`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`VIRNETX INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014—00404'
`
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`PATENT OWNER VIRNETX INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`1 Case IPR2014—O0484 has been joined with this case.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR20l4-00404
`
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Offic.e
`
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`
`Madison Building East, l0B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a}, thatPatent Owner
`
`VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) appeals to the United States Court of Appeals" for the
`
`Federal Circuit fiorn the Final Written Decision entered on July 29, 2015 (Paper
`
`42) (the “Final Written Decision”) by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), and from all underlying
`
`orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions. A copy of the Final Written Decision is
`
`attached.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), VirnetX indicates that the
`
`issues on appeal include, but are not limited to, the Board’s determination of
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-4, 7, 8, l0, 12, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Board’s determination of unpatentability of claims 1-5,
`
`7, 8, l0, 12, 15, and 17 ofU.S. Patent No. 7,987,274 under 35 U.S.C. § l03, and
`
`any findings or determinations supporting or related to those rulings including,
`
`Without limitation, the Board’s application of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the Board’s interpretation of the claim language, and the Board’s
`
`interpretation of the references.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00404
`
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`“imultaneous with this submission, a copy of this Notice of Appealis being
`
`filed with the Board. In addition, the Notice of Appeal and the required fee are
`
`being filed electronically with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 28th day of September, 2015.
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Registration No. 46,224
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 l5th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 551-1700
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Counsel for Vime2‘XIrzc.
`
`I;
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4AMm—.,::;:.m:..,m.‘.a~::«::m,..‘..m:m.W.:mmw:¢=;:A...:;..,.—,::;:~—V
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014—00-404
`
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, in addition to being filed electronically
`
`through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Patent Review Processing System
`
`(PRPS), the original Version of this Notice of Appeal was filed by hand on
`
`September 28, 2015 with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, at the following address:
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`
`Madison Building East, 10B2O
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`The undersigned also certifies that a true and correct copy of this Notice of
`
`Appeal and the required fee were filed electronically Via CM/ECF on September
`
`28, 2015, with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`The undersigned also certifies that a true and correct copy of this Notice of
`
`Appeal was served on September 28, 2015 on counsel of record for Petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. by electronic mail (by agreement of the parties) at the following
`
`addresses:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (jkushan@sidley.com)
`Joseph A. Micallef (jmicallef@sidley.com)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 28, 20.15
`
`Case No. IPR2-014-00404
`
`. Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`3
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Registration No. 46,224
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, NW.
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 551-1700
`naVeenm0di@pau1hastings.c0m
`
`Counselfor 0Vz'metXInc.
`
`
`
`Ti‘ia1s@uspi:o.goV
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 42
`Date: July 29, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`VIRNETX INC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-004041
`
`Patent 7,937,274 B2
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`35 US. C. § 31%) and 37 C.F.R. § 42. 73
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Microsoft Corp. filed a Petition (Paper 2) (“Pet”) seeking an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`1 As discussed below, IPR2014-00484 has been joined with IPR2014—00404.
`This Final Written Decision applies to the joined case.
`
`
`
`IPR2014—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`7,987,274 B2 (EX. 1001, “the. ’274 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-
`
`319. On July 31, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 (Paper 13) (“Dee on Inst”).
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) fiied a Petition (1PR2014-00484, Paper 1)
`seeking an interpartes review ofclaims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18”
`
`ofthe "274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. On September 15,
`
`2014, the Board instituted an inter parres review of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 1-2,
`
`15, and 17 (IPR20l4—00484) and joined 1PR2014-00484 with IPR1201-4-
`
`00404 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (1PR20l4-—00484, Paper 1 1 _— Dec. on
`
`Inst). On April 16, 2015, the present proceeding was terminated with
`
`respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.
`
`Subsequent to institution, VirnetX Inc. -(“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 26)
`
`Resp”), and Petitioner filed a
`
`Reply (Paper 34) (“Pet Reply”). An Oral Hearing was conducted--on April
`
`28, 2015.
`
`TheBoard has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Finai Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 of
`
`A the ’274 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`The 274 Patent (Ex. I001)
`
`The ’274 patent describes methods for communicating over the
`
`Internet. EX. 1001, 9:38-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014—00-404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’274 patent is reproduced below:
`
`A method of accessing a secure network address,
`
`1.
