`
`Paper No.
`Filed: May 19, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review ......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................ 1
`
`The Board Should Not Institute Based on the Petition’s
`Redundant Grounds ............................................................................... 5
`
`C. Microsoft’s Arguments About the Priority Date of Claim 18
`Are Incorrect and Moot ......................................................................... 9
`
`III. The Petition’s Claim Constructions Are Flawed and Should Be
`Rejected .........................................................................................................10
`
`A. Overview of the ’274 Patent ................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................11
`
`“Virtual Private Network” (Construe as Part of “Virtual Private
`Network Communication Link”) ........................................................13
`
`“Virtual Private Network Communication Link” (Claims 1, 2,
`and 11-13) ............................................................................................17
`
`“Secure Network Address” (Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 17) .....................19
`
`“Secure Domain Name” (Construe as Part of “Secure Domain
`(Name) Service”) .................................................................................23
`
`“Secure Domain (Name) Service” (Claim 1) ......................................25
`
`“[X], [Y], [Z], or Any Combination Thereof” (Claims 3-5) ...............27
`
`“Tunneling” (Claim 12) ......................................................................28
`
`“Tunnel Packeting” (Claim 13) ...........................................................30
`
`K.
`
`“Client Computer” (Claim 15) ............................................................31
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`If Trial Is Instituted, VirnetX Requests an 18-Month Schedule ...................33
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2014-00079, Paper No. 8 (Apr. 25, 2014) .................................................. 2, 5
`
`Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc.,
`IPR2013-00186, Paper No. 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) .................................................... 2
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00549, Paper No. 20 (Apr. 28, 2014) .................................................... 3
`
`EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper No. 25 (June 5, 2013) .............................................. 6, 7, 8
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .................................................... 6
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................ 6, 7
`
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00180, Paper No. 18 (Aug. 26, 2013) ............................................... 7, 8
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16 (Feb. 22, 2013) .................................................... 2
`
`Tasco, Inc. v. Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103, Paper No. 6 (May 23, 2013) ...................................................... 2
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 16 (July 13, 2013) .................................................... 2
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 30
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Case No. IPR2014—00403
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 34
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 34
`
`Regulations
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 34
`37 CPR. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... 34
`37 CPR. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 2, 5
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 2, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ........................................................................................ 2, 5
`37 CPR. § 42.104(b)(5) ........................................................................................ 2, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 CPR. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`1V
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. respectfully submits this Preliminary Response
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, responding to the
`
`Revised Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) filed by Microsoft
`
`Corporation against VirnetX’s U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274 (“the ’274 patent).
`
`VirnetX requests that the Board not institute inter partes review for several
`
`reasons.
`
`First, the Petition fails to identify where the prior art discloses each claimed
`
`feature, violating the particularity requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b). Next, the Petition proposes redundant grounds without
`
`identifying how any one ground improves on any other, violating Board precedent
`
`requiring petitioners to identify differences in the proposed rejections. Finally,
`
`Microsoft proposes a series of incorrect claim constructions. Because its
`
`unpatentability challenges are premised on incorrect claim constructions, Microsoft
`
`has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`
`proving unpatentability of any ’274 patent claim.
`
`II. The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review
`A. The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`Independent claim 1 recites, among other things, “sending an access request
`
`message from the first network device to the secure network address using a virtual
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`private network communication link.” Nowhere does the Petition explain where a
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`purported “access request message” is disclosed in Provino. Nor does the
`
`accompanying declaration provide the missing explanation. Consequently, the
`
`Petition fails to satisfy the substantive requirements for institution set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), 42.104(b)(5), and should be
`
`denied.
