`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00378
`
`Patent 7,921,211
`Issue Date: April 5, 2011
`Title: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`USING SECURE DOMAIN NAMES
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,921,211
`
`
`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 ........................................... 6
`E. SERVICE INFORMATION ............................................................................ 6
`F. PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER ..................................... 6
`G. FEE ................................................................................................................... 7
`II.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED.................................... 7
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 7
`A. The Claims Of The ‘211 Patent Purport To Improve Over Prior Art Domain
`Name Service Systems By Programming Such Systems To Include Code for
`“Indicating in Response to the Query Whether The Domain Name Service
`System Supports Establishing A Secure Communication Link” ........................... 7
`1. Admitted Prior Art .......................................................................................... 8
`2. The Purported Improvement over Prior Art Domain Name Service Systems:
`Code for “Indicating in Response to the Query Whether the Domain Name
`Service System Supports Establishing a Secure Communication Link” ............ 9
`B. The ‘211 Patent Does Not Define “Indicating in Response to the Query
`Whether The Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link” But Discloses Embodiments That Perform Such
`“Indicating”........................................................................................................... 10
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 12
`A. Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 12
`B. Domain name ................................................................................................. 15
`C. Top-level domain name ................................................................................. 18
`D. Domain name service system ......................................................................... 19
`E. Secure communication link ............................................................................ 21
`F. Code for …indicating .................................................................................... 21
`G. Transparently ................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION OF
`V.
`CLAIMS IN THE ‘211 PATENT ........................................................................... 25
`A. Kiuchi is Prior Art That Uses a Domain Name Service in Establishing Secure
`Communication Links Over the Internet .............................................................. 25
`B. Claim 36 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................................................ 29
`C. Claim 37 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................................................ 41
`D. Claim 47 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................................................ 43
`E. Claim 51 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................................................ 45
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`
`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) ......................................................... 15
`Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1996) .................... 14
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v.Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15
`(PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013) ............................................................................................ 13
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............. 13
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................... 15
`Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48
`USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 14
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998)
` .............................................................................................................................. 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)................ 13
`RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) ..................................................................................................................... 13
`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 (E.D. Tex.) .......... 1, 2, 17
`VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al., Case No. 6:11cv18(E.D. Tex.) ........... 2
`VirnetX Inc., and Science Applications International Corporation v. Microsoft
`Corporation, Case No. 6:13cv351 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................... 2
`VirnetX v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .... 16, 20
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ................................................................................................ 7, 26
`35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2), (d) ........................................................................................ 14
`35 U.S.C. §317(b) ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Treatises
`18 Susan Bandes & Lawrence B. Solum, Moore's Federal Practice §134-30, at 134-
`63 (3d ed.1998) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 (b) .............................................................................................. 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001. U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`1002. C-HTTP – The Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on
`the Internet, Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara (“Kiuchi”)
`
`1003. U.S. Patent No. 6,560,634 (“Broadhurst”)
`
`1004. Housley Declaration
`
`1005. VirnetX’s Opening Claim Construction Brief - VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc., et al.
`
`1006. Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`1007. Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`1008. Memorandum Opinion - VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
`
`1009. VirnetX’s Opening Claim Construction Brief - VirnetX, Inc. v. Mitel
`Networks Corp., et al.
`
`1010. The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, definition of indicate and
`indication
`
`1011. VirnetX’s Reply Claim Construction Brief - VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks
`Corporation, et al.
`
`1012. VirnetX’s Reply Claim Construction Brief - VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`Inc., et al.
`
`1013. Memorandum Opinion and Order - VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et
`al.
`
`1014. U.S. Patent No. 6,449,657
`
`1015. Cisco Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`1016. VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. – Transcript of Trial, Morning Session, Nov. 1,
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`Petitioner New Bay Capital, LLC (“New Bay” or “Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`requests inter partes review for claims 36, 37, 47 and 51 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,921,211 (the “'211 patent,” attached as Ex. 1001). The present assignee of the
`
`'211 patent is VirnetX, Inc. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies
`
`that the real parties-in-interests are New Bay Capital, LLC and Eastern Shore
`
`Capital, LLC. Eastern Shore Capital, LLC is New Bay’s parent company.
`
`B. STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘211 patent, issued on April 5, 2011, 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 ‘211 patent.