`comprising:
`sending a query Ipessage from a first network device to a
`secure domain service, the query message requesting from th.e
`secure domain service a secure network address for a second
`
`network device',
`receiving at the first network device a response message
`from the secure domain name service containing the secure
`network address for the second network device; and
`sending an access request message from the first network
`device to the secure network address using a virtual private
`network communication link.
`
`C.
`
`Cited Prior Art
`
`Lindblad
`131121111
`
`US 6,225,993 B1
`Us 8,200,837-B1
`
`May 1, 2001
`June 12, 2012
`
`(EX. 1009)
`(EX. 1010)
`
`Takahiro Kiuehi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C—HTTP — The Development of a
`Secure, Closed HTTP-Based Network on the Internet,” Proceedings of
`SNDSS, 1996 (Ex. 1004 ~ “Kiuchi”).
`
`D.
`
`Insritutecl Grounds of Unparentabiliry
`
`§
`"
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`iiiiuchi
`
`Lindblad
`
`Kiuchi and Lindblad
`
`Kiuchi and Bhatti
`
`Kiuchi, Bhatti, and
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`E.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Virtual Private Network (ZEN) Communication Link
`
`We previously determined that, under a broadest reasonable
`
`construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual
`
`private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to
`
`include “a transmission path betweentwo devices that restricts access to
`
`data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation
`
`methods to hide information on thepath, including, but not limited to, one or
`
`more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 7. 2
`
`Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual
`
`private network communication link” 1) must be “a communication path
`
`' between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 6), 2) “requir[es]
`
`computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 9), and 3)
`
`requires a “network of cornputers,” which, according to Patent Owner must
`
`be “more than a ‘path between two devices.” PO Resp. 14.
`We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the
`
`manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is
`
`immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. See Vivid Techs,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim
`
`terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the case).
`
`2 Our construction is consistent with the broadest, reasonable construction in
`Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,792. See Cisco Systems,
`Inc. v. V1'metX Inc., Appeal 2014-000491, slip. op. at 4-8 (PTAB Apr. 1,
`2014) (Decision on Appeal) (involving grandparent patent to the ’274 patent,
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180).
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR20 14-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`Secure Domain
`
`ame Service
`
`Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood
`
`the term “secure domain (name) service,” in light of the Specification, to
`
`require “recogniz[ing] that a query message is requesting a secure computer
`
`address.” PO Resp. 16. Petitioner proposes that a secure domain (name)
`
`service (SDNS) should be construed as “[-a] service that can resolve secure
`
`computer network addresses for a secure domain name for which a
`
`conventional domain name service [(“DNS”)] cannot resolve addresses.”
`See Pet. 13; PO Resp. 15 (discussing Petitioner°s proposed construction).
`
`Claim 1, for example, recites sending a query message to “a secure
`
`domain service” requesting a secure network address and receiving “a
`
`response message from the secure domain name service containing the
`
`secure network address.” Claim 1 does not recite “recogniz[ing] that the
`
`query message is requesting a secure computer address.” “[T]he claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
`
`claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim
`
`can be highly instructive.” Phillips 12. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). At least based on the context of the claim, we carmot agree
`
`with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of a
`
`recitation of this alleged requirement.
`
`Based on the context of the claim, the Specification, and the
`prosecution history, claim 1 does not require “recogniz[ing]” as argued by
`
`Patent Owner. The Specification describes an “SDNS 313” that “contains a
`
`cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure
`
`network addresses. That is, for each secure domain name, SDNS 3313
`
`
`
`J
`IPR20l4-00404
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`stores a computer network address corresponding to the secure domain
`
`name.” Ex. 1001, 47:15-18. This disclosure comes closest to aligning with
`
`the claim term, “secure domain service” (i.e., an SDNS as set forth in the
`
`disclosure). Patent Owner does not point the panel to a disclosure inthe
`
`Specification that clearly supports the requirement of an SDNS to
`
`“recognize that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.”
`
`Hence, further based on the context of the Specification, we cannot agree
`
`with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have _
`
`understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of such
`
`a disclosure in the Specification of this alleged requirement.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “VirnetX has disclaimed secure domain
`
`services that do not perform this recognition” and that “[a] district court later
`
`relied on Vir-netX’s statements.” PO Respi 16~l7. However, Patent Owner
`
`does not indicate that the district court determined, under a broadest
`
`reasonable standard, how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`construed the term “secure domain service” in light of the Specification and
`
`that, under this broadest reasonable construction, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the “secure domain service” to require
`“recogniz[ing].” Indeed, based on the record before us, it appears the district
`
`court did not construe the term “secure domain service” at all, much less
`
`under a broadest reasonable standard.
