throbber
Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: September 29, 2014
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORP. and APPLE INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-004031
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX’s Motion for Rehearing of the Decision
`to Institute and Join IPR2014-00483 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00483 has been joined with this case.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Precise Relief Requested ................................................................................. 2
`
`III. Statement of Facts ............................................................................................ 2
`
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 3
`
`V. Argument ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ..................................................................... 4
`
`The Board Relied on Evidence Not of Record...................................... 8
`
`The Board Improperly Granted Joinder ..............................................11
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Proctor and Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00450, Paper No. 19 (Feb. 4, 2014) .................................................. 4, 8
`
`Page(s)
`
`Google Inc. et al. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper No. 9 (May 22, 2014) ...................................................... 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2014-00079, Paper No. 8 (Apr. 25, 2014) ...................................................... 6
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 16 (July 13, 2013) .................................................... 6
`
`Tasco, Inc. v. Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103, Paper No. 6 (May 23, 2013) ...................................................... 6
`
`Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc.,
`IPR2013-00186, Paper No. 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) .................................................... 6
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16 (Feb. 22, 2013) .................................................... 6
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00549, Paper No. 20 (Apr. 28, 2014) .................................................... 6
`
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00179, Paper No. 9 (Apr. 16, 2013) .................................................... 10
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .................................................. 10
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2013-00319, Paper No. 18 (July 22, 2013) .................................................. 10
`
`Sony Corp. of America v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00386, Paper No. 16 (July 29, 2013) .................................................. 11
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................... 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................. 10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................... 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked deficiencies in Apple’s petition
`
`for inter partes review in IPR2014-00483 (“the ’483 proceeding”) and improperly
`
`instituted the petition based on evidence that was not of record in the proceeding.
`
`As a result of this oversight, the Board improperly joined Apple’s petition to that in
`
`IPR2014-00403 (“the ’403 proceeding”), further prejudicing Patent Owner
`
`VirnetX.
`
`Throughout its petition, Apple repeatedly cites to an expert declaration to
`
`support and explain its unpatentability contentions for U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`(“the ’274 patent”). (See generally Petition in IPR2014-00483; Ex. 1011 in
`
`IPR2014-00483.)2 But the declaration upon which Apple so heavily relies lacks
`
`any analysis of the ’274 patent. (Ex. 1011 in IPR2014-00483.) Nevertheless, the
`
`Board instituted Apple’s petition, incorporating its analysis from the ’403
`
`proceeding, which cites to an entirely different expert declaration. (Institution
`
`
`2 Apple was given a two-week extension to the five business day time period
`
`set in the Decision in IPR2014-00483 to refile its exhibits from IPR2014-00483
`
`into IPR2014-00403. At the time of filing this Motion for Rehearing, Apple has
`
`not yet refiled its exhibits. Therefore, exhibits that are not yet of record in
`
`IPR2014-00403 are identified by the numbering set by Apple in IPR2014-00483.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`Decision in IPR2014-00483 at 6, hereinafter “Decision.”) Because Apple’s
`
`petition fails to comply with the particularity and specificity requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), because the Board improperly
`
`instituted Apple’s petition, and because the Board improperly and prejudicially
`
`joined the ’403 and ’483 proceedings, VirnetX requests rehearing of the Board’s
`
`Decision instituting Apple’s petition and joining it with the ’403 proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`Precise Relief Requested
`
`VirnetX requests rehearing of the Decision in the ’483 proceeding to
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Provino, claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over the combination of Provino and Kosiur, and claim 18 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Provino and Xu; and the decision
`
`to join the ’483 proceeding with the ’403 proceeding. (Decision in IPR2014-00483
`
`at 8.) As discussed below, Apple’s petition for inter partes review and its motion
`
`for joinder should be denied.
`
`III. Statement of Facts
`In February 2014, Microsoft filed a petition for inter partes review of the
`
`’274 patent in the ’403 proceeding.
`
` (See Petition in IPR2014-00403.)
