UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`New Bay Capital, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`IPR2013- 00376
`
`Patent 7,490,151
`Issue Date: Feb. 10, 2009
`Title: ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECURE COMMUNICATION LINK BASED ON
`A DOMAIN NAME SERVICE (DNS) REQUEST
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,490,151
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`
`
`
`1
`
`MICROSOFT 1028
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 1
`
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST .................................................................... 1
`
`B. STANDING ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`C. RELATED MATTERS .................................................................................... 1
`
`D. NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ........................................... 4
`
`E. SERVICE INFORMATION ............................................................................ 4
`
`F. PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER ..................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`FEE ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED.................................... 5
`
`IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 5
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art Domain Name Services ...................................................... 5
`
`B. “The Invention” ................................................................................................. 7
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 9
`
`A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................. 9
`
`B. Proposed Claim Constructions ......................................................................... 11
`
`VI. FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION OF
`CLAIMS .................................................................................................................. 20
`
`A. Claims 1 and 13 are Unpatentable Over Kiuchi .............................................. 20
`
`B. Request 1 – Claims 1 and 13 are Obvious over Kiuchi ................................... 27
`
`Ground 1. Claim 1 is Obvious Over Kiuchi ...................................................... 32
`
`Ground 2. Claim 13 is Obvious Over Kiuchi .................................................... 37
`
`
`
`ii
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 2
`
`

`
`C. Request 2 – Claims 1 and 13 are Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................. 38
`
`Ground 3. Claim 1 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ..................................................... 42
`
`Ground 4. Claim 13 is Anticipated by Kiuchi ................................................... 46
`
`D. Request 3 – Claims 1 and 13 are Unpatentable over Dalton in view of Kiuchi
` .............................................................................................................................. 48
`
`Ground 5. Claim 1 is Obvious in view of Dalton and Kiuchi ........................... 52
`
`Ground 6. Claim 13 is Obvious in view of Dalton and Kiuchi ......................... 59
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AirCraft Medical LTD. v. Verathon Inc., Reexam. Control No. 95/000,161, Appeal
`2012-007851, p. 16 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2012) ......................................................... 10
`Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 298 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002) .............................................................................................................. 15
`Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1996) .................... 10
`Garmin Int’l Inc. v.Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15
`(PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013) .............................................................................................. 9
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . 15
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................... 10
`Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48
`USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 10
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401; 127 S.Ct. 1727, 173 (2007) .. 31
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998) 9
`RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 96 S.Ct. 1532 (1976) ....................... 31
`Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......... 15
`VirnetX Inc. et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:13cv351 (E.D. Tex.) ....... 2
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:13cv211 (E.D. Tex.) .................................... 1
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 ............................... 12, 13
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 (E.D. Tex.) .................... 1
`VirnetX Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12cv855 (E.D. Tex.) ......................... 1
`VirnetX v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 ...................................... 13
`Virnetx v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ........... 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 4
`
`

`
`VirnetX v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .......... 19
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed.
`Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................................ 9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) .......................................................................................... 5, 21, 48
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ...................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2),(d) ......................................................................................... 10
`Treatises
`18 Susan Bandes & Lawrence B. Solum, Moore's Federal Practice § 134-30, at
`134-63 (3d ed.1998) ............................................................................................. 10
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 (b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 5
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`1001.
`
`1002.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 to Munger et al. (hereinafter “the ‘151
`Patent)
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP - The
`Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the
`Internet,” published by IEEE in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996
`(hereinafter “Kiuchi”)
`
`1003.
`
`C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to
`the Internet,” published in the Proceedings of JENC8, May 1997
`(hereinafter “Dalton”)
`
`1004. W. Richard Stevens, “TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols”
`(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1994), page 187
`
`1005. Windows Sockets – An Open Interface for Network Programming
`Under Microsoft Windows, Version 1.1, January 20, 1993 (copy
`obtained from http://www.sockets.com/winsock.htm)
`
`1006.
`
`1007.
`
`1008.
`
`1009.
`
`1010.
`
`eCOS Reference Manual, Chapter 38, TCP/IP Library Reference,
`gethostbyname, March 13, 1997 (copy obtained from
`http://www.ecos.sourceware.org/docs-2.0/ref/net-common-tcpip-
`manpages-gethostbyname.html)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,449,657 to Stanbach, Jr. et al. (hereinafter “the
`‘657 Patent)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,003 to Farris (hereinafter “the ‘003 Patent)
`
`Declaration of Russell Housley with Appendices
`
`Braden, “Requirements for Internet Hosts – Application and
`Support,” Internet Engineering Task Force Request for Comments
`(RFC) 1123, October 1989.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 6
`
`