`
`Patent Owner argues that, during a reexamination proceeding of a
`
`different (but related) matter (Inter Partes Reexamination Control No.
`
`95/001,270), Patent Owner allegedly proposed various examples of possible
`
`functionality of a secure domain name service. For example, Patent Owner
`
`argues that in the reexamination proceeding for U. S. Patent No. 7,188,180,
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`Patent Owner allegedly stated that a secure domain name service “may allow
`
`an entity to ‘register .
`
`.
`
`. names .
`
`.
`
`and “may .
`
`.
`
`. support the establishment
`
`of a VPN communication link.” PO Resp. 17-18. However, Patent Owner
`
`does not demonstrate persuasively that these possible functions of a secure
`
`domain service (i.e., that a secure domain service “may” register names or
`
`support a VPN link) support the contention that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that a secure domain service requires
`
`“recogniz[ing].”
`
`For at least the above reasons, and to the extent it is material, we
`
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “secure domain
`
`serVice.”3
`
`Tunnel Packe ting
`
`Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the term “tunnel packeting” to mean “forming a packet to be
`
`transmitted that contains datastructured in one protocol format within the
`
`format of another protocol.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner does not
`
`demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “tunnel packeting” will bear
`
`on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. Hence, we decline
`
`to modify our construction of this term.
`
`Client Computer
`
`3 We adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis of this construction in
`the companion case.
`See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc, Case IPR2014—00403,
`slip. op. at 8-20 (PTAB July 29, 2015) (also discussing prosecution history).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR20l4-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood
`
`that a “client computer” must be a “user’s computer.” PO Resp. 21. Claim
`
`15 recites a client computer that is connected to a communication network.
`
`Patent Owner argues that a “client computer” must be a “user’s
`
`computer” but does not specify a difference between a “client computer” and
`
`a “user’s computer.” Instead, Patent Owner merely states that the
`
`Specification discloses a “user’s computer 260 1 We note that the
`
`Specification illustrates a component “2601” but does not appear to disclose
`that component “2601” is a “user computer.” Spec. Fig. 26. Indeed, the
`
`Specification does not appear to disclose any specific name for component
`
`“260 1” at all. Even if the Specification explicitly disclosed that component
`“260l” as illustrated in Figure 26 of the Specification is a “user’s computer,’
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that a “client computer,” as recited in claim 15
`must be a “user’s computer,” or how such a “user°s computer” would differ
`
`from a “client computer.” Id. at 21.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the Specification discloses a “computer
`
`3301” that “is manned by a user.” Id. We note that the ‘Specification
`
`discloses that element “3301” is a “client computer” (see, e. g., Spec. 45: 19).
`
`Patent Owner does not indicate if the Specification refers to element “3 301”
`as a “user’s computer” as well, and, if so, how calling element “330 1” a
`
`“user’s computer” (as opposed to a “client computer”) would result in a
`
`difference in element “330 1 ,” what this supposed difference would be, and
`
`how this supposed difference would modify the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “client computer,” as recited in claim 15.
`
`
`
`-IPR20 14-0 0404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`Also, the ’274 patent Specification employs" the term “user’s
`
`computer” in a “conventional scheme .
`
`.
`
`. shown in FIG 25. A user’s
`
`computer 2501 includes a client application 2504 (for example a web
`
`browser) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Ex. 1001, 38:6l—63. Although Patent Owner refers to this
`
`“conventional” computer as “another embodiment,” the ’274 patent
`
`Specification disparages the “conventional architecture” that employs a
`
`user’s computer, because it is not secure enough. See Ex. 1001, 3924-13. In
`
`general, the ’274 patent Specifieatien states that “[t]he present invention"
`
`involves a “client computer” with a “client application” that “communicates
`
`with a server.” See EX. 1001, 7:404l4. This description of “[t]he present
`
`invention” does not mention, let alone require, a “user’s computer.”
`
`For at least the above reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of the term “client computer” as a “user’s computer.”
`
`Instead, we construe the term “client computer,” under a broadest reasonable
`
`standard, to include a computer associated with a client.
`
`Access Reguest Message
`
`As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not
`appear -to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 24.”
`
`Secure Network Address
`
`As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not
`
`appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 24.
