throbber
Page 1 of 58
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2030
`RPX v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR 2014-00171
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 9477
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................1
`
`III. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...............................................................................................2
`
`IV. THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS..................................................................................3
`
`A. “Virtual Private Network (VPN)” ..............................................................................3
`
`1. Microsoft’s Construction Gives VPN Its Ordinary Meaning in the Context of
`the Patents-In-Suit.............................................................................................3
`
`2. VirnetX’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong.......................................................8
`
`a. VirnetX’s Encryption Clause Is Not Supported By The Evidence...............8
`
`b. VirnetX’s Expansion Clause Is Not Supported By The Evidence .............11
`
`B. Preamble: “Transparently Creating A Virtual Private Network (VPN)”....................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Transparently” In The Preamble Is Not A Limitation.....................................12
`
`If Limiting, The “Transparently” Phrase Applies To The Client And Target
`Computers, Not A “User”................................................................................13
`
`C. “Domain Name Service (DNS)” ..............................................................................14
`
`1. The Ordinary Meaning Of DNS In The Context Of The Patents Is The Internet-
`standard “Domain Name Service” ...................................................................14
`
`2. VirnetX’s Patents Attempt To Build Upon The Existing DNS Infrastructure...16
`
`3. VirnetX’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong.....................................................18
`
`D. “Domain Name” ......................................................................................................19
`
`1. Microsoft’s Construction Is Consistent With The Ordinary Meaning And The
`Intrinsic Evidence ...........................................................................................19
`
`2. VirnetX’s Criticisms Of Microsoft’s Construction Are Baseless......................21
`
`E. “Web Site”...............................................................................................................22
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 9478
`
`
`1. Microsoft’s Construction Gives “Web Site” Its Ordinary Meaning Consistent
`With Its Use In The Patents.............................................................................23
`
`2. VirnetX’s Proposed Construction Is Fatally Overbroad And Inconsistent With
`The Intrinsic Evidence ....................................................................................25
`
`F. “Secure Web Site” ...................................................................................................27
`
`1. The Patents Establish That Web Sites Are “Secure” By Virtue Of Restricting
`Access To Authorized Users ...........................................................................28
`
`G. “Determining Whether The Dns Request Transmitted In Step (1) Is Requesting
`Access To A Secure Web Site”................................................................................29
`
`1. The Claim Language Strongly Supports Microsoft’s Construction ..................30
`
`2. The Specification Confirms Microsoft’s Construction.....................................31
`
`3. VirnetX’s Non-Construction Proposal Should Be Rejected .............................32
`
`H. “Automatically Initiating the VPN” .........................................................................33
`
`1. The Claim Language Illustrates That “Automatically” Precludes The Client Or
`Target From Requesting VPN Initiation ..........................................................33
`
`2. The Specification Supports Microsoft’s Construction......................................34
`
`I. “DNS Proxy Server”................................................................................................35
`
`1. The DNS Proxy Server Must Be Separate From The Client Computer ............35
`
`2. The DNS Proxy Server Must Check The DNS Request ...................................37
`
`J. “Enabling A Secure Communication Mode Of Communication At The First
`Computer Without A User Entering Any Cryptographic Information For Establishing
`The Secure Communication Mode Of Communication”...........................................37
`
`1. The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Redrafting The Claims....................38
`
`2. The Court Should Not Redraft The ’759 Patent Claims To
`“Preserve Validity” .........................................................................................40
`
`3.
`
`“Cryptographic Information”...........................................................................41
`
`K. “Secure Communication Link” ................................................................................42
`
`L. “Virtual Private Network Communication Link”......................................................43
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 9479
`
`
`M. “Secure Domain Name Service,” “Secure Domain Name” And “Secure Computer
`Network Address” ...................................................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Secure Domain Name Service” Implements DNS For Nonstandard Top-Level
`Domain Names ...............................................................................................45
`
`“Secure Domain Names” Are Specified To Include Only Non-standard
`Top-Level Domain Names ..............................................................................47
`
`3.
