Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: December 11, 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 IPR2015-00812
`Patent 8,850,009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“Domain Name Service (DNS) Request” (Claims 1, 12-14, 24
`and 25) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`“Interception of the DNS Request” (Claims 1, 12-14, 24, and
`25) .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`“Encrypted Communication Link” Phrases (Claims 1, 2, 8, 11,
`14, 15, and 23) ....................................................................................... 5
`
`“Provisioning Information” (Claims 1 and 14) ..................................... 7
`
`“Secure Communications Service” (Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14-16,
`22, and 24) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`“Indication” (Claims 1, 10, 14, and 22) .............................................. 11
`
`“Virtual Private Network Communication Link” (Claim 8) ............... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A “VPN Communication Link” Does Not Exist Outside
`of a Virtual Private Network ..................................................... 13
`
`“Authentication” and “Address Hopping” Alone Do Not
`Result in a “Virtual Private Network Communication
`Link” ......................................................................................... 14
`
`A “Virtual Private Network Communication Link” Must
`Be Direct ................................................................................... 16
`
`A “Virtual Private Network Communication Link”
`Requires a Network ................................................................... 20
`
`A “Virtual Private Network Communication Link”
`Requires Encryption .................................................................. 21
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`“Domain Name” (Claims 7 and 20) .................................................... 22
`
`“Modulation” (Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18) .............................................. 23
`
`i
`
`

`
`
` Beser and RFC 2401 Do Not Render Obvious Claims 1-8, 10-20, and III.
`
`
`22-25 .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Beser’s Disclosure ............................................................................... 23
`
`Beser and RFC 2401 Do Not Disclose “Send[ing] a Domain
`Name Service (DNS) Request To Look Up a Network Address
`of a Second Network Device Based On an Identifier Associated
`With the Second Network Device” ..................................................... 27
`
`Beser and RFC 2401 Do Not Disclose “Interception of the DNS
`Request” .............................................................................................. 30
`
`Beser and RFC 2401 Would Not Have Been Combined as the
`Petition Suggests ................................................................................. 33
`
`The Petition’s Mapping of Beser and RFC 2401 Does Not
`Show the Features as Arranged in the Claims .................................... 40
`
`F.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20, and 22-25 ................................ 42
`
`IV.
`
` Petitioner Has Not Shown that RFC 2401 Is a Prior Art Printed
`Publication ..................................................................................................... 42
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Evidence Presented with the Petition Cannot Establish by a
`Preponderance of the Evidence that RFC 2401 Was Publicly
`Accessible ............................................................................................ 43
`
`The Board’s Findings Are Insufficient to Establish by a
`Preponderance of the Evidence that RFC 2401 Was Publicly
`Accessible ............................................................................................ 45
`
`The Supplemental Information Is Also Insufficient to Establish
`by a Preponderance of the Evidence that RFC 2401 Was
`Publicly Accessible ............................................................................. 48
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Testimony Should be Accorded Little, If Any
`Weight ............................................................................................................ 51
`
`VI.
`
` Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.,
`715 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper No. 9 (June 25, 2015) .................................................... 43
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 15 (May 14, 2014) .............................................. 4, 31
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 41 (May 11, 2015) .................................................... 8
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2015-00811, Paper No. 8 (Sept. 11, 2015) ................................................. 8, 9
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Concepts In Optics, Inc.,
`111 F. App’x 582 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 51, 54
`
`Becton, Dickenson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Brand v. Miller,
`487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 51
`
`Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc.,
`390 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 51
`
`In re Cuozzo,
`793 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 2015 WL 5895939 (Oct. 6, 2015) .................................................... 3
`
`Cyber Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 17
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`IPR2015-00499, Paper No. 7 (July 17, 2015) .................................................... 45
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Elec. Frontier Found. v. Pers. Audio, LLC,
`IPR2014-00070, Paper No. 21 (Apr. 18, 2014) .................................................. 47
`
`Eon–Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp.,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. ITC,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 50
`
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Garmin Int’l inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech, LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 15 (Jan. 9, 2013) ..................................................... 18
`
`Google Inc. v. Art+Com Innovationpool GMBH,
`IPR2015-00788, Paper No. 7 (September 2, 2015) ............................................ 44
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 38
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .................................................... 2
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00690, Paper No. 43 (Oct. 19, 2015) .................................................. 50
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Lantech Inc. v. Keip Machine Co.,
`32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 41
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Medichem, SA v. Rolabo, SL,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 39