`
`Accompanying its petition is an expert declaration discussing the ’274 patent and
`
`alleged prior art reference Provino. (See Ex. 1011 in IPR2014-00403.) Apple later
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`filed its petition in the ’483 proceeding relying on some of the same references as
`
`Microsoft. (See Petition in IPR2014-00483.) It too filed an allegedly supporting
`
`expert declaration, but Apple’s declaration fails to address the ’274 patent. (See
`
`Ex. 1011 in IPR2014-00483.) Instead it discusses another VirnetX patent, the
`
`claims of that patent, and Provino’s application to those claims. (See id.) The
`
`Board instituted review in the ’403 proceeding on the Provino reference citing to
`
`Microsoft’s expert’s declaration as well as Microsoft’s petition, which referred at
`
`length to its expert’s declaration. (See generally Institution Decision in IPR2014-
`
`00403.) Based on the misconception that Apple “present[s] contentions regarding
`
`the Provino challenges that are identical to those presented in the ’403 trial
`
`proceeding,” the Board subsequently instituted Apple’s petition in the ’483
`
`proceeding and joined it with Microsoft’s petition in the ’403 proceeding.
`
`(Decision in IPR2014-00483 at 6, 8.)
`
`IV. Legal Standards
`“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.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`When asked to review a decision on a petition, a panel looks for an abuse of
`
`discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ‘decision
`
`was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings,
`
`or a . . . clear error of judgment.’” CLIO USA, Inc. v. The Proctor and Gamble
`
`Co., IPR2013-00450, Paper No. 19 at 2 (Feb. 4, 2014) (quoted source omitted).
`
`V. Argument
`VirnetX requests rehearing for three reasons. First, the Board overlooked
`
`that Apple’s expert declaration, cited extensively throughout Apple’s petition as
`
`allegedly supporting its Provino arguments, fails to include any analysis
`
`whatsoever of Provino’s relationship to the ’274 patent. Second, it was an abuse
`
`of discretion for the Board to “incorporate” its analysis in IPR2014-00403, which
`
`relied on evidence not of record in IPR2014-00483 (e.g., a different expert
`
`declaration) and contentions not put forward by Apple. Third, the Board abused its
`
`discretion in joining the ’403 and ’483 proceedings and prejudiced VirnetX.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny Apple’s petition in IPR2014-00483.
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`As explained in VirnetX’s Preliminary Response in the ’483 proceeding
`
`(“Preliminary Response”) and noted above, to support its Provino arguments,
`
`Apple’s petition relies heavily on an expert declaration that makes no mention of
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`the ’274 patent or how Provino applies to the ’274 patent. (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp.
`
`at 1-5 in IPR2014-00483; see also Exhibit 1011 in IPR2014-00483.) Despite that
`
`Apple’s expert declaration lacks any analysis of the ’274 patent, it is cited over
`
`sixty times in Apple’s petition. (See, e.g., Petition in IPR2014-00483 at 17-40.)
`
`Each time it is mischaracterized as allegedly supporting Apple’s Provino
`
`arguments. (See, e.g., Petition in IPR2014-00483 at 17-40; see also Exhibit 1011
`
`in IPR2014-00483 (analyzing, for example, U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180, which is
`
`not at issue in IPR2014-00483).) The Decision overlooks these flaws in Apple’s
`
`petition.
`
`However, the flaws in Apple’s petition render it incapable of providing the
`
`explanation and particularity required by 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5). As discussed in the Preliminary Response,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) requires that petitions 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[.]” (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. in IPR2014-00483 at 2.) 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)). (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. in IPR2014-00483 at 2.)
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`Petitions that lack the requisite particularity and specificity of explanation
`
`are denied. See Google Inc. et al. v. Everymd.com LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper
`
`No. 9 at 18-20 (May 22, 2014) (rejecting petition for insufficient explanation);
`
`Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC, IPR2014-00079, Paper No. 8 at
`
`17-19 (Apr. 25, 2014) (rejecting petition for including “vague” explanation that
`
`did “not identify specifically what Petitioner regards as the” relevant feature of
`
`the prior art); 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). (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. in IPR2014-00483 at 2.)
