`Filed: March 26, 2014
`
`Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`Joseph E. Palys
`
`Naveen Modi
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: 571-203-2700
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
` naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Board Precedent Requires Denial of the Petition for Failing to
`Meet the Substantive Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............. 2
`
`The Petition Remains Defective ............................................................ 5
`
`The Order Prejudices VirnetX ............................................................... 7
`
`D. VirnetX Requests an Expanded Panel on Rehearing ............................ 8
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc.,
`IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) ....................................................... 3, 6
`
`CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Procter and Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00450, Paper 19 (Feb. 4, 2014) ............................................................. 2
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 6
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012) .......................................................... 8
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 (Feb. 22, 2013) ....................................................... 3, 6
`
`Tasco, Inc. v. Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103, Paper 6 (May 23, 2013) ......................................................... 2-3
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper 16 (July 13, 2013) ................................................... 2-4, 7
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .......................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) requests rehearing of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Order entered March 17, 2014 (“Order”).
`
`Specifically, VirnetX requests rehearing of the decision1 that “RPX must file, as an
`
`exhibit, a modified version of the original Petition, which has specific citations to
`
`the prior art that the declarant refers to in the declaration at the appropriate places
`
`in the Petition.” (Order at 4.) As discussed below, the Board should not allow
`
`RPX to fix its defective Petition. It should be denied.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`
`without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request
`
`must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a
`
`motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. A request for rehearing must be filed
`
`within 14 days of a non-final decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1).
`
`When asked to review a decision on a petition, a panel looks for an abuse of
`
`
`1 The Board also ordered the parties to further brief the real-party-in-interest
`
`and privity issues. (Order at 2-4.) VirnetX does not seek rehearing of that aspect
`
`of the Order.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ‘decision
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings,
`
`or . . . a clear error of judgment.’” CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Procter and Gamble
`
`Co., IPR2013-00450, Paper 19 at 2 (Feb. 4, 2014) (quoted source omitted).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`VirnetX requests rehearing for three reasons. First, the Order departs from
`
`Board precedent requiring denial of a petition when it does not meet 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)’s substantive
`
`requirements.
`
` Second, despite RPX’s alleged
`
`compliance with the Order, the Petition’s substantive defects remain. Third, the
`
`Order prejudices VirnetX. Because the Petition is substantively defectivenot
`
`merely procedurally flawedthe Board should deny the Petition as it has done in
`
`other cases.
`
`A. Board Precedent Requires Denial of the Petition for Failing to
`Meet the Substantive Requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`Petitions that contravene the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b) are denied, not subject to correction midstream. The Board has
`
`explained that “failure to point out where each element is found in the prior art is a
`
`deficiency in the substantive requirements of the petition,” which warrants denial
`
`under § 42.104(b)(4). Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00054, Paper 16 at 3 (July 13, 2013) (emphasis added); see also Tasco, Inc. v.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Pagnani, IPR2013-00103, Paper No. 6 at 19-20 (May 23, 2013). The Board has
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`also denied petitions for failure to comply with § 42.104(b)(5), because “[t]he
`
`Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to
`
`state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge.” Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054,
`
`Paper 12 at 11 (Apr. 8, 2013); Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc., IPR2013-00186,
`
`Paper 34 at 3 (Oct. 23, 2013) (same); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 14-15 (Feb. 22, 2013) (denying petition for
`
`failure to comply with §§ 104(b)(4) and 104(b)(5), among other requirements).
`
`Here, it appears that based on VirnetX’s Preliminary Response, the Order
`
`correctly recognizes that the Petition’s invalidity analysis is flawed. (Order at 4.)
`
`Nevertheless, the Order appears to have misapprehended or overlooked (1) that
`
`allowing RPX to insert citations does not cure all of the Petition’s § 42.104(b)
`
`defects, and (2) the Board’s case law holding that the appropriate remedy for the
`
`Petition’s defects is denial of the Petition. (See Prelim. Resp. at 19-22.) For
`
`example, in Wowza the Board denied a petition for inter partes review for failing
`
`to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5) because the petition
`
`lacked sufficient analysis of the prior art references as applied to the specific
`
`limitations of the claims. Wowza, Paper No. 12 at 11-17. In its rehearing request,
`
`the petitioner asked the Board to “treat the Petition as incomplete under
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 42.106(a)(1) . . . and provide one month to [allow petitioner to] correct the
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`deficiency.” Wowza, Paper No. 16 at 2. The Board rejected the petitioner’s
`
`request, and refused to find that the petitioner, “having failed to meet its statutory
`
`burden of proof initially, should now be given a second opportunity on the merits
`
`based on supposed procedural deficiencies in the petition, as filed.” Id. The Board
`
`held that treating the petition as “incomplete” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(b) would
`
`be improper, because that “rule does not apply to a failure to meet substantive
`
`statutory requirements.” Id. at 3.
`
`Here, as in Wowza, the Petition’s failure to comply with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b) should result in denial of the Petition, not a “second opportunity” to
`
`correct substantive defects. Id. at 2. VirnetX’s Preliminary Response explained
`
`that the Petition fails to comply with the “particularity” requirement of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) and to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior
`
`art patents or printed publications relied upon” as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4). (Prelim. Resp. at 19-22.) First, the Petition cites almost
`
`exclusively to expert declarations rather than the asserted references themselves.