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 10, 19
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00093, Paper No. 28 (Apr. 29, 2013) .................................................. 18
`
`Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`536 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 51, 54
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 41
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2014-00514, Paper No. 18 (Sep. 9, 2014) .................................................... 47
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 52, 53
`
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Square Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2015) ............................................... 44
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`No. 2015-1212, 2015 WL 7567492 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2015) .......................... 19
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,
`IPR2015-00371, Paper No. 13 (July 17, 2015) ............................................ 44, 46
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 18, 19, 20
`
`Typeright Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 50
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`767 F.3d, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 7, 18
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2009) ................................................ 14
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`Ex Parte Weidman,
`Appeal No. 2008-3454, Decision on Appeal at 7 (BPAI Jan. 27,
`2009) ................................................................................................................... 41
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2013-00112, Paper No. 14 (June 27, 2013) .................................................. 18
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 2
`
`ZTE Corp. & ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2013-00134, Paper No. 12 (June 19, 2013) .................................................. 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.65(a) ............................................................................................................ 50
`§ 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................ 2
`§ 42.104(b)(5) ..................................................................................................... 44
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. respectfully submits this Response to the Board’s
`
`decision to institute inter partes review (Paper No. 8, the “Decision”) and to the
`
`petition for inter partes review (the “Petition” or “Pet.”) filed by Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc. The Board instituted review of claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-25 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,850,009 (“the ’009 patent”) as obvious over Beser and RFC 2401. Apple
`
`has not carried its “burden of proving . . . unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)) because the asserted references fail to disclose each
`
`of the claimed features. In addition, Apple has failed to show that RFC 2401 is a
`
`prior art printed publication. Apple’s submitted expert testimony should also be
`
`given little to no weight because it fails to describe how any of the claim features
`
`are taught or suggested in the asserted references. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`enter judgment against Apple and terminate this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
` Claim Construction
`The Petition identified nine terms for construction. In its Preliminary
`
`Response, Patent Owner addressed Petitioner’s constructions. The Decision did
`
`not provide a construction for any of the terms, finding that “no claim term needs
`
`express interpretation.” (Decision at 6.) Patent Owner respectfully disagrees and
`
`addresses the terms below under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)
`
`standard.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`In inter partes review, claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Although
`
`VirnetX’s constructions represent the BRI of the claims in light of the specification
`
`and prosecution history, the Board should apply the claim construction standard
`
`applied by the courts, especially given the litigations and prosecution histories of
`
`the patents in the same family as the ’705 patent. The BRI standard “is solely an
`
`examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
`
`1262, 1267-68 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It is certainly justified during the examination
`
`process because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during
`
`prosecution. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But, as the
`
`Board has noted, inter partes review is not an examination and is “more
`
`adjudicatory than examinational, in nature.” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 at 6 (June 11, 2013).
`
`The ability to amend claims during inter partes review is so severely
`
`restricted that the rationale underpinning the BRI—the ability to freely amend
`
`claims—does not apply especially given the litigations and prosecution histories of
`
`patents in the same family as the ’009 patent. As a result, to the extent the Board
`
`would have adopted a narrower construction under the courts’ claim construction
`
`standard than it has adopted here, it should adopt the narrower construction
`
`because the BRI standard should not apply to this proceeding.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to reconsider en banc
`
`the application of the BRI standard in Board proceedings. In re Cuozzo, 793 F.3d
`
`1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015). VirnetX nevertheless respectfully submits that, given “the
`
`adjudicative nature and the limited amendment process of IPRs,” claims in IPR
`
`proceedings should be given their “actual meaning.” Id. at 1299, 1301-02 (Prost,
`
`C _J., dissenting from denial of en banc rehearing). VirnetX preserves this
`
`argument in the event the Supreme Court grants review of the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Cuozzo and instructs that a different standard should be applied. See
`
`Pet’n for a Writ of Certiorari, Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 2015
`
`WL 5895939 (Oct. 6, 2015).
`
`A.
`
`“Domain Name Service (DNS) Request” (Claims 1, 12-14, 24 and
`25)‘
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`Construction A request for a resource
`
`corresponding to a
`domain name
`
`A request for a resource
`corresponding to a domain
`name
`
`No construction proposed
`
`As noted,
`
`in Patent Owner’s preliminary response, the parties’ proposed
`
`constructions are the same. (See Prelim. Resp. at 24; see also Ex. 2016 at 1] 31.)
`
`1 Patent Owner identifies only the challenged claims that expressly recite the
`
`terms at issue. Claims that depend from the identified claims may also implicitly
`
`contain the terms.
