UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`(now STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.)
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Filing Date: September 25, 1995
`
`Issue Date: August 22, 2000
`
`Title: POINT-TO-POINT INTERNET PROTOCOL
`
`___________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00246, Filing Date April 11, 2013
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`I. BACKGROUND FACTS ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’704 Patent ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`The ’704 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings ................................................... 2
`
`Related District Court Litigation Involving the ’704 Patent ............................................ 4
`
`II. PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Party In Interest ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art References ...................................................................... 4
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art Combinations and Grounds for Invalidity ...................... 5
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Claim Constructions ...................................................................... 5
`
`Petitioner’s “Overview of Invalidity Analysis” ............................................................... 6
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Threshold Standard for Inter Partes Review ................................................................... 7
`
`Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Evaluating Petitions for Inter
`B.
`Partes Review ............................................................................................................................. 7
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`I. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`The Petition Does Not Meaningfully Identify the Proper Claim Construction to Be
`A.
`Applied As Required By 37 § C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3) .................................................................... 9
`
`The Petition Consists Primarily of Conclusory Assertions and Unsupported Attorney
`B.
`Arguments Rather Than the Detailed Analysis and Explanation Required By 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22 and 42.104(b) .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`The Petition Relies on Prior Art References and Arguments That Were the Same As or
`C.
`Substantially Similar to Those Previously Raised During the Ex Parte Reexamination
`Proceedings ............................................................................................................................... 11
`
`The Petition Does Not Appear to Identify All “Real Parties in Interest” as Required By
`D.
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`II. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
`ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS UNDER FEDERAL CIRCUIT LAW ....................... 14
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted References Fail to Meet the Strict Standards for “Prior Art” Under
`A.
`Federal Circuit Law .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner Has Failed to Qualify Its “Printed Publications” as “Publicly Accessible”
`1.
`Prior Art References ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Cannot Rely on Wikipedia to Establish a Prior Art Date .......................... 16
`
`Petitioner’s Submission of Incomplete Prior Art References Precludes a Proper
`3.
`Anticipation and Obviousness Analysis ............................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Relies on a Flawed and Incomplete Anticipation Analysis ....................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Relies on a Combination of References to Argue Anticipation ................. 19
`
`Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments are Insufficient Under Federal Circuit Law .... 21
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Relies on a Flawed and Incomplete Obviousness Analysis ...................... 22
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IS UNWARRANTED IN VIEW OF THE COMBINED
`III.
`PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFICIENCIES IN THE PETITION ........................ 25
`
`A. Messenger………………………………………………………………………….…..25
`
`B. Messenger and (NetBIOS or WINS)…...………………………………………….…..26
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`NetBIOS and WINS……………………………………………………………….…..27
`
`NetBIOS..………………………………………………………………………….…..29
`
`E. WINS…...………………………………………………………………………….…..30
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`DNS 1, DNS 2, and DNS Orig. …..……………………………………………….…..30
`
`DEC '652.………………………………………………………………………….…...32
`
`(DNS 1/2/Orig.) and (VocalTec or Taligent '278 or '704 Patent admitted prior art)......33
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 15
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Bev. Container Corp.,
`635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 22
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 11
`Ex parte Bailey,
`No. 2010-010310, Application No. 11,168,650, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 2470 (Pat. App. Apr.
`25, 2013) ................................................................................................................................... 16
`Ex parte Mandy,
`No. 2011-000015, Application No. 10/537,714, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 3163 (Pat. App. May
`23, 2013) ................................................................................................................................... 16
`Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`437 F.3d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 11
`Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc.,
`45 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1995)................................................................................................... 11
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................................................... 22
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed Cir. 2006).................................................................................................... 25
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 15
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................... 22
`In re Wyer,
`655 F.2d 221 (CCPA 1981) ...................................................................................................... 15
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 11
`Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp.,
`121 F.3d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 21
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 10, 17
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 16
`Northern Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.,
`908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`774 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................. 18
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 25
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 5
`Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc.,
`739 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................... 11
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)....................................................................................... 15
`Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................. 12
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, mbH v. Dart Indus., Inc.,
`726 F.2d 724 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................... 20
`Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc.,
`2009 WL 1152985 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ........................................................................................ 17
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 20
`TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`608 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 25
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................................... 7, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ............................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................................ 7, 8, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 .......................................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .......................................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 ............................................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc., formerly Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this response opposing the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review filed by SIPNET EU S.R.O. (“Petitioner”) in connection with U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`(“the ’704 patent”). Petitioner’s request for inter partes review is based on arguments that are
`
`both procedurally and substantively deficient in view of the applicable rules and patent doctrines
`
`established by the Board and the Federal Circuit, respectively.
