throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box I450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 I 3- I450
`www.usplu.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/00l,68Zfi'q_S' Ool SW7/l I/201]
`
`6,502,l35
`
`077580-0l32
`
`I074
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`LLP
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`wAsnmcroN,oc2ooo1—4m
`
`PEIKARI. BEHZAD
`
`3992
`
`O3/I3/20l3
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`Page 1 0f10
`
`‘ VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2065
`
`Mangrove V. Vi1‘netX
`Trial IPR2015-1046
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2065
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-1046
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box I450
`_
`Alexandria. Virginia ZZJI3-I450
`www.usplo.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,679???/CM 2.07/08/_20II
`
`6502135
`
`43614.92
`
`9786
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`LLP
`_
`90] NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`wAsnmcro~,oc2ooo:-44n
`
`PEIKARI, BEHZAD
`
`3992
`
`03/I3/2013
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-I450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`Date:
`‘
`
`’
`
`MAILED
`
`MAR I 2 £,,m
`
`mm REEXAMINATION umr
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`717 NORTH HARWOOD
`SUITE 3400
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 9500l682V ?$/ea [Q79
`PATENT NO. : 6502135
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`'
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file.
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`'
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box I450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.usp!0.gov
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`Date:
`
`11> SECTION
`2323 VICTORY AVENUE, SUITE 700
`DALLAS, TX 75219
`
`'
`
`_
`
`MAR 12 2013
`
`CENTRM
`
`REEXAMINATION UNU
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95oo16794'9Sl°‘°" ‘>83’
`PATENT NO. : 6502135
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above—identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`-
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file.
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRET & DUNNER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`V
`
`Sidley Austin LLP
`717 North Harwood
`
`Suite 3400
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`David McCombs
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`‘ Suite 700
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding
`Control No.: 95/001,679
`
`Filed: July 8, 2011
`For: U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding
`Control No.: 95/001,682
`
`Filed: July 11, 2011
`For: US.‘ Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`1>.o. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`WWW.I.1S2tO.gOV
`
`(For Patent Owner)
`
`MA
`
`‘LED
`
`MAR 12 2013
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION Um?
`
`(For ‘ 1682 Requester)
`
`(For ‘ 1679 Requester)
`
`:
`: DECISION
`:
`' DISMISSING
`
`: PETITION TO
`: ALIGN SCHEDULES
`
`'
`
`This is a decision on the ‘1682 third party requester’s “Petition Under 37 CFR § 1.182 To Align
`Schedules of Related Proceedings” (“petition under 1.l82”), filed on December 5, 2012, and on
`“Patent Owner’s Petition In Opposition To Third-Party Requester Apple Inc.’s Petition To Align
`Schedules” (“the opposition”), filed on December 13, 2012.
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`
`' Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,682 and 95/001,679
`
`-2-
`
`The petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the opposition are before the Office of Patent Legal
`Administration.
`
`The petition under 37 CFR 1.182 is dismissed for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`Note that all citations to 35 U.S.C. Chapter 31 are to the statute in effect as of the filing date of
`the inter partes reexamination proceedings.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1. On August 11, 2010, VirnetX Inc. (“patent owner”) asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135
`(the ‘135 patent”), 7,490,151 (“the ‘151 patent”), 6,839,759 (“the 759 patent”), 7,188,180
`(“the ‘180 patent”) and 7,418,504 (“the ‘504 patent”) in the Eastern District of Texas
`(Vz'rnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., et al., No. 6:10—cv-00417). Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is
`included as one of the named defendants. Patent owner additionally asserted U.S. Patent
`No. 7,921,211 (“the ‘211 patent”) in an Amended Complaint filed on April 5, 2011.
`
`The ‘1788 reexamination proceeding:
`
`2. On October 18, 2011, a request for inter partes reexamination of claims 1-60 of the ‘504
`patent was filed by a third party requester, which request was assigned Reexamination
`Control No. 95/001,788 (“the ‘1788 proceeding”). The request identified Apple as the
`real party in interest. On December 29, 2011, the Office issued an order granting the
`request for inter partes reexamination in the ‘ 1788 proceeding.
`
`3. On December 29, 2011, the Office issued an Office Action rejecting claims 1-_60 of the
`‘504 patent. On March 29, 2012, patent owner responded to the Office Action. On June
`25, 2012, Apple filed comments after the patent owner’s response. On September 26,
`2012, the Office issued an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP).