`
`“Secure” Computer Network Addresses Require Authorization For Access ....48
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................50
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 9480
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page
`
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..........................................................................................9, 35
`
`
`AquaTex Industrial v. Techniche Solutions,
`419 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................15, 25
`
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................44
`
`
`Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................12, 13
`
`
`Chimie v. PPG Industrial, Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................18, 19
`
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................30
`
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.,
`537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................41
`
`
`Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................3
`
`
`Electro-Scientific Industrial, Inc. v. Dynamic Details, Inc.,
`307 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................13
`
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................24, 27
`
`
`Honeywell International Inc. v. ITT Industrial, Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................45
`
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................3
`
`
`LG Electrics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electrics, Inc.,
`453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................17
`
`
`Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................28
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 9481
`
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................42
`
`
`Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc.,
`No. 2008-1263, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25031 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) ........................30, 45
`
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................2, 15
`
`
`O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co. Ltd,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................32
`
`
`PPG Industrial v. Guardian Industrial Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................19
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).....................................................................................passim
`
`
`SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................38
`
`
`Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. International Trade Commission,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................27
`
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates International Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................25
`
`
`Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................ 28, 35, 44
`
`
`Warner-Lambert Co. v. Purepac Pharm. Co.,
`503 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................20, 26
`
`
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`
`Peter Dyson, Dictionary of Networking (1999)............................................................................6
`
`Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Vol. 1: Principles, Protocols and
`Architecture (4th ed. 2000)....................................................................................................7
`
`
`Naganand Doraswamy & Dan Harkins, IPSec, The New Security Standard for the
`Internet Intranets. (1999) ......................................................................................................6
`
`
`Brian Lavoie and Henrik F. Nielsen, Web characterization Terminology & Definitions
`Sheet (May 24, 1999). .........................................................................................................24
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 9482
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`If there is a consistent theme to the parties’ competing constructions, it is this:
`
`Microsoft’s proposed constructions are based on the ordinary meanings of the disputed terms in
`
`the context of the patents-in-suit, while VirnetX, having deliberately written its claims in terms
`
`familiar to those skilled in the art, now attempts to abandon those accepted meanings. For
`
`example, under VirnetX’s constructions, a “web site” is any computer on the Internet, a “domain
`
`name” is any series of characters, and a “virtual private network” is any network that uses
`
`encryption. What VirnetX calls giving the disputed claim terms their “full scope” in fact
`
`ignores their ordinary meanings as understood by those of skill in the art in the context of the
`
`patents. VirnetX’s approach must be rejected, and Microsoft’s constructions should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`“The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim
`
`term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The ordinary and customary meaning
`
`of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.” Id. While in some cases the ordinary meaning will be
`
`“readily apparent” to a lay judge, in other cases the Court looks to a variety of time-tested public
`
`sources to ascertain the ordinary meaning, including “the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning
`
`relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at
`
`1314 (quotation omitted). While the specification is “always highly relevant,” there “is no
`
`magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.” Id. at 1315, 1324. Because
`
`the question of ordinary meaning is central, “Dictionaries are among the many tools that can
`
`assist the court in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of
`
`the invention.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288-89 (Fed.
`
`1
`
`Page 7 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 9483
`
`
`Cir. 2008) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318). “Broadening of the ordinary meaning of a term
`
`in the absence of support in the intrinsic record indicating that such a broad meaning was
`
`intended violates the principles articulated in Phillips.” Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136,
`
`1145-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be
`
`determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and
`
`intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that [1] stays true to the claim language
`
`and [2] most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the
`
`correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quotation omitted).
`
`III.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`VirnetX’s ’135 Patent is generally directed to “[a] secure mechanism for
`
`communicating over the internet.” ’135 Patent at 2:66 (Exh A). The patent purports to address
`
`two security issues: data security (concealing the content of the messages being sent over the
`
`Internet) and anonymity (concealing the identities of the persons sending those messages). Id.