`
`C. RELATED MATTERS
` The ‘211 patent has been asserted against the following companies in the
`
`following proceedings:
`
`1. Apple, Inc. in three actions: VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No.
`
`6:10cv417 (E.D. Tex.) filed August 11, 2010; VirnetX Inc. and Science
`
`Applications International Corporation 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. On February 28, 2013, the District Court in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. 6:10cv417 entered a Final Judgment finding, inter alia, that Apple had
`
`infringed claims 36, 37, 47 and 51 of the ‘211 patent and that such claims were not
`
`invalid despite having considered the Kiuchi reference presented below.
`
`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. On March 19,
`
`2013, the District Court in Case No. 6:10cv417 entered a Final Judgment finding,
`
`inter alia, that Cisco had not infringed claims 1, 8, 23, 27, and 31 of the ‘211
`
`patent and that such claims were not invalid.
`
`3. Avaya Inc., and Mitel Networks Corporation, Mitel Networks, Inc., Siemens
`
`AG, Siemens Communications, Inc., Siemens Corporation, Siemens Enterprise
`
`Communications GmbH &Co. KG, Siemens Enterprise Communications, 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., and Science Applications International
`
`Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:13cv351 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`
`April 22, 2013.
`
`
`
` Additionally, the ‘211 patent is the subject of two pending inter partes
`
`reexaminations, 95/001,856 brought by Cisco Systems, and 95/001,789 brought by
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Apple Inc. Neither of the pending reexaminations has reached the stage of a Right
`
`of Appeal Notice. In these reexaminations, the requesters are contesting all 60
`
`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 a single prior art
`
`reference (i.e., Kiuchi) to invalidate those claims. The present Petition advances
`
`new evidence (not presented in the pending reexaminations) and explanations to
`
`justify cancellation of claims 36, 37, 47 and 51 over Kiuchi.
`
`As a result of the cross-collateral estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §317(b),
`
`the pending reexaminations will likely terminate before either reaches a final
`
`enforceable result. The District Court in Case No. 6:10cv417 has already entered
`
`Final Judgments against the requesters in the pending reexaminations, finding that
`
`each of the requesters (Cisco and Apple) failed to prove the invalidity of the ‘504
`
`patent. Given that the pending reexaminations have not even reached the stage of a
`
`Right of Appeal Notice, it is highly 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 decisions
`
`become “final,” thereby necessitating termination of the reexaminations under 35
`
`U.S.C. §317(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`New Bay is also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,418,504 and requests that the two reviews be assigned to the same Board for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
` In addition, New Bay is seeking inter partes review of grandparent U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135 and of its divisional U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151.
`
` The following additional pending patent applications and reexaminations are
`
`listed on PAIR as related to the ‘211 patent:
`
`13/049,552 filed on 03-16-2011
`
`13/336,958 filed on 12-23-2011
`
`13/337,757 filed on 12-27-2011
`
`13,339,257 filed on 12-28-2011
`
`13/342,795 filed on 01-03-2012
`
`13/343,465 filed on 01-04-2012
`
`13/615,528 filed on 09-13-2012
`
`13/615,536 filed on 09-13-2012
`
`13/615,557 filed on 09-13-2012
`
`13/617,375 filed on 09-14-2012
`
`13/617,446 filed on 09-14-2012
`
`13/903,788 filed on 05-28-2013
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

` The following additional pending patent applications and reexaminations are
`
`listed on PAIR as related to grandparent U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135:
`
`11/839,969 filed on 08-16-2007
`
`11/924,460 filed on 10-25-2007
`
`13/075,081 filed on 03-29-2011
`
`13/080,680 filed on 04-06-2011
`
`13/093,785 filed on 04-25-2011
`
`13/181,041 filed on 07-12-2011
`
`13/285,962 filed on 10-31-2011
`
`13/474,397 filed on 05-17-2012
`
`13/615,436 filed on 09-13-2012
`
`13/618,966 filed on 09-14-2012
`
`13/620,270 filed on 09-14-2012
`
`13/620,371 filed on 09-14-2012
`
`13/890,206 filing date not listed
`
`95/001,679 filed on 07-08-2011
`
`95/001,682 filed on 07-11-2011
`
`95/001,697 filed on 07-25-2011
`
`95/001,714 filed on 08-16-2011
`
`95/001,746 filed on 09-07-2011
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`95/001,792 filed on 10-25-2011
`
`95/001,851 filed on 12-13-2011
`
`95/001,949 filed on 03-28-2012
`
`
`
`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 for the Petitioner 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, Sunstein Kann Murphy &
`
`Timbers LLP via email to rasher@sunsteinlaw.com and
`
`jklayman@sunsteinlaw.com or otherwise to
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Jeffrey Klayman
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`617 443 9292 (phone)
`617 443 0004 (fax)
`
`F. PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`Petition, in its entirety, is being served to the Patent Owner’s address of the
`
`attorney of record.
