throbber
Paper No.
`Filed: September 25, 2015
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00811
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Legally Erred by Overlooking the Absence of
`Evidence in Apple’s Petition Tending to Show That RFC 2401
`Is a Printed Publication ......................................................................... 2
`
`The Board Erroneously Found That RFC 2401 Included Indicia
`Sufficient to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood That RFC 2401
`Is a Printed Publication ......................................................................... 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper No. 9 (June 25, 2015) .............................................. 3, 4, 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper No. 14 (August 12, 2015) ................................. 1, 3, 6, 10
`
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`IPR2015-00499, Paper No. 7 (July 17, 2015) ............................................ 3, 4, 10
`
`Elec. Frontier Found. v. Pers. Audio, LLC,
`IPR2014-00070, Paper No. 21 (Apr. 18, 2014) .................................................... 9
`
`Google Inc. v. Art+Com Innovationpool GMBH,
`IPR2015-00788, Paper No. 7 (September 2, 2015) .................................. 3, 4, 6, 8
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2014-00514, Paper No. 18 (Sep. 9, 2014) ...................................................... 9
`
`Square Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2015) ............................................. 4, 6
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,
`IPR2015-00371, Paper No. 13 (July 17, 2015) ...........................................passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. 4, 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ........................................................................................ 5, 9
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. requests rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s Decision entered September 11, 2015 (“Decision”), instituting an inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,868,705 (“the ’705 patent”). As explained in
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 6), the Petition (Paper No. 1)
`
`fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim of
`
`the ’705 patent and should be denied. Nonetheless, the Board instituted review and
`
`in doing so, it legally erred and overlooked certain matters with respect to whether
`
`Apple met its burden to show that one of the references at issue is a printed
`
`publication.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
`
`Institution decisions are reviewed on rehearing for an abuse of discretion.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings,
`
`or . . . a clear error of judgment.” Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00369, Paper No. 14 at 3 (August 12, 2015) (hereinafter DSS Technology
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Management Rehearing Decision) (citing PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`Patent Owner respectfully requests rehearing of the Decision because the
`
`Board overlooked that the Petition offered no evidence tending to show that RFC
`
`2401 (Ex. 1008) is a printed publication. Petitioner made only the naked assertion
`
`that “RFC 2401 (Ex. 1008) was published in November 1998.” (Pet. at 24.) The
`
`absence of evidence should have been enough for the Board to deny institution.
`
`But the Board overlooked this deficiency in Apple’s Petition, and found that Apple
`
`“made a threshold showing that RFC 2401 constitutes a prior art printed
`
`publication.” (Decision at 11.) In doing so, the Board found that RFC 2401
`
`included “indicia suggest[ing] that there is a reasonable likelihood the document
`
`was made available to the public . . . .” (Id.) The Board’s own case law, however,
`
`contradicts the Board’s conclusion that such “indicia” were sufficient to meet
`
`Apple’s burden of establishing that RFC 2401 constitutes a printed publication.
`
`A. The Board Legally Erred by Overlooking the Absence of
`Evidence in Apple’s Petition Tending to Show That RFC 2401 Is a
`Printed Publication
`
`As explained in the Preliminary Response, to establish that RFC 2401 is a
`
`printed publication, the Petitioner must establish that RFC 2401 would have been
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art on the alleged publication
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`date. (Prelim. Resp. at 2-3.) Indeed, the Board’s case law is quite clear on this
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`point. See, e.g., DSS Technology Management Rehearing Decision, IPR2015-
`
`00369, Paper No. 14 at 5-8 (explaining that for a petition to even be instituted, the
`
`Petition must present sufficient evidence tending to show that a publication was
`
`publicly accessible as of the alleged publication date); Symantec Corp. v. Trustees
`
`of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., IPR2015-00371, Paper No. 13 at 5-9 (July
`
`17, 2015) (same); Dish Network L.L.C. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00499, Paper No. 7 at 10-11 (July 17, 2015) (same); Google Inc. v.
`
`Art+Com Innovationpool GMBH, IPR2015-00788, Paper No. 7 at 6-11 (September
`
`2, 2015) (same).
`
`Petitioner, however, falls short of meeting its burden because, as noted in
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the Petition does nothing more than make
`
`the naked assertion that “RFC 2401 (Ex. 1008) was published in November 1998.”
`
`(Prelim. Resp. at 3, citing Pet. at 24.) The Board has denied institution in similar
`
`situations several times. For instance, in DSS Technology Management, where
`
`Apple was also the Petitioner, Apple asserted, without more, that a cited reference
`
`(Barber, an archived MIT Thesis) “was published at least as early as April 11,
`
`1996.” Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc., IPR2015-00369, Paper
`
`No. 9 at 12 (June 25, 2015) (hereinafter DSS Technology Management Institution
`
`Decision). There, the Board denied institution because the Petition lacked any
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`explanation or citation to evidence tending to show that Barber became publicly
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`accessible as of April 11, 1996—the date stamped on the cover of Barber. Id.
