IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`Filed: March 26, 2002
`
`Issued: March 30, 2004
`
`Inventor(s): Jeffrey A. Aaron, Thomas
`Anschutz
`
`Assignee: Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Title: Firewall System and Method via
`Feedback from Broad-Scope
`Monitoring for Intrusion Detection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 301 AND 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,715,084
`
`IBM Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`Filed: March 26, 2002
`
`Issued: March 30, 2004
`
`Inventor(s): Jeffrey A. Aaron, Thomas
`Anschutz
`
`Assignee: Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Title: Firewall System and Method via
`Feedback from Broad-Scope
`Monitoring for Intrusion Detection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 301 AND 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,715,084
`
`IBM Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`Submission Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`International Business Machines Corp. (“IBM”) offers this Submission
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`(“Submission”). This Submission addresses (1) prior art that bears on the
`
`patentability of claims 1–9 and 12–18 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,715,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); and (2) statements that the current patent
`
`owner, Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”), has made in federal court proceedings
`
`regarding the scope of the Challenged Claims. IBM files this Submission in
`
`connection with, and as Exhibit 1003 to, its Petition for Inter Partes Review Under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084 (“Petition”).
`
`I.
`
`PRIOR ART BEARING ON THE PATENTABILITY OF THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(1), IBM
`
`identifies the following prior art that it believes bears on the patentability of the
`
`Challenged Claims:
`
`• Porras, et al., Live Traffic Analysis of TCP/IP Gateways (“Porras”) (Ex.
`1006);
`• U.S. 7,237,264, to Graham, et al. (“Graham”) (Ex. 1007);
`• NetRanger User’s Guide, Version 1.3.1 (“NetRanger”) (Ex. 1008); and
`• Snapp, et al., A System for Distributed Intrusion Detection (“Snapp”)
`(Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Submission Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.501(b)(1), the pertinence of this prior art to the
`
`Challenged Claims is explained in Section V.C of the Petition. In particular, the
`
`manner of applying this prior art to the Challenged Claims may be found in the
`
`claim-by-claim analysis of Section V.C of the Petition.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENTS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS MADE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE A FEDERAL
`COURT
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(2), IBM
`
`identifies the following statements made by IV where IV took a position on the
`
`scope of the Challenged Claims in a proceeding before a federal court.
`
`Second Revised Joint Chart of Proposed Claim Constructions in
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., No. 1:13–cv–
`
`03777 (S.D.N.Y.): IV took a position on the scope of the Challenged Claims in a
`
`Second Revised Joint Chart of Proposed Claim Constructions (“Joint Chart”)
`
`submitted to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York on
`
`March 4, 2014. The Joint Chart, attached hereto as Ex. 1012, was submitted as
`
`part of IV’s co-pending lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase, et al.
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(3), IBM identifies the following:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(3)(i), Forum: IV made these statements during a
`
`district court litigation captioned Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase
`
`& Co., et al., No. 1:13–cv–03777 (S.D.N.Y.).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Submission Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(3)(ii), Specific Documents: IV made these statements
`
`when the parties submitted a Joint Chart to Judge Hellerstein. (Ex. 1012, Joint
`
`Chart.)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.501(a)(3)(iii), How Statement is a Position on the Scope of
`
`Any Claim: IV submitted that the term “generating an automated response to the
`
`intrusion” should be construed, by agreement of the parties, to mean “generating a
`
`response (including an alert, a log, a parameter adjustment, or a notification) to the
`
`intrusion without manual intervention.” (Ex. 1012 at 005, Joint Chart.) Judge
`
`Hellerstein accepted the parties’ agreed construction. (Ex. 1013 at 16:15–17,
`
`3/5/14, Markman Tr.)
`
`IBM next explains the pertinence of IV’s statements, and an explanation of
`
`how IV’s statements should be applied to claim 7, as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.501(b)(1). IV’s statement in the Joint Chart is an express position on the scope
`
`of claim 7, one of the Challenged Claims, and must be considered when
`
`establishing the broadest reasonable construction of the term.
`
`IBM proposes the same construction for the purpose of this IPR, which is
`
`supported by plain meaning of the term and the specification of the ’084 Patent.
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 7:45–52, 10:16–21, 10:60–65, Claims 8, 15–16; see also Petition,
`
`Section IV.C.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Submission Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`Date: April 23, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Eugene Goryunov
`Kenneth R. Adamo (Reg. No. 27,299)
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`kenneth.adamo@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Attorneys For Petitioners
`
`4
`
`
`
`Submission Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Submission
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 301 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.501 in Support of Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,715,084, was served on April 23, 2014, via
`
`FedEx Express delivery directed to the attorney of record for the patent at the
`
`following address:
`
`Turocy & Watson LLP
`127 Public Square
`57th Floor, Key Tower
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`
` A
`
` copy was also served via FedEx Express delivery on:
`
`Ian N. Feinberg
`Feinberg, Day Law Firm
`1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`David J. Koukol
`Koukol, Johnson Law Firm
`12020 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 333
`Omaha, NE 68154
`
`William Irvin Dunnegan
`Dunnegan LLC
`350 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10118
`A H Gaede , Jr
`Bainbridge Mims Rogers & Smith LLP
`600 Luckie Drive
`P O Box 530886
`Birmingham, AL 35253
`
`Norman Eli Siegel
`Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP
`460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Zahra S. Karinshak
`Krevolin & Horst LLC
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 3250
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Edwin E Voigt, II
`Vidas Arrett & Steinkraus
`6640 Shady Oak Rd, Suite 400
`Eden Prairie, MN 55344
`Charles Joseph Faruki
`Faruki Ireland & Cox PLL - 3
`500 Courthouse Plaza, SW
`10 N Ludlow Street
`Dayton, OH 45402-1818
`/s/ Eugene Goryunov
`Eugene Goryunov
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