`
`Petitions must identify “in writing and with particularity, each claim
`
`challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the
`
`evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim[.]” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3). They must also “specify where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon” (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4))
`
`and identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)). Failure to comply with these substantive requirements for
`
`petitions warrants denial of a petition. Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00079, Paper No. 8 at 17-19 (Apr. 25, 2014); Wowza Media Sys.,
`
`LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 16 at 3, 6 (July 13,
`
`2013); Tasco, Inc. v. Pagnani, IPR2013-00103, Paper No. 6 at 18-22 (May 23,
`
`2013); Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc., IPR2013-00186, Paper No. 34 at 3 (Oct.
`
`23, 2013); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16
`
`at 14-15 (Feb. 22, 2013). As the Board has explained, it will not “search the record
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`and piece together any evidence or arguments that may support Petitioner’s
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`ultimate conclusion.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00549, Paper
`
`No. 20 at 5 (Apr. 28, 2014).
`
`Rather than identify where a purported “access request message” is
`
`disclosed in Provino, the Petition repeats the claim language with general
`
`references to features in Provino. According to the Petition, Provino’s device
`
`12(m) receives an integer Internet address for server 31(s). (Pet. at 32.)
`
`“Thereafter, Provino describes sending an access request message to the server
`
`31(s) for which the integer Internet address is resolved by nameserver 32, and that
`
`access request message leverages a communication link in the VPN of that
`
`destination server 31(s).” (Id. (emphasis added).) The Petition fails to cite
`
`Provino in support of this conclusion, instead citing declarant testimony. (Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 39-40).) Likewise, the cited portions of the declaration refer to
`
`“access requests” and “access request messages” in the abstract, but never identify
`
`what in Provino corresponds to the claimed “access request message.” (Ex. 1011
`
`¶ 40.) Even the portions of Provino cited in the referenced portions of the
`
`declaration merely describe the device 12(m) “generating message packets for
`
`transmission to the server 31(s).” (Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at 15:21-30).) The Petition
`
`also quotes this sentence of Provino, describing “generating message packets,” but
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`fails to explain how this corresponds to an “access request message” as recited in
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`the challenged claims. (Pet. at 32.)
`
`Next, the Petition states that information is transferred from “server 31(s) to
`
`device 12(m).” (Id. at 33.) The cited portion of Provino merely discusses who
`
`(e.g., “a company, governmental agency, organization or the like”) maintains the
`
`virtual private network 15 and who can access the network. (Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at
`
`9:6-13).) Again, this statement in the Petition, and the cited portion of Provino,
`
`fail to address an “access request message” as recited in the challenged claims.
`
`The Petition also generally asserts that “the device 12(m) may send access requests
`
`to server 31(s) using the secure tunnel established with the firewall 30 in the first
`
`phase of the communication process,” but again cites the same portion of Provino
`
`discussed above that describes “generating message packets” and fails to identify
`
`what in Provino corresponds to the recited “access request message.” (Id. at 33-34
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 at 15:21-30).)
`
`The Petition’s claim chart contains the same defects. The claim chart cites
`
`portions of Provino discussing “generating and transferring message packets to one
`
`or more servers 31(s)” (id. at 37-38 (citing Ex. 1003 at 12:1-16)) and the device
`
`12(m) “us[ing] that integer Internet address in generating message packets for
`
`transmission to the server 31(s) which is associated with the human-readable
`
`Internet address” (id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 at 15:21-30)). But these cited passages
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`of Provino merely discuss exchanging “message packets,” and the Petition fails to
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`explain how these portions of Provino disclose an “access request message” as
`
`recited in the challenged claims.
