UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00375
`
`Patent 6,502,135
`Issue Date: Dec. 31, 2002
`Title: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`WITH ASSURED SYSTEM AVAILABILITY
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,502,135
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 1
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST .................................................................... 1
`B. STANDING ..................................................................................................... 1
`C. RELATED MATTERS .................................................................................... 1
`D. NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ........................................... 4
`E. SERVICE INFORMATION ............................................................................ 4
`F. PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER ..................................... 5
`G. FEE ................................................................................................................... 5
`II. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................... 5
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 6
`A. The ‘135 Patent ................................................................................................ 6
`B. Original Prosecution History of the ‘135 Patent .............................................. 8
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 8
`A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 9
`B. Proposed Claim Constructions ....................................................................... 10
`V. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION OF
`CLAIMS .................................................................................................................. 19
`A. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 are Unpatentable Over Kiuchi ...................................... 19
`B. Request 1 – Claims 1, 3, and 7 are Anticipated by Kiuchi and Claim 8 is
`Obvious over Kiuchi ............................................................................................. 28
`Ground 1. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 28
`Ground 2. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 32
`Ground 3. Claim 7 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 32
`Ground 4. Claim 8 Would Have Been Obvious in view of Kiuchi ................... 34
`C. Request 2 – Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 are Anticipated by Kiuchi ......................... 37
`Ground 5. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 40
`Ground 6. Claim 3 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 44
`Ground 7. Claim 7 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 44
`Ground 8. Claim 8 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 45
`D. Request 3 – Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 are Unpatentable over Dalton in view of
`Kiuchi ................................................................................................................... 47
`Ground 9. Claim 1 Would Have Been Obvious over Dalton/Kiuchi ................ 51
`Ground 10. Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious over Dalton/Kiuchi .............. 56
`Ground 11. Claim 7 Would Have Been Obvious over Dalton/Kiuchi .............. 57
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Ground 12. Claim 8 Would Have Been Obvious over Dalton/Kiuchi .............. 58
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AirCraft Medical LTD. v. Verathon Inc., Reexam. Control No. 95/000,161, Appeal
`2012-007851, p. 16 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2012) ........................................................... 9
`Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1996) .................... 10
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15
`(PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013) .............................................................................................. 9
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................. 9
`Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48
`USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 10
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401; 127 S.Ct. 1727, 173 (2007) .. 37
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998) 9
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc).................. 9
`RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 96 S.Ct. 1532 (1976) ....................... 37
`VirnetX Inc. and Science Applications International Corporation v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:12cv855 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................... 1
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:13cv211, (E.D. Tex.) ................................... 1
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 ..................................... 13
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 (E.D. Tex.) .................... 1
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417, (E.D. Tex.) ................... 2
`VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al., Case No. 6:11cv18, (E.D. Tex.) ......... 2
`VirnetX Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:13cv351, (E.D. Tex.) ..... 2
`VirnetX Inc.v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 ................................ 12
`VirnetX v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .......... 13
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07cv80, (E.D. Tex.) ................ 2
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:10cv94, (E.D. Tex.) ................ 2
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................................ 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) .......................................................................................... 5, 19, 47
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2),(d) ......................................................................................... 10
`35 USC §317(b) ......................................................................................................... 3
`Treatises
`18 Susan Bandes & Lawrence B. Solum, Moore's Federal Practice §134-30, at 134-
`63 (3d ed.1998) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 to Munger et al. (hereinafter “the ‘135
`Patent)
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP - The
`Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the
`Internet,” published by IEEE in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996
`(hereinafter “Kiuchi”)
`
`1003.
`
`C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to
`the Internet,” published in the Proceedings of JENC8, May 1997
`(hereinafter “Dalton”)
`
`1004. W. Richard Stevens, “TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols”
`(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1994), page 187
`
`1005. Windows Sockets – An Open Interface for Network Programming
`Under Microsoft Windows, Version 1.1, January 20, 1993 (copy
`obtained from http://www.sockets.com/winsock.htm)
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`eCOS Reference Manual, Chapter 38, TCP/IP Library Reference,
`gethostbyname, March 13, 1997 (copy obtained from
`http://www.ecos.sourceware.org/docs-2.0/ref/net-common-tcpip-
`manpages-gethostbyname.html)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,449,657 to Stanbach, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “the
`‘657 Patent)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,003 to Farris (hereinafter “the ‘003 Patent)
`
`Declaration of Russell Housley with Appendices
`
`Braden, “Requirements for Internet Hosts – Application and
`Support,” Internet Engineering Task Force Request for Comments
`
`vi
`
`

`
`(RFC) 1123, October 1989.