`
`The Petition is procedurally flawed because it fails to identify a consistent claim
`
`construction throughout its analysis, relies on conclusory assertions and unsubstantiated attorney
`
`arguments in lieu of detailed explanations of the significance of the asserted prior art, fails to
`
`identify all real parties in interest as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), and repeatedly fails to
`
`provide meaningful analysis or argument for each and every limitation of the challenged claims
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Further, the Petition also asserts arguments that were
`
`the same or substantially similar to those previously raised during ex parte reexamination
`
`proceedings.
`
`The Petition is also substantively flawed. First, the Petition relies on legally insufficient
`
`prior art references, including references that are not patents or printed publications, as required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104. Second, the Petition relies on a combination of multiple references to
`
`argue anticipation, and fails to establish anticipation by any single reference. Third, the
`
`Petitioner fails to include complete copies of several references, which precludes a proper
`
`analysis of the entire reference as a whole. Fourth, the obviousness analysis asserted by the
`
`Petitioner is incomplete in that it lacks an analysis of the Graham factors, and instead consists of
`
`general, conclusory attorney arguments, without expert support, that it would have been “clearly
`
`obvious” to combine the asserted references.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Request for Inter Partes Review should be denied, for the
`
`reasons explained more fully below.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The ’704 Patent
`
`The ’704 patent is entitled “Point-to-point internet protocol,” and was filed September 25,
`
`1995 and issued on August 22, 2000. As stated in the Abstract of the ’704 patent, the claimed
`
`invention relates generally to “[a] point-to-point Internet protocol [that] exchanges Internet
`
`Protocol (IP) addresses between processing units to establish a point-to-point communications
`
`link between the processing units through the Internet.”
`
`B.
`
`The ’704 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings
`
`The ‘704 patent was previously the subject of a third-party request for ex parte
`
`reexamination initiated on February 17, 2009 (Control No. 90/010,416). That request “assert[ed]
`
`that claims 1-7 and 10-44 of the ‘704 patent are unpatentable over prior art references not before
`
`the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during prosecution of the ‘704 patent.” 1 Several
`
`references were asserted during those proceedings, including the NetBIOS, DNS, Etherphone,
`
`Vin, RFC 1531, Pinard, and VocalChat references. On March 11, 2009, the Patent Office
`
`granted the request for ex parte reexamination with respect to all requested claims. On October
`
`26, 2010, the Patent Office issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of
`
`claims 1-7 and 32-42.2
`
`
`1 Ex. 2002, Request for Ex Parte Reexamination at 1.
