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: November 3, 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.1
`Petitioner
`v.
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00403
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00483 has been joined with this case.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2
`A.
`“VPN Communication Link” (Claims 1, 2, and 11-14 ) ....................... 4
`1.
`A “VPN Communication Link” Does Not Exist Outside
`of a Virtual Private Network ....................................................... 5
`A VPN Requires Direct Communication .................................... 9
`2.
`A VPN Requires a Network of Computers ...............................14
`3.
`“Secure Domain (Name) Service” (Claims 1, 17) ..............................15
`B.
`“Tunnel Packeting” (Claim 13) ...........................................................18
`C.
`“Client Computer” (Claim 15 ) ...........................................................20
`D.
`“Access Request Message” (Claim 1) .................................................23
`E.
`“Secure Network Address” (Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 17) ................24
`F.
`III. Provino Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 ............24
`A.
`Provino’s Disclosure ...........................................................................24
`B.
`Provino Does Not Disclose “Sending a Query Message From a
`First Network Device to a Secure Domain Service, the Query
`Message Requesting From the Secure Domain Service a Secure
`Network Address For a Second Network Device” .............................27
`1.
`The Specification of the ’274 Patent Disclaims
`Conventional Domain Name Servers Like Provino’s
`Nameserver 32 ..........................................................................27
`VirnetX Disclaimed Provino’s Nameserver 32 from
`Being a “Secure Domain Service” ............................................33
`Provino’s Nameserver 32 Is Not a “Secure Domain
`Service” Even Under Petitioners’ Construction .......................34
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Provino Does Not Disclose “Sending an Access Request
`Message from the First Network Device to the Secure Network
`Address Using a Virtual Private Network Communication
`Link” ....................................................................................................36
`1.
`Provino’s Message Packets to Server 31(s) Do Not
`Disclose the “Access Request Message” Feature .....................37
`The Proceeding Should Be Terminated Because the
`Petition Is Deficient ..................................................................38
`Provino’s Request to Set up the Tunnel Does Not
`Disclose the “Access Request Message” Feature .....................39
`Provino Does Not Anticipate Dependent Claims 12 and 13 ..............41
`D.
`Provino Does Not Anticipate Dependent Claim 17 ............................43
`E.
`Remaining Dependent Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 .......................44
`F.
`IV. Provino in View of Kosiur Does Not Render Obvious Claims 2-5 ..............45
`V.
`Provino in View of Xu Does Not Render Obvious Claim 18 .......................47
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................47
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Table of Authorities
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................. 27, 28, 29, 30-31
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 15 (May 15, 2013) .................................................. 10
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 30 (Aug. 29, 2014) ................................................... 1
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 11 (Sept. 3, 2014) ................................................... 35
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00482, Paper No. 10 (Sept. 3, 2014) ................................................... 35
`AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, Inc.,
`554 F. App’x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 28
`AstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 27-28
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................ 40
`Garmin Int’l inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech, LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 15 (Jan. 9, 2013) ............................................... 12, 33
`Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc.,
`686 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .............................................. 3, 39
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 46
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
` Page(s)
`
`Jonsson v. Stanley Works,
`903 F.2d 812 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 34
`Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,
`667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`In re Kumar,
`418 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 46
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi–Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 34
`Microsoft Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00610, Paper No. 9 (Oct. 15, 2014) .................................................... 20
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00093, Paper No. 28 (Apr. 29, 2013) ............................................ 12, 33
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 37, 44
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00179, Paper No. 9 (Apr. 16, 2013) .............................................. 38-39
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 3
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 46
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 10, 11, 34
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 12-13
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2011) ................................................. 9
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
` Page(s)
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2009) .............................................. 8, 9
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 34
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2013-00112, Paper No. 14 (June 27, 2013) ............................................ 12, 33
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...................................................................... 3, 13
`ZTE Corp. & ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2013-00134, Paper No. 12 (June 19, 2013) ............................................ 12, 33
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(d) ..................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................. 38, 39
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`Federal Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Introduction
`Because the Petitioners, Microsoft and Apple, have not carried their “burden
`
`of proving . . . unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,” Patent Owner
`
`VirnetX Inc. requests that the Board enter judgment against Petitioners and
`
`terminate this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review (Paper No. 13, the “Decision”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274 (“the ’274 patent”) based on Microsoft’s petition in
`
`IPR2014-00403 (Paper No. 4).2 The Board also joined Apple’s petition in
`
`IPR2014-00483 (Paper No. 1 in IPR2014-00483)3 on the “grounds that are
`
`
`2 Microsoft filed with its petition a declaration by Michael Fratto (Ex. 1029)
`
`
`that discusses references the Board did not institute upon and thus is not relevant
`
`here. To the extent it is deemed relevant, his testimony should be accorded no
`
`weight at least because he is not one of ordinary skill and has displayed a bias
`
`against VirnetX’s patents. (See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00237, Paper
`
`No. 30 at 1-8 (Aug. 29, 2014); Ex. 2043, Deposition of Michael Fratto in IPR2014-
`
`00237.)
