao-Fadell’s 

users to optimize their resource usage within/below limits or thresholds, e.g., by 

switching from unavailable networks to available networks to avoid exceeding 

resource limits. EX-1015 ¶¶476-80; Fadell ¶¶19, 62, 64. It would have been obvious 

to inform an application 338a-338n that its processes were being switched to another 

network to remain within/below these limits and that the wireless network is not 

available (e.g., because the user is approaching or has approached the limit). EX1015 ¶¶476-80. A POSITA would therefore have recognized that, in applying its 

prioritization and notification policy, Rao-Fadell would inform application 338a338n whether the network was available. Id. ¶¶476-80.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 76 of 98 PageID #:

7029
57

V. Claim 75

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises inform the 

first software component of a traffic control to be 

implemented or applied by the first software component.”

Rao-Fadell teaches informing applications 338a-338n that their associated

background processes are being rescheduled, canceled, delayed, slowed down, 

enabled, disabled, and/or switched to other networks. Supra [65b], claims 70, 74;

EX-1015 ¶¶481-85. Rao-Fadell would have similarly notified applications 338a338n whose processes were being redirected to other networks and provided 

information to facilitate reformatting and rerouting the network packets. Supra

claims 65, 70, 74; EX-1015 ¶¶481-85.

A POSITA would have understood that information received by the 

applications 338a-338n in any of the above scenarios would have caused them to 

implement or apply one or more “traffic controls”—i.e., would have caused them to 

continue, stop, delay, or reschedule their sending of network packets or to reformat 

and reroute their network packets so that they could be transmitted over an alternate 

network. EX-1015 ¶¶481-85.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 77 of 98 PageID #:

7030
58

W. Claim 76

1. [76a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the information from the 

network element is first information, and”

Supra [1e] (Ground 2). A POSITA would recognize the policies provided by 

or downloaded via gateway 340 (information from the network element) encompass 

“first information.” EX-1015 ¶¶486-87.

2. [76b] “wherein apply the policy comprises obtain second 

information from the first software component.”

Rao-Fadell teaches [76b]. Fadell explains that data resources are allocated on 

a per-user basis and the resource utilization component “manage[s] data transfers to 

different devices owned or operated by a same user.” Fadell ¶¶67-69; supra claim 

30. Fadell further discloses that “log-in or authentication information provided to 

access the network” may be used to identify “each user of the network” for purposes 

of determining the amount of resources available to the one or more devices (and 

enforcing any user-specific resource limits or thresholds). Fadell ¶67. 

Users may supply this “log-in or authentication information” on an 

application-specific basis. Id.; EX-1015 ¶¶488-92. For example, a user could supply 

one set of log-in credentials to receive updates and send messages via an email 

application, and another set entirely to access certain websites. EX-1015 ¶¶490-92. 

Thus, two separate users could be logged into and accessing resources—e.g., 

through applications 338a and 338b, respectively—on the same device. Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 78 of 98 PageID #:

7031
59

A POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate Fadell’s teachings into 

Rao-Fadell by having the remote access client 120 obtain the application-specific 

login credentials (i.e., “second information”) from application 338a-338n the user 

logged into when applying Rao-Fadell’s user-specific resource management 

prioritization and notification policy to network packets associated with application 

338a-338n running on a device. EX-1015 ¶¶491-92. This would have enabled

confirmation that the user associated with the user-specific policy was indeed the 

one using the application 338a-338n so that the policy would not be improperly 

applied to another user (and either disrupt or permit network communications 

inappropriately based on the resource limits or thresholds applicable to that other 

user). Id. This would have ensured that resource usage was properly adjusted (as 

necessary) on a per-user basis. Id. This also would have required no more than the 

exercise of routine skill for a POSITA to implement given Fadell’s suggestions to do 

so and the POSITA’s general understanding that user-specific login credentials may 

be used to authorize or deny network access (e.g., access to the Internet). Id.; Freund, 

22:1-6.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 79 of 98 PageID #:

7032
60

X. Claim 77

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in . . . controlling . . . a notification associated with . . .

the service usage activity, the notification for presentation 

through a user interface of the wireless end-user device.”

In Rao-Fadell, when a resource usage limit or threshold is met, background 

network packets are intercepted, queued, and assigned a priority, as taught by Rao, 

and the user is provided a notification, as taught by Fadell. Supra [1e]-[1g]

(Ground 2).

Providing a notification to a user, as taught by Fadell, obviously requires the 

system to “control[]” the notification (i.e., by preparing it for and presenting it to the 

user). EX-1015 ¶¶493-94.

