throbber
(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)Œº(cid:237)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-417
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`VIRNETX, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
`
` Defendants.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)Œº(cid:236)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW............................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION...................................................................2
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.................................................................3
`
`IV. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS..........................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`Disputes Concerning Types of Communication Links............................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“virtual private network” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’135, ’180, and ’759 patents].................................................3
`
`“virtual private link” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent]............................................................................................9
`
`“secure communication link” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’504, ’211, and ’759 patents]...............................................10
`
`B. Disputes Concerning Domain Name, Domain Name
`Service, Secure Domain Name, etc........................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“domain name service” [included in asserted claims
`of the ’135, ’180, ’504, and ’211 patents]..................................................13
`
`“domain name” [included in asserted claims of the
`’135, ’180, ’504, and ’211 patents]............................................................14
`
`“DNS proxy server” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent]..........................................................................................16
`
`“secure domain name service” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’180 patent]..........................................................................17
`
`“domain name service system” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents]..........................................................19
`
`6. “top-level domain name” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’504 and ’211 patents]..........................................................20
`
`C.
`
`Disputes Concerning Web Site, Secure Web Site, Secure
`Web Computer, etc................................................................................................21
`
`1.
`
`“web site” [included in asserted claims of the ’135
`patent]........................................................................................................21
`
`McKool 401908v2
`
`i
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)Œºº
`
`2. “secure web site” [included in asserted claims of the
`’135 patent]................................................................................................21
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“secure target web site” [included in asserted claims
`of the ’135 patent]......................................................................................21
`
`“secure web computer” [included in asserted claims
`of the ’135 patent]......................................................................................22
`
`“secure server” [included in asserted claims of the
`’151 patent]................................................................................................24
`
`6. “target computer” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’135 patent]..........................................................................................24
`
`D.
`
`Disputes Concerning Defendants’ Attempt to Rewrite the
`Claims....................................................................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“between [A] and [B]” [included in asserted claims
`of the ’135, ’151, ’504, ’211, and ’759 patents]........................................26
`
`“determining whether the DNS request transmitted
`in step (1) is requesting access to a secure web site”
`[included in asserted claims of the ’135 patent]........................................26
`
`“generating from the client computer a Domain
`Name Service (DNS) request” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’135 patent]..........................................................................26
`
`“an indication that the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure communication link”
`[included in asserted claims of the ’504 patent]........................................26
`
`“indicate/indicating… whether the domain name
`service system supports establishing a secure
`communication link” [included in asserted claims of
`the ’211 patent]..........................................................................................26
`
`“enabling a secure communication mode of
`communication” [included in asserted claims of the
`’759 patent]................................................................................................27
`
`E. Miscellaneous Dispute...........................................................................................28
`
`1. “cryptographic information” [included in asserted
`claims of the ’759 patent]..........................................................................28
`
`V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................29
`
`McKool 401908v2
`
`ii
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒºŒ
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18125 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2011).......................................................20
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................20
`
`Clearwater Sys. Corp. v. Evapco, Inc.,
`394 Fed. Appx. 699 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................... passim
`
`E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3COM Corp.,
`343 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2011).....................................................................................9
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................16
`
`Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communs., Inc.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2008) (Clark, J.)...........................................27
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................11, 25, 27
`
`Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
`175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................20
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Momentus Golf, Inc. v. Swingrite Golf Corp.,
`187 Fed. Appx. 981 (Fed. Cir. 2006).........................................................................................8
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................2, 22
`
`Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`McKool 401908v2
`
`iii
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» º –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒºØ
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................21
`
`Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.,
`2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20164 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).............................................................9
`
`McKool 401908v2
`
`iv
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» Œ –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒºŁ
`
`I.TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`There are six patents at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (the ’135 patent),
`
`6,839,759 (the ’759 patent), 7,188,180 (the ’180 patent), 7,418,504 (the ’504 patent), 7,490,151
`
`(the ’151 patent), and 7,921,211 (the ’211 patent). The patents are attached in Exhibits 1-6.
