Paper No. 51
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-010461
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ CONSOLIDATED REPLY BRIEF (REDACTED)
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a Petitioner
`in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Prior Proceedings Involving VirnetX’s Patents .............................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Federal Circuit Decision ........................................................................ 1
`
`Prior Board Decisions Involving Related Patents ................................. 3
`
`IV. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 12 .......................................... 3
`
`A. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 1 ................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Kiuchi Discloses a “DNS Request” Generated from the
`Client Computer .......................................................................... 4
`
`Kiuchi Discloses a Request for “an IP Address
`Corresponding to a Domain Name Associated with a
`Target Computer” ....................................................................... 5
`
`Kiuchi Discloses a “Client” and “Target Computer” ................. 8
`
`Kiuchi Discloses a VPN ............................................................ 11
`
`B. Kiuchi Anticipates Independent Claim 10 .......................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`DNS Feature .............................................................................. 17
`
`DNS Proxy Server that Generates a Request to Create a
`VPN ........................................................................................... 17
`
`DNS Proxy Server that Returns an IP Address ........................ 17
`
`C. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12 ....................................... 18
`
`V. Kiuchi and RFC 1034 Render Claim 8 Obvious ........................................... 19
`
`VI. Dr. Guerin’s Testimony Is Probative and Entitled to Substantial
`Weight ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`A. Dr. Guerin’s Testimony Will Assist the Board ................................... 19
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`B. Dr. Guerin’s Testimony Was Proper ................................................... 20
`
`VII. RFC 1034 Is Prior Art ................................................................................... 21
`
`VIII. Petitioner Mangrove’s RPI Identification Was Correct ................................ 21
`
`A. Mangrove Partners and Nathanial August .......................................... 21
`
`B. Mangrove’s Investors .......................................................................... 23
`
`C.
`
`RPX Corporation ................................................................................. 24
`
`D. Any Misidentification of RPI Does Not Prohibit Review .................. 25
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 25
`
`Arkwright-Boston Mfgs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch.,
`173 F.3d 843 (2d Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 22
`
`In re Baxter Intern., Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Mercer v. Theriot,
`377 U.S. 152 (1964) (per curiam) ......................................................................... 2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership,
`131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Price v. Crestar Sec. Corp.,
`44 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D.D.C. 1999) ...................................................................... 22
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 20
`
`United States v. Bestfoods,
`524 U.S. 51 (1998) .............................................................................................. 23
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 1, 2, 12
`
`Post-Grant Proceeding Decisions
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc,
`IPR2014-00404, Paper 42 (7/29/15) ............................................................passim
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc,
`IPR2014-00482, Paper 34 (Aug. 24, 2015) .......................................................... 3
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc,
`Appeal No. 2014-000591 (Apr. 1, 2014) .............................................................. 3
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. VirnetX Inc,
`Appeal No. 2015-007843 (Feb., 11, 2016) ........................................................... 3
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01093, Paper 26, 27-28 (Oct. 23, 2015) .............................................. 23
`
`Denso Corporation v. Beacon Navigation GmbH,
`IPR2013-00026, Paper, 34, 10-11 (March 14, 2014) ......................................... 24
`
`Elekta, Inc., v. Varian Medical Sys., Inc., IPR2015-01401, Paper 19
`(Dec. 31, 2015) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00935, Paper 52, 10 ............................................................................. 24
`
`Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell International,
`Inc., IPR2015-01309, Paper 25, 4-5 (Apr. 7, 2016) ........................................... 25
`
`Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation,
`IPR2012-00042, Paper 16, 15-18 ....................................................................... 24
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §312 ......................................................................................................... 23
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(e) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §316(e) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.5 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`Office Trial and Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48759 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958), §387 ....................................................... 23
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Exhibit List
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 to Munger
`1002
`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
`Declaration of Dr. Roch Guerin
`[RESERVED]
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names–Concepts and
`Facilities,” Nov. 1997
`[RESERVED]
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 7, in IPR2014-00610
`Excerpts from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971)
`VirnetX’s Reply Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc. et al., 6:10-cv-417 (Dec. 19, 2011) (E.D. Tex.)
