throbber
Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: July 9, 2014
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00558
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: (571) 203-2700
`Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review ......................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Petition Is Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................. 3
`1.
`Procedural History Relevant to § 315(b) .................................... 3
`2.
`Service of the 2007 and 2010 Complaints Bar
`Microsoft’s Petition under § 315(b) ............................................ 7
`Dismissal of the 2007 and 2010 Litigations Does Not
`Nullify Service for Purposes of § 315(b) .................................... 8
`a)
`The Relevant Aspects of the 2007 and 2010
`Litigations Were Dismissed With Prejudice and
`Left the Parties in Different Relative Legal
`Positions ............................................................................ 9
`Nullifying Service of the 2007 and 2010
`Complaints Under the Circumstances Would
`Render § 315(b) Irrelevant in Many Cases.....................11
`The Two Documents Dubbed “Aventail” Cannot Anticipate
`Any Claim ...........................................................................................14
`The Petition Fails to Present Any Cognizable Obviousness
`Position Based on the Aventail Documents ........................................15
`The Petition Fails to Comply with 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3)-(4)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................................................................17
`The Petition’s Anticipation and Obviousness Arguments for
`Claim 10 Are Facially Inconsistent .....................................................21
`F. Microsoft’s Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) ...............................................................................................24
`The Board Should Not Institute Based on the Petition’s
`Redundant Grounds .............................................................................26
`
`3.
`
`b)
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`G.
`
`i
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`III. The Petition’s Claim Constructions Are Flawed and Should Be
`Rejected .........................................................................................................29
`A. Overview of the ’135 Patent ................................................................29
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................30
`C.
`“Virtual Private Network (VPN)” (Claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, and
`18) ........................................................................................................32
`“DNS Proxy Server” (Claims 8 and 10) .............................................37
`D.
`“Client Computer” (Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 17-18) ..............................37
`E.
`If Trial Is Instituted, VirnetX Requests an 18-Month Schedule ...................40
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................41
`
`
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00242, Paper No. 98 (Aug. 26, 2013) ................................................... 9
`Apple Inc. v. Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2014-00079, Paper No. 8 (Apr. 25, 2014) .................................................... 18
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 14, 15
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 14 (Dec. 13, 2013), Paper No. 18 (Feb.
`12, 2014) ........................................................................................................... 7, 8
`Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc.,
`IPR2013-00186, Paper No. 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) .................................................. 19
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 35
`CallCopy, Inc. v. Verint Ams., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00486, Paper No. 11 (Feb. 5, 2014) .................................................... 16
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00549, Paper No. 20 (Apr. 28, 2014) .................................................. 19
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Autoalert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00220, Paper No. 13 (Oct. 10, 2013) .................................................. 16
`EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00087, Paper No. 25 (June 5, 2013) .............................................. 27, 29
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 15 (Jan. 9, 2013) ..................................................... 36
`Google Inc. et al. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper No. 9 (May 22, 2014) .............................................. 18, 21
`
`iii
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 15, 16, 17
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .................................................. 27
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper No. 19 (Nov. 21, 2013) ................................................. 25
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 15
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper No. 7 (Oct. 25, 2012) ............................................ 27, 28
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG,
`IPR2012-00004, Paper No. 18 (Jan. 24, 2013) ................................................... 11
`Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013-00093, Paper No. 28 (Apr. 29, 2013) .................................................. 36
`Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP,
`IPR2013-00312, Paper No. 40 (Dec. 18, 2013) .................................................. 11
`Samsung Elecs., Co. v. Fractus, S.A.,
`IPR2014-00008, Paper No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2014) ................................................ 7, 8
`ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00180, Paper No. 18 (Aug. 26, 2013) ........................................... 28, 29
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00041, Paper No. 16 (Feb. 22, 2013) .................................................. 19
`Tasco, Inc. v. Pagnani,
`IPR2013-00103, Paper No. 6 (May 23, 2013) .................................................... 18
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00152, Paper No. 8 (Aug. 19, 2013) ............................................. 23, 24
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00168, Paper No. 9 (Aug. 26, 2013) ............................................passim
`
`iv
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC et al. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 16 (July 13, 2013) .................................................. 18
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 15, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................... 2, 17, 18, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(4) ............................................................................... 2, 17, 18, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 40
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................... 2, 24, 25, 26
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 40
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ............................................................................................... 40
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .............................................................................. 2, 17, 20, 24
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................... 18, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................................................................................... 18, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 24
`Other Authorities
`157 Cong. Rec. S1041-42 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) ................................................. 25
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012)........................................................................ 24
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012)........................................................................ 24
`
`v
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. respectfully submits this Preliminary Response
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, responding to the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) filed by Microsoft Corporation
`
`against VirnetX’s U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (“the ’135 patent”). VirnetX requests
`
`that the Board not institute inter partes review for several reasons.