`
`at 1:15-37. VirnetX’s ’135 Patent uses “a DNS proxy server that transparently creates a virtual
`
`private network in response to a domain name inquiry.” Id. at 6:1-3. The DNS proxy server
`
`intercepts a DNS request sent from a client computer to the conventional DNS and, if the client
`
`is seeking access to a secure web site, the DNS proxy server automatically initiates a VPN
`
`between the client and the target computer hosting the secure web site. Id. at 37:19-38:13.
`
`The ’759 and ’180 Patents are a continuation-in-part from the application that led
`
`to the ’135 Patent, and add text relating to a “secure virtual Internet” that “works over the
`
`existing Internet infrastructure.” ’759 Patent at 6:24-26 (Exh B). The ’759 Patent states that “a
`
`user can conveniently establish a VPN using a ‘one-click’ or a ‘no-click’ technique without
`
`being required to enter user identification information, a password and/or an encryption key for
`
`establishing a VPN.” Id. at 6:37-41. The ’180 Patent is directed to “a secure domain name
`
`service (SDNS) for the secure virtual Internet” that provides “secure computer network
`
`addresses” corresponding to “secure domain names.” ’180 Patent 6:27-31 (Exh C).
`
`2
`
`Page 8 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080—LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 9484
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED CLAINI TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“virtual private network (VPN)”
`
`Microsofi ‘5 Construction
`
`VirnetX‘s Construction
`
`“virtual private network
`(VPN)”
`
`a network implemented by
`encapsulating an encrypted IP
`packet within another IP
`packet (that is, tunneling) over
`a shared networking
`infrastructure
`
`I aths
`
`a network of computers
`capable of privately
`communicating with each
`other by encrypting traflic on
`insecure cormnunication paths
`between the computers, and
`which is capable of expanding
`to include additional
`
`computers and communication
`
`VirnetX’s proposed construction of VPN fails one of the most basic tests for a
`
`claim construction under Federal Circuit law:
`
`it does not accomplish the objectives set out in
`
`the patent for the claimed invention. The law is clear on this point. See, e.g., Kyocera Wireless
`
`Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1347-49 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (construing the term “different” to require
`
`“two diflerent methods of cormnunication” where the specification described a “need for a
`
`multipurpose computer module that can provide more than one peripheral
`
`function”);
`
`Decisioning. com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc, 527 F.3d 1300, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(excluding consumer—owned personal computers from the construction of “remote interface”
`
`because personal computers did not “achiev[e]
`
`the invention’s stated purpose”). Accord
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he best source for discerning the proper context of claim terms is
`
`the patent specification wherein the patent applicant describes the invention”) (quotation
`
`omitted). The patents-in-suit are clear that achieving virtual privacy on a public network has
`
`two requirements: data security (accomplished by encryption) and anonymity (accomplished by
`
`encapsulation). VirnetX’s proposed construction ignores the anonymity aspect of a VPN as set
`
`forth in its own patents.
`
`l.
`
`Microsoft’s Construction Gives VPN Its Ordinary Meaning in the
`Context of the Patents-In-Suit
`
`Starting with the term itself, “virtual private network” indicates that its purpose is
`
`Page 9 of 58
`
`Page 9 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 9485
`
`
`to virtualize a real private network over a public network. As explained in Microsoft’s tutorial,
`
`there are two fundamental security characteristics of a real private network that a VPN attempts
`
`to virtualize: (i) persons outside a real private network cannot see the content of the messages
`
`being sent in the network (i.e., data security); and (ii) persons outside a real private network
`
`cannot tell who is sending messages to whom in the private network (i.e., anonymity). Exh. D
`
`(“Johnson Decl.”) at ¶ 22, 24; see also VX Exh. 4 (“Jones Decl.”) at ¶ 16 (“A private network
`
`has secure communication paths between the computers in the network because the paths are
`
`only used by the private network itself, and are not publicly accessible.”).
`
`It is not surprising, therefore, that the patents-in-suit—the asserted claims of
`
`which all require VPNs—are expressly concerned with both “data security and anonymity.”