`
`Because the Petition (and even the accompanying declaration) fails to
`
`explain where or how Provino discloses “sending an access request message to the
`
`secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication
`
`link,” as recited in each challenged claim, the Petition does not demonstrate how
`
`Provino anticipates each and every limitation of the challenged claims. The
`
`Petition lacks the “particularity” required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), and fails to
`
`“specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`
`publications relied upon” and identify “specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support
`
`the challenge,” as required by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) and
`
`42.104(b)(5)). See Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC, IPR2014-00079,
`
`Paper No. 8 at 17-19 (Apr. 25, 2014) (relying on 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (b)(5)
`
`and rejecting a petition because its discussion of the prior art “refers generally” to
`
`features of the prior art and is “vague” for certain limitations). The Petition should
`
`be denied based on these substantive defects.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Not Institute Based on the Petition’s
`Redundant Grounds
`
`The Petition includes a section titled “Redundancy,” which does not assert
`
`or explain why the proposed grounds of rejection in the Petition are not redundant
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`in view of those in Microsoft’s Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2014-00404
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`(“the ’404 Petition”). Instead, the Petition alleges that Microsoft’s two petitions
`
`against the ’274 patent present a “limited number” of grounds and then alleges
`
`some teachings of the primary references. (Pet. at 51.) Giving no justification
`
`based on the Board’s jurisprudence regarding redundancy, Microsoft’s redundant
`
`grounds should be rejected.
`
`The Board does not consider redundant grounds of rejection because it must
`
`issue a final written decision within one year of institution (or 18 months for good
`
`cause). Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003,
`
`Paper No. 7 (Oct. 25, 2012). Redundant grounds place a significant burden on the
`
`Board and the patent owner, and cause unnecessary delay that jeopardizes meeting
`
`the statutory deadline for final written decisions. Id.
`
`Because “[t]he Board seeks to streamline and converge issues at all phases
`
`of the proceeding . . . at [the] time of institution the Board analyzes the petition on
`
`a claim-by-claim, ground-by-ground basis, to eliminate redundant grounds.” Idle
`
`Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 at 3 (June 11,
`
`2013). The redundancy inquiry does not focus on “whether the applied prior art
`
`disclosures have differences, for it is rarely the case that the disclosures of different
`
`prior art references, will be literally identical.” EMC Corp. v. Personal Web
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper No. 25 at 3 (June 5, 2013). Instead, the Board
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`considers “whether the petitioner articulated a meaningful distinction in terms of
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`relative strengths and weaknesses with respect to application of the prior art
`
`disclosures to one or more claim limitations.” Id. at 3-4. The petitioner carries the
`
`burden of articulating that “meaningful distinction.” ScentAir Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00180, Paper No. 18 at 3 (Aug. 26, 2013).
`
`In Liberty Mutual, the Board identified two types of redundant rejections:
`
`(1) “horizontally” redundant rejections and (2) “vertically” redundant rejections.
`
`Liberty Mutual, CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7 at 3. The Board explained that
`
`horizontally redundant rejections apply “a plurality of prior art references . . . not
`
`in combination to complement each other but as distinct and separate alternatives.”
`
`Id. Vertical redundancy “exists when there is assertion of an additional prior art
`
`reference to support another ground of unpatentability when a base ground already
`
`has been asserted against the same claim without the additional reference and the
`
`Petitioner has not explained what are the relative strength and weakness of each
`
`ground.” Id. at 12.
`
`Here, Microsoft’s Petition is horizontally redundant in view of the ’404
`
`Petition. In this Petition, Microsoft alleges that Provino anticipates claims 1, 7, 8,
`
`10, 12, 13, 15, and 17. Yet in the ’404 Petition, Microsoft alleges that Kiuchi
`
`anticipates an overlapping group of claims, namely claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and
`
`17. Further, the present Petition contends that Provino in view of two other
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`references renders obvious claims 2-5 and 18. And in the ’404 Petition, Microsoft
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`contends that Kiuchi in view of two other references renders obvious claims 1-5, 7,
`
`8, 10, 12, 15, and 17. Microsoft’s Provino-based grounds of rejection are
`
`horizontally redundant in view of its Kiuchi-based grounds of rejection. In
`
`addition, Microsoft’s Petition is horizontally redundant in view of Apple’s two
`
`petitions challenging common claims of the ’274 patentIPR2014-00483 and
`
`IPR2014-00484.