`
`First, VirnetX served Microsoft with complaints alleging infringement of the
`
`’135 patent in 2007 and 2010, both of which occurred more than one year before
`
`Microsoft filed
`
`its Petition. Thus, Microsoft’s Petition
`
`is barred under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The 2010 Complaint was dismissed with prejudice in its
`
`entirety, and the 2007 Complaint was dismissed with prejudice regarding several
`
`issues, including infringement, which is the focal point of the § 315(b)
`
`analysis. Thus, the dismissals did not nullify service of either complaint, as
`
`Microsoft contends. The parties were left in distinctly different legal positions
`
`than they were in before service, so the § 315(b) bar applies to this entire
`
`proceeding and precludes institution.
`
`Second, Microsoft attempts to combine two references in an anticipation
`
`analysis, in violation of Federal Circuit case law.
`
`Third, Microsoft presents backup obviousness arguments that lack any
`
`analysis, in violation of Supreme Court precedent.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`Fourth, Microsoft fails to identify where the prior art discloses each claimed
`
`feature, violating the particularity requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)-(4) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Fifth, Microsoft’s theories of anticipation and obviousness for claim 10 are
`
`facially inconsistent and must be rejected.
`
`Sixth, this proceeding is duplicative of other actions before the Office and
`
`should be dismissed under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Office currently has two inter
`
`partes reexamination proceedings against the ’135 patent, and Microsoft had
`
`previously unsuccessfully challenged the ’135 patent in reexamination. A third set
`
`of Office proceedings against the ’135 patent, as Microsoft requests here, is
`
`unnecessary and burdens both the Office and VirnetX. In addition, the primary
`
`prior art references Microsoft relies on here are already being considered by the
`
`Office in ongoing reexaminations of the ’135 patent. Section 325(d) was designed
`
`to avoid the type of serial challenge Microsoft requests.
`
`Seventh, Microsoft proposes redundant grounds without identifying how any
`
`one ground improves on any other, violating Board precedent requiring petitioners
`
`to identify differences in the proposed rejections.
`
`Finally, Microsoft proposes incorrect claim constructions. Because its
`
`unpatentability challenges are premised on incorrect claim constructions, Microsoft
`
`2
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of proving
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`unpatentability of any ’135 patent claim.
`
`II. The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review
`A. The Petition Is Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Microsoft’s Petition is untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The statute
`
`prohibits instituting an IPR based on a petition filed more than one year after the
`
`petitioner has been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
`
`VirnetX served Microsoft with two complaints alleging infringement of the ’135
`
`patent more than one year before Microsoft filed its Petition. After a jury verdict
`
`in VirnetX’s favor, the parties settled the underlying litigations. The court
`
`dismissed the cases, and the dismissals left the parties in different legal positions
`
`than they were in before the dismissal, with some issues being dismissed with
`
`prejudice and others being dismissed without prejudice. Microsoft contends the
`
`§ 315(b) bar should not apply, but each of Microsoft’s reasons is contrary to statute
`
`or prior Board decisions, as discussed below.
`
`Procedural History Relevant to § 315(b)
`1.
`VirnetX served Microsoft with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’135
`
`patent and two other VirnetX patents on April 5, 2007 (“the 2007 Complaint”).
`
`(Ex. 2010, VirnetX Inc.’s First Amended Complaint in VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., Case No. 6:07-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2007 ) (“the 2007 Litigation”).)
`
`3
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`VirnetX accused aspects of Microsoft’s products of infringing VirnetX’s patented
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`secure communications technology. (Id. at 3-4.)