`
`As the Board has explained, it will not “search the record and piece together
`
`any evidence or arguments that may support Petitioner’s ultimate conclusion.”
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00549, Paper No. 20 at 5 (Apr. 28,
`
`2014). (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. in IPR2014-00483 at 3.) When faced with a
`
`defective declaration similar to the one filed by Apple in IPR2014-00483, the
`
`Board has previously denied institution. See Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence, LLC, IPR2014-00085, Paper No. 9 at 11-12 (Apr. 24, 2014)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`(denying institution where the accompanying declaration addressed prior art not
`
`asserted in the petition).
`
`Apple’s petition in IPR2014-00483 represents a particularly egregious
`
`violation of
`
`the
`
`required explanation and particularity
`
`in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5). Apple takes its expert
`
`declaration—which fails to include any analysis of the ’274 patent—and
`
`mischaracterizes the declaration throughout the petition to suggest that it supports
`
`the petition. (See, e.g., Petition in IPR2014-00483 at 17-40; see also Exhibit 1011
`
`in IPR2014-00483.) Moreover, Apple relies in large part on the expert declaration
`
`alone to explain the Provino reference and its relationship to the ’274 patent
`
`claims. (See Petition in IPR2014-00483 at 17-40.) But its citations to and reliance
`
`upon an irrelevant expert declaration cannot satisfy 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5). Specifically, as discussed in VirnetX’s Preliminary
`
`Response, Apple at least fails to explain why Provino’s discussion of “generating
`
`message packets” allegedly discloses the “access request message” of claim 1.
`
`(See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. in IPR2014-00483 at 1-5.) The petition fails to cite to
`
`Provino in support of this conclusion and cites only to an expert declaration which
`
`does not even pertain to the ’274 patent. (See id. at 3-4; Petition in IPR2014-00483
`
`at 26 (citing Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 39-40 in IPR2014-00483).)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`VirnetX addressed each of these issues with Apple’s petition in its
`
`Preliminary Response. (See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. at 1-5 in IPR2014-00483.)
`
`However, none of these issues was addressed in the Board’s Decision instituting
`
`Apple’s petition. It appears that the Board either misapprehended or overlooked
`
`VirnetX’s arguments. In instituting Apple’s petition based on the clearly
`
`erroneous factual finding that Apple’s expert declaration supports its Provino
`
`arguments and the erroneous conclusion of law that Apple’s petition satisfied the
`
`explanation and particularity required by 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the Board committed an abuse of discretion. See CLIO USA,
`
`IPR2013-00450, Paper No. 19 at 2 (Feb. 4, 2014) (quoted source omitted).
`
`The Board Relied on Evidence Not of Record
`
`B.
`In the Decision, the Board states that “Petitioner and Patent Owner present
`
`contentions regarding the Provino challenges that are identical to those presented
`
`in the ’403 trial proceeding” and proceeds to “incorporate [the Board’s] previous
`
`analysis regarding” Provino from IPR2014-00403. (Decision in IPR2014-00483 at
`
`6.) However, Apple’s contentions regarding Provino in IPR2014-00483 are in fact
`
`different than the contentions made by Microsoft in IPR2014-00403. The Board’s
`
`incorporation of its analysis in IPR2014-00403, which relied on evidence not of
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`record in IPR2014-00483, and included contentions about Provino not made by
`
`Apple, is improper.3
`
`As discussed above, in IPR2014-00483, Apple relied on an expert
`
`declaration to support its Provino arguments that does not actually discuss
`
`Provino’s application to the ’274 patent. In contrast, in IPR2014-00403, Microsoft
`
`relied on an expert declaration to support its Provino arguments that does make an
`
`attempt to analyze Provino’s application to the ’274 patent. Thus, Apple’s
`
`contentions regarding Provino are different than Microsoft’s contentions regarding
`
`Provino at least because Apple’s contentions are supported by a different expert
`
`declaration for a different patent.