`Bradner, S., RFC 2026, “The Internet Standards Process – Revision
`3,” Oct. 1996
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, Paper 9, in IPR2014- 00610
`(Oct. 15, 2014)
`[RESERVED]
`[RESERVED]
`Berners-Lee et al., RFC 1945, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
`HTTP/1.0,” May 1996
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 10, in IPR2013- 00348
`Eastlake, D., RFC 2535, “Domain Name System Security
`Extensions,” Mar. 1999
`Patent Owner’s Comments in Response to Examiner’s Determination
`in Inter Partes Reexamination 95/001,792 (March, 11, 2015)
`VirnetX’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc. et al., 6:10-cv-417 (Dec. 19, 2011) (E.D. Tex.)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`Inc. et al., 6:10-cv-417 (April 25, 2012) (E.D. Tex.)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2013-00349
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 11, in IPR2014- 00558
`Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, Paper 15, in IPR2014-
`00237
`“Glossary for the Linux FreeS/WAN project,” (Feb. 21, 2002)
`[RESERVED]
`Declaration of Dr. Roch Guerin in IPR2014-00401
`Petitioner’s Proposed Revisions of Patent Owner’s Requests for
`Production
`Petitioner’s Proposed Revisions of Patent Owner’s Interrogatories
`Declaration of Scott M. Border in Support of Petitioner Apple’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza on behalf of the RFC Publisher for the
`Internet Engineering Task Force, dated January 23, 2013, submitted in
`Investigation No. 337-TA-858
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names – Concepts and
`Facilities,” bearing Bates Nos. 337-TA-858-IETF00022 through
`00073
`Transcript of Feb. 8, 2013 deposition of Sandy Ginoza, ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-858
`The Reality of Virtual Private Networks, InfoWorld, Aug. 16, 1999
`(Advertising Supplement)
`Gibbs, M., IP Security: Keeping Your Business Private, Network
`World (March 15, 1999)
`Proposed Protective Order
`[RESERVED]
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Fabian Monrose (April 28, 2016)
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`[NEW]
`1037
`[NEW]
`
`Malkin, G., RFC 1983, “Internet Users’ Glossary,” Aug. 1996
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`1038
`Plaintiff VirnetX Inc.’s Opening Brief in Support of its Constructions
`of Claims Pursuant to P.R. 4-5, VirnetX Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`[NEW]
`No. 6:07-cv-00080-LED, ECF No. 194 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2008).
`Guerin, R., RFC 2676, “QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF
`Extensions,” Aug. 1999
`Guerin, R., Internet Draft, “QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF
`Extensions,” Nov. 5, 1996, draft-guerin-qos-routing-ospf-00.txt
`Huitema, C., RFC 1602, The Internet Standards Process – Revision 2,
`Mar. 1994
`Chapin, L., RFC 1310, The Internet Standards Process, Mar. 1992
`
`1039
`[NEW]
`1040
`[NEW]
`1041
`[NEW]
`1042
`[NEW]
`1043
`[NEW]
`1044
`[NEW]
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th Ed. 1999)
`
`Transcript of Trial, November 1, 2012 Afternoon Session, VirnetX
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:07-cv-00417-RWS, ECF No. 612 (E.D.
`Tex. Nov. 9, 2012)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`The Board’s institution decision was correct, as Kiuchi anticipates claims 1,
`
`3-4, 7-8, 10, and 12 of the ’135 patent, and Kiuchi in view of RFC 1034 renders
`
`claim 8 obvious. Paper 11 (Dec.), 5-7. Because the record evidence fully supports
`
`those findings, the claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`
`Petitioners agree with the Board that no claim terms require construction.