`
`The 2007 Litigation proceeded for over three years, with Microsoft raising
`
`numerous defenses, including noninfringement, invalidity, laches, estoppel,
`
`marking and notice, lack of standing, government sales, and unclean hands and
`
`inequitable conduct regarding the ’135 patent. (Ex. 2011, Microsoft’s Answer to
`
`VirnetX’s First Amended Complaint in the 2007 Litigation (E.D. Tex. May 4,
`
`2007).)
`
` Microsoft also
`
`lodged several counterclaims,
`
`including seeking
`
`declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ’135
`
`patent. (Id. at 13-14.)
`
`A few months before trial, on December 8, 2009, Microsoft sought inter
`
`partes reexamination of the ’135 patent. The Office assigned the proceeding
`
`control no. 95/001,269, and ultimately concluded that all challenged claims were
`
`patentable. (Ex. 1001 at 62-71.) The Office issued a Reexamination Certificate
`
`confirming all challenged claims. (Id.)
`
`The 2007 Litigation went to trial in March 2010, and the jury supported
`
`VirnetX across the board: Microsoft willfully infringed the asserted claims and
`
`those claims were not invalid. (Ex. 2012, Jury Verdict Form in the 2007 Litigation
`
`(E.D. Tex. March 16, 2010).)
`
`4
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`After securing the jury verdict, VirnetX served Microsoft with a companion
`
`complaint (“the 2010 Complaint”) on March 17, 2010, accusing of infringement
`
`later versions of the products released since the 2007 Complaint had been served.
`
`(Ex. 2013, VirnetX Inc.’s Original Complaint in VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`Case No. 6:10-cv-00094 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2010) (“the 2010 Litigation”).)
`
`Microsoft’s counsel agreed to accept service of the 2010 Complaint, and it did so
`
`on March 19, 2010. (Ex. 2014, Microsoft’s counsel stating “[w]e agree to accept
`
`service of the complaint on behalf of Microsoft” and that “we received the
`
`complaint” on “Thursday, March 19”; see also Ex. 2015.)
`
`Before the court entered final judgment on the jury verdict in the 2007
`
`Litigation, VirnetX and Microsoft signed a settlement and license agreement. (Ex.
`
`1075, Settlement and License Agreement.) The agreement resolved both the 2007
`
`and 2010 Litigations, and granted Microsoft a non-exclusive, field-of-use-limited
`
`license to VirnetX’s patents for the products at issue in those actions. (Id. at 2,
`
`§ 3.1.)
`
`Following settlement, the parties stipulated to dismissal (see Exs. 2016 and
`
`2017), and the court dismissed the 2007 and 2010 Litigations. (Ex. 1072, Order of
`
`Dismissal in 2007 Litigation (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2010); Ex. 1073, Order of
`
`Dismissal in 2010 Litigation (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2010); Ex. 2018, Order Granting
`
`Joint Stipulations (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2010).) The dismissals left the parties in
`
`5
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`different relative legal positions than before service of the 2007 and 2010
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`Complaints. The court first dismissed the 2010 Litigation with prejudice in its
`
`entirety, simply stating that “all of the claims asserted against Microsoft in this
`
`action are dismissed with prejudice.” (Ex. 1073.) It also dismissed the 2007
`
`Litigation by stating:
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims
`asserted against Microsoft in this action are dismissed with
`prejudice.
`The affirmative defenses and counterclaims asserted
`by Microsoft in this action are dismissed. For the avoidance
`of doubt, this dismissal is without prejudice to Microsoft’s
`ability to assert, in future actions, (i) affirmative defenses
`and/or counterclaims of invalidity or noninfringement, (ii)
`affirmative
`defenses
`and/or
`counterclaims
`of
`unenforceability, subject to the terms of the Order dated
`January 15, 2010 in this action (Docket No. 274), and/or
`(iii) any other affirmative defenses. This dismissal is with
`prejudice
`to Microsoft’s ability
`to assert any other
`counterclaims asserted by Microsoft in this action.
`(Ex. 1072, Order of Dismissal in 2007 Litigation (E.D. Tex. Jun. 1, 2010).)