`
`The ‘ 1789 reexamination proceeding:
`
`4. On October 18, 2011, a request for inter partes reexamination of claims 1-60 of the ‘211
`patent was filed by a third party requester, which request was assigned Reexamination
`Control No. 95/001,789 (“the ‘I789 proceeding”). The request identified Apple as the
`real party in interest. On January 18, 2012,
`the Office issued an order granting the
`request for inter partes reexamination in the ‘1789 proceeding.
`*
`
`‘“
`
`5. On January 18, 2012, the Office issued an Office Action rejecting claims 1-60 of the ‘211
`patent. On April 18, 2012, patent owner responded to the Office Action. On August 6,
`2012, Apple filed comments after the patent owner’s response. On September 26, 2012,
`the Office issued an ACP.
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,682 and 95/001,679
`
`-3-
`
`The ‘1682 reexamination proceeding:
`
`6. On December 31, 2002, the ‘135 patent issued to Munger et al. with 17 claims.
`
`7. On June 7, 2011, the Office issued Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate (027l“) U.S.
`6,502,135 Cl confirming the patentability of claims 1-10 and 12 and adding new claim
`18. Claims 11 and 13-17 were not reexamined.
`
`'
`
`8. On July 8, 2011, a request for inter partes reexamination of claims 1-18 the ‘135 patent
`was filed by a third party requester (“the ‘l679 requester”), which request was assigned
`control no. 95/001,679 (“the ‘I679 proceeding”). The request identified Cisco Systems,
`Inc. (“Cisco”) as the real party in interest. On October 3, 201 1, the Office issued an order
`granting the request for inter partes reexamination in the ‘I679 proceeding.
`
`'
`
`9. On July 11, 2011, a second request for inter partes reexamination of claims 1-15 and 17-
`18 of the ‘I35 patent was filed by a third party requester (“the ‘1682 requester”), which
`request was assigned Reexamination Control No. 95/001,682 (“the ‘1682 proceeding”).
`The request identified Apple as the real party in interest. On October 3, 2011, the Office
`issued an order granting the request
`for
`inter partes reexamination in the ‘1682
`proceeding.
`'
`
`'10. On December 5, 2012, Apple filed the instant petition paper entitled “Petition Under 37
`CFR § 1.182 To Align Schedules Of Related Proceedings” (“the petition under 37 CFR
`1.182”) in the ‘1682 proceeding.
`
`11. On December 13, 2012, the Office issued a decision, sua sponte, merging the ‘1682 and
`‘ l679'proceedings (“the merged proceeding”).
`
`12. Also, on December 13, 2012, patent owner filed “Patent Owner’s Petition In Opposition
`To Third-Party Requester Apple Inc.’s Petition To Align Schedules” (“the opposition”) in
`the ‘1682 proceeding.
`
`Related proceedings:
`
`13. ‘Also, on December 5, 2012, Apple filed petition papers entitled “Petition Under 37 CFR
`§ 1.182 To Align Schedules Of Related Proceedings” in Reexamination Control Nos.
`95/001,697 and 95/001,949.
`
`DECISION
`
`Relevant Statutes, Regulations and Practice
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 provides, in part:
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.—— Except as otherwise provided in this section, reexamination
`shall be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination
`under the provisions of sections 132 and 133.
`In any inter partes reexamination
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,682 and 95/001,679
`
`-4-
`
`proceeding under this chapter, the patent owner shall be permitted to propose any
`amendment to the patent and a new claim or claims, except that no proposed
`amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent shall be
`A permitted.
`
`. ****
`
`(c) SPECIAL DISPATCH.—— Unless otherwise provided by the Director for good
`cause, all inter partes reexamination proceedings under this section, including any
`appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, shall be conducted with
`special dispatch within the Office.
`
`Apple’s Petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and Patent Owner’.s Opposition
`
`In the petition under 37 CFR l.l82, Apple (“petitioner”) requests that “the Office take actions to
`accelerate, and to thereby better align, the schedules of Reexamination Control No. 95/001,682
`with the schedules of 95/001,788 and 95/001,789.”' Specifically, petitioner rec21uests the Office
`“act promptly in issuing an Action Closing Prosecution in the ‘682 proceeding, and to limit the
`period granted in that proceeding for Patent Owner and/or Requestor to respond to the ACP to no
`more than one month, and to take such other steps that will expedite issuance of a final decision
`in each of the three pending reexamination proceedings.”3
`’
`
`In support of its request, petitioner states that “doing so will help align the schedules of the ‘682
`proceeding with those of the ‘788 and ‘789 proceedings, in which ACPs have issued with a
`previously extended deadline for response of December 26, 2012 for each proceeding.”4
`Specifically, petitioner asserts that because the three proceedings are “closely related” and
`“present similar and related issues of patentability over the prior art”, “[t]aking steps to better
`align the schedules of the three proceedings will serve the public interest by providing for an
`efficient and expeditious review of final decisions of the Office concerning the three related
`patents.”5 Further, it is the position of the petitioner that expediting the conclusion of the ‘1682
`proceeding will also “enable appeals of the three patents to be considered concurrently with any
`appeal arising from concurrent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas or International
`Trade Commission.”6 Petitioner asserts that “[a]ccelerating the ‘682 proceeding is also the only
`path consistent with the Office’s mandate to conduct inter partes reexamination proceedings
`with special dispatch.”7 Finally, petitioner asserts that “[a]ccelerating the ‘682 proceeding also
`will not prejudice the interests of the Patent Owner.”8
`
`In opposition to requester’s petition under 37 CFR 1.182, patent owner asserts that “these
`reexaminations are already being appropriately conducted by the Office with. the ‘special
`
`' Petition under 37 CFR 1.182 at page 1.
