Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 10836
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`VirnetX Inc. and Science Applications
`International Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-00417-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Apple Inc.,
`NEC Corporation, and NEC Corporation of
`America,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
`CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM “SECURE COMMUNICATION LINK”
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2016
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2014-00485
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 10837
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., Apple, Inc., NEC Corporation, and NEC Corporation of
`
`America (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully move for reconsideration of the Court’s
`
`construction of the claim term “secure communication link.” In the April 25, 2012 Claim
`
`Construction Order,
`
`this Court construed “secure communication
`
`link” as “a direct
`
`communication link that provides data security.” D.I. 266, at 13. But just as VirnetX’s
`
`statements in earlier reexamination proceedings required this Court to revisit certain claim
`
`constructions reached in the Microsoft litigation, reconsideration of this Court’s construction of
`
`“secure communication link” is now warranted because VirnetX has once again made narrowing
`
`arguments in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`Specifically, in reexamination proceedings following the Markman hearing in this action,
`
`VirnetX unequivocally disclaimed “secure communication links” that are not encrypted. In the
`
`absence of that intrinsic evidence, however, this Court adopted a construction that does not
`
`necessarily require encryption. D.I. 266, at 13 (Noting that “encryption is not the only means of
`
`addressing data security.”). To ensure that consistent constructions are applied in the PTO and
`
`this Court, Defendants asked VirnetX to stipulate to a construction of “secure communication
`
`link” that requires encryption. But VirnetX has failed to respond. The time has come for
`
`VirnetX to stop seeking to obtain the benefit of narrow constructions in the PTO that conflict
`
`with the Court’s constructions in this litigation. Consistent with VirnetX’s PTO admissions, the
`
`phrase “secure communication link” should be construed to mean “a direct communication link
`
`that provides data security through encryption.”
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The claim term “secure communication link” appears in the independent claims of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,418,504 (“the ‘504 patent”), 7,921,211 (“the ‘211 patent”), and 6,839,759 (“the
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 10838
`
`‘759 patent”). In the April 25, 2012 Claim Construction Order, because dependent claim 28 of
`
`both the ‘504 and ‘211 patents covers “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the secure
`
`communication link uses encryption,” this Court applied the doctrine of claim differentiation and
`
`ruled that the “secure communication link” of claim 1 could provide security without necessarily
`
`using encryption. Id. at 13. Accordingly the Court construed “secure communication link” as
`
`“a direct communication link that provides data security.” Id.
`
`After the January 5, 2012 Markman hearing, however, VirnetX unequivocally disclaimed
`
`“secure communication links” that do not require encryption. In a March 29, 2012 response to
`
`an office action regarding claim 1 of the ‘504 patent, VirnetX contended that the prior art “does
`
`not disclose establishing a secure communication link between the originating and terminating
`
`devices because [the prior art] does not disclose that the communication between these two
`
`devices is encrypted.” See Ex. A, File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504, Patent Owners
`
`Response to Office Action at 25 (March 29, 2012). VirnetX argued that “one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood a secure communication link to require encryption.’” Id.
`
`VirnetX also noted to the PTO that “in the ongoing litigation involving the ‘504 patent . . . both
`
`Patent Owner and the Requester agree that a secure communication link requires encryption.”
`
`Id. And VirnetX repeated those same statements in an April 18, 2012 response to an office
`
`action regarding the ‘211 patent. See Ex. B, File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211, Patent
`
`Owners Response to Office Action at 28 (April 18, 2012).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The claim language “secure communication link” should be construed consistent with
`
`VirnetX’s repeated and unambiguous disclaimers in PTO reexamination proceedings. Those
`
`statements disavowed secure communication links that are not encrypted and therefore forfeited
`
`2
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 10839
`
`communication links that provide security in other ways. See Am. Piledriving Equip. v.
`
`Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, the claim differentiation
`
`principles underlying this Court’s original construction do not apply where a patent owner argues
`
`that the scope of an independent claim is the same as that of a dependent claim. ERBE
`
`Elektromedizin gmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC., 97 USPQ2d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`VirnetX should not be permitted to benefit from a narrow claim interpretation for the purposes of
`
`prosecution and a broader claim interpretation for the purposes of litigation. See Am.