`
`2 Ex. 2003, Reexamination Certificate. The reexamination certificate also indicates that claims
`10, 21, 43, and 44 were canceled during reexamination, claims 8-9 were not reexamined, and that
`the remaining claims were patentable as amended during reexamination.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`In the reexamination proceedings, Patent Owner demonstrated that the limitations
`
`including a “connection to the computer network” established a dynamic element that was not
`
`present in the submitted prior art.3 Specifically, Patent Owner noted that the asserted references,
`
`including both NetBIOS and DNS, did not demonstrate actions “following connection to the
`
`computer network.” Further, Patent Owner pointed out that the “active” limitation of NetBIOS
`
`“is not synonymous with an ‘on-line status with respect to the computer network.’”4 As the
`
`Patent Owner noted, “[a]n active name simply refers to a name that has been registered and that
`
`has not yet been de-registered, independent of whether the associated computer is or is not on-
`
`line.”5 The Patent Office agreed with the Patent Owner on these points, and confirmed the
`
`patentability of the claims under reexamination. The Office explained that the prior art did not
`
`teach or disclose various limitations required by the claims:
`
`[P]rior art does not explicitly teach program code for transmitting to the
`server a network protocol address received by the first process following
`connection to the computer network (claim 1), each network protocol
`address stored in the memory following connection of a respective process
`to the computer network (claim 2), each of the network protocol addresses
`received following connection of the respective process to the network
`(claim 4),… the Internet Protocol address added to the list following
`connection of the process to the computer network (claim 32), the network
`protocol address of the corresponding process assigned to the process
`upon connection to the computer network (claim 33), the network protocol
`address of the corresponding process assigned to the process upon
`connection to the computer network (claim 38), in combination with the
`remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.6
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Ex. 2004, Response to Non-Final Rejection in a Re-Examination at 7. (“NetBIOS
`does not provide dynamic addressing or on-line status…[T]he claim mapping does not allege,
`much less prove, that NetBIOS teaches ‘the network protocol address of each respective process
`forwarded to the database following connection to the computer network.’”)
`
`4 Id. at 11.
`
`5 Id.
`
`6 Ex. 2005, Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate at 2-3. (emphasis added)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`The ex parte reexamination proceeding therefore established that the submitted prior art
`
`failed to disclose limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`C.
`
`Related District Court Litigation Involving the ’704 Patent
`
`The ex parte reexamination was instituted during co-pending district court litigation in
`
`Net2Phone, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., No. 06-2469 (D.N.J., filed June 1, 2006) (“Skype litigation”). As
`
`also noted in the Petition, the ’704 patent was also the subject of other litigation in the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia (“Stalker litigation”).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Real Party In Interest
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Inter Partes Review identifies Sipnet EU S.R.O. (“Sipnet”) as
`
`the only alleged real party in interest.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art References
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Sipnet’s Petition requests cancellation of claims 1-7 and 32-
`
`42 as anticipated and/or obvious in view of the following prior art references. Significantly,
`
`many of the individual prior art “references” identified by Petitioner require the combination of
`
`multiple references and Exhibits together (see, e.g., Messenger, WINS, and DNS 1/2/Orig), as
`
`summarized in the Table below:
`
`Reference
`
`Title/Description
`
`Messenger
`
`LAN Manager 2.0; Messenger – NT Unleashed
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`1011 & 1012
`
`NetBIOS
`
`Technical Standard-Protocols for X/Open PC Interworking:
`SMB, Version 2 w/ Appendices F&G
`
`1003
`
`WINS
`
`Windows NT 3.5 TCP/IP User Guide &
`
`Wikipedia entry allegedly establishing September 21, 1994
`as release date of Windows NT 3.5
`
`1004 &
`
`1005
`
`DNS (1, 2, and
`Orig.)
`
`DNS Dynamic Updates and RFC1034 Domain Names-
`Concepts and Facilities
`
`1006, 1007,
`& 1013
`
`DEC ’652
`
`Digital Equipment Corporation Patent 5,483,652
`
`1010
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`VocalTec
`
`VocalTec ware lets users make voice calls over ‘Net’
`
`Taligent ’278
`
`Taligent Patent 5,566,278
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art Combinations and Grounds for Invalidity
`
`Petitioner bases its request for inter partes review on a number of prior art references,
`
`alone and in combination, as summarized in the Table below:
`
`Asserted Prior Art Reference(s)
`
`Anticipation
`
`A Messenger
`
`B Messenger and (NetBIOS or WINS)
`
`C NetBIOS and WINS
`
`D NetBIOS
`
`E WINS
`
`F DNS 1, DNS 2, and DNS Orig.
`
`G DEC ‘652
`
`H
`
`(DNS 1/2/Orig) and (VocalTec or Taligent ‘278 or
`‘704 Patent admitted prior art)
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s request recites the “broadest reasonable construction” standard for claim
`
`construction applicable during inter partes review, and states that “in general the claim terms are
`
`presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning.”7 Beyond this conclusory and
`
`boilerplate recitation, however, Petitioner does not provide any meaningful claim construction
`
`analysis based on the principles articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp.,8 and in fact does not
`
`meaningfully identify or apply any particular claim constructions whatsoever.