`
`1011. MS Markman Order 7/30/09
`
`1012.
`
`1013.
`
`1014.
`
`1015.
`
`1016.
`
`1017.
`
`1018.
`
`Apple Pretrial Proceedings 10/18/12
`
`Apple Transcript Morning 10/31/12
`
`Apple Transcript Morning 11/1/12
`
`Apple Memorandum Opinion and Order 2/26/13
`
`Cisco/Apple Memorandum Opinion and Order 4/25/12
`
`VirnetX Opening Claim Construction Brief in Apple/Cisco 11/4/11
`
`VirnetX Reply Claim Construction Brief in Apple/Cisco 12/19/11
`
`1019. Microsoft Transcript Morning 3/9/10
`
`1020. Microsoft Transcript Afternoon 3/9/10
`
`1021.
`
`1022.
`
`1023.
`
`1024.
`
`Definition of VPN (Virtual Private Network) from Computer
`Desktop Encyclopedia, 9th Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies,
`2001, page 1044
`
`The ‘135 Patent Family
`
`Definitions of HTML and HTTP from Computer Desktop
`Encyclopedia, 9th Edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2001, pp.
`435-436
`
`C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to
`the Internet,” republished in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems,
`Vol. 29, No. 15, November 1, 1997 (pp. 1799-1808) (hereinafter
`“Dalton”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 7
`
`

`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petitioner New Bay Capital, LLC (“New Bay” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review for claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 (the '151 patent,”
`
`attached as Ex.1001). The present assignee of the '151 patent is VirnetX, Inc.
`
`Petitioner certifies that the real parties-in-interests are New Bay and its parent
`
`Eastern Shore Capital, LLC.
`
`B.
`
`STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘151 patent, issued on February 10, 2009, is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘151 patent.
`
`C. RELATED MATTERS
`
` Ex.1022 lists pending applications and reexaminations that may be affected
`
`by the outcome of this review. Additionally, the ‘151 patent has been asserted
`
`against the following companies in the following proceedings:
`
`1. Apple, Inc. in: VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417
`
`(E.D. Tex.) filed August 11, 2010; VirnetX Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., Case
`
`No. 6:12cv855 (E.D. Tex.), filed November 6, 2012; and VirnetX Inc. v. Apple
`
`Inc., Case No. 6:13cv211 (E.D. Tex.), filed February 26, 2013. The District Court
`
`in Case No. 6:10cv417 has entered a Final Judgment finding, inter alia, that Apple
`
`
`
`1
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 8
`
`

`
`infringed claims 1 and 13 of the ‘151 patent and that such claims were not invalid
`
`over Kiuchi, which is asserted in this proceeding based on new evidence and
`
`analysis.
`
`2. Also, Cisco Systems, Inc. in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case
`
`No. 6:10cv417 (E.D. Tex.), filed August 11, 2010.
`
`3. Microsoft Corporation in VirnetX Inc. et al. v. Microsoft Corporation,
`
`Case No. 6:13cv351 (E.D. Tex.), filed April 22, 2013.
`
` Also, the ‘151 patent is the subject of two merged pending inter partes
`
`reexaminations, 95/001,714 brought by Cisco Systems, and 95/001,697 brought by
`
`Apple, Inc. Claims 1 and 13 currently stand rejected in the merged
`
`reexaminations. The outstanding rejections include anticipation and obviousness
`
`rejections that apply Kiuchi as a primary reference. Neither of the pending
`
`reexaminations has reached the stage of an Action Closing Prosecution. In these
`
`reexaminations, the requesters are contesting all 16 claims of the patent, and have
`
`asserted more than a dozen prior art references in various combinations. The
`
`present Petition is, by contrast, highly streamlined in that it focuses on only two
`
`claims and relies on two prior art references (i.e., Kiuchi and Dalton). The present
`
`Petition advances new arguments and evidence (not presented in the litigations or
`
`pending reexaminations) for invalidating claims 1 and 13 over Kiuchi and Dalton
`
`in view of Kiuchi.
`
`
`
`2
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 9
`
`