`
`

`
`B.
`
`“Interception of the DNS Request” (Claims 1, 12-14, 24, and 25)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`
`
`Receiving a DNS request No construction proposed
`pertaining to a first entity
`at another entity
`
`No construction
`necessary; alternatively,
`receiving a request to
`look up an intemet
`protocol address and,
`apart from resolving it
`into an address,
`performing an evaluation
`on it related to
`
`establishing an encrypted
`communication link
`
`Though the Board declined to preliminarily construe this term, if the Board
`
`later deems construction necessary, it should adopt Patent Owner’s construction
`
`because Petitioner’s proposed construction does not
`
`reflect
`
`the appropriate
`
`construction in View of the specification. Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`
`the “intercept[ing]” phrase (Pet. at 11) is similar to a construction that the Board
`
`adopted in a related proceeding. Apple Inc. v. Virne0(Inc., IPR2014—00237, Paper
`
`No. 15 at 12-13 (May 14, 2014).
`
`As explained in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner’s
`
`alternative construction appropriately captures the notion of performing an
`
`additional evaluation on a request to look up an IP address related to establishing
`
`an encrypted communications charmel, beyond conventionally resolving it and
`
`retuming the address.
`
`(Prelim. Resp. at 25-28; see also Ex. 2016 at 1] 31.) The
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`independent claims support this construction, for example, by reciting that a
`
`determination is made that the request to look up the network address corresponds
`
`to a device that is available for the secure communications service, and that
`
`“following” this determination, provisioning information required to initiate the
`
`encrypted communication link is provided.
`
`(Ex. 1003, claims
`
`1 and 14.)
`
`Additionally, dependent claims 12 and 24 expressly specify the evaluation, reciting
`
`that the “interception” involves “receiving the DNS request to determine that the
`
`second network device is available for the secure communications service.” (Ex.
`
`1003, claims 12 and 24.)
`
`C.
`
`“Encrypted Communication Link” Phrases (Claims 1, 2, 8, ll, 14,
`15, and 23)
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`'
`
`A direct communication
`link that is encrypted
`
`A transmission path that No construction proposed
`restricts access to data,
`addresses, or other
`information on the path at
`least b usin -
`
`Independent claims 1 and 14 of the ’O09 patent recite an “encrypted
`
`communication link” and more specifically recite that
`
`the network device
`
`“connect[s] to the second network device over the encrypted communication link.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, claims 1 and 14.) Thus, in the context of the ’009 patent claims, the
`
`encrypted communication link is a direct communication link that is encrypted.
`
`Petitioner attempts to construe “encrypted communication link” in isolation.
`
`U1
`
`

`
`
`However, “encrypted communication link” can only be understood with its
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`surrounding claim language.
`
`The ’009 patent describes encrypted communications that are direct between
`
`a first and second device. For instance, in one embodiment, the ’009 patent
`
`describes the link between an originating TARP terminal and a destination TARP
`
`terminal as direct. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 10:16-25, Fig. 2; see also id. at 34:13-20
`
`(describing a variation of the TARP embodiments as including a direct
`
`communication link); 38:42-45 (describing the embodiment of Figure 24 in which
`
`a first computer and second computer are connected directly).) The ’009 patent
`
`similarly describes direct encrypted communications in later embodiments as well.
`
`(See, e.g., id. at 40:45-48, 41:39-42 (describing a virtual private network as being
`
`direct between a user’s computer and target), 42:49-53, 43:42-46 (describing a load
`
`balancing example in which a virtual private network is direct between a first host
`
`and a second host), 49:44-46, 49:55-67 (describing a secure communication link
`
`that is direct between a first computer and a second computer), Figs. 24, 26, 28, 29,
`
`33 Ex. 2016 at ¶¶ 15-16.)
`
`In each of these embodiments, the ’009 patent specification discloses that
`
`the link traverses a network (or networks) through which it is simply passed or
`
`routed via various network devices such as Internet Service Providers, firewalls,
`
`and routers. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at Figs. 2, 24, 28, 29, 33; Ex. 2016 at ¶ 17.) In
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`litigation, Petitioner and its co-defendants recognized that this type of network
`
`traversal is a “direct” communication.
`
`(See Ex. 2003 at 42:16-21, 44:17-45:12,
`
`Markman Hearing Transcript in the ’4l7 litigation (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2012); see
`
`also id. at 44:13-45:12, Markman Hearing Transcript in the ’4l7 litigation (E.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 5, 2012) (Petitioner explaining that the claims should be limited to
`
`“direct” communication because the specification teaches direct communication
`
`between the client and target).)