`
`Dec., 6. Construction is also unnecessary because, as explained below, the claims
`
`are anticipated even under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Independently,
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for “VPN” and “client computer” should be
`
`rejected because they rest on flawed legal assumptions and conflict with both the
`
`’135 patent’s disclosure and the evidence of record. Resp., 4-17.
`
`III. Prior Proceedings Involving VirnetX’s Patents
`
`A.
`
`Federal Circuit Decision
`
`The Federal Circuit considered the ’135 patent in 2014 following Apple’s
`
`appeal from an adverse jury verdict. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d
`
`1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Patent Owner asserts the Federal Circuit, in that case,
`
`positively determined that only Kiuchi’s user agent and origin server can map to
`
`the “client computer” and “target computer” of the claims. Resp., 26-27. But that
`
`was not what the Federal Circuit decided —it found only that substantial evidence
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`supported the jury’s finding that Apple had not proven by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that Kiuchi anticipated the claims of the ’135 patent, and that the district
`
`judge did not err by denying Apple’s motions for judgment as a matter of law.2
`
`VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1323-24.
`
`This decision is not binding on the Board or Petitioners. In re Baxter
`
`Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). First, it involved different
`
`parties than those in this proceeding. Second, it is based on a “different burden[]
`
`of proof” –whether anticipation had been established by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011).
`
`Here, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish anticipation. 35
`
`U.S.C. §316(e). Third, the record in this proceeding is different. For example, Dr.
`
`Monrose made significant admissions regarding claim scope and Kiuchi’s
`
`teachings which were not considered in the litigation. Consequently, the Board is
`
`free to reach its own conclusions based on the evidence in this proceeding. Baxter,
`
`678 F.3d at 1364. Finally, the statutory history shows that a district court decision
`
`cannot cause estoppel before the Office. Compare 35 U.S.C. §315(e) with §317(b)
`
`(pre-AIA) (providing estoppel after a final decision in litigation).
`
`2 Review of the 2014 decision is still available because no final judgment has been
`
`entered. See Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U.S. 152, 154-55 (1964) (per curiam) (holding
`
`the Court can review issues decided by prior appellate decisions).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`B.
`
`Prior Board Decisions Involving Related Patents
`
`The Board has already made extensive findings about what Kiuchi teaches
`
`incidental to finding other claims in the ’135 patent family anticipated or obvious.
`
`See Appeal No. 2014-000591 (4/1/2014); IPR2014-00404, Paper 42 (7/29/15);
`
`IPR2014-00482, Paper 34 (8/24/15); Appeal No. 2015-007843 (2/11/16). For
`
`example, in IPR2014-00404, the Board found that Kiuchi disclosed forming a
`
`“VPN communication link” between Kiuchi’s client-side and server-side proxies
`
`(Paper 42, 13-15) and rejected Patent Owner’s contention that the connection was
`
`neither “direct” nor part of a “network.” Id., 4, 15. The Board also found Kiuchi’s
`
`client-side proxy to be a “client computer” within the meaning of the claims. Id.,
`
`15-16. It made similar findings in IPR2014-00482, (Paper 34, 15-20), disagreeing
`
`with Patent Owner’s repeated assertion that Kiuchi’s hostname corresponds only to
`
`the origin server and not the server-side proxy, (id., 13-14; IPR2014-00404, Paper
`
`42, 11-12). These prior findings are probative here given the common disclosure
`
`and claim terms at issue in the ’135 patent.
`
`IV. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 12
`
`A. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 1
`
`The Petition explained how two different aspects of the Kiuchi system met
`
`the “client computer” and “target computer” elements of the claims: (1) the client-
`
`side and server-side proxies, and (2) the user agent and origin server. Pet., 26;
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Resp., 20 (recognizing Petitioners’ “two alternative theories”).