`
`
`
`IPR2014—00404
`
`Patent'7,987,274 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Kiuchi
`
`For at least thefollowing reasons, we find that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that claims l—4, 7, 8,. 10, 12, 15, and 17 are anticipated by
`
`Kiuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Patent Owner argues that this _proceeding should be terminated
`
`because “the Board relies on the host server’s IP address and the host server,
`
`meaning Kiuchi ’s origin server, respectively.” PO Resp. 29. Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(d), “the determination .
`
`.
`
`. whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review .
`
`.
`
`. shall be final and nonappealable” See In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies, LLC, 778F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, even if
`
`we relied on “Kz‘uch1' ’s origin server,” we disagree with Patent Owner that
`
`such an alleged re1iance—wou‘id indicate that “the proceeding should be
`
`terminated.” In any event, we disagree with Patent Owner that we relied
`
`upon “Kiuchi ’s origin server” as explained in more detail below. Because
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ostensibly in support of terminating the
`
`proceeding is based on Patent Owner’s erroneous interpretation, Patent
`Owner has provided insufficient reasons to terminate the present proceeding.
`
`Petitioner explains that Kiuchi discloses a client-side proxy (i.e., “first
`
`network device”) that sends a request to a C—HTTP name server (i.e., a
`
`“secure domain service”) for a secure network address for a server—side
`
`proxy (i.e., “second network device”). See, e.g., Pet. 28. In other words,
`
`Petitioner equates the “second network device,” as recited in claim 1, with
`
`the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Kiuchi discloses that the first network
`
`device (or client—side proxy) requests a secure network address for the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014—OO404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`“origin server” of Kiuchi and not the server-side proxy of Kiuchi,.the server-
`
`side proxy being equated with the recited “second network device.” PO
`
`Resp. 32-34. We disagree with Patent Owner.
`
`Claim 1 recites sending a message from a first network device for an
`
`address for a second network device and, in response, receiving at the first
`
`network device the address for the second network device. Kiuchi discloses
`
`that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can
`
`communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C—HTTP name server
`
`exarnines_“the requested server—side proxy.” In response to the request from
`
`the client~side proxy, the c1ient~side proxy (ie, “first network device”)
`
`receives “the IP address and public key of the server—side proxy.” Ex. 1004,
`
`— 65.. In other words, Kiuchi discloses a first network device (or a client-side
`
`proxy) sending a message to the C-HTTP name server (or secure domain
`
`service) to request a secure network address (e. g., an “IP address and public
`
`key”) for a second network device (i.e., server—side proxy) and then, in
`
`response, receiving at the client~side proxy the requested secure network
`
`address for the second network device (ie, “the IP address and public key
`
`of the server—side proxy”). Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively
`
`a difference between Kiuchi and the claimed invention.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client-side proxy
`
`sends a request for a network address for the “origin server” but not for the
`
`server—side proxy. However, Kiuchi discloses that in response to the request
`
`to communicate with “the host,” the name server examines “the requested
`
`server—side proxy” and returns “the IP address .
`
`.
`
`. of the server—side proxy.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`contention, “the host” of Kiuchi corresponds to the “server—side proxy” (or
`
`second network device, as recited in claim 1).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose an access
`
`request message, as recited in claim 1. In particular, Patent Owner argues
`
`that Kiuch-i discloses a “user agent” sending a query message for a secure
`
`domain service, rather thana “first network device” (i.e., a client—side proxy
`
`of Kiuchi) sending a_request to a secure domain service. PO Resp. 36 (citing
`Ex. 2041 11 42 (“Declaration of Fabian Monrose, Ph.D.” or “Monrose Dec”).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Dr. Monrose testifies
`
`that Kiuchi discloses an “HTTP/1.0 message [that] is sent ‘from the user
`
`agent’ and reaches neither the host/origin server nor the server—side proxy.”
`
`Ex. 2041 fl 42. However, as previously discussed, Kiuchi discloses a step of
`
`“sending .
`
`.
`
`. requests to the server—side proxy”in which “a client—side proxy
`
`-forvvards HTTP/1.0 requests from the user agent” to the server—side proxy.
`
`Ex. 1004, 66. Neither Patent Owner nor Patent Owner’s declarant (Dr.