`
`The Court has previously construed terms for the ’135, ’759, and ’180 patents in VirnetX
`
`Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Civ. No. 6:07-cv-80 (E.D. Tex.). The Court’s claim construction
`
`opinion from the Microsoft litigation is attached at Ex. A. The new patents belong to the same
`
`family of patent applications.1 As such, the technology at issue in the new patents will be
`
`familiar to the Court.
`
`The patents are all concerned with secure communications. At a high level, the ’135
`
`patent discloses and claims systems and methods that create a virtual private network (VPN)
`
`based on a DNS request. Similarly, the ’504 and ’211 patents disclose and claim a domain name
`
`service system for establishing a secure communication link, and the ’151 patent discloses and
`
`claims a domain name system that establishes an encrypted channel based on a DNS request.
`
`The ’759 patent discloses and claims systems and methods that establish a VPN link using DNS
`
`without a user entering cryptographic information, such as encryption keys. The ’180 patent
`
`discloses and claims systems and methods for a secure domain name service.
`
`These inventions solve several problems known in the prior art. For example, the prior
`
`art required a user to manually set up the VPN e.g., manually configuring the cryptographic keys
`
`required to encrypt and decrypt the messages. Manually-created VPNs were neither flexible nor
`
`easy to use. And business travelers trying to remotely connect to their corporate networks
`
`1 Specifically, the ’211 patent is a continuation of the ’504 patent, which is itself a continuation
`of a continuation-in-part of the application that became the ’135 patent. The ’151 patent is a
`division of the ’135 patent application.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 1 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» Ø –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)Œº(cid:231)
`
`through VPNs had difficulty setting up and using VPNs. See ’135::2:52-63. The inventions of
`
`the patents-in-suit made it easier to create VPNs and other secure communication links. This is
`
`an immense benefit to both users and computers that establish VPNs considering that, in the
`
`prior art, VPN and other secure communications that were difficult to set up were infrequently
`
`used, leaving sensitive communications unprotected.
`
`II.PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`VirnetX proposes constructions of the claims of the patents-in-suit in accordance with
`
`long-established principles of claim construction—giving a claim term its ordinary meaning that
`
`one of skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in light of the patent’s specification and
`
`prosecution history, would have given it, except in two unusual circumstances: (1) where the
`
`intrinsic record provides a special definition for the term; or (2) where the patentee disclaims a
`
`portion of the term’s ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316–
`
`17 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
`
`the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
`
`embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citing Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM
`
`Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Limitations from the specification
`
`should not be read into the claims unless the patentee “acted as his own lexicographer and
`
`imbued the claim terms with a particular meaning or disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage,
`
`by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3COM
`
`Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
`
`Defendants seek to construe the claims in ways that have no basis in these or other
`
`principles of construction. Because the Court is familiar with the law of claim construction as
`
`well as the patents-in-suit, VirnetX will discuss specific claim construction principles only where
`
`applicable to each dispute.
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 2 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» Ł –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒ(cid:240)
`
`III.LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Just as in the Microsoft litigation, VirnetX proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have a Master’s degree in computer science or computer engineering as well as two
`
`years of experience in computer networking with some accompanying exposure to network
`
`security. See Jones Decl. at ¶ 5. The Defendants have not disclosed a contention as to the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV.DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.Disputes Concerning Types of Communication Links
`
`1. “virtual private network” [included in asserted claims of the ’135, ’180, and ’759 patents]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a network of computers which privately and
`a network of computers which privately
`directly communicate with each other by
`communicate with each other by encrypting
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`traffic on insecure communication paths between
`communication paths between the computers
`the computers
`where the communication is both secure and
`anonymous.
`
`For the term “virtual private network,” or “VPN,” VirnetX proposes a construction
`
`identical to the Court’s construction in the
`
`Microsoft case.
`
`See Ex. A (the Court’s claim
`
`construction Memorandum in VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 6:07-cv-80) at 35. The
`
`Defendants propose the same construction, but with two modifications: (i) the “where the
`
`communication is both secure and anonymous” language; and (ii) the “directly” language. As
`
`explained below, there is no legally justifiable basis for these modifications, and they would
`
`impose erroneous, extraneous limitations into the claim.