`
`
`
`G. FEE
`
`
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 19-4972, and authorizes payment for any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to
`
`the same Deposit Account.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
` Cancellation of claims 36, 37, 47 and 51 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”) attached as
`
`Ex. 1002.
`
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Claims Of The ‘211 Patent Purport To Improve Over Prior Art
`Domain Name Service Systems By Programming Such Systems To
`Include Code for “Indicating in Response to the Query Whether The
`Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
` 1. Admitted Prior Art
`
`
`
`Figure 25 of the ‘211 Patent, labeled “Prior Art” and reproduced below,
`
`discloses aspects of domain name service systems that were well known at the time
`
`of the patent:
`
`
`
` The ‘211 patent describes the prior art system of Fig. 25 as including a
`
`conventional domain name server (DNS) that provides “a look-up function that
`
`returns the IP address of a requested computer or host. For example, when a
`
`computer user types in the web name ‘Yahoo.com,’ the user's web browser
`
`transmits a request to a DNS, which converts the name into a four-part IP address
`
`that is returned to the user's browser and then used by the browser to contact the
`
`destination web site. … When the user enters the name of a destination host, a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`request DNS REQ is made (through IP protocol stack 2505) to a DNS 2502 to look
`
`up the IP address associated with the name. The DNS returns the IP address DNS
`
`RESP to client application 2504, which is then able to use the IP address to
`
`communicate with the host 2503 ….” (Ex. 1001, ‘211 patent, column 38: line 58 to
`
`column 39: line 6; Ex. 1004, ¶23)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. The Purported Improvement over Prior Art Domain Name Service
`Systems: Code for “Indicating in Response to the Query Whether the
`Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing a Secure
`Communication Link”
`
`Claim 36 of the ‘211 patent reads:
`
`36. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising
`instructions executable in a domain name service system the
`instructions comprising code for:
`
` connecting the domain name service system to a communication
`network; storing a plurality of domain names and corresponding
`network addresses; receiving a query for a network address; and
`indicating in response to the query whether the domain name service
`system supports establishing a secure communication link.
`
`
`The program code of the claim enables a domain name service system to satisfy
`
`four criteria. The first three -- connecting to a communication network, storing
`
`domain names and corresponding network addresses, and receiving queries for
`
`network addresses-- were all found in conventional domain name service systems,
`
`such as the one described in Fig. 25 of the patent. In addition to being
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`programmed to perform these well-known functions for retrieving IP addresses, the
`
`domain name server system executing the code of claim 36 in the ‘211 patent is
`
`thereby programmed for “indicating in response to the query whether the domain
`
`name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.”
`
`B. The ‘211 Patent Does Not Define “Indicating in Response to the
`Query Whether The Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing A Secure Communication Link” But Discloses
`Embodiments That Perform Such “Indicating”
`
`
`The ‘211 specification does not use the term “indicate” to show whether a
`
`“domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link”
`
`as claimed. Language to this effect first appeared during the prosecution of the
`
`parent application 10/714,849 in an amendment filed on July 11, 2007. (Ex. 1006,
`
`p.404-419) As part of that amendment, a claim was added for a system that
`
`performs the four functions also recited in the current claim. The applicant did not
`
`define the claimed “indication,” and the examiner allowed the claim without
`
`inquiring into what was meant by this term.
`
`Issued claim 36 of the ‘211 patent was added as numbered claim 39 into the
`
`continuation application in the amendment of August 6, 2010. (Ex. 1007, p.943)
`
`The examiner responded by noting the specification of the ‘211 patent application
`
`“does not mention or define ‘computer readable medium.’”(Ex. 1007, p. 957) The
`
`objection was overcome by amending the claim to recite a “non-transitory”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`machine readable medium. (Ex. 1007, p. 1096) No further description of the
`
`medium was added to the specification.