`
`More recently, VirnetX served Microsoft with an additional complaint (“the
`
`2013 Complaint”) alleging infringement of the ’135 patent (among others) by
`
`Microsoft’s use of VirnetX’s patented technology in Skype®, which falls outside
`
`the limited field of use permitted by the settlement and license agreement. (Ex.
`
`6
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`2019, VirnetX Inc.’s Original Complaint in VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`No. 6:13-cv-00351 (E.D. Tex. April 22, 2013) (“the 2013 Litigation”).) Nearly a
`
`year after the filing of the 2013 Litigation, which is ongoing, Microsoft submitted
`
`its Petition for inter partes review of the ’135 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Service of the 2007 and 2010 Complaints Bar Microsoft’s
`Petition under § 315(b)
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), if a petition for inter partes review is filed more
`
`than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement,
`
`the petition is untimely and inter partes review may not be instituted, even if the
`
`complaint predates enactment of the AIA. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs., Co. v.
`
`Fractus, S.A., IPR2014-00008, Paper No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2014); Apple Inc. v. VirnetX
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 14 (Dec. 13, 2013), Paper No. 18 (Feb. 12, 2014);
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc., IPR2013-00168, Paper
`
`No. 9 (Aug. 26, 2013). Here, Microsoft filed its Petition in March 2014—nearly
`
`seven years after VirnetX served the 2007 Complaint and over four years after
`
`VirnetX served the 2010 Complaint—so inter partes review may not be instituted.
`
`Microsoft contends that VirnetX’s service of the later 2013 Complaint
`
`restarts the one-year clock for purposes of § 315(b), rendering its Petition timely.
`
`(See Pet. at 7-13; id. at 11-12, “the proposed interpretation would prevent an IPR
`
`from being instituted more than one year after service of a first complaint, unless
`
`patentee brings new allegations of infringement against a defendant.”) The Board
`
`7
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`has rejected Microsoft’s “latest complaint” theory as improperly rewriting § 315(b)
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`as though it authorizes, rather than bars, IPR. See, e.g., Samsung, IPR2014-00008,
`
`Paper No. 19 at 4-5; Apple Inc., IPR2013-00348, Paper No. 14 at 4 (“The plain
`
`language of the statute does not specify that a later complaint will nullify the effect
`
`of an earlier complaint for timeliness purposes of a petition.”). As the Board
`
`recognizes, because “the terms of [the] statute [are] unambiguous, judicial inquiry
`
`is complete.” Universal Remote Control, IPR2013-00168, Paper No. 9 at 5 (citing
`
`United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 606 (1986) (internal quotations omitted)).
`
`The Board should reject Microsoft’s attempt to rewrite § 315(b) here the same way
`
`it has rejected other petitioners’ identical attempts.
`
`3.
`
`Dismissal of the 2007 and 2010 Litigations Does Not Nullify
`Service for Purposes of § 315(b)
`The dismissals of the 2007 and 2010 Litigations do not nullify service of the
`
`2007 and 2010 Complaints, as Microsoft contends, because the cases were
`
`dismissed with prejudice regarding several issues, including infringement, which is
`
`the focal point of the § 315(b) analysis. Microsoft also contends that the
`
`circumstances of this case warrant nullification, but subjective justifications are
`
`irrelevant to the § 315(b) analysis. Even if one were permitted to consider case-by-
`
`case justifications, the facts here would support applying the § 315(b) bar, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`8
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`a)
`
`The Relevant Aspects of the 2007 and 2010 Litigations
`Were Dismissed With Prejudice and Left the Parties
`in Different Relative Legal Positions
`Section 315(b) focuses on when a party “is served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the patent.” According to the Board, “[w]hat matters is that the
`
`complaint pleads a cause of action for patent infringement and is served lawfully
`
`on the accused infringer in a civil action. Once that happens, the accused infringer
`
`is subject to the time limit set forth in section 315(b) to petition for inter partes
`
`review.” Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., IPR2013-00242, Paper No. 98 at 6-7
`
`(Aug. 26, 2013). As far as the statute is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a served
`
`party answers the complaint, lodges affirmative defenses or counterclaims of
`
`invalidity, or even participates in the action at all. Because it is irrelevant to the
`
`analysis whether any invalidity defenses or counterclaims ever existed, it is also
`
`irrelevant how those defenses or counterclaims were dismissed.