`
`
`
`3 Apple filed with its petition in IPR2014-00483, a declaration by Dr. Roch
`
`Guerin (Ex. 1011 in IPR2014-00483), that it did not file in this proceeding despite
`
`an order by the Board. Even if it had, however, any contentions raised in that
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`identical to those presented and instituted in the ’403 proceeding.”4 Paper No. 11
`
`at 5 in IPR2014-00483. Specifically, the Board instituted review of the ’274 patent
`
`on 3 grounds: (1) anticipation of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 by Provino;
`
`(2) obviousness of claims 2-5 over Provino in view of Kosiur; and obviousness of
`
`claim 18 over Provino in view of Xu. (Decision at 3.) However, Provino alone or
`
`in combination does not anticipate nor render obvious the claims at issue.
`
`Accordingly, VirnetX respectfully submits this Response to the Board’s Decision
`
`and the Petition and requests this proceeding be terminated.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`The Petition identified seven terms for construction. The Decision provided
`
`constructions for three of the seven terms and for one term not identified by the
`
`parties for construction. VirnetX responds to the terms construed in the Decision
`
`and addresses two other terms, “client computer” and “secure domain (name)
`
`service,” that are material to the parties’ dispute and should be construed.
`
`
`declaration would fail for at least the same reasons provided in this response and
`
`also because the declaration discusses a different patent.
`
`
`
`4 Microsoft’s petition in IPR2014-00403 and Apple’s petition in IPR2014-
`
`00483 are hereinafter referred to as the “Petition.” Any citations to the “Petition”
`
`refer to Microsoft’s petition in IPR2014-00403.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Although VirnetX’s constructions represent
`
`the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) of the claims in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`history, in inter partes review, the Board should apply the claim construction
`
`standard applied by the courts, especially given the litigations and prosecution
`
`histories of patents in the same family as the ’274 patent. The BRI standard “is
`
`solely an examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.” In re Skvorecz,
`
`580 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It is justified during the examination
`
`process because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during
`
`prosecution. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`As the Board has noted, however, inter partes review is not an examination
`
`but is “more adjudicatory than examinational, in nature.” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 at 6 (June 11, 2013). The ability to
`
`amend claims during inter partes review is so severely restricted that the rationale
`
`underpinning the BRI—the ability to freely amend claims—does not apply,
`
`especially given the litigations and prosecution histories of patents in the same
`
`patent family as the ’274 patent. As a result, to the extent the Board would have
`
`adopted a narrower construction under the courts’ claim construction standard than
`
`it has adopted here, it should adopt the narrower construction because the BRI
`
`standard should not apply to this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`A.