The notifications described by Fadell are associated with the service usage 

activity. Id. ¶495. Fadell discloses that the notification may be “any suitable type of 

report, notice, reminder or alarm related to data provider resource consumption,”

which a POSITA would have understood is the user’s consumption of network 

resources by sending and receiving network packets. Fadell ¶49; also id. ¶¶29, 50, 

55, 63, Figs. 3-5 (providing examples including information regarding “data 

consumed this month” and “data remaining this month”). A POSITA would have 

therefore understood that Fadell’s notifications are associated with the network 

packets (the service usage activity), both given their content and because they are 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 80 of 98 PageID #:

7033
61

provided when the user’s service usage activity meets the resource limit or threshold. 

EX-1015 ¶¶494-95; supra [1a]-[1g] (Ground 2).

A POSITA would have understood Fadell’s notifications are for presentation 

through the user interface of the wireless end-user device. Fadell teaches these 

“screens” are transmitted to the user and discloses display circuitry to display 

“device operation screens” as part of the device’s input/output circuitry. Fadell, 

¶¶36-39, 50; EX-1015 ¶¶496-97.

In implementing Rao-Fadell, a POSITA would have been motivated to cause 

the notification to be presented through a user interface of the wireless end-user 

device in view of Fadell’s examples and its suggestion to do so. Fadell ¶¶39, 49-50, 

54-58, 63-65, Figs. 3-5. Doing so would have transmitted the notification to the user, 

as suggested by Fadell, id., and would have required no more than the exercise of 

routine skill for a POSITA to implement given both Rao’s and Fadell’s suggestions 

of a user interface, supra [1e] (Ground 2), and the ubiquity of such user interfaces at 

the time of the alleged invention, EX-1015 ¶¶496-500.

Y. Claim 78

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises at least 

assist in . . . controlling . . . a notification for presentation 

through a user interface of the wireless end-user device.”

Rao-Fadell discloses that applying the policy comprises at least assisting in 

controlling a notification, and Rao-Fadell further discloses that the notification is for 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 81 of 98 PageID #:

7034
62

presentation through a user interface of the wireless end-user device. Supra 

claim 77; EX-1015 ¶¶501-02.

Z. Claim 153

1. [153a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein the at least an aspect of a policy 

is based on the user input obtained through the user 

interface of the wireless end-user device, and”

Supra [1e] (Ground 2); EX-1015 ¶701.

2. [153b] “wherein the user input specifies a user preference 

associated with one or more network types.”

Supra [1e], claim 31; EX-1015 ¶¶702-05. A user’s selection of a network type 

is based on that user’s preference for the selected network type. Fadell ¶63, Fig. 5; 

EX-1015 ¶¶705-06. 

AA. Claim 154

1. “ . . . claim 153, wherein the one or more network types 

comprise wireless fidelity (WiFi), [or] . . . 3G . . . .”

Supra [153a] (user input providing a user preference specifying a network 

type, including a WiFi network or 3G cellular network); Fadell ¶63; EX-1015

¶¶707-09. 

BB. Claim 173

1. “ . . . claim 1, wherein . . . the one or more processors . . .

provide information about the service usage activity to the 

network element.”

Rao discloses that it communicates network packets from the prioritization 

queues via gateway 340 (network element). Rao ¶¶194, 93; supra [1e]. Rao’s user 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 82 of 98 PageID #:

7035
63

device transmits packets with information about those packets, including, e.g., “the 

IP address of the packet,” “connection-specific data,” and “special feature 

request[s].” Rao ¶94. Rao’s IP address, connection-specific data, and special feature 

requests are each information about the service usage activity provided to the 

network element (e.g., the gateway). EX-1015 ¶¶795-98.

CC. Claim 174

1. “ . . . claim 173, wherein the information about the service 

usage activity comprises . . . a classification of traffic . . . [or] 

a parameter associated with the service usage activity . . . .”

Supra claim 173. Rao’s IP address, “connection-specific data,” and “special 

feature request[s]” are each examples of “information about the service usage 

activity” that are at least a “classification of traffic” and a “parameter associated with 

the service usage activity.” EX-1015 ¶799.

IX. Ground 3: Rao-Freund Renders Obvious Claims 29 and 84-86

A. Motivation to Combine

Rao and Freund disclose complementary methods of classifying and 

controlling network communications. EX-1015 ¶¶800-06. Like Rao, Freund 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 83 of 98 PageID #:

7036
64

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.

B. Claim 29

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

interaction with the first software component . . . .”

Rao-Freund teaches this limitation.

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

[determining] whether an application [associated with the network packets] is 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 84 of 98 PageID #:

7037
65

running in the foreground or the background of the client 105.” Rao ¶¶182, 38-43, 

180, 188-89, 191, 193, Figs. 5A-5B; supra §§VII.A.d, VII.A.g. The

“application[s] . . . running in the foreground” are “currently in active use by the 

user,” whereas applications running in the background are not being actively used. 