`
`
`7 IPR2013-00246, Paper No. 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) at 5.
`
`8 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Instead, Petitioner merely catalogs claim constructions that were proposed by Patent
`
`Owner and/or adopted by the district court in related litigation proceedings,9 and states that the
`
`claim constructions “presented either implicitly or explicitly herein should not be viewed as
`
`constituting, in whole or in part, Petitioner’s own interpretation and/or construction of such
`
`claims,” and “expressly reserves the right to present other interpretations of any of the ‘704
`
`patent claims at a later time, which interpretation may differ, in whole or in part, from that
`
`presented herein.”10 Petitioner also includes a representative claim chart for claim 1 of the ’704
`
`patent, accompanied by a “Plain English Summary” of the claim language.11 Accordingly, it is
`
`entirely unclear what claim construction Petitioner has applied throughout its request for inter
`
`partes review—(1) the “broadest reasonable construction,” (2) “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” (3) the constructions proposed by Patent Owner and/or adopted by the district court in
`
`related litigation proceedings, or (4) the “plain English” summary provided by Petitioner.
`
`E.
`
`Petitioner’s “Overview of Invalidity Analysis”
`
`At pages 10 to 18 of its request, Petitioner provides an “Overview of Invalidity
`
`Analysis,” which purports to summarize the teachings and disclosures of the ’704 patent, the
`
`asserted prior art references, and the Patent Owner’s alleged representations during prior
`
`reexamination and/or litigation proceedings. However, this analysis is generally devoid of any
`
`specific citations or supporting evidence. Petitioner’s failure to provide specific citations to
`
`intrinsic and/or extrinsic record materials renders it impossible for the Patent Owner, and the
`
`Patent Office, to meaningfully evaluate and respond to Petitioner’s arguments, respectively.
`
`
`9 Petition at 5-7.
`
`10 Id. at 8.
`
`11 Id. at 9.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Threshold Standard for Inter Partes Review
`
`The applicable standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth at 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which provides in relevant part:
`
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the director determines that . . . there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`in the petition.
`
`B.
`
`Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Evaluating Petitions
`for Inter Partes Review
`
`The applicable statutes and regulations provide a number of relevant factors that the
`
`Board may consider in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review proceeding.
`
`Specifically, a petition must identify, “in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged,
`
`the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the
`
`grounds for the challenge to each claim.”12 This standard requires that every petition include a
`
`“detailed explanation of the significant of the evidence including material facts, and the
`
`governing law, rules, and precedent,” and each “material fact preferably shall be set forth as a
`
`separately numbered sentence with specific citations to portions of the record that support the
`
`fact.”13
`
`For each claim challenged by the petition, Petitioner must identify “[h]ow the challenged
`
`claim is to be construed,”14 and “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the
`
`
`12 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`
`13 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) & (c).
`
`14 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”15 “The Board may exclude or give no
`
`weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific
`
`portions of the evidence that support the challenge.”16 “Expert testimony that does not disclose
`
`the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”17
`
`The Petition must also identify “all real parties in interest.”18
`
`“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding . . . the Director may take into
`
`account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments were presented to the Office.”19
`
`
`
`The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition “setting forth the reasons
`
`why no inter partes review should be instituted.”20 “Where a party files an incomplete petition”
`
`that fails to satisfy all the requirements of § 42.104, “no filing date will be accorded, and the
`
`Office will dismiss the petition if the deficiency in the petition is not corrected within one month
`
`from the notice of an incomplete petition.”21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`16 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`17 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`18 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`19 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`20 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).
`
`21 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`ARGUMENT
`
`As explained below, Petitioner’s request for inter partes review should be denied,
`
`because it (1) fails to satisfy the stringent procedural requirements for inter partes review as
`
`required by the applicable statutes and regulations, and (2) further fails to satisfy the substantive
`
`requirements for anticipation and obviousness under well-established Federal Circuit law.
