Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 67
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 67
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 67
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00498
`Patent 6,154,844
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ‘844 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 5
`
`III. The Board Should Dismiss The Petition Because it is Unquestionably
`Time Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) ................ 7
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Should be Denied Because it
`Seeks to Join a Proceeding That Has Already Been Denied ................. 8
`
`B. Granting Petitioner’s Joinder Request Would Defeat the
`Purpose of the Time Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and the
`Estoppel Provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ......................................... 10
`
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“means for receiving a Downloadable” (claim 43) ............................. 12
`
`“means for generating a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claim 43) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`C.
`
`“means for linking” (claim 43) ............................................................ 15
`
`V.
`
`SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES
`REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ............................................... 18
`
`A. Grounds 1: Dan Does Not Render the Challenged Claims
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.......................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“[means for] generating [by the inspector] a first
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious
`code in the received Downloadable” (claims 1, 15, 41,
`and 43) ....................................................................................... 19
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`(a) Access Control Lists Are Not DSP ................................... 20
`
`(b) Dan’s ACL Does Not Identify Suspicious Code in
`the Received Downloadable .............................................. 21
`
`(c) Dan’s Certification Agency Does Not Generate a
`Downloadable Security Profile ......................................... 23
`
`(d) Dan’s ACL Enforcer Does not Generate a
`Downloadable Security Profile ......................................... 24
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`Using a Rule Set to Generate a Downloadable Security
`Profile (claim 15) ...................................................................... 26
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`[means for] linking the first Downloadable security
`profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes
`the Downloadable available to web clients” (claims 1, 15,
`41, and 43) ................................................................................. 27
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the Downloadable includes a JavaScriptTM
`script” (claim 7) ........................................................................ 27
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the first Downloadable security profile includes
`a list of operations deemed suspicious by the inspector”
`(claim 11) .................................................................................. 28
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the first rule set includes a list of suspicious
`operations” (claim 16) ............................................................... 28
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B. Ground 2: Apperson in view of Ji and Further in view of Cline
`Does not Render the Challenged Claims Obvious Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Cline is not Analogous Art ....................................................... 31
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination of Apperson, Ji, and
`Cline is a Product of Impermissible Hindsight Bias ................. 34
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 5 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`(a) Petitioner Provides Insufficient Motivation to
`Modify Apperson with Ji .................................................. 35
`
`(b) Petitioner Provides Insufficient Motivation to
`Modify Apperson with Cline ............................................ 38
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “[means for] generating [by the
`inspector] a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) .......................................................... 39
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “a content inspection engine for
`using the first rule set to generate a DSP” (claim 15) ............... 42
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses [means for] linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable
`before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) ..................................... 44
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “wherein the first
`Downloadable security profile includes a list of
`operations deemed suspicious by the inspector” (claim
`11) ............................................................................................. 44
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “wherein the first rule set
`includes a list of suspicious operations” (claim 16) ................. 45
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`C. Ground 3: Anand in View of Cline Does not Render the
`Challenged Claims Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................... 46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Cline is not Analogous Art ....................................................... 46
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “[means for] receiving [by an inspector]
`a Downloadable” (claims 1, 41, and 43) ................................... 46
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 6 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “[means for] generating [by the
`inspector] a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) .......................................................... 48
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “a content inspection engine for using
`the first rule set to generate a DSP” (claim 15) ........................ 50
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses [means for] linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable
`before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) ..................................... 50
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the Downloadable includes a
`JavaScriptTM script” (claim 7) ................................................... 51
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the first Downloadable security
`profile includes a list of operations deemed suspicious by
`the inspector” (claim 11) ........................................................... 51
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the first rule set includes a list
`of suspicious operations” (claim 16) ........................................ 52
`
`VI. PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS FAIL AS A
`MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONDUCT A
`COMPLETE OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ................................................. 52
`
`VII. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE CUMULATIVE ................................. 55
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 7 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276, Paper No. 43 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) ............................ 22, 28
`
`In re Baxter Int’l,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 15, 17
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 15, 17