`
`Monrose) explains sufficiently how an “HTTP/ 1.0 request” that is
`
`“forwarded” by a c1ient~side proxy to a server—side proxy fails to reach the
`
`server—side proxy in Kiuchi or that the forwarded request in Kiuchi is
`
`somehow diverted prior to reaching the server—side proxy and does not arrive _
`
`at its intended destination.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client—side
`proxy “dispatches a new C-HTTP request” but Kiuchi fails to disclose that
`
`the client—side proxy sends “an HTTP/1.0 request.” PO Resp. 37. First, we
`
`note that claim 1 recites “sending an access request message” Claim 1 does
`
`not recite or otherwise require “sending an HTTP/l .0 request.” For at least
`
`this reason, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Also, as
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR20l4—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`previously discussed, Kiuchi discloses “sending .
`
`.
`
`. requests to the server~
`
`side proxy” in which “a client-side proxy forwards HTTP/1.0 requests” to
`
`the server—side proxy. Ex. 1004, 66. Patent Owner does not demonstrate
`
`persuasively a material difference between the client-side proxy “sending” a
`
`request to a server-side proxy and a client-side proxy “forwarding” a request
`
`to a server—side proxy. In both cases, a request -is transmitted from the
`client-side proxy to the server—side proxy.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses an “HTTP/1.0 request” that
`
`“is not an access request message [as recited in claim 1] at least because it
`
`does not seek any ‘communication, information, or services’ with the server-
`
`side proxy.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2041 W 44, 46). Kiuchi discloses a
`
`client—side proxy “[s]ending C—HTTP request to the server—side proxy” in
`
`which the “client—side proxy forward HTTP/1.0 request” to the server—side
`
`proxy for communication and exchange of services between devices. Ex.
`
`1004, 66. For example, Kiuchi discloses one example in which “patient
`
`information” is “transfer[red]” “among hospitals and related institutions.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 64. Patent-‘Owner does not indicate sufficiently how Kiuchi’s
`
`request for communication between network devices for communication or
`
`information (e. g., patient information) exchange, for example, differs from a
`
`device seeking “any communication, information, or services.” Hence, to
`
`the extent that claim 1 requires seeking “any communication, information, or
`
`services,” we disagree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi fails to disclose this
`
`featu.re. PO Resp. 38.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose sending an
`
`“HTTP/1.0 message” using a “virtual private network communication link.”
`
`PO Resp. 39. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lPR20 l4—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`sending a message from a client—side proxy to a server-side proxy, which,
`
`according to Patent Owner, is “a point—to-point connection, not a network as
`
`claimed.” PO Resp. 39-40. Patent Owner" also argues that Kiuchi fails to
`
`disclose sending a request “using a virtual private network communication
`
`link” because “the request [of Kiuchi] lacks the ‘network’ aspect of a VPN
`
`communication link and further because [Kiuchi merely discloses] a point-
`
`to—point message [instead ot] a VPN communication link.” PO Resp. 42-43
`
`(citing Bx. 2041 ‘ll 52). Hence, Patent Owner argues tl-1atKiuchi fails to
`disclose a “network.” We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`_
`
`For example, Kiuchi discloses one embodiment of the use of a C-
`
`HTTP name server (and client—side and server-side proxies) in “networks
`
`among hospitals and related institutions.” Ex 1004, 64. At least in view of
`
`this explicit disclosure of “networks,” we are not persuaded by Patent Owner
`
`that Kiuehi fails to disclose a “network.”
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses sending an HTTP/1.0
`request but that “the request must pass through both the client—side and
`
`server-side proxies to reach the origin server.” PO Resp. 41 (citing Ex. 2041
`
`ll 51). According to Patent Owner, this indicates that “KiuchI' fails to
`
`disclose direct communications to any host server and any message from the
`
`client—side proxy .
`
`.
`
`. is not sent using a VPN communication link.” PO
`
`Resp. 4142. Hence, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a
`
`“direct communication.”
`
`Claim l, for example, recites sending an access request from a first
`
`network device to a secure network address using a virtual private network
`
`communication link. Claim 1 does not recite sending an access‘ request
`
`14
`
`
`
`1PR2014—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`message over a “direct communication.” We are therefore not persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner argues that a “direct communication”
`
`is recited implicitly in claim 1, for example, we disagree with Patent Owner
`
`at least because even if a “direct communication” is required, Kiuchi
`
`discloses this feature. Kiuchi discloses a client-side proxy (i.e., first network
`
`device) “[s]ending C—HTTP requests to the server-side proxy” in which the
`
`client-side proxy “forwards HTTP/1.0 requests” to the server-side proxy.