`
`Piledriving, 637 F.3d at 1336. The construction of “secure communication link” should
`
`therefore be modified to specify that a “secure communication link” is “a direct communication
`
`link that provides data security through encryption.”
`
`
`
`VirnetX has ignored Defendants’ invitation to join in this motion. On June 4, 2012,
`
`Defendants emailed VirnetX stating that they planned to move for reconsideration of the
`
`construction of “secure communication link” in light of VirnetX’s statements to the PTO, and
`
`asked whether VirnetX would join in the motion. Ex. C, June 4, 2012 email from Karim
`
`Oussayef to Jason Cassady. But after two weeks and repeated emails and phone calls, VirnetX
`
`has refused even to respond to Defendants’ emails. Oussayef Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. VirnetX’s failure to
`
`respond, let alone articulate a basis for opposing this motion, further demonstrates that VirnetX
`
`is attempting to apply different claim interpretations in the PTO and this Court. Defendants’
`
`motion for reconsideration of the construction of “secure communication link” should be granted
`
`to prevent VirnetX from engaging in such tactics.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully requests that this Court grant
`
`Defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court’s Construction Order and construe
`
`3
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 10840
`
`“secure communication link” to mean “a direct communication link that provides data security
`
`through encryption.”
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Dated: June 21, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ William J. McCabe
`William J. McCabe
`Telephone: 212-596-9018
`Facsimile: 646-728-2673
`William.McCabe@ropesgray.com
`
`Stuart W. Yothers
`Telephone: 212-596-9176
`Facsimile: 646-728-2957
`Stuart.Yothers@ropesgray.com
`ROPES &GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`
`
`
`Maxwell A. Fox
`Telephone: 81-3-6259-3508
`Facsimile: 81-3-6259-3501
`Maxwell.Fox@ropesgray.com
`ROPES &GRAY LLP
`Yusen Building 2F
`3-2, Marunouchi 2-chome
`Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005 Japan
`
`
`R. Andrew Schwentker
`Telephone: 202-508-4717
`Facsimile: 202-383-9314
`Andrew.Schwentker@ropesgray.com
`ROPES &GRAY LLP
`700 12th Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Douglas R. McSwane, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 13861300
`dougmcswane@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON
`500 Plaza Tower
`110 N. College Ave. (75702)
`
`
`
`-
`
`LEAD
`
`By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`Texas Bar No. 00789886
`Brian Craft
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`Texas Bar No. 04972020
`FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP
`6760 Old Jacksonville Hwy
`Suite 101
`Tyler, TX 75703
`Telephone: (903) 534-1100
`Facsimile: (903) 534-1137
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`John M. Desmarais (pro hac vice)
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Michael P. Stadnick (pro hac vice)
`mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`By: /s/ Danny L. Williams
`Danny
`L. Williams
`ATTORNEY
`State Bar No. 21518050
`E-mail: danny@wmalaw.com
`Ruben S. Bains
`Texas Bar No. 24001678
`E-mail: rbains@wmalaw.com
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 10841
`
`Drew Kim
`Texas Bar No. 24007482
`E-mail: dkim@wmalaw.com
`Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
`10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
`Houston, Texas 77042
`Telephone: (713) 934-7000
`Facsimile: (713) 934-7011
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`P.O. Box 359
`Tyler, Texas 75710
`Telephone: 903-597-8311
`Facsimile: 903-593-0846
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
`NEC CORPORATION AND NEC
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 366 Filed 06/21/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 10842
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`
`
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`
`RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM
`
`“SECURE
`
`COMMUNICATION LINK,” via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on
`
`this the 21st day of June 2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 20, 2012 and June 21, 2012, counsel for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. conferred via e-mail with counsel for Plaintiff VirnetX Inc.
`
`regarding the relief sought in this motion. Plaintiff indicated through those emails that they
`
`oppose this motion. In addition, on at least two occasions counsel for Cisco called to talk to
`
`counsel for Plaintiff about the motion, but counsel has refused to call him back. Accordingly,
`
`Cisco in good faith believes that Virnet X continues to be opposed to the relief sought in this
`
`motion and that, therefore, Court intervention is required.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay
` Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 7