`
`“Anonymous.” The Defendants’ proposed language comes from the Court’s Microsoft
`
`claim construction opinion, which states that the term “virtual private network” requires “both
`
`data security and anonymity.” See Ex. A. at 9. Respectfully, VirnetX submits that the Court was
`
`incorrect in requiring anonymity.
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 3 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:231) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒ(cid:239)
`
`The Court was correct that the ’135 patent discloses a way to achieve anonymity, i.e.,
`
`“preventing[ing] an eavesdropper from discovering that terminal 100 is in communication with
`
`terminal 110.” See Ex. A at 8 (citing the patent). But it does not follow that every claim in the
`
`patent is directed toward achieving anonymity. Rather, only the dependent, “IP address
`
`hopping” claims of the ’135 patent (e.g., claims 6, and 14-17) achieve the anonymity
`
`contemplated by the patent. Specifically, the patent discusses how traffic analysis can defeat
`
`anonymity by determining the identities of transmitters and receivers and how this is a problem
`
`for various prior art communication schemes. See Background of the Invention, ’135::1:57-592
`
`(“[P]roxy schemes are vulnerable to traffic analysis methods of determining identities of
`
`transmitters and receivers.”) (emphasis added) see also ’135::2:46-47 (“[O]nion-routing . . . can
`
`be defeated using traffic analysis.”) (emphasis added). The patent addresses the threat of
`
`traffic analysis through its disclosed IP address hopping scheme. See ’135::5:13-20 (“IP address
`
`changes [i.e., IP address hopping] made by TARP terminals and routers can be done at regular
`
`intervals, at random intervals, or upon detection of ‘attacks.’ The variation of IP addresses
`
`hinders traffic analysis that might reveal which computers are communicating, and also
`
`provides a degree of immunity from attack.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Separate and apart from the problem of traffic analysis vis-à-vis anonymity, the patent
`
`also disclosed a new, better way to establish VPNs. See ’135::32:29-35 (“The following
`
`describes various improvements and features that can be applied to the embodiments described
`
`above. The improvements include: (1) . . . (2) a DNS proxy server that transparently creates a
`
`virtual private network in response to a domain name inquiry[.]”). Claims 1, 10, and 13 claim
`
`2 This brief uses the notation such as “’135::1:57-59” to refer to the lines 57 through 59 of
`column 1 of the ’135 patent.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 4 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:240) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒ(cid:238)
`
`are directed to this improvement, and these claims do not include the “IP address hopping”
`
`limitation.3
`
`In addition to revisiting the Court’s opinion regarding the requirement of anonymity, it is
`
`important to revisit Microsoft’s arguments that supported it. Microsoft argued that anonymity is
`
`a “primary purpose” of all VPNs. See Claim Construction Tr. from the Microsoft case, attached
`
`as Ex. C, at 34:18-24.4 Microsoft’s lawyer then discussed an example VPN scheme—
`
`encapsulation—to attempt to demonstrate that this is true. See Ex. C at 35:9-25. But contrary to
`
`Microsoft’s lawyer’s representations, the purpose of encapsulation is not to hide the IP addresses
`
`of the inner IP packet. See Jones Decl. at ¶ 6. Rather, the purpose of encapsulation is to enable
`
`computers to communicate as though they were on the same, private network. See id. Namely,
`
`in an encapsulation scheme, the outer IP packet transports the inner IP packet across the Internet
`
`and to the private network. See id. The private network then extracts the inner IP packet and
`
`routes it just as if the packet had originated within the network. In this way, the “anonymity” of
`
`the inner packet’s IP addresses is merely a consequence of the true purpose of encapsulation—
`
`enabling computers to communicate as if they were on the same private network. See id. This
`
`3 The Court cited the specification’s discussion of IP addresses “still be hopped” for the
`proposition that “the modifications of the invention retain the anonymity feature.” See Ex. A at 9
`(citing ’135::23:20-25). The modification claimed in claims 1, 10, and 13, however, is discussed
`under the subheading “B. Use of a DNS Proxy to Transparently Create Virtual Private
`Networks,” which begins at col. 37, line 17. In that section, IP address hopping is described as
`merely “one embodiment.” See ’135::38:33-35 (“In one embodiment, gatekeeper 2603 creates
`“hopblocks” to be used by computer 2601 and secure target site 2604.”).