`
`Consistent with this interpretation, the Board has enforced the § 315(b) bar
`
`without inquiring into the nature of the response to the complaint or the dismissal
`
`of any defenses or counterclaims. See Universal Remote Control Inc. v. Universal
`
`Elecs., Inc., IPR2013-00168, Paper No. 9 (Aug. 26, 2013). Instead, the Board has
`
`focused on the service of the infringement complaint and the with-prejudice nature
`
`of the dismissal of the infringement claims. See id. Indeed, the dismissal language
`
`in Universal Remote Control, which did not nullify service, referred only to
`
`9
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`“plaintiff’s causes of action for patent infringement.” (Ex. 2020 at 2.) That
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`language is virtually identical in relevant part to the dismissal language for the
`
`2010 Litigation:
`
`Universal Remote Dismissal Language
`
`2010 Litigation Dismissal Language
`
`“Plaintiff’s causes of action for patent
`
`“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
`
`infringement, based on U.S. Patent No.
`
`all of
`
`the claims asserted against
`
`5,414,426 against Defendant Universal
`
`Microsoft in this action are dismissed
`
`Remote Control,
`
`Inc., are hereby
`
`with prejudice.” (Ex. 1073 at 1.)
`
`dismissed with prejudice.” (Ex. 2020 at
`
`2.)
`
`
`Focusing on the one cause of action that matters for purposes of § 315(b)—
`
`infringement—Microsoft does not dispute that VirnetX’s infringement claims were
`
`dismissed with prejudice in both the 2007 and 2010 Litigations. (See Pet. at 3-7;
`
`see also Ex. 1072 at 1, “all claims asserted against Microsoft in this action are
`
`dismissed with prejudice”; Ex. 1073 at 1, “all of the claims asserted against
`
`Microsoft in this action are dismissed with prejudice.”). This ends the § 315(b)
`
`inquiry; Microsoft is barred.
`
`But even if one were to continue the nullification inquiry, the result is no
`
`different. The Board has found that nullification applies where a dismissal leaves
`
`the parties in the same legal position “as though the action had never been
`
`10
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`brought.” Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG, IPR2012-00004, Paper No. 18 at
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`15 (Jan. 24, 2013) (citing cases); Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP,
`
`IPR2013-00312, Paper No. 40 at 4 (Dec. 18, 2013). VirnetX and Microsoft both
`
`stand in different legal positions than before those actions were filed,1
`
` so
`
`nullification does not apply.2
`
`b) Nullifying Service of the 2007 and 2010 Complaints
`Under the Circumstances Would Render § 315(b)
`Irrelevant in Many Cases
`Microsoft contends that it “does not seek a broad ruling that automatically
`
`treats every voluntary dismissal as nullifying the effect of service for inter partes
`
`1 Only some of Microsoft’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
`
`(Ex. 1072 at 1.) The remainder were dismissed with prejudice, leaving Microsoft
`
`in a different legal position after the dismissal than before litigation.
`
`2 The voluntary nature of the VirnetX/Microsoft dismissals does not alter
`
`their effect for purposes of § 315(b). The dismissal in Universal Remote Control
`
`was voluntarily sought by motion, but the Board did not find nullification. See
`
`Universal Remote Control,
`
`IPR2013-00168, Paper No. 9. Microsoft
`
`mischaracterizes Universal Remote Control, stating “[e]ven voluntary dismissal of
`
`an infringement action with prejudice . . . has been found to nullify the legal effect
`
`of service of a corresponding complaint . . . .” (Pet. at 5.) The Board made no
`
`such finding—it recognized the effect of service for purposes of § 315(b).
`
`11
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`review purposes,” but “the particular circumstances of this case simply warrant
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`such treatment.” (Pet. at 7.) The circumstances of this case, however, show that
`
`all the requirements are met for the § 315(b) bar to apply. Case-by-case subjective
`
`justifications like the ones Microsoft proposes are simply not authorized by statute
`
`and form no part of the analysis.