`
`In View of Petitioner’s arguments and the patent specification, both a district
`
`court, (Ex. 2004 at 8, 13, Memorandum Opinion and Order in the ’4l7 litigation),
`
`and the Federal Circuit construed the related terms “secure communication link”
`
`and “virtual private network” to include “direct” communication. VirnetX Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Sys. Inc., 767 F.3d, 1317 n.1, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, under the
`
`applicable BRI standard, and in light of the language of the ’009 patent claims, the
`
`Board should construe the “encrypted communication link” as
`
`a “direct
`
`communication link that is encrypted.”
`
`D.
`
`“Provisioning Information” (Claims 1 and 14)
`
`Patent Ovvner’s Proposed Apple’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`No construction proposed
`
`network uses enc tion
`
`Information that is used
`to establish an encrypted
`communication link
`
`Information that enables
`communication in a
`virtual private network,
`where the virtual private
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`In a related proceeding involving a related patent, IPR2015-00811 (“the ’811
`
`proceeding”), the Board preliminarily construed “provisioning information” to be
`
`“information that is provided to enable or aid in establishing a secure
`
`communications channel.” Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2015-00811, Paper No.
`
`8 at 9 (Sept. 11, 2015). In doing so, it recognized that “[t]he claims do not recite or
`
`implicate in any way explicitly a VPN,” contrary to Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction. Id. Here too, there is nothing in the claims, specification, or
`
`prosecution history that indicates that “encrypted communication link” has a
`
`special, narrower meaning or associated disclaimer that requires a virtual private
`
`network. (See Prelim. Resp. at 28-31.)
`
`The Board’s substitution of “secure communications channel” for the recited
`
`“encrypted communications channel” in that proceeding also cannot stand,
`
`however. Indeed, the claims here repeatedly refer to an “encrypted communication
`
`link.”2 (Ex. 1003, claims 1 and 14 (reciting “provisioning information for an
`
`encrypted communication link”).)
`
`The Board’s construction in the ’811 proceeding is also overly broad in that
`
`it encompasses any information that “enables or aid[s] in” communication using a
`
`2 This is distinction is significant given the Board’s previous findings in related
`
`proceedings that security does not require encryption. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v.
`
`VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00237, Paper No. 41 at 5-8 (May 11, 2015).
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`secure communications channel, even if that information has nothing to do with
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`provisioning.
`
` For example, it would encompass source and destination
`
`information for individual packets of data that are traveling over a pre-existing
`
`channel. While this type of information may “enable or aid in” communication
`
`using an encrypted communication link, it has no relationship to the traditional
`
`notions of provisioning or the portions of the ’009 patent. (Ex. 2016 at ¶¶ 18-19.)
`
`As discussed in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner’s construction is
`
`more consistent with the general notion that provisioning refers to setting up or
`
`establishing a connection or service. As the Board noted, one dictionary explains
`
`that provisioning is “[s]etting up a telecommunications service for a particular
`
`customer,” and that “[c]ommon carriers provision circuits by programming their
`
`computers to switch customer lines into the appropriate networks.” Apple,
`
`IPR2015-00811, Paper No. 8 at 9 (citing Ex. 2007 at 6, McGraw-Hill Computer
`
`Desktop Encyclopedia (9th ed. 2001).). Applying these principles to provisioning
`
`in the context of the ’009 patent, encrypted communication link provisioning refers
`
`to setting up or establishing an encrypted communication link—not merely the
`
`sending of any and all information that may “enable or aid in” communication.
`
`Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art3 would not have understood a link to be
`
`3 A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a
`
`master’s degree in computer science or computer engineering and approximately
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`provisioned every time a data packet
`
`is sent across it, but
`
`the Decision’s
`
`construction in the ’8l1 proceeding inaccurately encompasses this scenario.
`
`(Ex.
`
`2016 at 1] 20); see Microsoft, 789 F.3d at 1298 (explaining that a construction is
`
`“unreasonably broad” where it is not “consistent with the one that those skilled in
`
`the art would reach”) (citation omitted).
`
`Accordingly, the BRI of “provisioning information” means “information that
`
`is used to establish an encrypted communications channel.”
`
`E.
`
`“Secure Communications Service” (Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 14-16, 22,
`and 24)
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`The functional
`configuration of a
`network device that
`
`The functional
`configuration of a
`network device that
`
`enables it to participate in
`a secure communications
`
`enables it to participate in
`a secure communications
`
`link with another network link with another
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`No construction proposed
`
`com u uter or device
`
`device
`
`As discussed in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, the parties generally
`
`agree on the construction of “secure communications service,” though Petitioner’s
`
`proposed use of “computer” should instead be replaced with “network device.”