`
`1. Kiuchi Discloses a “DNS Request” Generated from the Client
`Computer
`Kiuchi shows the user agent and the client-side proxy (“client computer[s]”)
`
`each generating a “DNS request,” e.g., “a request for a resource corresponding to a
`
`domain name.” Pet., 20-21, 27. First, the user agent generates a request by
`
`creating an HTTP GET request containing a URL. Ex. 1002, 65-66. The URL
`
`includes a hostname, and requests a web page or other resource on a computer
`
`corresponding to the hostname in the URL. Id. The hostname is that of the server-
`
`side proxy, (id., 65-66, 68, 71, 72(§2.1), 73), and is a “domain name” because it is
`
`associated with an IP address of a computer (e.g., the server-side proxy). See id.
`
`Kiuchi shows that, in response to a name request, the C-HTTP looks up the IP
`
`address corresponding to the hostname, both of which correspond to the server-
`
`side proxy. Id., 65-66, 70-75. Second, the client-side proxy generates a DNS
`
`request by generating a C-HTTP name service request, which requests the IP
`
`address and public key corresponding to the server-side proxy associated with
`
`hostname in the URL. Id.
`
`In response to each of these “DNS requests,” the client-side proxy and C-
`
`HTTP name server each (and collectively) “determin[e]” whether access to a
`
`secure website was requested. Pet., 28; Ex. 1003, ¶¶23-24. The C-HTTP name
`
`server “determin[es]” whether the host in the C-HTTP name request is part of the
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`closed network and whether the connection is permitted, and if so, returns an IP
`
`address and public key. Ex. 1002, 65. If the client-side proxy receives an IP
`
`address and public key (rather than an error code) from the C-HTTP name server,
`
`it has also “determin[ed]” whether the HTTP GET request sent by the user agent
`
`was for a secure destination. Id.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that neither are a “DNS request” because a
`
`“C-HTTP name server” is not a “DNS server” and does not follow the DNS
`
`protocol. Resp., 21-22. Initially, each is a request for a resource corresponding to
`
`a domain name (e.g., “server.in.current.connection”)—that is all Patent Owner’s
`
`construction requires. Ex. 1002, 65-66, 72; Ex. 1036, 139:14-17, 151:11-153:15.
`
`And, Dr. Monrose confirmed the claimed “DNS request” need not follow any
`
`particular DNS protocol, and the C-HTTP name server returns an IP address
`
`corresponding to the domain name in the request. Ex. 1036, 104:18-106:20, 168:4-
`
`17. Patent Owner’s arguments also cannot be reconciled with its arguments in
`
`related litigation that limiting “DNS request” to a particular DNS protocol (e.g.,
`
`those defined in IETF RFCs) “is contrary to the specification and therefore
`
`improper.” Ex. 1038, 12.
`
`2. Kiuchi Discloses a Request for “an IP Address Corresponding
`to a Domain Name Associated with a Target Computer”
`
`Petitioners explained how both DNS requests satisfy this element. The
`
`request from the user agent does so because it requests a lookup of the IP address
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`corresponding to the hostname. Ex. 1002, 65. The client-side proxy likewise
`
`“request[s]” that the C-HTTP name server return the IP address and public key
`
`“corresponding to” the hostname in the URL. Pet., 20-21, 27. The hostname in
`
`both requests is the same, and is “associated with” both the server-side proxy and
`
`the origin server (each a “target computer”). Ex. 1003, ¶23; Ex. 1036, 139:14-17,
`
`151:11-153:15 (Monrose: hostname is associated with server-side proxy), 139:18-
`
`141:11 (Monrose: hostname is associated with requested resources on origin
`
`server). Thus, both the user agent-generated and client-side proxy-generated “DNS
`
`requests” in Kiuchi make a “request” from the C-HTTP name server “for an IP
`
`address corresponding to a domain name associated with a target computer.”
`
`Patent Owner asserts Kiuchi does not disclose this step because the URL
`
`specifies a resource on an origin server, while the C-HTTP name server returns the
`
`IP address of the server-side proxy. Resp., 22-23. But nothing requires the
`
`returned IP address to be the IP address of the origin server. Instead, the ’135
`
`specification states the contrary: the IP address returned by the DNS proxy “could
`
`be different from the actual target computer.” Ex. 1001, 38:36-42.