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed.Cir.1992) .............................................................................. 34
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 36
`
`GoerTek, Inc. v. Knowles Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00523, Paper 26 (PTAB May 30, 2014) ............................................. 55
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 52
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. .2007) ......................................................................... 36
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ............................................... 37
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 32, 33, 34
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 8 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 24, 34, 36, 38
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-01994, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2015) ................... 2, 8
`
`Leo Pharmaceutical v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 53, 54, 55
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Tech, Ltd.,
`Case IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2015) .................................... 7
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Cisco Tech., Inc.,
`IPR 2013-00328 .................................................................................................. 38
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 53, 54
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Teresa Stanek Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 54
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................ 25
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 53
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 20, 22
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01894, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016) ........ 1, 2, 8, 57
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014) ......................................... 4
`
`United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39 (1966) .............................................................................................. 36
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 9 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 103 ........................................................................................................... 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 19, 29, 53
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 18, 46
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42. 71(d)(2) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.22(a)(2), and 42.104(b)(4) ....................................... 50, 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ............................................................................................ 1, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 41
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R § 71.(d) (2) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 CFR 42.101(b) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 10 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On January 25, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc., (“Petitioner” or “Blue Coat”)
`
`submitted a Petition to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,154,844 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘844 Patent”), challenging claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41,
`
`and 43. The instant Petition is unquestionably time-barred under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). In an effort to evade the statutory bar, Blue
`
`Coat seeks to join an inter partes review brought by Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”),
`
`namely Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01894 (“the ‘1894
`
`Case”).1 See Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00498, Paper No. 4
`
`(“Joinder Motion”); see also Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01894, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 11, 2016) (denying institution of inter partes review of the ‘1894 Case).
`
`Symantec did not file a Request for Rehearing within the time period provided
`
`under 37 C.F.R § 71.(d) (2).
`
`Finjan, Inc., (“Patent Owner” or “Finjan”) requests that the Board deny the
`
`Petition at least because 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) prohibit
`
`Petitioner’s time-barred Petition.
`
`1 Petitioner states that its Petition is “a practical copy of Symantec’s petition with
`
`respect to the proposed grounds, including the same analysis of the prior art and
`
`expert testimony.” Joinder Motion at 1.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 11 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`Patent Owner also requests that the Petition and Petitioner’s Joinder Motion
`
`be denied because the Board already denied institution of inter partes review of the
`
`‘1894 Case, which is the very case that Petitioner seeks to join. Because “a request
`
`for joinder is appropriate only if a decision granting institution has been entered in
`
`the inter partes review for which joinder is requested,” and the inter partes review
`
`that Petitioner’s motion is requested for has already been denied, joinder is not
`
`appropriate. See Linear Tech. Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC, Case No. IPR2015-
`
`01994, Paper No. 7 at 4 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2015)(“It is clear from both the statute
`
`and the rule that a request for joinder is appropriate only if a decision granting
`
`institution has been entered in the inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested.”).
`
`In any case, Petitioner’s Petition should be denied for the same reasons the
`
`‘1894 Case was denied, as discussed below.
`
`The ‘844 Patent generally discloses systems and methods for attaching a
`
`Downloadable security profile to a Downloadable. ‘844 Patent at Title. Each of
`
`the challenged independent claims requires generating a Downloadable security
`
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable and linking the
`
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the
`
`Downloadable available to web clients. See id. at claims 1, 15, 41, and 43.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 12 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`The various references cited in Grounds 1–3 of the Petition do not disclose
`
`this approach to protect against malware because each fails to generate a first
`
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received
`
`Downloadable, as recited in each of the challenged independent claims.
`
`Petitioner’s references are directed towards content providers that author and
`
`provide software to their customers. In particular, these references provide content
`
`providers with techniques to certify their software to their customers, namely by
`
`providing a description of the resources their software will require when executed
`
`These content providers include such descriptions together with the software they
`
`deliver to their customers. This allows each recipient to individually evaluate
`
`whether this software may potentially cause errors for their computers. In contrast,
`
`no content provider would want to certify that they are providing suspicious code,
`
`such as code corresponding to viruses or malware.
`
`Rather, the approach taken in the three primary references is for a code
`
`developer or manufacturer to provide their code with a certified accounting of all
`
`of the resources that code will request when run on the client system. Dan’s ACL,
`
`Apperson’s privilege request code, and Anand’s requested domain all fit this
`
`description and completely fail to identify suspicious code in the Downloadable.