`
` As a result of the cross-collateral estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 317(b),
`
`the pending reexaminations will likely terminate before either reaches an
`
`enforceable result. The District Court in Case No. 6:10cv417 has already entered
`
`Final Judgments, finding that each of the requesters (Cisco and Apple) failed to
`
`prove the invalidity of the ‘151 patent. Given that the pending reexaminations
`
`have not even reached the stage of an Action Closing Prosecution, it is unlikely
`
`that the reexaminations will have time to run their full course (i.e., completing
`
`proceedings at the Examiner level, the Board level, and the Federal Circuit level)
`
`before the District Court judgments become “final,” thereby necessitating
`
`termination of the reexaminations under 35 U.S.C. 317(b).
`
`Also, the ‘151 Patent is the subject of a petition for inter partes review (IPR)
`
`filed by Apple on June 17, 2013 (case no. IPR2013-00354). Petitioner expressly
`
`requests that Petitioner’s IPR NOT be joined or consolidated with the newly-filed
`
`Apple IPR or otherwise delayed or suspended because (i) Apple's IPR present a
`
`timeliness question that Petitioner’s IPR does not present, (ii) Petitioner’s IPR
`
`asserts different art than the Apple IPR, and (iii) Petitioner’s IPR involves far
`
`fewer claims, and, as a result of (i)-(iii), consolidating the proceedings will unduly
`
`complicate matters and will place an undue burden on Petitioner to complete its
`
`IPR within the 1 year mandate.
`
`
`
`3
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 10
`
`

`
` Also, Petitioner is concurrently filing IPR requests directed to related U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,502,135; 7,418,504; and 7,921,211, and requests that the reviews of
`
`the ‘151 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 be assigned to the same Board for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`D. NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`
` Lead Counsel for the Petitioner is Robert M. Asher, Reg. No. 30,445, of
`
`Sunstein Kann Murphy and Timbers LLP. Back-up counsel for the Petitioner is
`
`Jeffrey Klayman, Reg. No. 39,250, of Sunstein Kann Murphy and Timbers LLP.
`
`E.
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`New Bay may be served through its counsel via email to
`
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com and jklayman@sunsteinlaw.com or otherwise to
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Jeffrey Klayman
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1618
`617 443 9292 (phone)
`617 443 0004 (fax)
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE ON THE PATENT OWNER
`
`F.
`
`A copy of the present Petition, in its entirety, is being served to the Patent
`
`Owner’s address of the attorney of record.
`
`II.
`
`FEE
`
`
`
`4
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 11
`
`

`
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.15(a), and any additional fees due in connection with this Petition, to
`
`Deposit Account No. 19-4972.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Request 1 – Cancellation of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103 for
`
`obviousness over Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP - The
`
`Development of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the Internet,”
`
`published in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996 (hereinafter “Kiuchi” –Ex.1002).
`
`Request 2 – Cancellation of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Kiuchi.
`
`Request 3 - Cancellation of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) for
`
`obviousness over C. I. Dalton and J. F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security
`
`to the Internet,” published in the Proceedings of JENC8, May 1997 (hereinafter
`
`“Dalton” –Ex.1003) in view of Kiuchi.
`
`IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art Domain Name Services
`
`Figure 25 of the ‘151 patent, labeled “Prior Art” and reproduced below,
`
`discloses aspects of domain name service systems that were well known at the time
`
`of the patent:
`
`
`
`5
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 12
`
`

`
`
`
` The ‘151 patent describes the prior art system of Fig. 25 as including a
`
`conventional domain name server (DNS) that provides “a look-up function that
`
`returns the IP address of a requested computer or host. For example, when a
`
`computer user types in the web name “Yahoo.com,” the user's web browser
`
`transmits a request to a DNS, which converts the name into a four-part IP address
`
`that is returned to the user's browser and then used by the browser to contact the
`
`destination web site. … When the user enters the name of a destination host, a
`
`request DNS REQ is made (through IP protocol stack 2505) to a DNS 2502 to look
`
`up the IP address associated with the name. The DNS returns the IP address DNS
`
`RESP to client application 2504, which is then able to use the IP address to
`
`
`
`6
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 13
`
`