`
`Ex. 1004, 66. Kiuchi also discloses that “[a] client-side proxy and server-
`
`side proxy com-municate with each other using a secure, encrypted protocol
`
`(C-HTTP)” Ex. 1004, 64. Kiuchi does not disclose that the communication
`
`between the ci-i-ent-side proxy and the server~side proxy is not a “direct
`
`comrnunication” and Patent Owner does not explain adequately how the
`
`communication between the—client—side proxy and the server—side proxy of
`
`Kiuchi differs from a “direct communication,” as Patent Owner contends is
`
`implicitly recited in claim 1.4 I
`
`Regarding claim 15, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose
`
`a “client computer,” in which “client computer,” as recited in claim 15, is
`
`construed to mean a “user’s computer.” PO Resp. 44-45. In other words,
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a “user’s computer.”
`
`4 The Federal Circuit determined that “Kiuchi’s client-side and server-side
`
`proxies terminate the connection, process information, and create a new
`connection — actions that are not ‘direct’ within the meaning of the asserted
`claims.” Wme'rX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc, 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Hence, the Federal Circuit determined that a client-side proxy did
`not form a “direct communication” with an origin server. However, the
`Federal Circuit did not determine whether or not the client-side proxy forms
`a “direct communication” with a server-side proxy.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yr;-..sfi=<1\s:...
`
`IPR2014—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`Llaim 15 recites that “a client computer [is] connected to a communication
`
`network.” As previously discussed and in View of the apparent lack of
`
`distinction between a “client” and a “user,”'based on Patent‘Owner’s
`
`arguments, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have construed, under a broadest reasonable standard, the
`
`term “client computer,” in light of the Specification, to mean “user’s
`
`computer.”
`
`We also disagree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi fails to disclose a
`
`“client computer,” or a computer associated with a client. As previously
`
`discussed, Kiuchi discloses a “client—side proxy” that is associated with a
`
`“client.” Hence, Kiuchi discloses a “client cornputer.”
`In additionyassurning one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that a “client computer” must includespecific reference to a
`
`“user,” as Patent Owner appears to contend, Kiuchi discloses this feature.
`
`Kiuchi discloses, for example, a “user agent” and “communication between
`
`a client—side proxy and user agent.” Ex. 1004, 65. In other -words, the “user
`
`agent” of Kiuchi is connected to (ie, in communication with) a
`
`communication network (which includes a client—side proxy). Patent Owner
`
`does not demonstrate persuasively a difference between the “user agent” of
`
`Kiuchi (that is connected to a communication network) and the “client
`
`cornputer” that is also “connected to a communication network,” as recited
`
`in claim 15.
`
`B.
`
`Kiuchi and Bhatti/Lindblad
`
`Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17, Patent Owner argues
`
`that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR—2014—00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`combined the teachings of Kiuchi and"Bhatti because Kiuchi discloses an
`
`“origin server” that, according to Patent Owner, corresponds to the “second
`
`network device,” as recited in claim 1, for example. PO Resp. 4749. Even
`
`if the “origin server” of Kiuchi would somehow render the combination of
`
`Kiuchi and Bhatti improper, we need not consider Patent Owner’s argument
`
`further because, as previously discussed, Petitioner relies on the “server—side
`
`proxy” and not the “origin server” of Kiuchi as the recited second network
`device.
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Bhatti fails to disclose “using a virtual
`private network communication link.” PO Resp. 50. However, as discussed
`
`above, we agree with Petitioner that Kiuchi discloses this feature.
`
`No additional issues with respect to Bhatti or the.Lindblad reference
`
`are identified. PO ‘Resp. 50-51.
`
`ORDER
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`
`claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Kiuchi or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kiuchi and Bhatti and
`
`that claim 5 is unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) over the combination of
`
`Kiuchi and Lindblad or the combination of Kiuchi, Lindblad, and Bhatti.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 1.2, 15, and 17 of the ’274 patent
`
`have been shown to be unpatentable.
`
`This is a final decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
`
`review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements
`
`of 37 CFR. § 90.2.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR20-14-00404
`
`Patent 7,987,274 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph A. Micallef
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`jkusha11@sid1ey.com
`jmica11ef@sidley.c01:r1
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`josephpa1ys@pau1hastings.com
`naveem11odi@pau1hastings:-com
`
`Jason E. Stash
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT*& DUNNER, LLP
`jasen.stach@finnegan.com
`
`