`
`“VPN Communication Link” (Claims 1, 2, and 11-14 )
`
`VirnetX’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Microsofi’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`A communication path
`between computers in a
`virtual private network
`
`Any communication link A transmission path
`between two end points in between two devices that
`a Virtual private network
`restricts access to data,
`addresses, or other
`information on the path,
`generally using
`obfuscation methods to
`
`hide infonnation on the
`
`path, including, but not
`limited to, one or more of
`
`authentication,
`encryption, or address
`hopping
`
`The Decision preliminarily construed “VPN communication link” to mean
`
`“a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to data, addresses, or
`
`other information on the path, generally using obfuscation methods to hide
`
`information on the path,
`
`including, but not
`
`limited to, one or more of
`
`authentication, encryption, or address hopping.”
`
`(Decision at 9.) VimetX
`
`disagrees with this construction, but only addresses the construction to the extent it
`
`materially affects the parties’ disputes_5 Specifically, the Decision also notes that a
`
`5 Any disagreements with the Decision’s construction not addressed here
`
`that VimetX discussed in its Preliminary Response, such as the lack of a
`
`requirement that the VPN communication link provide security over an insecure
`
`communication path and whether the obfuscation techniques other than encryption
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`“VPN communication link” may be satisfied by “a link that merely connects to a
`
`virtual private network.” (Id. at 8.) VirnetX disagrees with the Decision’s
`
`assessment. Further, because the “VPN communication link” must be in a VPN, it
`
`must incorporate the “direct communication” and “network” aspects of the VPN
`
`that are disclosed in the ’274 patent specification. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`modify its construction to include these aspects of a “VPN communication link.”
`
`1.
`
`A “VPN Communication Link” Does Not Exist Outside of a
`Virtual Private Network
`The Decision states that a “VPN communication link” may be satisfied by “a
`
`link that merely connects to a virtual private network.” (Decision at 8.) This is
`
`premised on a misinterpretation of the ’274 specification and claims 1 and 11.
`
`Reading the specification together with the claims discloses that a VPN
`
`communication link is a communication path between computers in a virtual
`
`private network—not simply a link that is tangential to a virtual private network.
`
`As explained in the ’274 patent, a VPN communication link does not exist
`
`outside of a virtual private network. When a secure domain name service (SDNS)
`
`
`identified in the Board’s construction are characteristics of a VPN communication
`
`link, do not appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes, so VirnetX does not
`
`separately address them. VirnetX similarly does not address arguments that
`
`Petitioners made, but that the Decision did not discuss or adopt.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`receives a query for a secure network address, it “accesses VPN gatekeeper 3314
`
`for establishing a VPN communication link between software module 3309 [at the
`
`querying computer 3301] and secure server 3320.” (Ex. 1001 at 47:38-40; Ex.
`
`2041 at ¶ 15, Monrose Decl.) Then, “VPN gatekeeper 3314 provisions computer
`
`3301 and secure web server computer 3320 . . . thereby creating the VPN” between
`
`the devices. (Ex. 1001 at 47:41-44; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 15, Monrose Decl.)6 Notably,
`
`secure server 3320 “can only be accessed through a VPN communication link.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 47:40-41; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 15, Monrose Decl.)
`
`The VPN communication link is initiated to send an access request message
`
`between the querying computer 3301 and secure server 3320. (Ex. 1001 at 47:66-
`
`48:1, Ex. 2041 at ¶ 16, Monrose Decl.) “Further communication between
`
`computers 3301 and 3320 occurs via the VPN” through the VPN communication
`
`link. (Ex. 1001 at 48:4-6; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 16, Monrose Decl.)
`
`In other words, the VPN communication link and the virtual private network
`
`arise contemporaneously and exist between the same devices. (Ex. 2041 at ¶ 17,
`
`Monrose Decl.) Figure 33, depicted below, reflects this. As shown, VPN
`
`communication link 3321 traverses the unsecured public network, Internet 3302 to
`
`connect computer 3301 with secure server 3320. Thus, the VPN communication
`
`link is more than a simple connection to a VPN.
`
`
`6 All emphasis is added except where otherwise noted.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`
`
`Claims 1 and 11 are consistent with the ’274 patent’s description. Claim 1
`
`recites that the access request message is sent “using a virtual private network
`
`communication link.” (Ex. 2041 at ¶ 18, Monrose Decl.)