`4 The page numbers that VirnetX cites refer to the transcription page number and not the page
`numbers of the *.txt file. For clarity, 34:18-24 refers to the following argument: “Now, our view
`is that there are two primary purposes in a private network and VPN, as borne out by the
`specifications of the patents but also by the ordinary meaning to those skilled in the art. The first
`is data security, and the second is anonymity.”
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 5 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:239) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒ(cid:237)
`
`view of VPNs is entirely consistent with the prosecution history of the ’135 patent. See Ex. B5 at
`
`126 (explaining that Aventail does not teach a VPN because computers connected via the
`
`Aventail system are not able to communicate with each other “as though they were on the same
`
`network.”). Moreover, this view of VPNs is already supported by the Court’s construction for
`
`this term in that a VPN allows computers to “privately communicate with each other.”
`
`“Directly.” The Defendants propose that computers communicating in a VPN must
`
`“directly” communicate with each other. Setting aside the ambiguity that this limitation would
`
`create,7 this language should be rejected because there is no limiting language in the claims,
`
`written description or prosecution history requiring that computers must communicate “directly”
`
`in order to constitute a VPN. See Clearwater Sys. Corp. v. Evapco, Inc., 394 Fed. Appx. 699,
`
`706 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“There is no limiting language in the claims, written description, or
`
`prosecution history requiring that the ‘power source’ power the entire apparatus. Accordingly,
`
`the district court improperly imported an extraneous limitation into the claim.”).
`
`5 Exhibit B contains selected excerpts to the prosecution history from the original examination
`and re-examination of the ’135 patent.
`6 For the Court’s convenience, VirnetX included page numbers for all of the prosecution history
`exhibits. The page numbers that VirnetX added are in blue font in the lower right-hand corner.
`When VirnetX cites to specific pages of these exhibits, VirnetX is referring to these blue page
`numbers.
`7 In the context of computer communications, the word “directly” is very ambiguous as most
`computer topologies include numerous network devices between two computers that are
`communicating. VirnetX did not argue that the term “directly” precluded the presence of
`intermediate network connections on the path between the client and the target that relay traffic.
`Rather, during reexamination, VirnetX explained that computers connected to the Aventail
`system did not communicate directly because “[a]ll communications between the client and
`target stop and start at the intermediate SOCKS server.” Ex. B at 14. If the Court were to accept
`the Defendants’ “directly” language in their proposed construction, VirnetX fully expects the
`Defendants to attempt to exploit this ambiguity in asserting non-infringement defenses based on
`intermediate network devices.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 6 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:238) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒ(cid:236)
`
`Presumably, the Defendants will rely on the prosecution history as allegedly supporting
`
`constituting a disclaimer of scope, but the prosecution history gives no such support. As this
`
`Court is well aware, not every description of a prior art reference is automatically a disclaimer of
`
`scope. Rather, disclaimer is found when a patentee makes clear and unmistakable prosecution
`
`arguments limiting the meaning of a claim term in order to overcome a rejection. See Omega
`
`Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Where the patentee has
`
`unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution
`
`disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of
`
`the surrender.”). An exemplary case of prosecution history disclaimer is Rheox, Inc. v. Entact,
`
`Inc., 276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In that case, the patentee explicitly disclaimed compounds
`
`of higher solubility to overcome an anticipation rejection; as a result, the patentee was barred
`
`from later arguing that the claims should encompass such compounds. See id. at 1326.