`
`1011. MS Markman Order 7/30/09
`
`1012.
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`1015.
`
`1016.
`
`1017.
`
`1018.
`
`Apple Pretrial Proceedings 10/18/12
`
`Apple Transcript Morning 10/31/12
`
`Apple Transcript Morning 11/1/12
`
`Apple Memorandum Opinion and Order 2/26/13
`
`Cisco/Apple Memorandum Opinion and Order 4/25/12
`
`VirnetX Opening Claim Construction Brief in Apple/Cisco 11/4/11
`
`VirnetX Reply Claim Construction Brief in Apple/Cisco 12/19/11
`
`1019. Microsoft Transcript Morning 3/9/10
`
`1020. Microsoft Transcript Afternoon 3/9/10
`
`1021.
`
`1022.
`
`1023.
`
`1024.
`
`Definition of VPN (Virtual Private Network) from Computer
`Desktop Encyclopedia, 9th Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies,
`2001, page 1044
`
`The ‘135 Patent Family
`
`Definitions of HTML and HTTP from Computer Desktop
`Encyclopedia, 9th Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2001, pp.
`435-436
`
`C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to
`the Internet,” republished in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems,
`Vol. 29, No. 15, November 1, 1997 (pp. 1799-1808) (hereinafter
`“Dalton”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petitioner, New Bay Capital, LLC (“New Bay” or “Petitioner”), requests
`
`inter partes review for claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (the “'135
`
`patent,” attached as Ex.1001). The assignee of the '135 patent is VirnetX, Inc.
`
`Petitioner certifies that the real parties-in-interest are New Bay and its parent
`
`Eastern Shore Capital, LLC.
`
`B.
`
`STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘135 patent, issued on December 31, 2002, is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘135 patent.
`
`C. RELATED MATTERS
`
`
`
`Ex.1022 lists pending applications and reexaminations that may be affected
`
`by the outcome of this review. Furthermore, the ‘135 Patent has been asserted
`
`against the following companies in the following proceedings:
`
`
`
`1. Apple Inc. in: VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417
`
`(E.D. Tex.) filed August 11, 2010; VirnetX Inc, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`
`6:12cv855 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 6, 2012; and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 6:13cv211, (E.D. Tex.), filed February 26, 2013. The District Court in
`
`Case No. 6:10cv417 has entered a Final Judgment finding, inter alia, that Apple
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`infringed claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 of the ‘135 patent and that such claims were not
`
`invalid over Kiuchi, which is asserted in this proceeding based on new arguments
`
`and evidence.
`
`
`
`2. Also, Cisco Systems, Inc., Aastra USA, Inc., Aastra Technologies Ltd.,
`
`NEC Corporation, and NEC Corporation of America, in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417, (E.D. Tex.), filed August 11, 2010.
`
`
`
`3. Mitel Networks Corporation, Mitel Networks, Inc., Siemens AG, Siemens
`
`Communications, Inc., Siemens Corporation, Siemens Enterprise Communications
`
`GmBH &Co. KG, Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc., and Avaya Inc. in
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al., Case No. 6:11cv18, (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`January 1, 2011.
`
`
`
`4. Microsoft Corporation in: VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case
`
`No. 6:07cv80, (E.D. Tex.), filed February 15, 2007; VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Case No. 6:10cv94, (E.D. Tex.), filed March 17, 2010; and VirnetX
`
`Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:13cv351, (E.D. Tex.), filed April
`
`22, 2013.
`
`
`
`The ‘135 patent was the subject of Re-examination No. 95/001,269, for
`
`which a reexamination certificate issued on June 7, 2011.