`
`Claim 11 refers to instances in which the virtual private network
`
`communication link may need to be automatically re-initiated following the last
`
`step in claim 1. (Ex. 2041 at ¶ 19, Monrose Decl.) As the ’274 patent explains, its
`
`inventions are directed to increasing security for communication over the internet
`
`by “business travellers” and other remote users. (Ex. 1001 at 3:7-9, 3:13; Ex. 2041
`
`at ¶ 19, Monrose Decl.) Given the nature of this type of access, the ’274 patent
`
`contemplates that in some instances, a transmission path may fail or a “transmitter
`
`shut-down event” may occur. (Ex. 1001 at 36:15-19, “FIG. 22B shows steps that
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`can be executed to shut down transmission links where a transmitter turns off. In
`
`step 2210, a transmitter shut-down event occurs. In step 2211, a test is made to
`
`determine whether at least one transmitter is still turned on,” 35:39-48; Ex. 2041 at
`
`¶ 19, Monrose Decl.) If so, “all packets are dropped until a transmitter turns on.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 36:19-20; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 19, Monrose Decl.) Under claim 11, once “at
`
`least one transmitter is turned on,” the virtual private network communication link
`
`may automatically initiate without repeating the steps of claim 1. (See Ex. 1001 at
`
`36:20-23; see also id. at 39:26-44; Ex. 2041 at ¶ 19, Monrose Decl.) To instead
`
`conclude, as the Decision does, that claim 11 alters the plain meaning and scope of
`
`claim 1, would be contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)’s requirement that “[a] claim in
`
`dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of
`
`the claim to which it refers.”
`
`VirnetX’s adversaries and their experts agree that a VPN communication
`
`link refers to a link in a virtual private network. Microsoft and Apple both
`
`construe VPN communication link as “any communication link between two end
`
`points in a virtual private network.” (Pet. at 10.) Outside of the Patent Office, in
`
`district court, Microsoft proposed a similar construction requiring the link to be in
`
`a virtual private network. (Ex. 1016 at 25, Memorandum Opinion in VirnetX Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2009), a
`
`“communication link in a virtual private network.”) There, the court relied on its
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`construction of VPN, finding it unnecessary to separately construe VPN
`
`communication link, suggesting that a VPN communication link is not separate
`
`from a VPN. (Id. at 25-26.)
`
`Thus, parties and courts have universally understood that a VPN
`
`communication link exists in the VPN.
`
`A VPN Requires Direct Communication
`2.
`The Decision does not address the portion of VirnetX’s construction
`
`requiring computers within a VPN to communicate directly. In its Preliminary
`
`Response, VirnetX explained that during reexamination of the ’135 patent,
`
`VirnetX distinguished its claims over a prior art reference by describing ordinary
`
`VPNs as requiring direct communication. (See Paper No. 9 at 14.) In district
`
`court, Apple and other defendants described VirnetX’s statements as a “clear
`
`mandate to the Patent Office that computers in a ‘virtual private network’
`
`communicate directly with each other, and that absent direct communication
`
`between the computers, there is no virtual private network.” (Ex. 1067 at 5,
`
`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), (“the ’417
`
`litigation”).) Given VirnetX’s statements, the district court found disclaimer and
`
`required the claimed VPN to include direct communication. (Ex. 1018 at 6-8,
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order in the ’417 litigation (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2012).)
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`In a proceeding on a related patent, the Board declined to apply disclaimer,
`
`relying on Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014), for
`
`the notion that the Board need not adopt a disclaimer. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 15 at 8 (May 15, 2013). One significant
`
`difference in Tempo Lighting, however, is that it involved reexamination where
`
`amending claims is a realistic option unlike motions to amend in inter partes
`
`review that are subject to much tighter constraints. Despite having a greater
`
`opportunity to amend—the Office’s alleged basis for applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation and more heavily scrutinizing disclaimers—the Federal
`
`Circuit still did apply the disclaimer in Tempo Lighting. 742 F.3d at 978. In inter
`
`partes review, where the opportunity to amend is severely restricted, the Office
`
`should even more liberally recognize disclaimers.