`
`Citing to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which states that an institution decision must be made
`
`based on “the information presented in the petition,” the Board explained that
`
`Apple’s naked assertion of a publication date without more did not meet the
`
`threshold for institution. Id.
`
`The Board’s decision in DSS Technology Management is not without
`
`precedent. In Square Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, CBM2014-00156, Paper No.
`
`22 at 4-5 (Feb. 26, 2015), the Petitioner likewise made a naked assertion that the
`
`cited reference (Vazvan) was published on September 30, 1996 (the alleged
`
`publication date). The Board denied institution because the Petition lacked any
`
`explanation regarding the significance of the September 30, 1996, date printed on
`
`the cover of Vazvan. Id. at 5-7. Specifically, the Board explained that “despite the
`
`copyright notice in this case, we do not assume facts that Petitioner must prove
`
`in its Petition, namely, that the September 30, 1996, ISBN date that appears on the
`
`face of Vazvan is its publication date and that, as of that date, Vazvan was publicly
`
`accessible.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in bold). Several other cases take the same
`
`approach as the Board in DSS Technology Management and Square. See, e.g.,
`
`Dish Network, Paper No. 7 at 10-11; Google, Paper No. 7 at 6-11; Symantec, Paper
`
`No. 13 at 5-9.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`Like the Petitions in DSS Technology Management and Square, Apple’s
`
`Petition here (similar to its Petition in DSS Technology Management), includes
`
`nothing more than a naked assertion that “RFC 2401 (Ex. 1008) was published in
`
`November 1998.” (Pet. at 24; see also Prelim. Resp. at 3, 4, 6.) Following the
`
`same protocol Apple followed in its petition in DSS Technology Management,
`
`Apple did not offer any explanation in its Petition as to why November 1998 is the
`
`publication date of RFC 2401 and how RFC 2401 was publicly accessible as of
`
`November 1998. (Id.)
`
`Nevertheless, the Board found that Apple “made a threshold showing that
`
`RFC 2401 constitutes a prior art printed publication.” (Decision at 11.) To
`
`support this finding, the Board performed its own analysis of RFC 2401 and
`
`assumed that (1) RFC 2401 was actually published on November 1998, and (2)
`
`that as of November 1998, RFC 2401 was sufficiently accessible to the public
`
`interested in the art—despite that nothing that Apple presented links the November
`
`1998 date with public accessibility in RFC 2401. (Id.) In doing so, the Board
`
`erred in presuming facts that the Petitioner not only failed to establish, but failed to
`
`even attempt to show a reasonable likelihood of, in its Petition. See Square, Paper
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`No. 22 at 6-7.1 Indeed, the Board’s decision is at odds with its own prior decisions
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`and additionally violates 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires the Board “to decide
`
`whether to institute a trial based on ‘the information presented in the petition.’”
`
`DSS Technology Management Institution Decision, Paper No. 9 at 12; see also
`
`DSS Technology Management Rehearing Decision, Paper No. 14 at 11. Therefore,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board legally erred in finding that
`
`Apple met its threshold burden of proving that RFC 2401 is a printed publication
`
`and available as prior art in this proceeding.
`
`
`1 The Decision cites to Dr. Tamassia’s declaration to support its conclusion. (See
`
`Decision at 11, citing Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 148–155.) But the Board overlooked that the
`
`Petition never cites to or discusses this testimony. (Prelim. Resp. at 4, n.1.)
`
`Accordingly, it was improper for the Board to give any weight to this testimony.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5); see also Google, Paper No. 7 at 10 (declining to give any
`
`weight to expert testimony regarding public accessibility because it was neither
`
`cited nor discussed in the Petition). As discussed in the next section and in the
`
`Preliminary Response, even if given weight, Dr. Tamassia’s testimony cannot and
`
`does not establish that RFC 2401 was publicly accessible as of November 1998.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`The Board Erroneously Found That RFC 2401 Included Indicia
`Sufficient to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood That RFC 2401 Is
`a Printed Publication
`
`The Board contends that RFC 2401 includes “indicia suggest[ing] that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood the document was made available to the public . . . .”
`
`(Decision at 11.) The Board’s rationale for this conclusion is that “[o]n its face . . .
`
`RFC 2401 is a dated ‘Request for Comments’ from the ‘Network Working Group,’
`
`discussing a particular standardized security protocol for the Internet.” (Id.)
`
`Furthermore, “RFC 2401 describes itself as a ‘document [that] specifies an Internet
`
`standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
`
`suggestions for improvements . . . . Distribution of this memo is unlimited.’” (Id.)
`
`The Board’s case law, however, demonstrates that these “indicia” are insufficient
`
`to constitute even a preliminary showing that RFC 2401 would have been
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art as of November 1998.