`
`Microsoft does not explain why its two petitions’ respective grounds of
`
`rejection are not redundant. Microsoft expresses its belief that Provino discloses a
`
`“virtual private network” and “communication link,” and that Kiuchi discloses a
`
`“C-HTTP name server send[ing] the IP address and public key of the server-side
`
`proxy and both request and response Nonce values used in communication.” (Pet.
`
`at 51 (emphasis in original).) But Microsoft does not attempt to “articulate[] a
`
`meaningful distinction in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses with respect
`
`to application of the prior art disclosures to one or more claim limitations.” EMC
`
`Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper No. 25 at 3-4 (June 5,
`
`2013) (emphases added). Microsoft has essentially admitted that it proposes
`
`redundant grounds but has not explained why any of its grounds are not redundant.
`
`Consequently, the Board should deny Microsoft’s redundant grounds. ScentAir
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00180, Paper No. 18 at 3 (Aug. 26, 2013).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`C. Microsoft’s Arguments About the Priority Date of Claim 18 Are
`Incorrect and Moot
`
`Microsoft contends that claim 18 of the ’274 patent should “be accorded a
`
`priority date no earlier than the date on which the ’274 patent was filed: August 16,
`
`2007.” (Pet. at 22.) Microsoft is incorrect. When claim 18 was added during
`
`prosecution of the ’274 patent application, the Examiner did not find any problems
`
`regarding written description support. Instead, the Examiner noted that “claims 2-
`
`18 [were] newly added for examination,” and proceeded to reject the claims on
`
`other grounds. (Ex. 1002 at 296.) The Examiner was correct in not finding a lack
`
`of written description support. The ’274 patent specification provides adequate
`
`written description support for claim 18. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 21:20-22, 34:36-
`
`42, 45:8-49:13, 52:15-18; Figs. 12A, 33, 34, 35.)
`
`In any event, Microsoft’s argument about priority dates is entirely academic.
`
`Microsoft contends that Provino is prior art for all challenged claims under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Kosiur is prior art for all challenged claims claim under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b), and Xu is prior art for all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). (Pet. at 4-5.) Microsoft does not present any references that, according
`
`to its proposed grounds, require claim 18 to have a priority date of August 16,
`
`2007. Thus, while VirnetX does not agree with Microsoft’s characterizations of
`
`the prior art status of the asserted references, Microsoft’s arguments regarding the
`
`priority date of claim 18 have no bearing on the Petition and should be disregarded.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`III. The Petition’s Claim Constructions Are Flawed and Should Be Rejected
`Microsoft proposes several defective claim constructions that do not
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`represent the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of the claims. Because it
`
`is based on incorrect claim constructions, the Petition cannot demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing for any claim of the ’274 patent.
`
`A. Overview of the ’274 Patent
`The ’274 patent discloses several embodiments relating to accessing secure
`
`network addresses using virtual private network communication links. In one
`
`embodiment, as shown in FIG. 33 reproduced below, a client computer 3301 may
`
`send a query message to a specialized, secure DNS server 3313 requesting a secure
`
`network address for a second network device. (Ex. 1001 at 46:44-47, 60-62.) The
`
`client computer 3301 may receive a response message from the secure DNS server
`
`3313 containing the secure network address, and then send an access request
`
`message to the secure computer network address. (Id. at 47:15-37.) The access
`
`request message is sent over a virtual private network communication link, i.e., a
`
`communication link over a virtual private network. (Id. at 47:37-51.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 33.)
`
`The claims of the ’274 patent are directed to some of these embodiments.
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and claims 2-18 depend directly or
`
`indirectly from claim 1.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a
`
`master’s degree in computer science or computer engineering and approximately
`
`two years of experience in computer networking and computer security. In
`
`litigation related to VirnetX’s patents, this level of skill was adopted by a host of
`
`companies, including Apple, Inc.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; NEC Corporation; NEC
`
`Corporation of America; Aastra USA, Inc.; Aastra Technologies Ltd.; Mitel
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Networks Corp.; Mitel Networks, Inc.; Siemens Enterprise Communications
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`GmbH & Co. KG; Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc.; and Avaya Inc. (Ex.