`
`Setting aside the reexamination vs. inter partes review distinction, the
`
`circumstances of the disclaiming remarks in Tempo Lighting were similar to those
`
`present here. There, the PTO had requested that the patentee rewrite the claims.
`
`The patentee did so, and as part of that process, made the disclaiming remarks.
`
`Tempo Lighting, 742 F.3d at 978. Similarly here, VirnetX’s disclaiming comments
`
`were provided in response to the examiner’s broadening of the claim via claim
`
`construction. The only difference between the two cases is that in Tempo Lighting
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`the PTO gave the applicant the option of rewriting the claim as opposed to
`
`effectively rewriting the claim itself.
`
`VirnetX’s disclaimer may also be applied despite the fact that the
`
`reexamination in which those statements were made is ongoing. In Tempo
`
`Lighting, the Federal Circuit endorsed a disclaimer from an ongoing proceeding.
`
`742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This case is in accord with other Federal
`
`Circuit cases finding that statements in ongoing reexaminations may be used to
`
`construe claims. See Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (finding no disclaimer due to ambiguous statements, but confirming that
`
`statements made in an ongoing, pending reexamination are relevant to claim
`
`construction if unambiguous).
`
` The ongoing nature of the reexamination
`
`proceeding is not a basis for declining to apply a disclaimer.
`
`In addition, disclaimer is especially applicable where, as here, there is no
`
`ambiguity. See Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (unambiguous statements in reexamination amounted to disclaimer).
`
`Among other things, VirnetX stated that the reference Aventail does not “disclose
`
`a VPN because computers connected according
`
`to Aventail do not
`
`communicate directly with each other.” (Ex. 2036 at 7, Response to Office Action
`
`in Control No. 95/001,269 (Apr. 15, 2010); see also Ex. 1067 at 5, Defendants’
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief in the ’417 litigation.)
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`Apple and other parties have all agreed that VirnetX’s statements are clear,
`
`unambiguous, and result in disclaimer. (Id. at 5-7, “VirnetX unequivocally argued
`
`that Aventail does not disclose a VPN because it does not teach direct
`
`communication between computers.”) There is no reason the Board should find
`
`any differently here. Indeed, the Board has relied on prosecution history
`
`statements in construing claims in numerous other inter partes reviews. See, e.g.,
`
`Garmin Int’l inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech, LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 15 at 8
`
`(Jan. 9, 2013); Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Techs., LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00093, Paper No. 28 at 10 (Apr. 29, 2013); ZTE Corp. & ZTE (USA) Inc. v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00134, Paper No. 12 at 16 (June 19, 2013);
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2013-00112, Paper No. 14 at 6 (June
`
`27, 2013).
`
`Furthermore, the Federal Circuit noted that virtual private network and
`
`secure communication links require direct communication.7 It stated that the
`
`district court’s construction of VPN is “a network of computers which privately
`
`and directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure paths
`
`between the computers where the communication is both secure and anonymous.”
`
`7 VirnetX has filed a request for rehearing or rehearing en banc with respect
`
`to a different aspect of
`
`the Federal Circuit’s construction of “secure
`
`communication link.”
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Based
`
`on that construction, the Federal Circuit held that a secure communication link
`
`similarly requires “a direct communication link . . . .” Id. at 1319.
`
`The Board should not dismiss the Federal Circuit’s ruling simply because it
`
`applied a different claim construction standard. As the Federal Circuit has
`
`explained, the application of the BRI standard is premised on “[a]n applicant’s
`
`ability to amend his claims to avoid cited prior art [which] distinguishes
`
`proceedings before the PTO from proceedings in federal district courts on issued
`
`patents.” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But, as
`
`discussed above, this ability is severely restricted in inter partes review
`
`proceedings, refuting the need for the broader standard in this case. (See supra
`
`Section II.) Considerations of judicial efficiency and judicial comity further
`
`support consideration of the Federal Circuit’s claim construction ruling. Where, as
`
`here, both a district court and the Federal Circuit have addressed a construction—
`
`and the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Yamamoto is largely inapplicable—the
`
`Board should apply that construction.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should modify its construction to include direct
`
`communication.