`
`communicate with the host 2503 ….” (Ex. 1001,‘151 patent, column 36: line61-
`
`column 37, line 9)
`
`B. “The Invention”
`
`The ‘151 patent relates to a determining function that responds to a DNS
`
`request by performing either of two known functions - forwarding the DNS request
`
`to a DNS server or creating an encrypted channel for a secure server. The effective
`
`filing date for claims 1 and 13 of the ‘151 Patent is no earlier than the filing date of
`
`its parent, specifically February 15, 2000. Claim 1 reads as follows:
`
`1. A data processing device, comprising memory storing a
`domain name server (DNS) proxy module that intercepts DNS
`requests sent by a client and, for each intercepted DNS request,
`performs the steps of: (i) determining whether the intercepted DNS
`request corresponds to a secure server; (ii) when the intercepted DNS
`request does not correspond to a secure server, forwarding the DNS
`request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure
`computer, and (iii) when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a
`secure server, automatically initiating an encrypted channel between
`the client and the secure server.
`
`In one embodiment, the proxy determines whether the DNS request is
`
`requesting access to a secure web site, and by extension, a secure server. (Ex.1001
`
`at 37:60-38:11). When the DNS request corresponds to a secure web site/server,
`
`an encrypted channel, known as a virtual private network (VPN) is automatically
`
`initiated between the requesting computer and the secure server. (Ex.1001 at
`
`37:62-38:2). When the DNS request does not correspond to a secure web
`
`
`
`7
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 14
`
`

`
`site/server, a look-up function is performed that returns the IP address of the non-
`
`secure web site/server. (Ex.1001 at 38:12-16).
`
`The ’151 patent discloses various exemplary embodiments for implementing
`
`such automatic creation of an encrypted channel. The steps of intercepting the
`
`DNS request and determining if the request corresponds to a secure server may be
`
`performed by a DNS server. (Ex.1001 at 37:33-48). In another example, a DNS
`
`proxy may intercept the DNS requests and perform the determining. (Ex.1001 at
`
`37:60-62). In various embodiments, the DNS proxy may reside on a different
`
`server than the DNS server (Ex.1001 at 38:32-34) or the DNS proxy and DNS
`
`server may be combined into a single server. (Ex.1001 at 38:30-32).
`
`With respect to creating the encrypted channel (e.g., the VPN), the DNS
`
`server may set up the VPN between the requesting computer and the
`
`server. (Ex.1001 at 37:33-42). Alternatively, a DNS proxy may send a request to a
`
`gatekeeper to create the VPN between the requesting client computer and the
`
`server. (Ex.1001 at 39:10-19). The gatekeeper facilitates the allocation and
`
`exchange of information needed to communicate securely. (Ex.1001 at 38:24-27,
`
`39:10-19). In any of these examples, the VPN is established without user
`
`involvement.
`
`As with the DNS proxy and DNS server, the gatekeeper and DNS server
`
`may reside on different servers or be combined on a single server. (Ex.1001 at
`
`
`
`8
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 15
`
`

`
`38:22-24). By extension, any of the DNS proxy, DNS server, and gatekeeper may
`
`be on the same or different servers. With respect to the look-up function, the DNS
`
`proxy may send a DNS request to a DNS function in the same or different server,
`
`which performs the look-up to return an IP address. (Ex.1001 at 38:12-16). In
`
`some embodiments, the gatekeeper instructs the DNS proxy to send the DNS
`
`request to the DNS server. (Ex.1001 at 39:28-36).
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`The Board interprets a claim by applying its “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100 (b). Claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art unless the inventor as a
`
`lexicographer has set forth a special meaning for a term. Multiform Desiccants,
`
`Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.1998); York Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568,1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When
`
`an inventor acts as a lexicographer, the definition must be set forth with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. RenishawPLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni,
`
`158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” Garmin Int’l Inc. v.Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies, Inc., IPR2012-00001, Paper 15 (PTAB, Jan. 9, 2013). The
`
`specification has not given special meanings to any of the claim terms whether by
`
`
`
`9
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 16
`
`