`
`In addition, in the Board’s Institution Decision in IPR2014-00403, the Board
`
`cited extensively to Microsoft’s Petition. (Institution Decision in IPR2014-00403
`
`at 12-21.) Microsoft’s petition, in turn, relied extensively upon an expert
`
`declaration not of record in IPR2014-00483 to support its Provino arguments.
`
`
`3 While these arguments have not been previously presented by VirnetX in
`
`IPR2014-00483, the arguments are properly made in this request for rehearing
`
`because they could not have been made sooner (i.e., they are based solely on the
`
`Decision’s reliance upon evidence not of record in IPR2014-00483 and contentions
`
`not put forward by Apple).
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`Thus, the Board’s Decision in IPR2014-00483 relied upon evidence not of record
`
`in IPR2014-00483.
`
`The Board has exceeded its statutory authority. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the
`
`Board “may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless [it]
`
`determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (emphasis added). Consistent with
`
`this statutory limitation, the Board has explained that “inter partes review is not
`
`original examination, continued examination, or reexamination of the involved
`
`patent. Rather, it is a trial, adjudicatory in nature and constituting litigation.”
`
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179, Paper No. 9 at 4 (Apr. 16,
`
`2013); see also Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper No.
`
`26 at 6 (June 11, 2013) (“inter partes review is more adjudicatory than
`
`examinational, in nature”).
`
`By relying on its analysis in IPR2014-00403, which includes information
`
`not presented in Apple’s petition, the Board has not made a determination
`
`consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 314. That is, the Board has not analyzed the
`
`“information presented in the petition filed under section 311” to determine
`
`whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that [Apple] would prevail.” See
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314. Rather, the Board has made a determination based on
`
`information presented by Microsoft in IPR2014-00403.
`
`C. The Board Improperly Granted Joinder
`Joinder is only permitted if the Board first determines that Apple’s petition
`
`warrants institution. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (“the Director, in his or her discretion,
`
`may join . . . any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the
`
`Director . . . determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`
`section 314”). For the reasons discussed in the sections above, Apple’s petition in
`
`the ’483 proceeding does not warrant institution. Thus, the Board’s Decision to
`
`join the proceedings is improper and an abuse of discretion.
`
`However, even if the Board concludes that it properly instituted the ’483
`
`proceeding, the Board failed to consider that the interests of justice weigh against
`
`joinder of the ’483 and ’403 proceedings. Joinder is prejudicial to VirnetX.
`
`Specifically, it forces VirnetX to address two different expert declarations relating
`
`to two different patents with additional testimony within a shortened period of
`
`time, requiring significant additional analysis and expense by VirnetX. See, e.g.,
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00319, Paper No. 18 at
`
`5 (July 22, 2013) (finding that joinder prejudices a patent owner when an expert
`
`declaration submitted in a proceeding “contains new testimony and arguments not
`
`previously presented” because addressing such new testimony and arguments “will
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`require significant additional analysis and expense on behalf of patent owner”
`
`(quotations omitted)); see also Sony Corp. of America v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00386, Paper No. 16 at 7 (July 29, 2013) (denying a request for
`
`joinder in part because a new declaration will likely increase the amount of
`
`discovery).
`
`Because VirnetX would need to conduct significant additional analysis and
`
`incur significant additional expense all within a shortened timeframe to address
`
`Apple’s expert declaration and its relationship to the ’274 patent, Apple’s petition,
`
`and the declaration put forward by Microsoft, the interests of justice weigh against
`
`joinder.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests rehearing of the
`
`Board’s September 15, 2014, Decision instituting inter partes review and joining
`
`IPR2014-00483 with IPR2014-00403. Apple’s petition in IPR2014-00483 should
`
`be denied.
`
`Dated: September 29, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that I caused to be served on
`
`the counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`VirnetX’s Motion for Rehearing of
`
`the Decision
`
`to Institute and Join
`
`IPR2014-00483 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) by electronic means on September 29,
`
`2014 as follows:
`
`Counsel for Microsoft Corporation:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Kevin E. Greene
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR38868-0003IP1@fr.com
`
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2014
`
`
`
`13

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