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`A VPN Requires a Network of Computers
`3.
`The Decision does not address the portion of VirnetX’s construction of VPN
`
`(and thus VPN communication link) requiring a “network of computers.” Instead,
`
`the Decision concludes that a virtual private network communication link may be
`
`satisfied by nothing more than a “path between two devices.” (Decision at 9.) The
`
`Decision’s construction eliminates the “network” from a virtual private network
`
`and a virtual private network communication link. (Ex. 2041 at ¶ 20, Monrose
`
`Decl.)
`
`Consistent with the plain meaning of a VPN communication link, the link
`
`must exist in a VPN and therefore must be between computers in a network. (Ex.
`
`2041 at ¶ 21, Monrose Decl.) In describing a VPN, the ’274 patent refers to the
`
`“FreeS/WAN” project, which has a glossary of terms. (Ex. 1001 at 39:22 and
`
`bibliographic data showing references cited.) The FreeS/WAN glossary defines a
`
`VPN as “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.) According to this glossary, a VPN includes at least the requirement of a
`
`“network of computers.” (Ex. 2041 at ¶ 21, Monrose Decl.)
`
`The specification further describes a VPN as including multiple “nodes.”
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 16:59-63, referring to “each node in the network” and
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`“vastly increasing the number of distinctly addressable nodes,” 21:36, “nodes on
`
`the network”; see also id. 19:17-19, 24:27.) More specifically, the network allows
`
`“[e]ach node .
`
`.
`
`. to communicate with other nodes in the network.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`16:63-65; Ex. 2041 at 1] 22, Monrose Decl_) So a device within a VPN is able to
`
`communicate with the other devices Within that same VPN.
`
`(Ex. 2041 at 1] 22,
`
`Monrose Decl_)
`
`In addition, the specification distinguishes point-to-point queries
`
`from those carried on a VPN communication link, stating that they occur “without
`
`using an administrative VPN communication link.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1011 at 47:53-
`
`54, 47:57-60; Ex. 2041 at 1] 22, Monrose Decl_)
`
`For at least these reasons,
`
`the Board should modify its construction to
`
`require a VPN communication link to be Within a VPN and include the “direct
`
`communication” and “network” characteristics disclosed in the ’274 patent.
`
`B.
`
`“Secure Domain (Name) Service” (Claims 1, 17)
`
`VimetX’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Petitioners’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`domain name
`
`A lookup service that
`recognizes that a query
`message is requesting a
`secure computer address,
`and returns a secure
`
`A service that can resolve No construction
`secure computer network
`addresses for a secure
`domain name for which a
`conventional domain
`
`computer network address name service cannot
`for a requested secure
`resolve addresses
`
`The Decision finds that the “parties do not disagree materially about” the
`
`construction for “secure domain (name) service” (“SDNS”), and concludes that
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00403
`
`“[i]t is not necessary to construe explicitly” the term “secure domain (name)
`
`service.” (Decision at 11.) VirnetX respectfully disagrees.
`
`Microsoft’s proposed construction, for example, incorrectly does not require
`
`“recogniz[ing] that a query message is requesting a secure computer address.”
`
`(Pet. at 12-14; see also Paper No. 9 at 25-27.) This is a material issue. As
`
`discussed below, the primary prior art reference in this proceeding, Provino, fails
`
`to disclose a “secure domain (name) service,” as claimed, at least in part because it
`
`does not disclose any device that recognizes that a query message is requesting a
`
`secure computer network address.
`
`To the contrary, VirnetX has disclaimed secure domain services that do not
`
`perform this recognition. During the now-completed inter partes reexamination of
`
`USPN 7,188,180 (“the ’180 patent”), the grandparent of the ’274 patent, VirnetX
`
`unambiguously stated:
`
`A secure domain name service is not a domain name
`service

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