`
`’135 patent at 1:35-36. As stated in the Background of the Invention section, “[a] tremendous
`
`variety of methods have been proposed and implemented to provide security and anonymity for
`communications over the Internet.”1 Id. at 1:15-17. The Background describes data security as
`being “immune to eavesdropping,” and says that “[d]ata security is usually tackled using some
`
`form of data encryption.” Id. at 1:23-25, 1:38-39. The Background describes anonymity as
`
`“prevent[ing] an eavesdropper from discovering that terminal 100 is in communication with
`
`terminal 110.” Id. at 1:27-28.
`
`Microsoft’s construction of VPN embodies both the requirements of data security
`
`and anonymity. As described in Microsoft’s tutorial, an IP packet contains an IP header (which
`
`includes the source and destination IP addresses of the packet) and a payload (which includes the
`
`message to be transmitted). See Johnson Decl. at ¶ 18. In a VPN as construed by Microsoft,
`
`the entire IP packet (header and payload) is encrypted, and the encrypted IP packet is
`
`encapsulated in a new, outer IP packet. Encrypting the entire IP packet and encapsulating it in a
`
`new IP packet achieves both data security and anonymity. If the IP packet is intercepted during
`
`transmission, a third party cannot see either the content of the message (which is in the encrypted
`
`
`1 Emphasis is supplied except where otherwise noted.
`
`4
`
`Page 10 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 9486
`
`
`payload) or the identities of the true source and destination for the packet (which are in the
`
`encrypted header). Id. at ¶ 23, 35.
`
`VirnetX’s construction of VPN, by contrast, achieves only data security—not
`
`anonymity. In a VPN as construed by VirnetX, only the payload of the IP packet is encrypted.
`
`See Brief at 7 n.2 (describing SSL and TLS, which are used to encrypt only the payload);
`
`Johnson Decl. at ¶ 35. While a third party intercepting the IP packet during transmission could
`
`not see the message (data security), the third party would see the packet’s true source and
`
`destination IP addresses because the IP header was not encrypted. As a result, there is no
`
`anonymity.
`
`The patents-in-suit describe two types of VPNs—TARP VPNs and IPsec VPNs—
`
`both of which support Microsoft’s construction. According to the patents, TARP (or Tunneled
`
`Agile Routing Protocol) VPNs use “normal IP protocol to send IP packet messages.” ’135
`
`patent at 3:4-5. The entire IP packets are first encrypted, and then the encrypted IP packets are
`
`encapsulated in new IP packets to create a secure IP tunnel. See id. at 3:5-11; see also Figs. 3A,
`
`3B & 4. By encrypting the entire IP packet, not only is the message concealed (data security),
`
`but so too are the true source and destination IP addresses of the packet located in the IP header
`
`(anonymity). See id. at 3:5-8; see also id. at 3:19-20, 3:58-60. In this way, TARP achieves
`
`both data security and anonymity. See id. at 3:5-18; see also id. at 3:19-20, 3:58-60, 38:2-6.
`
`IPsec VPNs, which were used in the FreeS/WAN project referenced in the
`
`patents, are defined by IETF RFC 2401. See ’135 patent at 37:50-58; Brief at 8; VX Exh. 6 at
`
`14; Johnson Decl. at ¶ 30. According to RFC 2401, IPsec VPNs—like TARP VPNs—encrypt
`
`IP packets and encapsulate them in new IP packets (i.e., tunneling) to achieve both data security
`and anonymity.2 See Exh. G (“IETF RFC 2401”) at 6; Johnson Decl. at ¶ 23.
`
`
`2 The cited prior art also describes VPNs as being created by encrypting IP packets and
`encapsulating them in IP packets. See Exh. E (“U.S. Patent No. 6,178,505”) at 4:5-27, Fig. 22;
`Exh. F (“Patent Cooperation Treaty Application No. PCT/SE00/02565”) at 1:11-25.
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 9487
`
`
`The extrinsic evidence showing the ordinary meaning of VPN at the relevant time
`
`further supports Microsoft’s construction as providing anonymity through tunneling:
`
`• “[A] VPN is an encrypted private tunnel across the Internet.” Exh. H (“Peter Dyson,
`Dictionary of Networking. 1999”) at 399.