Rao ¶¶3, 182, 188, 133, 140, 210, 118, 126. Thus, Rao discloses determining and 

applying a policy that assigns a specific priority (e.g., a lower priority) to network 

packets associated with application(s) 338a-338n (first software component) 

running in the background of client 105—application(s) a user is not actively 

interacting with—as opposed to assigning higher priorities to packets associated 

with application(s) that a user is actively interacting with in the foreground. EX1015 ¶¶811-12; see supra §VII.A.e-f. Alternatively, it would have been obvious that 

a user’s interaction with the application (or lack thereof) will ultimately dictate 

whether the application constitutes a background application and the related priority 

assignment. EX-1015 ¶813.

Freund also discloses a method for determining when an application is being 

“actively” used for purposes of distinguishing between foreground and background 

activities and taking appropriate actions. Freund, 3:12-16, 3:42-48, 8:63-67, 10:17-

37. Specifically, it explains that an application “can be examined for determining 

whether it is ‘active’ by determining whether the application receives ‘focus’ and/or 

receives user input,” id., 10:37-43, and provides an exemplary method for detecting 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 85 of 98 PageID #:

7038
66

whether a user is interacting with an application, id., 30:11-49, 6:7-14, Figs. 13A13B. If user interaction with the application is detected, the application is classified 

as a foreground application, and all related activities associated with the application 

constitute foreground activities. Id. All other activities would constitute background 

activities. Id.; EX-1015 ¶814.

A POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to combine Rao 

and Freund to produce a system that determines and applies a policy assigning a 

specific priority (e.g., a lower priority) to network packets that were associated with 

passively used applications 338a-338n. Supra §VII.A.e-f. A POSITA would have 

been aware of the latency- and quality-related issues that could arise when network 

packets for passively used applications (i.e., background applications) are processed 

ahead of packets for applications “currently in active use by the user” (i.e., 

foreground applications). EX-1015 ¶815; Rao ¶3; Oestvall ¶6. To mitigate such 

issues, it would have been effective to base Rao’s prioritization policy on whether 

an application is actively used, i.e., whether a user is interacting with the application

and end-user device, which is consistent with the ’541 patent’s disclosures. EX-1015

¶¶815-17; EX-1001, 14:47-51, 96:44-48, 90:65-91:16. With Freund’s 

methodological guidance, a POSITA would have been able to implement such a 

policy with a reasonable expectation of success. EX-1015 ¶815.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 86 of 98 PageID #:

7039
67

C. Claim 84

1. [84a] “ . . . claim 1, wherein apply the policy comprises: at 

least assist in preventing initiation of the service usage 

activity by the first software component; and”

Rao teaches that remote access client 120 may intercept outbound packet 

traffic associated with application 338 establishing a TCP connection. Rao ¶166 

(“first packet . . . generated by an application program . . . is intercepted by a filter 

process 322 before it reaches the network stack”), Fig. 3A-3C; id. ¶111 (“The remote 

access client 120 may intercept or capture the IP packets generated by the application 

338.”). A POSITA would have understood this “first packet” initiates a service usage 

activity by the first software component. EX-1015 ¶¶864-65.

Rao’s remote access client 120, upon intercepting these packets, “may 

identify an application 338 that generated the [network] packet[s]” associated with 

the attempt to establish the TCP connection and “make a policy-based 

determination” regarding whether and how the packets should be transmitted 

“responsive to the identified application 338.” Rao ¶109. Rao’s intercepted network 

packets are also prioritized in accordance with policies 520, queued in accordance 

with the assigned priorities, and communicated across the network “in a manner 

according to or consistent with the determined priorities.” Id. ¶¶191, 194; supra

§VII.A.e-g. Additionally, remote access client 120 may “discard” some or all 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 87 of 98 PageID #:

7040
68

network packets “after a predetermined period of time” based on policies 520 to 

“reduce latency and quality issues.” Rao ¶207; EX-1015 ¶866.

A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine these disclosures to 

intercept initial network packets associated with a background application’s 

establishment of a TCP connection (an initiation of a service usage activity) and then 

prioritize, queue, and ultimately discard them, if necessary, to avoid latency- and 

quality-related issues and reduce network congestion. EX-1015 ¶867; supra claims 

34, 80. Moreover, to the extent it is asserted that Rao’s disclosures regarding 

transmitting network packets associated with initiating TCP connections are distinct 

embodiments from Rao’s application-specific prioritization, queuing, and discarding

policies, see Rao ¶¶108, 182, 207, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine 

them based on Rao’s express invitation, see id. ¶218; EX-1015 ¶867. This would 

enable more granular control over network packet transmission (and timing thereof) 

and achieve Rao’s purposes of managing network communications based on policies 

520 and in view of network statistics or other factors, like congestion. Rao ¶195.

Doing so would have been an exercise of routine skill for a POSITA. EX-1015 ¶867.

