UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013-00377
`
`Patent 7,418,504
`Issue Date: Aug. 26, 2008
`Title: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`USING SECURE DOMAIN NAMES
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,418,504
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2028
`RPX v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2014-00173
`
`Page 1 of 62
`
`

`
`
`I. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS .................................. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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 .............................................. 7
`
`G. FEE ................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`II. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................. 7
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 8
`
`A. The Claims Of The ‘504 Patent Purport To Improve Over Prior
`Art Domain Name Service Systems By Configuring Such
`Systems To Include “An Indication That The Domain Name
`Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link” .......................................................................................... 8
`
`1. Admitted Prior Art ........................................................................................... 8
`
`2. The Purported Improvement Over Prior Art Domain
`Name Service Systems: Configuring Such
`Systems To Include “An Indication That The
`Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing A Secure Communication Link” ....................................... 9
`
`B. The ‘504 Patent Does Not Define “An Indication That The Domain
`Name Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link” But Discloses Embodiments That
`Provide Such An “Indication” ........................................................................... 10
`
`C. The ‘504 Patent Was Granted Over Prior Art Which Established
`Secure Communications Without the Support of a Domain
`Name Service ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 2 of 62
`
`

`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 14
`
`A. Legal Standards.......................................................................................................... 14
`
`B. Domain name .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`C. Top-level domain name ............................................................................................. 19
`
`D. Domain name service ................................................................................................. 20
`
`E. Secure communication link ....................................................................................... 21
`
`F. Domain name service system ..................................................................................... 22
`
`G. Configured…to comprise an indication that the domain name
`service system supports establishing a secure communication
`link ........................................................................................................................ 22
`
`H. Transparently ............................................................................................................. 26
`
`V. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR
`CANCELLATION OF CLAIMS IN THE ‘504 PATENT ...................... 26
`
`A. Kiuchi is Prior Art That Uses a Domain Name Service in
`Establishing Secure Communication Links Over the Internet....................... 26
`
`B. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Kiuchi .............................................................................. 31
`
`C. Claim 2 is Anticipated by Kiuchi .............................................................................. 41
`
`D. Claim 5 is Anticipated by Kiuchi .............................................................................. 42
`
`E. Claim 16 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ............................................................................ 45
`
`F. Claim 27 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ............................................................................ 49
`
`G. Claim 21 Would Have Been Obvious Over Kiuchi in View of
`Broadhurst ........................................................................................................... 50
`
`VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 62
`
`

`
`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) ......................................................... 16
`Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1996) .................... 15
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v.Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15
`(PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013) ............................................................................................ 14
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............. 15
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................... 16
`Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48
`USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 15
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998)
` .............................................................................................................................. 14
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)................ 14
`RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) ..................................................................................................................... 14
`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, 18
`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) .... 17, 20
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 62
`
`