`
`Looking to the specification, one example of the claimed program code for
`
`“indicating in response” is described with respect to Fig. 33:
`
`
`
`The example of Fig. 33 shows a domain name service system that includes a
`
`secure domain name service (SDNS 3313). (Ex. 1001, 50:27-30) In the example
`
`of Fig. 33, “software module 3309 sends a query to SDNS 3313” (Ex. 1001,
`
`50:43-44). In response, “SDNS 3313 returns a secure URL to software module
`
`3309 for the .scom server address for a secure server 3320…” (Ex. 1001, 51:33-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`36) The return of the URL containing the domain name with the .scom top level
`
`domain indicates the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link. This is contrasted with the response of a standard domain
`
`name service to the same query. The standard DNS will return a message
`
`indicating that the universal resource locator (URL) is unknown. (Ex. 1001,
`
`50:24-27)
`
`As an alternative means for sending the response, the SDNS can be accessed
`
`“’in the clear,’ that is, without using an administrative VPN communication
`
`link.”(Ex. 1001, 51:37-39) According to this approach, the reply to the query can
`
`be “in the clear.” The querying computer can use the clear reply for establishing a
`
`VPN link to the desired domain name.” (Ex. 1001, ‘211 patent, 51:44-46). A VPN
`
`allows for encrypted private communications. (Ex. 1004, ¶22) Given that the clear
`
`reply enables the querying computer to establish a VPN, the clear reply indicates
`
`that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link.
`
`Thus, according to the specification, a domain name service system can be
`
`programmed to reply in a variety of ways that indicate it supports establishing a
`
`secure communication link.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`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,
`
`acting as 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 ‘211 patent contains no such special definition of “indicating” and, as
`
`such, the term must be given its ordinary and accustomed meaning.
`
`For a claim to deviate from its ordinary and accustomed meaning in
`
`response to a disclaimer in the specification, the specification must include
`
`“expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of
`
`claim scope.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`The Board should be leery of a party’s arguments that are inconsistent with
`
`its arguments 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
`
`should be estopped from advancing narrower constructions in these proceedings.
`
`Cf., Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“The
`
`doctrine of judicial estoppel is that where a party successfully urges a particular
`
`position in a legal proceeding, it is estopped from taking a contrary position in a
`
`subsequent proceeding where its interests have changed.”); 18 Susan Bandes &
`
`Lawrence B. Solum, Moore's Federal Practice §134-30, at 134-63 (3d ed.1998)
`
`(noting that the doctrine of judicial estoppel has been applied broadly to prevent a
`
`party from adopting inconsistent legal positions in the same or related judicial
`
`proceedings). Instead, those prior statements should help determine the proper
`
`meaning of the patent claims in this inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2),
`
`(d) (providing that statements of the patent owner filed in Federal 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 that is ordered or instituted.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`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)).
`
`New Bay proposes the following broadest reasonable constructions for each
`
`of the listed terms from the claims of the ‘211 patent.
`
`
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Domain name
`
`Top-level domain name
`
`Domain name service system
`
`Secure communication link
`
`Code for …indicating
`
`Transparently
`
`A name corresponding to a network
`address
`A name used as an ending component
`in a domain name
`A system that performs a lookup
`service that returns an IP address for a
`requested domain name and which may
`include a single device or multiple
`devices
`A direct communication link that
`provides data security
`Instructions for execution by a
`computer, such as a server, for serving
`as a sign or token signifying
`The user need not be involved in
`creating the secure link
`
`
`B. Domain name
`A “domain name” as used in the ‘211 patent is a name corresponding to a
`
`network address. The claim itself indicates that domain names have
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`“corresponding network addresses.” The specification describes “domain name”
`
`servers as providing a look-up function that returns “the IP address” of a requested
`
`computer or host (Ex. 1001,38:58-60), and uses the term “network addresses”
`
`generically and often more specifically refers to “IP addresses.” (Ex. 1001, 40:12-
`
`13; 50:55-60, numerous others) The specification refers generically to a non-
`
`secure domain name such as “website.com.” (Ex. 1001, 52:36). The domain