`
`For example, in Symantec, the Petitioner submitted as prior art a thesis
`
`whose cover page contained a date “March 1999,” with the further notation
`
`“[a]pproved for public release; distribution unlimited.” IPR2015-00371, Paper No.
`
`13 at 6-7. The Board acknowledged these notations, but denied institution because
`
`Petitioner had “not provided evidence . . . tending to show when the thesis actually
`
`may have been released or distributed to the public.” Id. at 8-9 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board explained that “[t]he Petition points to no evidence, however, that the
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`thesis was entered into an electronic database prior to the critical date, much less
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`into a publicly accessible database prior to the critical date.” Id. Similarly, in
`
`Google, the Board held that the notation “Approved for Public Release;
`
`Distribution Unlimited,” on a cited reference was not a sufficient indicia of public
`
`accessibility because “[i]t is not enough that a reference is accessible, we must
`
`‘consider whether anyone would have been able to learn of its existence and
`
`potential relevance.’” IPR2015-00788, Paper No. 7 at 9-10 (emphasis added),
`
`citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`As in Symantec, RFC 2401’s notation that “Distribution of this memo is
`
`unlimited” does not indicate that RFC 2401 was “actually . . . released or
`
`distributed to the public” to meet the requirement of public accessibility. IPR2015-
`
`00371, Paper No. 13 at 8-9 (emphasis added); (see also Prelim. Resp. at 4).
`
`Indeed, there are insufficient indicia of public accessibility because there is simply
`
`no evidence in RFC 2401 or in the Petition tending to show that any researcher
`
`interested in RFC 2401 could “locate and examine the reference.” In re Lister, 583
`
`F.3d at 1311.
`
`While RFC 2401 is purportedly from a “Network Working Group” and is a
`
`“protocol for the Internet community, [requesting] discussion and suggestions for
`
`improvements,” these vague statements provide no indication as to who is in the
`
`“Network Working Group” or the “Internet community,” what the size of these
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`groups was as of November 1998, or whether anyone outside these groups could
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`locate and examine RFC 2401 as of November 1998. Id.; (see also Prelim. Resp.
`
`at 5, 6, citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP, IPR2014-
`
`00514, Paper No. 18 at 5-8 (Sep. 9, 2014) (finding that the petitioner had failed to
`
`establish that a Draft IEEE Standard qualified as a printed publication because the
`
`petitioner did not provide evidence as to whether the Draft Standard was made
`
`available to persons outside of the IEEE “Working Group” responsible for the
`
`Draft Standard and how members of the public would have known about the Draft
`
`Standard); Elec. Frontier Found. v. Pers. Audio, LLC, IPR2014-00070, Paper No.
`
`21 at 22-24 (Apr. 18, 2014) (finding that a reference was not a printed publication
`
`where a “Petitioner fail[ed] to provide any information regarding [a reference]
`
`posting, the group [to which the reference was posted], who is in the group, or the
`
`size of the group.”).)
`
`Furthermore, like in Symantec, the Petition presents no evidence that the
`
`version of RFC 2401 with the November 1998 date on it was placed in a database
`
`or similar location that would have allowed anyone interested in RFC 2401 to
`
`retrieve and examine it. IPR2015-00371, Paper No. 13 at 8-9. Accordingly, the
`
`Board erred in concluding that RFC 2401 includes “indicia” sufficient to constitute
`
`a preliminary showing that RFC 2401 would have been sufficiently accessible to
`
`the public interested in the art as of November 1998.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`Moreover, Dr. Tamassia’s testimony does not provide evidence sufficient to
`
`make a preliminary showing that RFC 2401 was publicly accessible as of
`
`November 1998.2 This is because neither Dr. Tamassia nor the Petition establish
`
`or even allege that Dr. Tamassia has personal knowledge that RFC 2401 was
`
`actually released to the public in November 1998. (Prelim. Resp. at 4.). Neither
`
`has Dr. Tamassia been established as someone familiar with, let alone an expert in,
`
`the workings of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) – the body responsible
`
`for the RFCs such that he can opine on when and how RFC 2401 was made
`
`available to the public. Accordingly, Dr. Tamassia’s testimony regarding RFC
`
`2401’s public accessibility should not be accorded any weight. See DSS
`
`Technology Management Rehearing Decision, Paper No. 14 at 7-8; Dish Network,
`
`Paper No. 7 at 11.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`In view of the above, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board
`
`abused its discretion in finding that Apple made a preliminary showing that RFC
`
`2401 is a printed publication. Because all of Apple’s proposed rejections rely on
`
`
`2 As discussed earlier, Dr. Tamassia’s should not be accorded any weight because
`
`the Petition never cites to or discusses this testimony. (Prelim. Resp. at 4, n 1.); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`RFC 2401, the Petition should be denied because Apple has failed to show a
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim of the ’705 patent.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`Dated: September 25, 2015
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00811
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I certify that I caused to be served on the counsel identified below a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1) by electronic means on September 25, 2015:
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Apple Inc.:
`
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Joseph Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2015

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