`
`Patent Owner also mischaracterizes Kiuchi, contending the “C-HTTP name
`
`server” does a lookup based on the entire URL. Resp., 22. That is wrong – Kiuchi
`
`states the C-HTTP name server does a “lookup of server-side proxy information”
`
`based on the “host specified in a given URL.” Ex. 1002, 65. Also, RFC 1945
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`(defining HTTP/1.0 used in Kiuchi) explains the “host” is the domain name
`
`component of an HTTP URL. Ex. 1014, 15; Ex. 1003, ¶21; Ex. 1036, 137:18-
`
`139:17 (Dr. Monrose agreeing). The Board rejected this theory in earlier
`
`proceedings, and should do so again. IPR2014-00404, Paper 42, 11-12; see §III.B
`
`above.
`
`Kiuchi also explains the hostname in a URL corresponds to an institution’s
`
`server-side proxy. Ex. 1002, 65(§2.2), 68 (“it is impossible to know the IP address
`
`of a server-side proxy even if its C-HTTP hostname… is known”), 71 (“Server-
`
`Side-Proxy-Name:… specif[ies] the hostname of a server-side proxy”), 73; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶23-25. Kiuchi shows that, in response to a name request, the C-HTTP
`
`name server looks up the IP address corresponding to the hostname, both of which
`
`correspond to the server-side proxy. Ex. 1002, 65-66, 70-75.
`
`See id., 72-73; Ex. 1003, ¶25.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`Despite these explicit statements in Kiuchi, Dr. Monrose contended that the
`
`hostname refers to the origin server. Ex. 2043, ¶¶37-39. But when confronted
`
`with numerous passages in Kiuchi stating the hostname in the URL specifies the
`
`server side proxy, Dr. Monrose testified that he had not formed any opinions
`
`about those passages. Ex. 1036, 180:18-184:22. Dr. Monrose also referred to a
`
`supposed “correction” to the Kiuchi paper, which he did not discuss in his
`
`declaration and is not in the record of this proceeding. Ex. 1036, 171:10-175:20,
`
`195:1-10, 205:18-206:3. Dr. Monrose’s testimony is neither credible nor correct.
`
`There is thus no dispute that “Kiuchi explicitly discloses that ‘the host’ is the
`
`server-side proxy.” IPR2014-00482, Paper 34, 13.
`
`3. Kiuchi Discloses a “Client” and “Target Computer”
`a)
`Client Computer
`Petitioners explained Kiuchi discloses two “client computer[s]”: (1) the user
`
`agent, which generates requests for information stored at an origin server, and (2)
`
`the client-side proxy, which generates C-HTTP requests for information from the
`
`server-side proxy. Pet., 27. Patent Owner concedes Kiuchi’s user agent is a
`
`“user’s computer” and thus satisfies its own, narrow construction of “client
`
`computer.” Resp., 25. It instead only challenges whether Kiuchi’s client-side
`
`proxy is a “client computer.”
`
`First, Patent Owner argues Kiuchi’s client-side proxy is not a “client
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`computer” because it is not a “user’s computer.” Resp., 24-26. This construction
`
`must be rejected as inconsistent with the ’135 patent’s disclosure and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term. The term “client computer” simply means “the computer
`
`from which a data request to a server is generated.” Pet., 15-16. The ’135 patent
`
`uses the term “client” broadly to refer to any “client application” or a
`
`“conventional client” such as a “web browser.” Ex. 1001, 37:30-32, 38:14-15.
`
`Both experts agree that a skilled person would understand a “conventional client”
`
`is any application that generates a request for data from a server. Ex. 1003, ¶19;
`
`Ex. 1036, 97:8-15, 101:1-10. Dr. Guerin explained a skilled person would have
`
`understood “client” as used in the claims to refer to a conventional client/server
`
`architecture. Ex. 1003, ¶19; Ex. 1014, 5. Numerous dictionaries confirm Dr.