`
`(See Prelim. Resp. at 34; see also Ex. 2016 1] 31.)
`
`two years of experience in computer networking and computer security. (Ex. 2016
`
`at 1] 13; see also id. at 1]1] 4-12.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`F.
`
`“Indication” (Claims 1, 10, 14, and 22)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`existence or nature of
`
`No construction
`necessary
`
`Something that shows the
`probable presence or
`
`No construction proposed
`
`As noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner agrees that
`
`the Board need not construe this term.
`
`(See Prelim. Resp. at 35-36; see also Ex.
`
`2016 at 1] 31.)
`
`In any event, Petitioner’s construction is inconsistent with the
`
`express language of the claims and introduces ambiguity.
`
`(Pet. at 15-16-) The
`
`claims require that the “indication” is that the “the second network device is
`
`available for the secure communications service.” Something that does nothing
`
`more than show the “probable presence” or mere “existence” of the second
`
`network device is not an indication that the device “is available for the secure
`
`communications service.” Petitioner’s construction reads this feature out of the
`
`claims and should be rejected. Moreover, Petitioner’s construction introduces
`
`ambiguities where none exist with the term. For instance, Petitioner does not
`
`explain what would entail a “probable presence” of something, and does not show
`
`how such a conditional feature is found in the claims or specification of the ’009
`
`patent.
`
`ll
`
`

`
`G.
`
`“Virtual Private Network Communication Link” (Claim 8)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`Construction
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`A transmission path
`A communication path
`between two devices in a between two devices that
`
`No construction proposed
`
`
`
`virtual private network
`
`restricts access to data,
`addresses, or other
`information on the path,
`generally using obfuscation
`methods to hide
`
`information on the path,
`including, but not limited
`to, one or more of
`authentication, encryption,
`or address ho 0 n in
`
`As discussed in the preliminary response, the plain meaning of a “virtual
`
`private network communication link” (or “VPN communication link”) in view of
`
`the specification is “a communication path between two computers in a virtual
`
`private network,” where a virtual private network is a network of computers which
`
`privately and directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on
`
`insecure paths between the devices where the communication is both secure and
`
`anonymous.
`
`(Prelim. Resp. at 36-46; see also Ex. 2016 at 1] 21.) Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction contradicts the plain language of the claims, is internally
`
`inconsistent, and is inconsistent with the ’009 specification and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`1.
`
`A “VPN Communication Link” Does Not Exist Outside of a
`Virtual Private Network
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction does not require that the virtual private
`
`network communication link be between devices in a virtual private network.
`
`However, the ’009 patent discloses that a VPN communication link is a
`
`communication path between computers in a virtual private network. (Ex. 2016 at
`
`¶ 22.)
`
`As explained in the ’009 patent, a VPN communication link does not exist
`
`outside of a virtual private network. For example, when a secure domain name
`
`service (SDNS) receives a query for a secure network address, it “accesses VPN
`
`gatekeeper 3314 for establishing a VPN communication link between software
`
`module 3309 [at the querying computer 3301] and secure server 3320.” (Ex. 1003
`
`at 52:7-9.) Then, “VPN gatekeeper 3314 provisions computer 3301 and secure
`
`web server computer 3320 . . . thereby creating the VPN” between the devices.
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 52:10-13, emphasis added.) Notably, secure server 3320 “can only be
`
`accessed through a VPN communication link.” (Ex. 1003 at 52:9-10.) And
`
`“[f]urther communication between computers 3301 and 3320 occurs via the VPN”
`
`through the VPN communication link. (Ex. 1003 at 52:40-42; Ex. 2016 at ¶ 22.)
`
`Patent Owner’s adversaries and
`
`their experts agree
`
`that a VPN
`
`communication link refers to a link in a virtual private network. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner itself has understood and construed a VPN communication link to be
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`“any communication link between two end points in a virtual private network.”
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00812
`
`(See, e.g., IPR2014-00481, Paper No. 1 at 6 (Mar. 7, 2014).) In district court,
`
`Microsoft proposed a similar construction requiring the link to be in a virtual
`
`private network. (Ex. 2001 at 25, Memorandum Opinion in VirnetX Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2009), a
`
`“communication link in a virtual private network.”) There, the court relied on its
`
`construction of VPN, finding it unnecessary to