`
`
`
`The ‘135 Patent is the subject of two merged pending inter partes
`
`reexaminations, 95/001,679 brought by Cisco Systems, and 95/001,682 brought by
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Apple, Inc., where claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 currently stand rejected. Neither of the
`
`pending reexaminations has reached the stage of a Right of Appeal Notice. In
`
`these reexaminations, the requestors are contesting all 18 claims of the patent, and
`
`have asserted more than a dozen prior art references in various combinations. The
`
`present Petition is, by contrast, highly streamlined in that it focuses on only a small
`
`subset of claims and relies on two prior art references (i.e., Kiuchi and Dalton).
`
`The present Petition advances new arguments and evidence (not presented in the
`
`litigations or pending reexaminations) for invalidating claims 1, 3, 7 and 8.
`
`
`
`As a result of the cross-collateral estoppel provisions of 35 USC §317(b), the
`
`pending reexaminations will likely terminate before either reaches an enforceable
`
`result. The District Court in Case No. 6:10cv417 has already entered Final
`
`Judgments, finding that each of the requestors (Cisco and Apple) failed to prove
`
`the invalidity of the ‘135 patent. Given that the pending reexaminations have not
`
`even reached the stage of a Right of Appeal Notice, it is unlikely that the
`
`reexaminations will have time to run their full course (i.e., completing proceedings
`
`at the Examiner level, the Board level, and the Federal Circuit level) before the
`
`District Court judgments become “final,” thereby necessitating termination of the
`
`reexaminations under 37 USC 317(b).
`
`Also, the ‘135 Patent is the subject of two petitions for inter partes review
`
`(IPR) filed by Apple on June 12, 2013 (case nos. IPR2013-00348 and IPR2013-
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`00349). Petitioner expressly requests that Petitioner’s IPR NOT be joined or
`
`consolidated with the newly-filed Apple IPR(s) or otherwise delayed or suspended
`
`because (i) Apple's IPRs present a timeliness question that Petitioner’s IPR does
`
`not present, (ii) Petitioner’s IPR asserts different art than the Apple IPRs, and (iii)
`
`Petitioner’s IPR involves far fewer claims, and, as a result of (i)-(iii), consolidating
`
`the proceedings will unduly complicate matters and will place an undue burden on
`
`Petitioner to complete its IPR within the 1 year mandate.
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioner is concurrently filing IPR requests directed to related
`
`Patent Nos. 7,490,151; 7,418,504; and 7,921,211, and requests that the reviews of
`
`the ‘135 Patent and Patent No. 7,490,151 be assigned to the same Board for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`D. NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`
`
`Lead counsel for the Petitioner is Robert M. Asher, Reg. No. 30,445, of
`
`Sunstein Kann Murphy and Timbers LLP. Back-up counsel is Jeffrey Klayman,
`
`Reg. No. 39,250, of Sunstein Kann Murphy and Timbers LLP.
`
`E.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`New Bay may be served through its counsel via email to
`
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com and jklayman@sunsteinlaw.com or otherwise to
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Jeffrey T. Klayman
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`617 443 9292 (phone)
`617 443 0004 (fax)
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER
`
`F.
`
`A copy of the present Petition, in its entirety, is being served upon the Patent
`
`Owner at the address of its attorney of record.
`
`G.
`
`FEE
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.15(a), and any additional fees due in connection with this Petition, to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-4972.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Request 1 – Cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP - The
`
`Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the Internet,”
`
`published in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996 (hereinafter “Kiuchi” –Ex.1002) and
`
`cancellation of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Kiuchi.
`
`Request 2 – Cancellation of claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Kiuchi.
`
`Request 3 – Cancellation of claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`
`being obvious over C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade
`
`Security to the Internet,” published in the Proceedings of JENC8, May 1997,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`republished in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 29, No. 15, November
`
`1, 1997 (pp. 1799-1808) (hereinafter “Dalton” –Exs.1003 and 1024) in view of
`
`Kiuchi.