`
`Guerin’s opinion, including ones cited by Patent Owner. Ex. 2028, 3; Ex. 1014, 5;
`
`Ex. 1037, 11; Ex. 1043, 88; accord IPR2014-00404, Paper 42, 8-9.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues the ’135 patent “equates” “client computer”
`
`with “user’s computer.” Resp., 15-17. That is incorrect. See Ex. 1036, 74:15-
`
`75:16, 95:1-6 (Dr. Monrose admitting no explicit redefinition). The ’135 patent
`
`discloses embodiments where a VPN is initiated by a “client” 2605, which can be
`
`any “conventional client (e.g., a web browser).” Ex. 1001, 38:14-15. It can thus
`
`be an application, which is distinct from the “user’s computer” 2601. Id., Fig. 26.
`
`The ’135 patent also discloses embodiments where a VPN is established between
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`two non-user computers: a “first and second computer,” (Id., 31:57-64, 36:26-28,
`
`Figs. 20, 24), and two “host computers,” (id., 40:27-30, Figs. 28, 29). A “client
`
`computer” in those embodiments is the computer that generates the request for data
`
`from the server, and does not have to be a “user’s” computer. See IPR2014-00404,
`
`Paper 42, 15-16.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill would not understand
`
`Kiuchi’s client-side proxy to be a “client computer” because it does not “generate[]
`
`requests as claimed.” Resp., 27. But Kiuchi shows that the client-side proxy does
`
`generate such requests, including a “C-HTTP name service request” sent to the
`
`name server, (Ex. 1002, 72, 65), “a request for connection to the server-side
`
`proxy,” (id., 65), and “C-HTTP requests” to the server-side proxy, (id., 66).
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that because Kiuchi refers to the user agent as
`
`the “client,” the client-side proxy in Kiuchi cannot be the “client.” Resp., 25. But
`
`a skilled person would have understood that there can be multiple clients in a
`
`client/server system. Ex. 1003, ¶19 (citing Ex. 1002, 67; Ex. 1014, 5). The ’135
`
`Patent also explains that processes can be distributed across multiple computers or
`
`integrated into a single computer. Ex. 1001, 38:61-65.
`
`Patent Owner also claims Apple’s expert admitted during the litigation that
`
`the only client in Kiuchi is the user agent. Resp., 24-25. That too is incorrect –
`
`Apple’s expert explained the term “client” refers to which computer makes the
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`request in a client-server model, and in Kiuchi both the user agent and the client-
`
`side proxy would be considered “client computers,” (Ex. 2048, 51:18-52:8). Patent
`
`Owner claims the Federal Circuit “agreed with” its characterizations of Kiuchi,
`
`(Resp., 26), but as explained in §III.A, the Federal Circuit did no such thing.
`
`b)
`Target Computer
`The Petition explained how each of the server-side proxy and the origin
`
`server is the “target computer.” Patent Owner agrees the origin server is a “target
`
`computer” but argues the server-side proxy is not because the resource requested in
`
`the URL is stored at the origin server. Resp., 28. But Patent Owner ignores that in
`
`Kiuchi’s system, the client-side proxy makes requests to connect to the server-side
`
`proxy, (Ex. 1002, 65 (“Request for connection to the server-side proxy”)), and the
`
`origin server is virtually mapped to this server-side proxy so that the resources
`
`“appear to be located in a server-side proxy,” (id., 66). Thus, the server-side proxy
`
`is also a “target computer.”