`
`names are used to obtain the numerical IP address. “When the user enters the
`
`name of a destination host, a request DNS REQ is made … to a DNS 2502 to look
`
`up the IP address associated with the name.” (Id., 39:1-3)
`
`The ‘211 patent recognized that new domain names could be readily
`
`proposed. For example, the specification teaches alternative secure domain names
`
`such as “website.scom.” (Id., 52:34)
`
`In VirnetX v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2007), the court construed “domain name” in connection with U.S. Patent
`
`6,502,135, the great grand-parent of the ‘211 patent. There, Microsoft argued that
`
`“domain name” was limited to “a hierarchical name for a computer under
`
`traditional DNS format.” (Ex. 1008, p.14) VirnetX took an opposing position,
`
`arguing that “domain name” was not so limited. In its Claim Construction
`
`Opinion, the Court sided with VirnetX on this issue, rejecting Microsoft’s
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`proposed construction and construing “domain name” as “a name corresponding
`
`to an IP address.” (Ex. 1008, p. 12-15)
`
`In VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`filed August 11, 2010, the same Court subsequently construed “domain name” in
`
`connection with the ‘211 patent. There, the defendants argued that “domain
`
`name” was limited to a “hierarchical sequence of words in decreasing order of
`
`specificity that corresponds to a numerical IP address.” (Ex. 1013, p. 16) VirnetX
`
`took an opposing position, arguing for the same construction that the Court
`
`adopted in the prior case against Microsoft. In its Claim Construction Opinion in
`
`this later case, the Court again sided with VirnetX on this issue, rejecting
`
`defendants’ proposed construction and construing “domain name” as “a name
`
`corresponding to an IP address.” Id.
`
`Having succeeded on multiple instances in achieving a broad construction of
`
`“domain name” in court, VirnetX is estopped from arguing in these proceedings
`
`that the broadest reasonable construction of “domain name” is any narrower than
`
`“a name corresponding to an IP address.” Given the usage of the term “domain
`
`name” in the claims and in the specification, domain name should be construed as
`
`“a name corresponding to a network address.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`C. Top-level domain name
`A “top-level domain name” is a name used as an ending component in a
`
`domain name. “In the situation when computer network 3302 is the Internet,
`
`computer 3304 typically will have a standard top-level domain name such as .com,
`
`.net, .org, .edu, .mil or .gov.” (Ex. 1001, 49:13-17) According to the ‘211 patent,
`
`“each secure computer network address is based on a non-standard top-level
`
`domain name.” (Id., 7:34-36) The ‘211 patent proposed names such as .scom,
`
`.sorg, .snet, etc. (Id., 7:36-37) but the ‘211 patent clearly recognized unlimited
`
`alternatives: “Alternatively, software module 3409 can replace the top-level
`
`domain name of server 3304 with any other non-standard top-level domain name.”
`
`(Id., 50:21-23)
`
`Given the accepted syntax of a domain name, it is established that the top-
`
`level domain name follows the final period or dot. (Ex. 1004, ¶25-26) As indicated
`
`in a contemporary patent, those of ordinary skill understood that a “root name or
`
`top level domain is the ending suffix on a domain name.” (Ex. 1014, 1:54-56) To
`
`define a “top-level domain name” as a name used as an ending component in a
`
`domain name is consistent with the ‘211 specification and the understanding of
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`D. Domain name service system
`A “domain name service system” is a system for performing 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. For example, when a
`
`computer user types in the web name ’Yahoo.com,’ the user's web browser
`
`transmits a request to a DNS, which converts the name into a four-part IP address
`
`that is returned to the user's browser and then used by the browser to contact the
`
`destination web site.” (Ex. 1001, ‘211 Patent, 38:58-64) The domain name
`
`service system of dependent claim 40 includes code “for establishing a secure
`
`communication link.” According to dependent claim 49, “at least one of the
`
`plurality of domain names includes a secure name.” As described in the
`
`specification, a secure domain name service “contains a cross-reference database
`
`of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`50:65-66) Thus, the domain name service system of claim 36 may be used for
`
`non-secure domain names and/or for secure domain names.
`
`The “system” is reasonably interpreted to include a single device or multiple
`
`devices. The ‘211 specification states, “Gatekeeper 2603 can be implemented on a
`
`separate computer (as shown in FIG. 26) or as a function within modified DNS
`
`server 2602… It will be appreciated that the functions of DNS proxy 2610 and
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`DNS server 2609 can be combined into a single server for convenience.
`
`Moreover, although elemen