`
`Each of the Petitioner’s proposed Grounds is substantively and procedurally
`
`deficient for the additional reasons discussed in detail below.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 13 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`Although there are a variety of reasons why the ‘844 Patent is valid over
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, this Preliminary Response focuses on
`
`only limited reasons why inter partes review should not be instituted. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014) (“[N]othing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason.”). The deficiencies of the Petition noted herein, however, are sufficient for
`
`the Board to find that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`II. THE ‘844 PATENT
`A. Overview
`Patent Owner’s ‘844 Patent claims the benefit of a number of patents and
`
`patent applications, including U.S. Patent Application Nos. 08/964,388 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,092,194 (Ex. 1003, “the ‘194 Patent”) and 08/790,097 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,167,520 (Ex. 1004, “the ‘520 Patent”), and U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/030,639 (Ex. 1002, “the ‘639 Application”). ‘844 Patent at
`
`1:7–18. Each of these applications are incorporated by reference into the ‘844
`
`Patent. Id.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 14 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`The ‘844 Patent generally relates to the use of an inspector to receive
`
`Downloadables and generate a profile that identifies suspicious (i.e., hostile or
`
`potentially hostile) operations that may be attempted by that Downloadable. ‘844
`
`Patent at Abstract. To generate this profile, known as a Downloadable security
`
`profile (“DSP”), the ‘844 Patent provides a content inspector that identifies
`
`suspicious code, such as suspicious operations, in a Downloadable and links the
`
`DSP to that Downloadable before a web server makes it available to web clients.
`
`Id. The content inspector can use a set of rules, which may include a list of
`
`operations deemed suspicious, to generate the DSP. Id. This list of suspicious
`
`operations can be used to generate a DSP indicating the different suspicious
`
`operations present in the code of the downloadable. Id. at 2:65–3:2.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges seven claims of the ‘844 Patent, namely independent
`
`claims 1, 15, 41, and 43, and dependent claims 7, 11, and 16. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`receiving by an inspector a Downloadable;
`
`generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable;
`and
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 15 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security profile
`
`to the Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable
`available to web clients.
`
`‘844 Patent at 11:13–20. Claim 7 recites “wherein the Downloadable includes a
`
`JavaScriptTM script.” Id. at 11:34–35. Claim 11 recites “wherein the first
`
`Downloadable security profile includes a list of operations deemed suspicious by
`
`the inspector.” Id. at 11:44–46. Claim 41 recites a computer-readable storage
`
`medium strong program code for causing a data processing system on an inspector
`
`to perform the steps of the method of claim 1. Id. at 14:9–18. Claim 43 recites an
`
`inspector system comprising means for performing the functions recited in
`
`independent claim 1. Claim 15 recites:
`
`15. An inspector system comprising:
`
`memory storing a first rule set; and
`
`a first content inspection engine for using the first rule set to
`generate a first Downloadable security profile
`that
`identifies
`suspicious code in a Downloadable, and for linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web
`server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.
`
`Id. at 11:62–12:2. Claim 16 recites “wherein the first rule set includes a list of
`
`suspicious operations.” Id. at 12:3–4.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 16 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DISMISS THE PETITION BECAUSE IT IS
`UNQUESTIONABLY TIME BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) AND 37 C.F.R.
`§42.101(B)
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if
`
`the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on
`
`which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” See also 37 CFR 42.101(b)
`
`(mirroring the language of section 315(b) in dictating “who may petition for inter
`
`partes review.”). Petitioner admits that “[a] complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`’844 patent was served on Petitioner more than a year before the date of this
`
`Petition….” Petition at 2–3; see also Joinder Motion at 2 (conceding that Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘844 Patent on Aug. 28,
`
`2013, which is more than 2 years before the instant Petition.2). Thus, Petitioner’s
`
`belated request for inter partes review of the ‘844 Patent should be denied at least
`
`because the Petition is prohibited under the time-bar set forth by § 315(b) and
`
`§42.101(b).