`
`express definitions or otherwise. The bounds of a claim should be determined
`
`primarily by the claim language. “[I]t is the Patent Owner’s burden to precisely
`
`define the invention in the claims.” AirCraft Medical LTD. v. Verathon Inc.,
`
`Reexam. Control No. 95/000,161, Appeal 2012-007851, p. 16 (PTAB Dec. 11,
`
`2012) (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`The Board should be leery of arguments of a party inconsistent with
`
`arguments presented in prior litigation. (Cf., Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon
`
`Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 715, 48 USPQ2d 1911, 1916 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(“Ordinarily, doctrines of estoppel, waiver, invited error, or the like would prohibit
`
`a party from asserting as “error” a position that it had advocated at the trial.”).
`
`Given that the Board will apply the broadest reasonable construction, a patent
`
`owner such as VirnetX who has successfully argued in court for broad claim
`
`interpretations is estopped from advancing narrower constructions in these
`
`proceedings. Cf., Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565
`
`(Fed.Cir.1996) (“[W]here a party successfully urges a particular position in a legal
`
`proceeding, it is estopped from taking a contrary position in a subsequent
`
`proceeding where its interests have changed.”); 18 Susan Bandes & Lawrence B.
`
`Solum, Moore's Federal Practice § 134-30, at 134-63 (3d ed.1998). Instead, those
`
`prior statements should contribute to the determination of the proper meaning of
`
`the patent claims in this inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §301(a)(2),(d)
`
`
`
`10
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 17
`
`

`
`(statements of the patent owner filed in court taking a position on the scope of a
`
`patent claim may be used “to determine the proper meaning of a patent claim” in
`
`an inter partes review).
`
`B. Proposed Claim Constructions
`
`Ex.1009 ¶ 21 sets forth a proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Petitioner proposes the following constructions:
`
`Domain name
`
`DNS or domain name service
`
`Domain name server (DNS) proxy
`module
`Domain name server (DNS) module
`
`DNS request
`
`Client
`
`Intercepts DNS requests
`
`Determining
`
`Forwarding the DNS request to a DNS
`function
`Automatically initiating an encrypted
`channel/ Automatically creating a
`secure channel
`Secure server
`
`A name corresponding to an IP address
`or a group of IP addresses.
`A lookup service that returns an IP
`address for a requested domain name
`A program that responds to a domain
`name inquiry in place of a DNS
`No construction; alternatively, a
`program that performs a lookup service
`and returns an IP address for a
`requested domain name
`A communication that contains a
`domain name and requests an IP
`address for the domain name
`A computer or program from which a
`DNS request is generated
`Receives DNS requests ahead of a DNS
`function
`Plain and ordinary meaning – can be
`performed at any place in the system
`Passing a domain name sent by the
`client to a DNS function
`Initiating/creating the channel without
`involvement of a user
`
`A server that requires authorization for
`access and that can communicate in an
`encrypted channel
`
`
`
`11
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 18
`
`

`
` A
`
` “domain name” means “a name corresponding to an IP address or a group
`
`of IP addresses.” (Adopted in Ex.1011 at 12-13; adopted in Ex.1016 at 16. The
`
`specification describes “domain name” servers as providing a look-up function
`
`that returns “the IP address” of a requested computer or host. (Ex.1001 at 36:61-
`
`63). The claims also make clear that a “domain name” returns an IP address.
`
`(Ex.1001 at 46:61-63). With regard to parent U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, in
`
`Virnetx v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80, Virnetx successfully
`
`argued that “domain name” was not limited to “a hierarchical name for a
`
`computer under traditional DNS format” but instead proposed, and the Court
`
`adopted, that a “domain name” is “a name corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`(Ex.1011 at 12-13). Also, in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al., Case No.
`
`6:10cv417, the same Court again adopted Virnetx’s proposed definition of
`
`“domain name” as “a name corresponding to an IP address.” (Ex.1016 at 16).
`
`Having succeeded in achieving a broad construction of “domain name” in court,
`
`VirnetX is estopped from arguing here that the broadest reasonable construction
`
`of “domain name” is any narrower than “a name corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`A “DNS” stands for “domain name service” which is “a lookup service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name.” The specification states:
`
`‘Conventional Domain Name Servers (DNSs) provide a look-up function that
`
`
`
`12
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 19
`
`