`• “VPNs must be implemented through some form of IP tunneling mechanism.” Exh. I
`(“IETF RFC 2764”) at 8 & 10. (Cited by VirnetX).
`• “A VPN is virtual because it is not a physically distinct network. Tunnels are used to
`establish connectivity between disparate physical networks. A VPN is private because
`the tunnels are encrypted to provide confidentiality.” Exh. J (“Naganand Doraswamy &
`Dan Harkins, IPSec, The New Security Standard for the Internet Intranets. 1999”) at 168.
`Indeed, one of the best descriptions of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood a VPN is from a treatise that VirnetX’s own expert, Dr. Mark Jones, used in the
`
`1990s to develop a graduate level course on internetworking:
`
`Two basic techniques make a VPN possible: tunneling and encryption.
`We have already encountered tunneling in Chapters 17 and 19. VPNs use
`the same basic idea – they define a tunnel across the global Internet
`between a router at one site and a router as another, and use IP-in-IP
`encapsulation to forward datagrams across the tunnel.
`
`Despite using the same basic concept, a VPN tunnel differs dramatically
`from the tunnels described previously. In particular, to guarantee privacy,
`a VPN encrypts each outgoing datagram before encapsulating it in another
`datagram for transmission. Figure 20.2 illustrates the concept.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 12 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 9488
`
`
`Exh. K (“Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Vol. 1: Principles, Protocols and
`Architecture, 4th ed. 2000”) at 390-394; VX Exh. 4 App. A at 8.3
`In its Opening Brief, VirnetX makes a number of arguments about why
`
`Microsoft’s construction is wrong. VirnetX’s arguments should be rejected. First, VirnetX
`
`argues that Microsoft’s construction limits VPNs to the Internet. Microsoft’s construction,
`
`however, is limited to IP-based VPNs regardless of whether they are used on the Internet or
`some other network. 4 Second, VirnetX argues that Microsoft’s construction is improperly
`limited to VPNs that are IP-based. The alleged inventions, however, are based on the IP
`
`protocol. See ’135 patent at claims 1 & 10 (requiring “IP addresses,” “DNS” and “domain
`
`name”); ’759 patent at 6:21-24 (“The present invention provides key technologies for
`
`implementing a secure virtual Internet by using a new agile network protocol that is built on top
`
`of the existing Internet protocol.”); ’180 patent at claim 1 (requiring “domain name,” “domain
`name service” and “computer network address”). 5 Third, VirnetX argues that Microsoft’s
`construction requires VPNs to be implemented in the network layer. Microsoft’s construction
`
`does not require encapsulation to happen at any particular layer, and is broad enough to cover IP
`
`packets being encapsulated in IP packets at layers other than the network layer. See Exh. L
`
`(Johnson Depo.) at 33-34. Fourth, VirnetX argues that the specification distinguishes IPsec.
`
`
`3 VirnetX relies on another book by Comer in its Brief. See Brief at 6 & Exh. 12 (Computer
`Networks and Internets).
`4 The patents describe VPNs implemented on an Ethernet. See ’135 patent at 23:11-36. Those
`VPNs are merely extensions of TARP VPNs to an Ethernet. The description of those VPNs is
`found in the section of the patent entitled “Further Extensions.” Id. at 18:29. That section,
`which follows the description of TARP VPNs, begins by stating that “[t]he following describes
`various extensions to the techniques, systems, and methods described above.” Id. at 18:31-32.
`The VPNs are specifically described as being part of a “promiscuous per VPN” mode. Id. at
`23:11-12. As described earlier in that section, a “promiscuous” mode is a particular way of
`using TARP, wherein the TARP stack analyzes every IP packet transmitted over the Ethernet
`network to determine, based on IP addresses, whether the packet is destined for the machine
`associated with that stack. Id. at 20:41-56; see also 23:11-20 (where each node in the VPN
`examines every packet transmitted in that VPN). Because these VPNs are extensions of TARP
`VPNs, they are IP-based and support Microsoft’s construction.