`
`2 Although the Joinder Motion also notes that Patent Owner was served a second
`
`complaint asserting the ‘844 Patent on July 15, 2015, the law is clear that the time-
`
`bar clock starts when Petitioner is first served with a complaint. LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. v. Mondis Tech, Ltd., Case IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 at 5 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17,
`
`2015).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 17 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Should be Denied Because it
`Seeks to Join a Proceeding That Has Already Been Denied
`
`Because Petitioner seeks to join a proceeding that has already been denied
`
`by the Board, its Joinder Motion should be denied as the law dictates that joinder
`
`cannot be appropriate where there is no “decision granting institution has been
`
`entered in the inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” See Linear
`
`Tech., Case No. IPR2015-01994, Paper No. 7 at 4 (“It is clear from both the statute
`
`and the rule that a request for joinder is appropriate only if a decision granting
`
`institution has been entered in the inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested.”). In fact, on March 11, 2016, the Board denied institution of inter
`
`partes review of the very case that Petitioner seeks to join, namely Symantec Corp.
`
`v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01894. See Decision on Institution, Symantec
`
`Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01894, Paper No. 7 (Ex. 2004, “‘1894
`
`Institution Decision”). Symantec did not file a Request for Rehearing of the ‘1894
`
`Institution Decision within the time period provided under 37 C.F.R. § 42.
`
`71(d)(2). Because “the inter partes review for which joinder is requested” has
`
`already been denied institution, there is no, and will be no “decision granting
`
`institution [ ] entered in the inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion should be denied.
`
`In fact, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) it is clear that the Director may only join a
`
`party to an inter partes review proceeding after the proceeding has been instituted:
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 18 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his
`or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or
`the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). The conditional phrase highlighted above
`
`leaves no doubt that a motion for joinder is only appropriate when the case to be
`
`joined is an instituted inter partes review proceeding. Similarly, the Patent Rules
`
`provide that any request for joinder must be filed within one month of the
`
`institution date of the inter partes review to be joined:
`
`Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request
`for joinder must be filed, as a motion under §42.22, no later than one
`month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which
`joinder is requested. The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall
`not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). That is, a request for joinder is a request to join an inter
`
`partes review, which only exists after the Board’s institution decision.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion should be denied as it seeks to join a
`
`proceeding that has already been denied.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 19 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`B. Granting Petitioner’s Joinder Request Would Defeat the Purpose
`of the Time Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and the Estoppel
`Provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)
`
`On August 28, 2013, Patent Owner filed a complaint against Petitioner
`
`alleging infringement of, inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”),
`
`6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”), 7,418,731 (“the ‘731
`
`Patent”), and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”), collectively “the challenged patents.”
`
`The challenged patents are currently the subject of requests for inter partes review
`
`in the following cases:
`
`Case No.
`
`Patent No. Original Petitioner
`
`Status
`
`IPR2015-01894
`
`6,154,844
`
`Symantec Corp.
`
`Institution Denied
`
`IPR2015-01974
`
`7,647,633
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Trial Instituted
`
`IPR2015-02000
`
`7,418,731
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Institution Denied
`
`IPR2016-00149
`
`6,965,968
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Pending
`
`IPR2016-00150
`
`6,965,968
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Pending
`
`IPR2016-00165
`
`6,804,780
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Institution Denied
`
`Petitioner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to file petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the challenged patents within the one-year statutory period set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), opting instead to prosecute its invalidity cases at the
`
`district court, and thereby avoiding the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`
`On August 4, 2015, the jury in the district court case returned a verdict confirming
`
`validity of the challenged patents:
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 20 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`
`
`Ex. 2005 at 6, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-03999 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).
`
`Now Petitioner seeks a bite of the apple it previously declined. This end run
`
`around the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(b) and 315(e) should not be
`
`countenanced. The legislative history indicates that Congress established the
`
`estoppel rules in order to balance “the need to encourage [the] use [of the inter
`
`partes review] while at the same time preventing the serial harassment of patent
`
`holders.” House Judiciary Transcript for Mark-Up of H.R. 1249, The America
`
`Invents Act, at 72 (Apr. 14, 2011) (statement of Cong. Smith); see also 157 Cong.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-15 Filed 08/20/18 Page 21 of 67
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00498 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`Rec. S1041-42 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (speaking about the
`
`need to avoid “serial challenges” and the resulting burden on the patent owners
`
`from multiple proceedings involving the same patent). As the Committee Report
`
`emphasized, the inter partes re