`
`4. Kiuchi Discloses a VPN
`The Board correctly found Kiuchi discloses a “VPN.” Dec., 6. Patent
`
`Owner disputes this, arguing Kiuchi does not disclose a VPN because a “VPN”
`
`requires: (i) encryption, (ii) a “network” with “multiple” computers, and (iii)
`
`“direct” communications. Resp., 5, 29-32. But Kiuchi meets each of these
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`supposed requirements.3 Even adopting Patent Owner’s strained reading of “VPN”
`
`thus would not affect the finding of anticipation.
`
`a)
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Kiuchi discloses encrypting all data
`
`Encryption
`
`transmitted between the client-side and server-side proxy or that encryption is
`
`unnecessary over the secure portions of the path between the user agent and origin
`
`server. Ex. 1002, 65-66; Resp., 29-32; Ex. 1036, 27:17-28:3, 35:13-19; VirnetX,
`
`767 F.3d at 1321-22 (noting VirnetX presented this same theory and finding it
`
`sufficient to meet the claims).
`
`b) Network
`Patent Owner argues a “VPN” requires a “network” having more than two
`
`computers. Resp., 12-13, 30. But claim 1 of the ’135 patent only requires a VPN
`
`between two computers (a client and a target), and the specification contains
`
`numerous examples of VPNs existing between just two computers, as Dr. Monrose
`
`agreed. Ex. 1001, 38:30-33, 39:22-25, Fig. 24; Ex. 1036, 44:18-45:3, 46:5-47:5,
`
`64:3-8, 85:22-86:7. Moreover, Kiuchi plainly shows a VPN with a network having
`
`more than two computers. Ex. 1002, 64 (the “C-HTTP-based network” allows
`
`communications “in a closed group of institutions”); id., 69 (C-HTTP creates a
`
`
`33 The Board has already found Kiuchi discloses these purported requirements.
`
`IPR2014-00404, Paper 42, 4, 15.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`“virtual network” that links multiple participants); Ex. 1036, 267:16-269:2
`
`(admitting Kiuchi’s computers talk to each other). Kiuchi also shows each proxy
`
`can maintain multiple connections because each stores an active “connection list”
`
`or “table.” Ex. 1002, 65, 67. The Board’s prior determination that Kiuchi
`
`discloses a “network” was thus correct. IPR2014-00404, Paper 42, 14.
`
`c)
`Patent Owner contends the claims should be read as requiring “direct”
`
`Direct
`
`communications between the “client” and “target” computers. But Patent Owner
`
`never reveals what a “direct” communication is (or is not). And when Dr.
`
`Monrose was asked what “direct” communication requires, he testified he did not
`
`know, (Ex. 1036, 261:20-262:9), and said whether a reference discloses a “direct”
`
`communication was a “judgment call,” (id., 263:3-20). Given that Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed “direct” requirement cannot be objectively defined and varies based on
`
`the “judgment” of it expert, the “direct” requirement should not be part of the
`
`claims.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Kiuchi’s client-side proxy “directly”
`
`communicates with the server-side proxy. See Resp. 31-32; Ex. 1036, 38:14-21
`
`(Dr. Monrose admitting he did not consider this issue); IPR2014-00404, Paper 42,
`
`15 (communications between proxies are “direct”). Instead, Patent Owner focuses
`
`solely on communications between the user agent’s and the origin server. Resp.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`
`31-32. Patent Owner’s arguments about “direct” communications are internally
`
`inconsistent and cannot support a conclusion that Kiuchi’s user-agent-to-origin-
`
`server communications are not direct.
`
`Instead of defining what “direct” communications require, Patent Owner and
`
`Dr. Monrose refer to examples of purportedly “direct” communications in the ’135
`
`patent. Resp., 7-12, Ex. 2043, ¶¶20-21. These examples show a diverse array of
`
`network communications, with communicated data being subjected to many kinds
`
`of operations and transiting many different paths (e.g., through ISPs, firewalls, and
`
`routers). Ex. 1001, 12:59-13:39, Fig. 24. In one example, purportedly “direct”
`
`communications transit two separate VPNs – a first communication moves from
`
`host #1 to an ISP via a first VPN, and a sec