`5 VirnetX’s assertion that a preferred embodiment uses any type of “address hoping” is wrong.
`The patent specifically identifies “IP address ‘hopping.’” ’135 patent at 38:3.
`
`7
`
`Page 13 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 9489
`
`
`But the specification does not distinguish IPsec on the ground that it is not a VPN. See ’135
`
`patent at 37:50-62. Fifth, VirnetX’s argument that the patents describe using MAC addresses to
`
`implement VPNs is wrong. The patents do not describe using MAC addresses to implement
`
`VPNs. Instead, they describe using MAC addresses to implement hardware address hopping, a
`
`concept that is not claimed in the asserted claims. See ’135 patent at 19:47-20:3, 20:32-66,
`
`21:3-29, 22:40-44. Finally, VirnetX argues that the PPTP protocol is not limited to tunneling IP
`
`packets within IP packets. While PPTP can be used to create VPNs, that is not its only use.
`See Johnson Decl. at ¶ 36.6
`Microsoft’s construction gives VPN its ordinary meaning in the context of the
`
`patents-in-suit, and should be adopted.
`
`2.
`VirnetX’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`VirnetX’s proposed construction of “virtual private network” has two parts: (1)
`
`“a network of computers capable of privately communicating with each other by encrypting
`
`traffic on insecure paths between the computers” (the “Encryption Clause”); and (2) “which is
`
`capable of expanding to include additional computers and communication paths” (the
`
`“Expansion Clause”). Neither clause is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a VPN or
`
`supported by the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.
`
`a.
`
`VirnetX’s Encryption Clause Is Not Supported By The
`Evidence
`
`(1)
`
`VirnetX’s “Explicit Definition” Is Not An Explicit
`Definition
`VirnetX argues that its proposed construction is required by an “explicit
`
`definition” in the intrinsic evidence, namely the references to the FreeS/WAN project in the
`
`specification and File History. Brief at 5. VirnetX’s position is wrong on both counts: the
`
`references to FreeS/WAN are not an “explicit definition” and, in any event, they support
`
`Microsoft’s position more than VirnetX’s and are at best ambiguous. VirnetX’s position that
`
`
`6 Microsoft was unable to find the quote VirnetX attributed to the Risley patent in that patent.
`
`8
`
`Page 14 of 58
`
`

`

`Case 6:07-cv-00080-LED Document 201 Filed 01/20/09 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 9490
`
`
`FreeS/WAN is an “explicit definition” is simply not supportable. The only specification citation
`
`offered by VirnetX is from column 37 (a section not purporting to be a definition and deep into
`
`the patent’s description) where the patent says, unremarkably, in characterizing the prior art that
`
`“one conventional scheme that provides secure virtual private networks over the Internet . . . one
`
`implementation of this standard is presently being developed as part of the FreeS/WAN project.”
`’135 Patent at 37:59-62. This portion is by no means an explicit definition.7 VirnetX next
`relies on a document submitted during the File History as being “prominently” submitted. Brief
`
`at 5. To the contrary, not only was the glossary not “prominently” cited, it was not relied on or
`
`discussed at all by either the applicant or the examiner. It was merely one of over 70 references
`
`dumped into the File Histories of the patents-in-suit. See Exhs. M-O. The idea that an “explicit
`
`definition” can be attributed to a document dumped into the File History two years into the
`
`prosecution without any reliance on it is squarely inconsistent with the notice function of claim
`
`construction. Under these circumstances, the law is clear that the glossary is not treated as an
`
`“explicit definition.” See, e.g., Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 809 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (“[The cited prior art] was not created by the patentee in attempting to explain and obtain
`
`the patent. Its usage is not that of this patentee, and so it also merits less weight than the
`
`evidence of the patentee’s own words.”).
`
`(2)
`
`VirnetX’s “Explicit Definition” Is Ambiguous And
`Supports Microsoft’s Position More Than VirnetX’s
`In any event, the glossary itself is at best ambiguous and supports M

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