`
`Nonetheless, if one were permitted to consider the circumstances of the case
`
`in assessing whether to apply § 315(b), the facts present an even more compelling
`
`justification in favor of barring Microsoft. Here, the 2007 Litigation proceeded to
`
`trial, the jury rendered a verdict on the merits of the case (infringement and
`
`validity), the parties settled after trial, the court dismissed the infringement
`
`complaint with prejudice, and the parties are now in different relative legal
`
`positions than before service of the complaint. The 2007 Litigation was far more
`
`advanced than the dismissed litigation in Universal Remote Control (see Ex. 2021),
`
`and it was nearly complete at the time of its dismissal.
`
`If service of the 2007 Complaint is deemed a nullity despite the advanced
`
`nature of the proceeding, then service of virtually any infringement complaint
`
`dismissed with prejudice before receiving a final judgment could be considered a
`
`nullity. It would essentially be a finding that § 315(b) itself is a nullity in many
`
`cases. This is a long way from the plain language of § 315(b), which provides no
`
`12
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`basis for nullification at all,3
`
`jury verdict.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
` let alone nullifying a complaint after a full trial and
`
`Similarly, the 2010 Litigation was dismissed with prejudice: “all of the
`
`claims asserted against Microsoft in this action are dismissed with prejudice.” (Ex.
`
`1073.) As a result, it cannot be nullified as Microsoft contends.
`
`For these reasons, service of the 2007 and 2010 Complaints bar Microsoft’s
`
`petition under § 315(b), so IPR cannot be instituted.4
`
`
`3 VirnetX respectfully disagrees that a “nullification” exception to the plain
`
`language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) should be recognized or applied by the Board in
`
`any case. Section 315(b) refers only to when the “petitioner, real party in interest,
`
`or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`patent.” No limitations or conditions are expressed regarding nullifying service, so
`
`the plain language of the statute should control.
`
`4 Microsoft requested that its time-barred Petition be joined with IPR2014-
`
`00171, filed by RPX Corporation. The Board denied institution of that proceeding
`
`on June 5, 2014, and RPX did not seek rehearing within the allotted time.
`
`Microsoft’s joinder request should therefore be denied.
`
`13
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`B.
`
`The Two Documents Dubbed “Aventail” Cannot Anticipate Any
`Claim
`Aventail is not a single document. It consists of two documents:
`
`(1) “Aventail Connect v3.01/v2.51 Administrator’s Guide” (Ex. 1007 at 1-120),
`
`and (2) “Aventail ExtraNet Center v3.0 Administrator’s Guide” (id. at 121-94).
`
`Microsoft merged these two separate documents into a single PDF file, labeled it
`
`“Aventail,” and argues that the merged PDF anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12,
`
`and 13. Microsoft disregards the fundamental principle that, “[f]or a prior art
`
`reference to anticipate a claim, the reference must disclose each claim limitation in
`
`a single document.” Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 725 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013).
`
`Microsoft contends that the two documents reference each other and
`
`“describe the configuration and operation of client and server parts of a single
`
`Aventail VPN system.” (Pet. at 20.) If Microsoft seeks to rely on a “system” to
`
`challenge claims of the ’135 patent, its challenge is prohibited by statute.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b). And to the extent Microsoft contends that “the Aventail
`
`Connect document . . . incorporates by reference specific portions of the Aventail
`
`Extranet Center document,” it fails to set forth any plausible basis for
`
`incorporation-by-reference. Neither document Microsoft seeks to combine
`
`contains any incorporation-by-reference language regarding the other document.
`
`Microsoft’s only support for its incorporation-by-reference argument is a
`
`14
`
`MANGROVE 1021
`
`

`
`
`
`paragraph in a declaration, which merely states that the documents relate to and
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00558
`
`
`
`reference each other, but does not identify any specific basis for incorporation-by-
`
`reference or identify where in the documents such incorporation is invoked. (See
`
`Pet. at 20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 29).)
`
`Microsoft has not met the standard for incorporation by reference. See
`
`Apple Inc., 725 F.3d at 1362 (“To incorporate material by reference, the host
`
`document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it
`
`incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various
`
`documents.”); see also Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d
`
`1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (treating specifications related the same standard as
`
`different documen

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