A POSITA would have understood that the resulting Rao-Freund system, 

capable of discarding network packets associated with an application’s TCP 

connection establishment, would prevent initiating the service usage activity by the 

application. Id. ¶868.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 88 of 98 PageID #:

7041
69

2. [84b] “send a message to the first software component.”

Freund’s client monitor “redirect[s] [a] user to an error page” or “generat[es] 

an application error” upon the occurrence of an “attempted rule violation.” Freund, 

26:52-58. An attempted rule violation occurs when an application attempts to access 

the Internet despite a rule prohibiting such access; when this occurs, the client 

monitor prevents the Internet access and/or warns the user. Id., 5:61-64. Freund’s 

rules may also temporarily “[d]isable Internet [a]ccess for non-critical [a]pplications 

or protocols” (e.g., Rao’s background applications or activities) to manage, e.g., 

network congestion. Id., 30:51-67. A POSITA would have recognized that Freund’s 

monitor redirecting and/or warning the user or generating an application error would 

include sending a message to the application. EX-1015 ¶¶869-71.

A POSITA would have been motivated and found it obvious to apply these 

teachings of Freund in Rao-Freund to send a message to background application 

338a-338n and cause it to warn or redirect a user to an error page and/or generate an 

application error if the system was to discard network packets associated with the 

application’s TCP connection establishment. Id. ¶¶871-72. This would have allowed 

background application 338a-338n to inform the user that the application would not 

be permitted to initiate the service usage activity at that time to avoid latency- and 

quality-related issues and mitigate network congestion. Id. This would have been 

routine for a POSITA, who would have understood how to facilitate communication 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 89 of 98 PageID #:

7042
70

between remote access client 120 and application 338a-338n, see, e.g., Rao ¶¶106, 

116, 190; see also Wyld, 7:30-33, particularly given that Freund already teaches that 

applications may receive information sufficient to permit them to redirect users to 

error pages and/or generate application errors, see Freund, 26:52-58; EX-1015 ¶872.

D. Claim 85

1. “ . . . claim 84, wherein initiation of the service usage activity 

by the first software component comprises . . . initiating a 

data flow, or initiating a data stream.”

Rao-Freund teaches “initiation of the service usage activity by the first 

software component” based on initial network packets associated with establishing 

a TCP connection. Supra [84a]. A POSITA would have recognized that a TCP 

connection would have constituted a “data flow” or “data stream” and that 

establishing a TCP connection would have constituted initiating a data flow or data 

stream. EX-1015 ¶¶873-76. For example, Rao discloses that its TCP connection 

transmits network packets between a target computing device and application 338, 

and it discusses in detail how network packets associated with establishing a TCP 

connection are exchanged. Rao ¶¶109-11. A POSITA would have recognized that 

this transmission of network packets between application 338 and a target computing 

device would have constituted a data flow or data stream, and that the attempt to 

establish a TCP connection therefore would initiate a data flow or data stream from 

application 338 to the second computing device or gateway 340. EX-1015 ¶876.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 90 of 98 PageID #:

7043
71

E. Claim 86

1. “ . . . claim 84, wherein the message comprises . . . an 

indication that the service usage activity is not allowed . . . .”

In Rao-Freund, a message is sent to application 338a-338n, which causes it to 

redirect a user to an error page and/or generate an application error in the event the 

system was required to discard network packets associated with establishing a TCP 

connection. Supra [84b]. This message would have informed the user that the 

application would not be permitted to access the network at that time and, thus,

would have presented an indication that the service usage activity (e.g., the 

process(es) of background application 338a-338n, which were associated with the 

discarded network packets, supra [84b]) would not be allowed. EX-1015 ¶¶877-79.

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.

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 91 of 98 PageID #:

7044
72

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-2018, 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 50 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 

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 92 of 98 PageID #:

7045
73

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 

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., 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 93 of 98 PageID #:

7046
74

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

1875 Explorer Street

Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190-6023

Daniel C. Tucker (Reg. No. 62,781)

daniel.tucker@finnegan.com

Alexander M. Boyer (Reg. No. 66,599)

alexander.boyer@finnegan.com

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP

1875 Explorer Street

Suite 800

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 94 of 98 PageID #:

7047
75

Tel: 571-203-2700; Fax: 202-408-

4400

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 

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 95 of 98 PageID #:

7048
76

Petitioners consent to service by email at the addresses listed above and 

Headwater-541-IPRs@Finnegan.com, PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com, and 

KPAnderson@duanemorris.com. 

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 96 of 98 PageID #:

7049
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 12,598 words, excluding parts of this Petition exempted under 

§ 42.24(a), as measured by the word-processing system used to prepare this paper.

Dated: June 7, 2024 /Daniel C. Tucker/

Daniel C. Tucker (Reg. No. 62,781)

Counsel for Petitioner 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 97 of 98 PageID #:

7050
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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 99-4 Filed 10/24/24 Page 98 of 98 PageID #:

7051