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ‘135 Patent
`
`As set forth in Ex.1009 ¶¶ 22-27, the ‘135 Patent relates to automatic
`
`creation of a virtual private network (VPN) in response to a domain-name server
`
`look-up function (Ex.1001 at 37:19-21). The effective filing date for claims 1, 3, 7
`
`and 8 of the ‘135 Patent is no earlier than the filing date of the ‘135 Patent,
`
`specifically February 15, 2000. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 read as follows:
`
`1. A method of transparently creating a virtual private network (VPN)
`between a client computer and a target computer, comprising the steps of:
`(1) generating from the client computer a Domain Name Service (DNS)
`request that requests an IP address corresponding to a domain name
`associated with the target computer; (2) determining whether the DNS
`request transmitted in step (1) is requesting access to a secure web site; and
`(3) in response to determining that the DNS request in step (2) is requesting
`access to a secure target web site, automatically initiating the VPN between
`the client computer and the target computer.
`3. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: (4) in
`response to determining that the DNS request in step (2) is not requesting
`access to a secure target web site, resolving the IP address for the domain
`name and returning the IP address to the client computer.
`7. The method of claim 1, wherein step (3) comprises the step of using
`a gatekeeper computer that allocates VPN resources for communicating
`between the client computer and the target computer.
`8. The method of claim 1, wherein step (2) is performed in a DNS
`proxy server that passes through the request to a DNS server if it is
`determined in step (3) that access is not being requested to a securetarget
`web site.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Specifically, a DNS request is generated from a client computer to request
`
`an IP address corresponding to a domain name that is associated with a web site
`
`hosted by a server. A determination is made whether the DNS request is
`
`requesting access to a secure web site, e.g., based on a domain name extension, or
`
`by reference to an internal table of such sites. (Ex.1001 at 37:63-38:28). When the
`
`DNS request corresponds to a secure web site, a VPN is automatically initiated
`
`between the client computer and the target computer. (Ex.1001 at 37:64-
`
`38:2). When the DNS request does not correspond to a secure web site, a look-up
`
`function is performed that returns the IP address of the non-secure web
`
`site. (Ex.1001 at 38:6-11).
`
`The ‘135 Patent discloses various exemplary embodiments for implementing
`
`such automatic creation of a VPN. With respect to receiving the DNS request and
`
`determining if the request corresponds to a secure web site (e.g., the user is
`
`authorized to access the secure web site), a DNS server may perform these
`
`steps. (Ex.1001 at 37:64-38:2). In another example, a DNS proxy may receive the
`
`DNS requests and perform the determining. (Ex.1001 at 38:23-25). In some
`
`embodiments, the DNS proxy may reside on a different machine than the DNS
`
`server (Ex.1001 at 38:63-65), and in other embodiments, the DNS proxy and DNS
`
`server may be combined in a single machine. (Ex.1001 at 38:61-63).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`With respect to creating the encrypted channel (e.g., the VPN), the DNS
`
`server may set up the VPN between the client computer and the server. (Ex.1001
`
`at 37:63-38:2). Alternatively, a DNS proxy may send a request to a gatekeeper to
`
`create the VPN between the client computer and the server. (Ex.1001 at 39:42-
`
`52). The gatekeeper facilitates the allocation and exchange of information needed
`
`to communicate securely. (Ex.1001 at 38:55-57, 39:42-52). In any of these
`
`examples, the VPN is established without user involvement. As with the DNS
`
`proxy and DNS server, the gatekeeper and DNS server may reside on different
`
`machines or be combined on a single machine. (Ex.1001 at 38:53-55). By
`
`extension, any of the DNS proxy, DNS server, and gatekeeper may be on the same
`
`or different machines. With respect to the look-up function, the DNS proxy may
`
`send a DNS request to a DNS server, which performs the look-up to return an IP
`
`address. (Ex.1001 at 38:43-47). In some embodiments, the gatekeeper instructs
`
`the DNS proxy to send the DNS request to the DNS server. (Ex.1001 at 39:61-
`
`40:3).
`
`B. Original Prosecution History of the ‘135 Patent
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 of the ‘135 Patent correspond to claims 28, 30, 34 and
`
`35 of the originally-filed patent application. During prosecution of the patent
`
`application, these claims were issued without amendment.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`The Board interprets a claim by applying its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art unless the inventor as a
`
`lexicographer has set forth a special meaning for a term. Multiform Desiccants,
`
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998); York Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc). When an inventor
`
`acts as a lexicographer, the definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158
`
`F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013). The
`
`specification has not given special meanings to any of the claim terms whether by
`
`express definitions or otherwise. The bounds of a claim should be determined
`
`primarily by the claim language. “[I]t is the Patent Owner’s burden to precisely
`
`define the invention in the claims.” AirCraft Medical LTD. v. Verathon Inc.,
`
`Reexam. Control No. 95/000,161, Appeal 2012-007851, p. 16 (PTAB Dec. 11,
`
`2012) (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`The Board should be leery of arguments of a party inconsistent with
`
`arguments presented in prior litigation. (Cf., Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon
`
`Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48 USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(“Ordinarily, doctrines of estoppel, waiver, invited error, or the like would
`
`prohibit a party from asserting as “error” a position that it had advocated at the
`
`trial.”). Given that the Board will apply the broadest reasonable construction, a
`
`patent owner such as VirnetX who has successfully argued in court for broad
`
`claim interpretations is estopped from advancing narrower constructions in these
`
`proceedings. Cf., Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565
`
`(Fed.Cir.1996) (“[W]here a party successfully urges a particular position in a legal
`
`proceeding, it is estopped from taking a contrary position in a subsequent
`
`proceeding ...”); 18 Susan Bandes & Lawrence B. Solum, Moore's Federal
`
`Practice §134-30, at 134-63 (3d ed.1998). Instead, those prior statements should
`
`contribute to the determination of the proper meaning of the patent claims in this
`
`inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2),(d) (statements of the patent owner
`
`filed in court taking a position on the scope of a patent claim may be used “to
`
`determine the proper meaning of a patent claim” in an inter partes review).
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Ex.1009 ¶ 21 sets forth a proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Petitioner proposes the following constructions:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Determining
`
`Domain name
`
`Domain name service
`
`DNS proxy server
`
`DNS request
`
`Client computer
`
`Transparently
`
`Automatically initiating the
`VPN
`
`Passes through the request to a
`DNS server
`Secure web site
`Secure target web site
`Target computer
`
`Gatekeeper computer
`
`Allocates VPN resources
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning – the step of
`“determining” can be implemented anywhere in
`the system
`A name corresponding to an IP address or a
`group of IP addresses
`A lookup service that returns an IP address for
`a requested domain name
`A computer or program that responds to a
`domain name inquiry in place of a DNS
`A communication that contains a domain name
`and requests an IP address for the domain name
`A computer or program from which a DNS
`request is generated
`The user need not be involved in creating the
`secure link
`Virtual private network or VPN A private network that is configured within a
`public network
`Initiating the VPN without involvement of a
`user – can involve transmitting a message to
`request a connection.
`Passing a domain name generated by the client
`computer to a DNS server
`Plain and ordinary meanings within the context
`of the claims, which do not require the secure
`web site or the secure target web site to be on
`the same machine as the target computer
`One or more programs or devices that allocate
`VPN resources
`Distributes or designates information needed to
`communicate securely
`
` A
`
` “client computer” is “a computer or program from which a DNS request
`
`is generated.” The “client computer” is defined in claim 1 as the entity from which
`
`the DNS request is generated. (Ex.1001 at 47:23-26). VirnetX has admitted that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`the client computer can be an application that generates a DNS request, e.g., to an
`
`operating system (Ex.1014 at 47-48; see also Ex.1014 at 67-68).
`
` “Determining” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of making a
`
`determination. The claim does not specify where this step is performed, and the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation covers implementation of the “determining” at
`
`any place in the system. (See Ex.1015 at 5 – ‘While the Court has not construed
`
`the word “determining,” in its claim construction opinion, the Court noted this
`
`determining step could be performed by the client computer or by the target
`
`computer.’). The doctrine of claim differentiation also supports a construction of
`
`“determining” in claim 1 that covers implementation at any place in the system. In
`
`contrast to claim 1, claim 2 specifies that “steps (2) and (3) are performed at a DNS
`
`server separate from the client computer” and therefore “determining” can be
`
`performed at the client computer.
`
`A “domain name” means “a name corresponding to an IP address or a
`
`group of IP addresses.” (Adopted in Ex.1011 at 12-13; adopted in Ex.1016 at 16).
`
`The claims make clear that a “domain name” has a corresponding IP address.
`
`(Ex.1001at 47:23-26). The specification describes “domain name” servers as
`
`providing a look-up function that returns “the IP address” of a requested computer
`
`or host. (Ex.1001 at 37:22-24). In VirnetX Inc.v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No.
`
`6:07 CV 80, Virnetx successfully argued that “domain name” was not limited to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`“a hierarchical name for a computer under traditional DNS format” but instead
`
`proposed, and the Court adopted, that a “domain name” is “a name corresponding
`
`to an IP address.” (Ex.1011 at 12-13). Also, in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et
`
`al., Case No. 6:10cv417, the same Court again adopted VirnetX’s proposed
`
`definition of “domain name” as “a name corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`(Ex.1016 at 16). Having succeeded in achieving a broad construction of “domain
`
`name” in court, VirnetX is estopped from arguing here that the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “domain name” is any narrower than “a name
`
`corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`A “domain name service” is “a lookup service that returns an IP address for
`
`a requested domain name.” The specification states: ‘Conventional Domain
`
`Name Servers (DNSs) provide a look-up function that returns the IP address of a
`
`requested computer or host.’ (Ex.1001 at 37:22-24). In VirnetX v. Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 , VirnetX successfully argued that “domain
`
`name service” is not limited to “the conventional lookup service defined by the
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that returns the IP address of a requested
`
`computer or host” but is merely “a look-up service that returns an IP address for a
`
`requested domain name.” (Ex.1011 at 11-12). Also, in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417, the same Court again adopted Virnetx’s
`
`definition of “domain name service” as “a look-up service that returns an IP
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`address for a requested domain name.” (Ex.1016 at 14-15). Having succeeded in
`
`achieving a broad construction of “domain name service” in court, VirnetX is
`
`estopped from arguing here that the broadest reasonable construction of “domain
`
`name service” is any narrower than “a look-up service that returns an IP address
`
`for a requested domain name.”
`
`A “DNS proxy server” is “a computer or program that responds to a domain
`
`name inquiry in place of a DNS.” (Proposed by VirnetX in Ex.1017 at 16; adopted
`
`by Ex.1016 at 16-17). The ‘135 Patent makes clear that functions of the DNS
`
`proxy server can be combined on the same server with those of the DNS or can
`
`operate independently of the DNS server (see Ex.1001 at 38:61-65).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the DNS proxy
`
`server can be a function in the same computer as the client computer. VirnetX
`
`took the position in the Microsoft case (and the court agreed) that a "DNS proxy
`
`server" can be a "computer or program" and that "the DNS proxy server does not
`
`have to be separate from the client computer." (Ex.1011 at 24). Similarly, in the
`
`Apple case, VirnetX continued to assert that the DNS proxy server can be a
`
`software module in the same computer as the client computer. For example,
`
`VirnetX admits that the DNS request generated (and transmitted) from the client
`
`computer can be “from one software module on the computer to another software
`
`module on the device that makes the determination." (Ex.1012 at 209).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Furthermore, one of the inventors (Dr. Short) testified that “we came to realize
`
`fairly early on that what you really want to do is put this DNS proxy software in
`
`your computer so that way every computer that's enabled to do this has its own
`
`proxy, and you don't have to have all these servers out there." (Ex.1013 at 92-93).
`
`Also, VirnetX's expert, Dr. Jones, supported this construction by testifying that
`
`“The DNS request is generated in the application, for example, Safari and is passed
`
`through an API call to iOS." (Ex.1014 at 47-48; see also Ex.1014 at 67-68). The
`
`‘135 Patent makes clear that the DNS proxy server “handles requests for DNS
`
`look-ups” (Ex.1001 at 38:66-67) and if access to a secure host was not requested
`
`“the DNS request is passed to conventional DNS server 2609, which looks up the
`
`IP address of the target site and returns it to the user’s application for further
`
`processing” (Ex.1001 at 39:3-6). Thus, “responding to a DNS inquiry in place of a
`
`DNS” can involve a lookup to a domain name service to obtain an IP address.
`
`A “Domain Name Service (DNS) request” is “a communication that
`
`contains a domain name and requests an IP address for the domain name.” The
`
`DNS request is not