`
`I.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Petition should be denied because it fails to satisfy the stringent procedural
`
`requirements for instituting inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Does Not Meaningfully Identify the Proper Claim Construction
`to Be Applied As Required By 37 § C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)
`
`As noted earlier, the Petition notably does not make clear what proposed claim
`
`construction Petitioner has applied in advancing its various arguments in support of inter partes
`
`review. To the contrary, Petitioner identifies four possible (and potentially different) claim
`
`constructions, including (1) the “broadest reasonable construction,” (2) “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” (3) constructions proposed by Patent Owner and/or adopted by the district court in
`
`related litigation proceedings, or (4) “plain English,” and then disclaims any one construction as
`
`the Petitioner’s own interpretation.22 Petitioner then attempts to “expressly reserve[] the right to
`
`present other interpretations of any of the ‘704 patent claims at a later time.” 23 This refusal to
`
`clarify its particular claim construction position is in direct violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3),
`
`which requires that the petition specify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” Because
`
`Petitioner’s failure to comply renders it impossible for Patent Owner to meaningfully respond,
`
`
`22 Petition at 8.
`
`23 Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`and likewise renders it impossible for the Patent Office to meaningfully evaluate the merits of
`
`the Petition, the Petition should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Consists Primarily of Conclusory Assertions and Unsupported
`Attorney Arguments Rather Than the Detailed Analysis and Explanation
`Required By 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b)
`
`The plain language of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) requires that each petition must include a
`
`“detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts,” with each
`
`material fact preferably “set forth as a separately numbered sentence with specific citations to
`
`portions of the record that support the fact.” The Petition fails to provide any such “detailed
`
`explanation” or analysis of the “significance of the evidence.” Instead, the Petition repeatedly
`
`offers only conclusory assertions and unsubstantiated attorney arguments that are insufficient to
`
`warrant inter partes review.
`
`For example, Petitioner’s “Overview of invalidity analysis,” set forth at pages 10-18 of
`
`the Petition, purports to discuss a wide variety of subject matter, including (1) the teachings and
`
`capabilities of the asserted prior art references, including NetBIOS, WINS, Messenger, and
`
`Dynamic DNS; (2) the respective positions advanced and accepted by the Patent Owner and
`
`Examiner during ex parte reexamination and litigation; and (3) the scope of the ’704 patent.
`
`However, Petitioner fails to provide any meaningful discussion or explanation of its conclusory
`
`assertions on these topics, nor does Petitioner provide any specific record citations to support its
`
`various assertions.24 Petitioner’s failure to provide this required analysis or evidence renders it
`
`impossible for the Patent Owner to meaningfully evaluate and respond to those assertions, and
`
`
`24 The Petition includes a series of “Claim Charts” following its analysis that include specific
`citations to its asserted references. However, such citations in the absence of meaningful
`discussion or explanation of their context are insufficient, as Petitioner must provide context to
`the quotations to demonstrate that the citations “disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the
`claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See infra,
`Argument II.B.2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`likewise renders it impossible to meaningfully evaluate the merits of the Petition. This is
`
`particularly problematic given the technical subject matter of the ‘704 patent, since
`
`“[u]nsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no
`
`substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”25
`
`The rules make clear that the “Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence
`
`where a party has failed to state its relevance,”26 and it should do so here. Petitioner’s failure to
`
`provide the requisite analysis and evidence precludes a finding of a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success on the merits, and accordingly, the Petition should be denied.27
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Relies on Prior Art References and Arguments That Were the
`Same As or Substantially Similar to Those Previously Raised During the Ex
`Parte Reexamination Proceedings
`
`The Petition also substantially relies on prior art references and related arguments that
`
`were previously asserted and ultimately deemed unpersuasive during the ex parte reexamination.
`
`Specifically, the Petition asserts the NetBIOS and DNS references as grounds for inter partes
`
`review.28 The Petition merely rehashes the same or substantially similar arguments with respect
`
`
`25 Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`26 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`27 By way of analogy, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that conclusory assertions and
`unsupported attorney arguments are insufficient to establish even a “dispute” of fact to avoid
`summary judgment, and it therefore follows that the same failure will be insufficient to