`
`2023 at 4, Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 6:11-CV-18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2012); Ex. 1018 at 5,
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al., Case
`
`No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex. April 25, 2012).)
`
`Microsoft largely agrees with VirnetX’s proposed level of skill, contending
`
`through its expert that “one of ordinary skill . . . would have a Master’s degree in
`
`computer science or computer engineering, or in a related field such as electrical
`
`engineering, as well as about two years of experience in computer networking and
`
`in some aspect of security with respect to computer networks.” (Ex. 1011 at 3,
`
`¶ 7.) Because so many companies have agreed that VirnetX’s proposed level of
`
`skill is correct and because Microsoft’s proposed level of skill is similar in most
`
`respects, the Board should adopt VirnetX’s proposed level of skill.
`
`12
`
`

`

`C.
`
`“Virtual Private Network” (Construe as Part of “Virtual Private
`Network Communication Link”)
`
`Case No. IPR20 14-00403
`
`VirnetX’s Pro . osed Construction
`
`Microsoft’s Pro 0 c sed Construction
`
`Not a separate claim term, construe as
`part of “virtual private network
`communication link”; alternatively, a
`network of computers which privately
`and directly communicate with each
`other by encrypting traffic over insecure
`communication paths between the
`
`A network of computers that privately
`communicate with each other by
`encrypting traffic on insecure
`communication paths between the
`computers
`
`computers
`
`The term “virtual private network” does not require construction here
`
`because the term is not separately recited in the ’274 patent claims.
`
`(See Ex. 1001
`
`at 51:53-52:57.)
`
`Instead, it forms part of “virtual private network communication
`
`link,” which is construed separately elsewhere. (See infra Section III.D.)
`
`Should the Board deem construction necessary, VirnetX and Microsoft
`
`largely agree on the construction of “virtual private network” (or “VPN”). The
`
`main point of dispute is whether the computers in the network must be able to
`
`directly communicate. Microsoft relies on a district court’s interpretation of the
`
`term in the 2007 Microsoft Litigation (Pet. at 9), but it does not mention that the
`
`district court
`
`later revised its construction to require the ability to directly
`
`communicate.
`
`(Ex. 1018 at 6-8.) The district court reviewed the reexamination
`
`record of related US. Patent No. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 patent”), where VirnetX
`
`distinguished a reference referred to as Aventail on the ground that it did not
`
`disclose a VPN because, among other things, “computers connected according to
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Aventail do not communicate directly with each other.” (See Ex. 2024 at 7, Office
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`Action Response filed April 15, 2010, in control no. 95/001,269.) The district
`
`court relied on this statement to construe “virtual private network” to require the
`
`ability to directly communicate.1 (See Ex. 1018 at 6-8.)
`
`VirnetX also made a virtually identical statement during reexamination of
`
`parent U.S. Patent 7,188,180 (“the ’180 patent), which recites a “virtual private
`
`network” in its claims. VirnetX said that “Aventail has not been shown to disclose
`
`a VPN, as recited in claim 1, 17, and 33, because computers connected according
`
`to Aventail do not communicate directly with each other.” (Ex. 1023 at 166.)
`
`Given the identical term for construction and nearly verbatim reexamination
`
`statements regarding the ’135 and ’180 patents, the district court’s reasoning
`
`should apply with equal force here. The ability to directly communicate should be
`
`part of the construction.
`
`The portions of the construction on which VirnetX and Microsoft agree are
`
`supported by the patent specification. For example, the specification discloses
`
`1 VirnetX did not disclaim claim scope regarding “virtual private network”
`
`in the sense that only certain types of VPNs fall within the scope of the claims.