`
`In the re-examination of the ’135 patent, VirnetX provided three reasons why Aventail
`
`did not teach a VPN. See Ex. B at 12-15. The three basic distinctions that VirnetX made over
`
`Aventail were: first, that “Aventail has not been shown to demonstrate that computers connected
`
`via the Aventail system are able to communicate with each other as though they were on the
`
`same network,” see Ex. B at 12-13; second that “Aventail Connect’s fundamental operation is
`
`incompatible with users transmitting data that is sensitive to network information,” see Ex. B at
`
`13-14; and third, that “Aventail has not been shown to disclose a VPN because computers
`
`connected according to Aventail do not communicate directly with each other,” see Ex. B at 14.8
`
`As such, unlike the patentee in Rheox, VirnetX was not forced to overcome a reference by
`
`8 VirnetX also disputed that the Aventail reference is prior art.
`See Ex. B at 9-11. After
`unsuccessfully searching to find evidence establishing Aventail as prior art, the examiner
`concluded that “Aventail cannot be relied upon as prior art to the ’135 patent.” See Ex. B. at 4-5.
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 7 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:237) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒº
`
`disclaiming a certain scope of VPN taught by Aventail. Rather, VirnetX overcame Aventail on
`
`the ground that Aventail did not teach a VPN at all.
`
`Moreover, because VirnetX offered three distinctions over the Aventail reference, there
`
`can be no “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer as to any one, isolated distinction. Momentus
`
`Golf, Inc. v. Swingrite Golf Corp., 187 Fed. Appx. 981 (Fed. Cir. 2006) is instructive on this
`
`point. In that case, a patentee distinguished its patented golf club swing aide over a prior art
`
`reference on two grounds during prosecution. Namely the patentee argued to the USPTO that a
`
`prior art golf club swing aide did not meet a claim term because the prior art golf club swing aide
`
`was hollow and had a 10-25% club head weight. See id. at 984. The district court treated the
`
`weight distinction—in isolation—as a disclaimer of scope, and the Federal Circuit found that to
`
`be an erroneous application of prosecution history disclaimer. See id. The Federal Circuit
`
`explained that the patentee’s statements did not meet the “clear and unmistakable” test because it
`
`was unclear whether the patentee disclaimed hollow devices as well as devices with 10-25% club
`
`head weight or alternatively whether the patentee merely disclaimed hollow devices with 10-
`
`25% club head weights. See id. Similarly, the Defendants cannot meet the “clear and
`
`unmistakable” test with respect to one of VirnetX’s three distinctions over the Aventail
`
`reference.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its
`
`dicta concerning the meaning of “private” and in any event not require anonymity for the claim
`
`term “virtual private network.”
`
`VIRNETX’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`McKool 401908v2
`
`PAGE 8 OF 29
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC-EX.1017
`
`

`
`(cid:221)¿›» Œ(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:240)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:240)(cid:236)(cid:239)Ø(cid:243)(cid:212)(cid:219)(cid:220) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:239)Ø(cid:237) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:239)(cid:239)æ(cid:240)(cid:236)æ(cid:239)(cid:239) —¿„» (cid:239)(cid:236) –” (cid:237)Œ —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:253)(cid:230) (cid:238)ŒŒŒ
`
`2. “virtual private link” [included in asserted claims of the ’135 patent]
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a communication link that permits computers to
`a communication pathway that permits
`privately communicate with each other by
`computers to privately communicate with
`encrypting traffic on insecure communication
`each other by encrypting traffic on insecure
`paths between the computers
`communication paths between the computers
`and accomplishes data security and
`anonymity through the use of hop tables.
`
`VirnetX’s proposed construction for this term is adapted from the Court’s construction
`
`for “virtual private network” in the Microsoft case. See Ex. A at 35. The Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction is identical to VirnetX’s, but it includes the phrase “and accomplishes data security
`
`and anonymity through the use of hop tables.” For the reasons stated in § IV.A.1, supra, the
`
`Court should reject the Defendants’ attempt to impose the “anonymity” and “hop table”
`
`limitations into this claim.
`
`Further, the Defendants’ proposed construction would render the dependent claims
`
`superfluous. Specifically, claims 14 through 17 of the ’135 patent add the additional
`
`requirements that are directed to IP hopping. For example, claim 16 requires that the IP
`
`a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket