`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`NEW BAY CAPITAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`VIRNETX, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`____________
`
`NEW BAY CAPITAL’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER
`FILED BY THIRD PARTY APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. New Bay Capital Seeks a Just, Speedy and Inexpensive Review of
`the ‘135 Patent
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC (“New Bay”) has petitioned for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (the ‘135 Patent). The petition has been strictly tailored
`
`to comply with the policy behind inter partes reviews – to provide a just, speedy
`
`and inexpensive review of a patent. 37 C.F.R. §42.1(b). The petition has been
`
`limited to a challenge of claims 1, 3, 7 and 8. The prior art to be considered has
`
`been limited to two references Kiuchi and Dalton. Three separate grounds were
`
`presented applying the references to the challenged claims to establish
`
`unpatentabililty.
`
`B. Apple Seeks to Add its Two Inter Partes Reviews to this
`Proceeding
`
`
`Apple has filed two inter partes reviews against the ‘135 Patent. Due to the
`
`questionable timeliness of these inter partes reviews, Apple seeks to join them with
`
`New Bay’s IPR. Even though Apple offers to limit the grounds of its IPR’s to be
`
`joined, the size of the joinder is huge. In IPR2013-00348, Apple still insists on
`
`presenting the following five remaining grounds:
`
`(i) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser et al. (Beser) (Ex. 1009);
`
`(ii) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`(Ex. 1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010);
`
`(iii) Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on
`
`Beser (Ex. 1009) in view of Blum (Ex. 1011);
`
`(iv) Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`
`(Ex. 1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010) and Blum (Ex. 1011);
`
`(v) Claims 18 and 5 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser (Ex. 1009)
`
`in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010) and Aventail (Ex. 1007).
`
`In IPR2013-00349, Apple intends to present the following three
`
`remaining grounds:
`
`(i) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are anticipated under § 102(b) by Aventail
`
`Connect v 3.01/2.5 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`(ii) Claims 4, 5 and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Aventail (Ex.
`
`1007) in view of RFC 1035 (Ex. 1017);
`
`(iii) Claims 6, 14 and 15 are obvious under § 103 based on Aventail (Ex.
`
`1007) in view of Reed (Ex. 1014).
`
`In support of its inter partes reviews, Apple submits a total of 65 exhibits including
`
`the declarations of Michael A. Fratto, Chris A. Hopen and James Chester.
`
`In addition to Apple’s two IPR’s, Apple is also availing itself of the
`
`resources of the PTO with its extensive challenge to the ‘135 patent in an ongoing
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`inter partes reexamination. All claims of the ‘135 patent currently stand rejected in
`
`the reexamination no. 95/001,682.
`
`II. Grounds for Joinder
`
`The Board has considered some or all of the following when deciding on
`
`joinder of IPR proceedings1:
`
`1. Whether the proceedings involve the same parties.
`
`2. Whether the proceedings involve the same patent.
`
`3. Whether the proceedings involve the same prior art.
`
`4. Whether there is a discernible prejudice to either party.
`
`5. Whether joinder will unduly delay the resolution of either proceeding.
`
`6. Whether joinder will help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution” of the proceedings.
`
`The New Bay IPR and the Apple IPR’s should not be joined because the
`
`proceedings involve different parties with no relation to one another, the
`
`proceedings involve different claim challenges based on different prior art, joinder
`
`would be extremely prejudicial to New Bay in terms of delay and cost and dilution
`
`of its position due to the sheer size and complexity of the Apple IPR’s, joinder will
`
`certainly delay resolution of New Bay’s IPR, and joinder will not help to “secure
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the proceedings.
`
`
`1 See, for example, Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`III. Joinder Would Add Significant Complexity, Delay and Cost to New
`Bay’s IPR
`
`A. Joinder Would Add Numerous Substantive Issues
`
`While Apple’s two IPR’s include challenges to claims 1, 3, 7 and 8
`
`challenged by New Bay, they do so on different grounds using different prior art,
`
`and therefore joinder would not reduce the number of grounds to be addressed by
`
`the Board. No efficiency would be gained by joining the proceedings.
`
`Furthermore, the Apple IPR’s add challenges to patent claims which are not
`
`at issue in the New Bay IPR. The additional patent claims which will need to be
`
`addressed if joined include claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18. These
`
`claims present many new concepts and limitations that are not the subject of the
`
`New Bay IPR. Indeed, two new independent claims 10 and 13 will need to be
`
`addressed if joined. The dependent claims add many further new limitations
`
`including at least the following:
`
`“steps (2) and (3) are performed at a DNS server separate from the client
`
`computer” claim 2
`
`“whether the client computer is authorized to establish a VPN with the
`
`target” claim 4
`
`“non secure target computers” claim 5
`
`“creating an IP address hopping scheme” claim 6;
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`“whether the client computer is authorized to establish the VPN target
`
`computer” claim 9
`
`“sufficient security privileges” claim 12;
`
`“a central computer that maintains a plurality of authentication tables”
`
`claim 13;
`
`“at least one field in a series of data packets is periodically changed
`
`according to a known sequence” claim 14;
`
`“the step of comparing”; “a table of valid IP addresses maintained in a
`
`table in the second computer” claim 15.
`
`The references asserted in the Apple IPR’s all raise new substantive issues.
`
`There is absolutely no overlap and no efficiency to be gained by joining these
`
`issues with those of the New Bay IPR. The challenges asserted by Apple make no
`
`use of Kiuchi or Dalton. The prior art references asserted by Apple are all new and
`
`raise new issues. The references include the following:
`
`U.S.Patent No. 6,496,867 (Beser);
`
`RFC2401, November 1998;
`
`U.S.Patent No. 6,182,141 (Blum)
`
`Aventail Connect v 3.01/2.5 Administrator’s Guide;
`
`RFC1035, November 1987; and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`Reed, “Anonymous Connections and Onion Routing”, IEEE Journal on
`
`Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 16, no. 4, May 1998.
`
`These new references are cited by Apple in eight new grounds attacking the
`
`claims. There is no overlap between these eight grounds and the three grounds
`
`raised by New Bay. The chart below illustrates the expansion proposed by Apple’s
`
`joinder motion. The issues raised by the present New Bay IPR are shown in green.
`
`The additional grounds and claims that would be imposed by the Apple IPR’s are
`
`shown in red.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘135 claims->
`Kiuchi
`Anticipation
`Kiuchi
`Antic’n/Obvious
`Dalton
`Kiuchi
`Beser
`
`Beser,
`RFC2401
`Beser,
`Blum
`Beser, RFC2401,
`Blum
`Beser, RFC2401,
`Aventail
`Aventail
`
`Aventail,
`RFC1035
`Aventail,
`Reed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`The Aventail reference adds further complications by adding the issue of
`
`whether it constitutes a printed publication. The propriety of treating Aventail as a
`
`prior art reference has been challenged by VirnetX in the inter partes
`
`reexamination 95/001,682. VirnetX wrote, “With respect to Aventail, the Request
`
`submitted uncorroborated declarations from three individuals whom Patent owner
`
`has no opportunity to depose in this matter, and which were not incorporated or
`
`relied on by the Office Action.” (Patent Owner’s Response to Office Action of
`
`February 15, 2012, p. 14) “Patent Owner does not agree with the statements and
`
`assertions made within those declarations, and reserves the opportunity to
`
`challenge their correctness should the Examiner rely on them in subsequent
`
`proceedings.” (Id., p. 14, n.6)
`
`B. Joinder Would Expand and Complicate Discovery
`
`In keeping with the Board’s interest in delivering an inexpensive resolution
`
`to an IPR, discovery is strictly limited. 37 C.F.R. §42.51(b). Nevertheless, cross
`
`examination of affidavit testimony is routine discovery. The two Apple IPR’s
`
`would add the testimony of three new witnesses - Michael A. Fratto, Chris A.
`
`Hopen and James Chester. Additional testimony from VirnetX witness(es) would
`
`also be expected. These witnesses will be asked to address all of the new issues
`
`mentioned above that would be imposed by the Apple IPR’s. To the extent, they
`
`will be addressing aspects of claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 being challenged in the New Bay
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`IPR, New Bay would need to be present at the depositions to allow for further
`
`cross examination, as needed. The added difficulties of scheduling, preparing for
`
`and attending these depositions would significantly bog down and significantly
`
`increase the cost of prosecuting the instant New Bay IPR.
`
`Moreover, the addition of Apple, an unrelated third party, will complicate
`
`depositions and discovery. Unlike more suitable joinder situations in which an
`
`identical petition is filed or a co-defendant in a litigation seeks to participate, here
`
`Apple does not share any such affiliation with New Bay. To the extent, Apple
`
`takes positions to coordinate with its positions taken in litigation, New Bay faces
`
`no such similar constraints. These differences among the parties may lead to
`
`unprecedented three-way discovery and claim construction disputes.
`
`C. Joinder Would Severely Impact Scheduling
`
`Given the limited number of claims challenged and the mere use of two prior
`
`art references, New Bay had reasonable hopes of a shortened schedule or a regular
`
`schedule coordinated with co-pending IPR2013-00376 directed to divisional Patent
`
`No.7,490,151. Similarities between the challenge to the ‘135 patent and the ‘151
`
`patent would allow for judicial efficiencies. However, in view of the added claims,
`
`the new claim elements, the new prior art references, the additional party and the
`
`additional witnesses, joinder of the Apple IPR’s would impose heavy burdens on
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`the Board and New Bay preventing a speedy and inexpensive resolution of New
`
`Bay’s pair of inter partes reviews.
`
`Rather than seeking consolidation and increased efficiency, Apple foresees
`
`limiting the participation of each petitioner to the grounds presented in its
`
`respective petitions. Given that both petitioners challenge claims 1, 3, 7 and 8,
`
`statements by witnesses and parties regarding these claims have the potential for
`
`influencing the other party’s grounds for challenging the claims. Thus, with
`
`multiple filings relative to claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 by the proposed three parties, the
`
`discovery burdens and burdens of reviewing numerous filings greatly increases by
`
`joining Apple’s two disparate inter partes reviews to the New Bay IPR. A joined
`
`IPR will not be more efficient but rather more cumbersome and costly. New Bay
`
`would be greatly prejudiced by the proposed joinder.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Apple’s motion for joinder should be denied
`
`and the Board should proceed to an orderly and timely consideration of New Bay’s
`
`IPR simply challenging claims 1, 3, 7 and 8 in view of Kiuchi and Dalton.
`
`Dated: August 28, 2013
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Robert M. Asher, #30,445/
`Robert M. Asher, Reg. No. 30,445
` Jeffrey T. Klayman, Reg. No. 39,250
` Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`th Floor
` 125 Summer Street, 11
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00375
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03959/05001 1949057.1
`
`
`
`
`
` Boston, MA 02110-1618
`(617) 443-9292
`Attorneys for Petitioner, New Bay Capital,
`LLC.
`
`10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I hereby certify that on this 28th day of August 2013, the foregoing NEW BAY
`
`CAPITAL’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER FILED BY THIRD
`
`PARTY APPLE INC. was served as agreed via email to counsel of record for patent
`
`owner:
`
`Joseph Palys
`
`Naveen Modi
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Joseph.Palys@finnegan.com
`Naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`
`and to counsel for Apple:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph Micallef
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2013 /Robert M. Asher, #30,445/
`Robert M. Asher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 30,445
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`