`
`VirnetX merely explained that Aventail did not create a VPN in the ordinary sense
`
`of the term. The court treated VirnetX’s explanation of an ordinary VPN as a
`
`disclaimer by adopting it as part of its claim construction.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`techniques for implementing a VPN using encryption. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:13-
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`4:13 (describing “the Tunneled Agile Routing Protocol (TARP) [that] uses a
`
`unique two-layer encryption format”).) The specification also discloses that its
`
`later-discussed embodiments can use the earlier-discussed principles of encryption,
`
`identifying “different embodiments or modes that can be employed using the
`
`aforementioned principles.” (Id. at 24:34-35; see also id. at 33:65-66 (“The
`
`following describes various improvements and features that can be applied to the
`
`embodiments described above.”).)
`
`The specification also refers to the “FreeS/WAN” project as a conventional
`
`scheme of creating a “VPN.” (Ex. 1001 at 39:14-22.) The FreeS/WAN glossary
`
`of terms in the ’274 patent’s prosecution history explains that a VPN is “a network
`
`which can safely be used as if it were private, even though some of its
`
`communication uses insecure connections. All traffic on those connections is
`
`encrypted.” (Ex. 2025 at 24, Glossary for the Linux FreeS/WAN Project.) A
`
`contemporaneous dictionary similarly explains that “VPNs enjoy the security of a
`
`private network via access control and encryption . . . .” (Ex. 2026 at 8, McGraw-
`
`Hill Computer Desktop Encyclopedia (9th ed. 2001) (emphasis added).) Thus,
`
`both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence demonstrate that VPNs require encryption.
`
`VirnetX’s construction is also consistent with the constructions presented
`
`and adopted in three district court litigations involving patents in the same family
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`as the ’274 patent that similarly recited a “virtual private network” in their claims.
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`In those cases, VirnetX and the defendants proposed several different claim
`
`constructions, all of which included encryption. (See, e.g., Ex. 2027 at 9-14,
`
`Microsoft’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2009); Ex. 2028 at 2-3,
`
`Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2011); Ex. 2029 at
`
`8, Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel
`
`Networks Corp. et al., Case No. 6:11-CV-18; Ex. 2030 at 9-13, VirnetX’s Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:07-cv-
`
`00080.) In all three instances, the court construed “VPN” to require encryption.
`
`(See Ex. 1016 at 4-10; Ex. 2023 at 4-6; Ex. 1018 at 5-8.) While the Office
`
`construes the claims under a different standard than the district court, this
`
`consistent understanding by all parties and the district court is additional evidence
`
`that the BRI of VPN requires encryption.
`
`VirnetX’s construction is supported by intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, so
`
`“virtual private network” should be construed to mean “a network of computers
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR20 14-00403
`
`which privately and directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic
`
`over insecure communication paths between the computers.”2
`
`D.
`
`“Virtual Private Network Communication Link” (Claims 1, 2,
`and 11—13)3
`
`VimetX’s Pro . osed Construction
`
`Microsoft’s Pro . .sed Construction A communication path between
`
`comnuters in a Virtual rivate network
`
`Any communication link between two
`end .oints in a Virtual rivate network
`
`A “virtual private network communication link” (or “VPN communication
`
`link”) is “a communication path between computers in a virtual private network.”
`
`The plain meaning of the claim language and the patent specification support this
`
`construction. (See, e.g., BX. 100] at 47:66—4826.)
`
`2 In IPR2014-00237 and -00238, the Board preliminarily construed “virtual
`
`private network” in the context of related US. Patent No. 8,504,697 to mean “a
`
`‘secure communication link’ with the additional requirement that the link includes
`
`a portion of a public network.” (See, e.g., IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 15 at 12
`
`(May 14, 2014).) VimetX respectfiilly disagrees with the Board’s construction and
`
`will present additional evidence and argument supporting its construction in those
`
`proceedings.
`
`3 VimetX identifies only the challenged claims that expressly recite the
`
`terms at issue. Claims that depen