`
`returns the IP address of a requested computer or host.’ (Ex.1001 at 36:61-63).
`
`With regard to parent U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, in VirnetX v. Microsoft
`
`Corporation, Case No. 6:07 CV 80, VirnetX successfully argued that “domain
`
`name service” is not limited to “the conventional lookup service defined by the
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that returns the IP address of a requested
`
`computer or host” but is merely “a look-up service that returns an IP address for a
`
`requested domain name.” (Ex.1011 at 11-12). Also, in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, et al., Case No. 6:10cv417 the same Court again adopted Virnetx’s
`
`definition of “domain name service” as “a look-up service that returns an IP
`
`address for a requested domain name.” (Ex.1016 at 14-15). Having succeeded in
`
`achieving a broad construction of “domain name service” in court, VirnetX is
`
`estopped from arguing here that the broadest reasonable construction of “domain
`
`name service” is any narrower than “a look-up service that returns an IP address
`
`for a requested domain name.”
`
`A “domain name server (DNS) proxy module” means “a program that
`
`responds to a domain name inquiry in place of a DNS.” (Proposed construction of
`
`a DNS proxy module by VirnetX in Ex.1017 at 16; adopted by Ex.1016 at 16-17).
`
`The ‘151 Patent makes clear that functions of the DNS proxy can be combined on
`
`the same server with those of the DNS or can operate independently of the DNS
`
`server (see Ex.1001 at 38:30-34). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`
`
`13
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 20
`
`

`
`the claims, the DNS proxy can be a function in the same computer as the client
`
`computer. VirnetX took the position in the Microsoft case (and the court agreed)
`
`that a "DNS proxy server" can be a "computer or program" and that "the DNS
`
`proxy server does not have to be separate from the client computer." (Ex.1011 at
`
`24). Similarly, in the Apple case, VirnetX continued to assert that the DNS proxy
`
`server can be a software module in the same computer as the client computer. For
`
`example, VirnetX admits that the DNS request generated (and transmitted) from
`
`the client computer can be “from one software module on the computer to another
`
`software module on the device that makes the determination." (Ex.1012 at 209).
`
`Furthermore, one of the inventors (Dr. Short) testified that “we came to realize
`
`fairly early on that what you really want to do is put this DNS proxy software in
`
`your computer so that way every computer that's enabled to do this has its own
`
`proxy, and you don't have to have all these servers out there." (Ex.1013 at 92-93).
`
`Also, VirnetX's expert, Dr. Jones, supported this construction by testifying that
`
`“The DNS request is generated in the application, for example, Safari and is passed
`
`through an API call to iOS." (Ex.1014 at 47-48; see also Ex.1014 at 67-68). The
`
`‘151 Patent makes clear that the DNS proxy server “handles requests for DNS
`
`look-ups” (Ex.1001 at 38:35-37) and if access to a secure host was not requested
`
`“the DNS request is passed to conventional DNS server 2609, which looks up the
`
`IP address of the target site and returns it to the user’s application for further
`
`
`
`14
`
`21
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 21
`
`

`
`processing” (Ex.1001 at 38:39-43). Thus, “responding to a DNS inquiry in place
`
`of a DNS” can involve a lookup to a domain name service to obtain an IP address.
`
`The term “domain name server (DNS) module” should not be construed as
`
`a limitation of claim 13 because it is a preamble term used for nothing more than to
`
`provide a name to the computer readable instructions. It does not provide life and
`
`meaning to any of the elements of the claim. The Federal Circuit has held that, in
`
`general, “a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally
`
`complete invention in the claim body . . .” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 298 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
`
`Moreover, it is well-settled that a term used in the preamble will not limit the claim
`
`if it “merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the
`
`claim that completely set forth the invention.” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas
`
`Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see Storage Tech. Corp. v.
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (language in preamble serving
`
`as “a convenient label for the invention as a whole” does not limit the claims).
`
`However, should the term “domain name server (DNS) module” be
`
`construed as a limitation of claim 13, it would mean “a program that performs a
`
`lookup service and returns an IP address for a requested domain name” (i.e., a
`
`program that provides a “domain name service”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`22
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1028, p. 22
`
`

`
`A “DNS request” is “a communication that contains a domain name and
`
`requests an IP address for the domain name.” The DNS request is not limited to
`
`any particular protocol and can be internal to a computer from one software
`
`module to another software module. In litigation against Apple, VirnetX
`
`succeeded in proving infringement by arguing that a DNS proxy server can be a
`
`software module in the same computer as the client computer and therefore that the
`
`DNS request generated (and transmitted) from the client computer can be “from
`
`one software module on the computer to another software module on the device
`
`that makes the determination." (see Ex.1012 at 209). By at least 1997, it was well-
`
`known for a client function of a client computer (e.g., an applicati