`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ................................................................................................ 7, 27
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2), (d) ........................................................................................ 15
`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) ............................................................................................. 15
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 (b) .............................................................................................. 14
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001. U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`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.
`
`
`1006. Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`1007. Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice, Second
`Edition, William Stallings, Chapter 13, IP Security
`
`
`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
`Corp. 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. 7,418,504
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`1016. VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. – Transcript of Trial, Morning Session, Nov. 1,
`2012
`
`vii
`
`Page 7 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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 1, 2, 5, 16, 21 and 27 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,418,504 (the “'504 patent,” attached as Ex. 1001). The present assignee of the
`
`'504 patent is VirnetX, Inc. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies
`
`that the real parties in interest 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 ‘504 patent, issued on August 26, 2008, 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 ‘504 patent.
`
`C. RELATED MATTERS
`
` The ‘504 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
`
`Page 8 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. 6:10cv417 entered a Final Judgment finding, inter alia, that Apple had
`
`infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 21 and 27 of the ‘504 patent and that such claims were
`
`not invalid despite having considered the reference to Kiuchi 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 36, 47 and 51 of the ‘504 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 ‘504 patent is the subject of two pending inter partes
`
`reexaminations, 95/001,851 brought by Cisco Systems, and 95/001,788 brought by
`
`Apple Inc. Neither of the pending reexaminations has reached the stage of a Right
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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 with one minor exception,
`
`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 1, 2, 5, 16, 21
`
`and 27 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 37
`
`U.S.C. 317(b).
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`New Bay is also seeking inter partes review of continuation U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,921,211, 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 ‘504 patent:
`
`13/049,552 filed on 03-16-2011
`
`13/080,680 filed on 04-06-2011
`
`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
`
`13/474,397 filed on 05-17-2012
`
`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
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`13/903,788 filed on 05-28-2013
`
`95/001,789 filed on 10-18-2011
`
`95/001,856 filed on 12-16-2011
`
` 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
`
`13/093,785 filed on 04-25-2011
`
`13/181,041 filed on 07-12-2011
`
`13/285,962 filed on 10-31-2011
`
`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
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`95/001,746 filed on 09-07-2011
`
`95/001,792 filed on 10-25-2011
`
`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 is Jeffrey T. 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 T. Klayman
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`617 443 9292 (phone)
`617 443 0004 (fax)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`F.
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER
`
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, 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) 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
`
`(1)
`
`Cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 16 and 27 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.
`
`(2)
`
`Cancellation of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) on account of
`
`obviousness over Kiuchi in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,560,634 (“Broadhurst”)
`
`attached as Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Claims Of The ‘504 Patent Purport To Improve Over Prior
`Art Domain Name Service Systems By Configuring Such Systems
`To Include “An Indication That The Domain Name Service
`System Supports Establishing A Secure Communication Link”
`
` 1. Admitted Prior Art
`
`
`
`Figure 25 of the ‘504 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 ‘504 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
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`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,‘504 patent, column 39: lines7-22;
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶23)
`
`
`
` 2. The Purported Improvement Over Prior Art Domain Name Service
`Systems: Configuring Such Systems To Include “An Indication That
`The Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link”
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘504 patent reads:
`
`1. A system for providing a domain name service for establishing a
`secure communication link, the system comprising:
`
` a domain name service system configured to be connected to a
`communication network, to store a plurality of domain names and
`corresponding network addresses, to receive a query for a network
`address, and to comprise an indication that the domain name service
`system supports establishing a secure communication link.
`
`
`
`
`The domain name service system of the claim is configured to satisfy four criteria.
`
`The first three -- connecting to a communication network, storing domain names
`
`and corresponding network addresses, and receiving queries for network
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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 configured to
`
`perform these well-known functions for retrieving IP addresses, the domain name
`
`server system recited in claim 1 in the ‘504 patent is configured “to comprise an
`
`indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link.”
`
`B. The ‘504 Patent Does Not Define “An Indication That The
`Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing A Secure
`Communication Link” But Discloses Embodiments That Provide
`Such An “Indication”
`
`
`The ‘504 specification does not use the term “indication” to show that a
`
`“domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link”
`
`as claimed. There is no mention in the specification of configuring a system to
`
`comprise such an “indication.” This language was not original to the patent
`
`application, but rather appeared much later during the prosecution in an
`
`amendment filed on July 11, 2007. (Ex. 1006, p.404-419) As part of that
`
`amendment, the applicant did not define the claimed “indication,” and the
`
`examiner allowed the claim without inquiring into what was meant by this term.
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`Looking to the specification, examples of the claimed “indication” are
`
`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, 50:40-43) In the example of
`
`Fig. 33, “software module 3309 sends a query to SDNS 3313” (Ex. 1001, 50:56-
`
`58). In response, “SDNS 3313 returns a secure URL to software module 3309 for
`
`the .scom server address for a secure server 3320…” (Ex. 1001, 51:44-47) Being
`
`configured to return the URL containing the domain name with the .scom top level
`
`domain is an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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, 50:37-
`
`40)
`
`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, 51:48-50) 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, ‘504 patent, 51:56-57). A VPN
`
`allows for encrypted private communications. (Ex. 1004, ¶22) Given that the clear
`
`reply enables the querying computer to establish a VPN, being configured to send
`
`the clear reply, and/or the clear reply itself, comprises an indication that the
`
`domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.
`
`A further example of the claimed “indication” can be found with respect to
`
`Fig. 26. This domain name service system includes a modified DNS server 2602
`
`having a DNS server 2609 and a DNS proxy 2610 programmed on one server or
`
`multiple servers (Ex. 1001, ‘504 patent, 40:43-45). To configure servers normally
`
`means to program them. In the example of Fig. 26, an “indication” is provided
`
`“that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link” when DNS proxy 2610 sends a message to the gatekeeper
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`computer 2603 requesting that a virtual private network (VPN) be created (Ex.
`
`1001, ‘504 patent, 40:8-15). In this example, the message sent to the gatekeeper
`
`computer requesting creation of the VPN is an “indication 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 in a variety of ways to comprise an indication that it supports
`
`establishing a secure communications link.
`
`C. The ‘504 Patent Was Granted Over Prior Art Which Established
`Secure Communications Without the Support of a Domain Name
`Service
`
`When the claim, which is now claim 1, was added to the patent application
`
`in the amendment filed on July 11, 2007, the applicant distinguished the claim
`
`from prior art reference IP Security Chapter 13 of XP-002167283 (“IPSec”),
`
`attached as Ex. 1007, on the ground that the domain name server system in IPSec
`
`failed to provide an indication that it supported establishing the secure
`
`communication link. Although IPSec provided indications that establishment of
`
`secure communication links was supported, such indications were not provided by
`
`the domain name service system. (Ex. 1004, ¶27)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`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,
`
`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 ‘504 patent contains no such definition of “indication” 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
`
`14
`
`Page 21 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`claim scope.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004).
`
`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
`
`15
`
`Page 22 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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.)
`
`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 ‘504 patent.
`
`
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Domain name
`
`Top-level domain name
`
`Domain name service
`
`Secure communication link
`
`Domain name service system
`
`A domain name service system
`configured…to comprise an indication
`that the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure
`communication link
`
`Transparently
`
`16
`
`A name corresponding to a network
`address
`A name used as an ending component
`in a domain name
`A lookup service that returns an IP
`address for a requested domain name
`A direct communication link that
`provides data security
`A system that performs a domain name
`service and which may include a single
`device or multiple devices
`The domain name service system is
`made to include something that serves
`as a sign or token signifying that the
`domain name service system supports
`establishing a secure communication
`link
`The user need not be involved in
`
`Page 23 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`B. Domain name
`
`creating the secure link
`
`A “domain name” as used in the ‘504 patent is a name corresponding to a
`
`network address. The claim itself indicates that domain names have
`
`“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. 1001,39:8-9), and uses the term “network addresses”
`
`generically and often more specifically refers to “IP addresses.” (Ex. 1001, 40:28-
`
`29; 51:1-6, numerous others) The specification refers generically to a non-secure
`
`domain name such as “website.com.” (Ex. 1001, 52:45). 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., 39:17-19)
`
`The ‘504 patent recognized that new domain names could be readily
`
`proposed. For example, the specification teaches alternative secure domain names
`
`such as “website.scom.” (Id., 52:44)
`
`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 grand-parent of the ‘504 patent. There, Microsoft argued that
`
`“domain name” was limited to “a hierarchical name for a computer under
`
`17
`
`Page 24 of 62
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`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 ‘504 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
`
`18
`
`Page 25 of 62
`