`
`(Id. at 19-21.) Second, the Petition lacks the required specificity in its analysis,
`
`instead offering conclusory and vague commentary about the purported teachings
`
`of the asserted references. (Id. at 21-22.)
`
`Consistent with the Board’s application of § 42.104(b)’s substantive
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`requirements in other cases, RPX’s Petition should be denied and RPX should not
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`be allowed to correct it.
`
`The Petition Remains Defective
`
`B.
`RPX’s compliance with the Order has not rectified the Petition’s substantive
`
`defects. RPX allegedly provided “specific citations to the prior art that the
`
`declarant refers to in the declaration at the appropriate places in the Petition” (see
`
`Order at 4), but the Petition remains in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)’s
`
`substantive requirements.
`
`VirnetX’s Preliminary Response explained that the Petition’s substantive
`
`defects run deeper than just lacking citations to the asserted references. The
`
`Petition’s proposed grounds discuss the references in generalities that paraphrase
`
`the claim language and do not provide an analysis explaining which specific
`
`aspects of the references purportedly disclose the claimed elements. (Prelim. Resp.
`
`at 21-22.)
`
`For example, VirnetX explained that RPX does not specifically identify the
`
`features in Aventail or Provino that purportedly correspond to the “secure
`
`communication link” recited in the challenged claims. (Id. at 21-22.) Simply
`
`shifting the declaration’s prior art citations into the Petition does not add the
`
`missing explanation. Instead, the result is the Petition’s high-level commentary
`
`about the references, followed by long string citations, which the Board should
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`reject as inadequate as it has done in the past. See, e.g., Heart Failure Techs., LLC
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 at 12 (July 31, 2013) (rejecting
`
`petition that “gives no explanation as to how the cited passages meet the claim
`
`limitation”); Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc., IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 at 3 (Oct.
`
`23, 2013) (rejecting ground based on “long string cites to multiple references”);
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper 16 at 14-15 (Feb.
`
`22, 2013) (finding that “Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without more detail,
`
`fail to satisfy” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), among other
`
`requirements).
`
`Because the Petition suffers from both lack of analysis and lack of citation to
`
`the asserted references, it cannot be fixed by simply shifting the citations from the
`
`expert declarations to their corresponding locations in the body of the Petition.
`
`Taking just one example from RPX’s anticipation discussion of ’211 patent claim
`
`1 and Aventail, the Petition discusses Aventail at length without any reference to
`
`the claim language, and then abruptly concludes that Aventail discloses “a domain
`
`name service system . . . configured and arranged to indicate in response to the
`
`query whether the domain name service systems supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link.” (Pet. at 21-23.) But the Petition provides no analysis
`
`explaining what aspects of Aventail are deemed the “indication” from a domain
`
`name service system, how such an indication occurs “in response to a query for a
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`network address,” etc., as recited in the claim. Moving citations from the expert
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`declaration to the body of the Petition does not cure this lack of analysis. The
`
`Petition remains conclusory, and VirnetX and the Board remain forced to speculate
`
`as to RPX’s asserted theories of invalidity. (See Prelim. Resp. at 20-22.)
`
`C. The Order Prejudices VirnetX
`The Order is also prejudicial to VirnetX. It gives RPX an unwarranted
`
`“second opportunity on the merits.” Wowza, Paper No. 16 at 2. RPX was
`
`intimately familiar with the now-terminated Apple proceedings challenging the
`
`same patent on what RPX contends are “substantially identical” grounds. (See Pet.
`
`at 6, “The grounds of Petitioner’s challenge are substantially similar to the grounds
`
`advanced by [Apple] in IPR2013-00397 [and] IPR2013-00398 . . . .”) And in its
`
`Preliminary Responses in the corresponding Apple proceedings, VirnetX raised the
`
`very same § 42.104(b) challenges to Apple’s petitions. (See Prelim. Resp.,
`
`IPR2013-00397, Paper 11 at 12-13; Prelim. Resp., IPR2013-00398, Paper 12 at 12-
`
`13.) Although RPX had notice of the § 42.104(b) deficiencies in Apple’s petitions
`
`and an opportunity to correct them in this Petition, it did not do so. RPX cannot
`
`now claim surprise or prejudice when its Petition is found to be deficient for the
`
`same reasons.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`D. VirnetX Requests an Expanded Panel on Rehearing
`To the extent that the Board desires to reconsider its precedent requiring
`
`denial of a petition when it does not meet the substantive requirements of
`
`§ 42.104(b), VirnetX respectfully requests an expanded panel on rehearing to
`
`resolve the issue. The Office has assembled expanded panels in the past when
`
`setting substantive rules on the content of petitions, and VirnetX believes an
`
`expanded panel would permit the Office to clarify its policy on this important issue
`
`and ensure consistency in future decisions. See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012)
`
`(expanded panel promulgating rules on redundant rejections).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests rehearing of the
`
`Board’s March 17, 2014 Order that RPX file a modified Petition. RPX’s modified
`
`Petition should not be accepted and should be expunged from the record.
`
`Dated: March 26, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Case IPR2014-00174
`Patent 7,921,211
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) by electronic means on March
`
`26, 2014 at the following address of record:
`
`Oliver R. Ashe, Jr., Esq.
`Ashe, P.C.
`11440 Isaac Newton Sq. North, Suite 210
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Gregory M. Howison
`Howison & Arnott, LLP
`Lincoln Centre II
`5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 660
`Dallas, TX 75240
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: March 26, 2014