`2 Petitioner uses the last three digits of the control number of each proceeding to identify the proceeding.
`3 Petition under 37 CFR 1.182 at page 4.
`i
`“ Id
`5 Id.
`6 Id. at page 5.
`7 Id. at page 6.
`8 Id.
`
`‘
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,682 and 95/001,679
`
`-5-
`
`further asserts that “contrary to Apple’s
`Patent owner
`sought by Apple.”9
`dispatch’
`representations, accelerating the ‘1,682, ‘l,697, and ‘1,949 proceedings would substantially
`prejudice Patent Owner” and “would not provide the Patent Owner adequate time and
`opportunity to respond.”1°'
`
`Discussion
`
`Petitioner’s request that the Office “act promptly in issuing an Action Closing Prosecution, and
`to limit the period granted in that proceeding for Patent Owner and/or Requester to respond to
`the ACP to no more than one month, and to take such other steps that will expedite issuance of a
`final decision in each of the three pending reexamination proceedings”” is not practicable as a
`matter of Office administration.
`The timing of Office actions issued in reexamination
`proceedings is a matter of Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) docket management and internal
`administration by the Office. Each reexamination proceeding is conducted on its own merits and
`decisions therein are decided on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the subject matter of the
`three proceedings is related and may present similar and related issues of patentability does not
`justify requiring the examiners to expedite issuance of actions in all three proceedings” at the
`expense of delaying other proceedings on the examiners’ dockets. To do so would put an undue
`burden on each examiner with respect to docket management and the coordination thereof with
`other examiners.” Moreover, even if the examiners were to attempt such coordination, many
`circumstances in reexamination proceedings which are beyond the examiners’ control could
`disrupt such coordination (e.g., a petition or an improper paper that is filed in one, but not all, of
`the aligned proceedings).
`
`Additionally, delaying one or more proceedings in order to align with and expedite another
`proceeding does not "promote the mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 314 that a_ll inter partes reexamination
`proceedings be conducted with special dispatch in the Office. Thus, the Office carmot commit to
`issuing Office actions simultaneously across various proceedings that are docketed to different
`examiners and that are at different stages of prosecution. Examiners will mail Office actions in
`proceedings as they are completed, irrespective of when Office actions are ready to be mailed in
`other proceedings.
`
`for Patent Owner and/or
`Further, petitioner has requested the Office “limit the period granted
`Requester to respond to the ACP to no more than one month.”l4 Note that MPEP § 2662(C)
`
`A
`
`.
`2
`9 Opposition at page 4.
`1° Id. at pages 5-6 (noting that patent owner “must also respond to filings from Apple and Cisco in a large number of
`other reexaminations”)
`" Petition under 37 CFR 1.182 at page 4.
`'2 In fact, petitioner is requesting the alignment of ongoing inter partes reexamination proceedings of five different
`patents. See “Petition Under 37 CFR § 1.182 To Align Schedules of Related Proceedings,” filed December 5, 2012,
`in both Reexamination Control No. 95/001,697 and Reexamination Control No. 95/001,949.
`'3 The Office notes that the examiner ofthe ‘1682 proceeding is different fiom the examiner of the ‘1788 and ‘1789
`proceedings. The ‘ 1788 and ‘1789 proceedings demonstrate that, under certain circumstances (e.g., requests filed at
`the same time and assigned to the same examiner), some proceedings may progress in substantial alignment.
`'4 Petition under 37 CFR 1.182 at page 4.
`j
`'
`'
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`
`Reexamination Control Nos; 95/001,682 and 95/001,679
`
`-6-
`
`provides that the ACP normally sets a time period of 30 days or one month from the mailing date
`of the ACP, and further makes clear that the time period set is a matter of Office discretion. 15
`
`In granting equitable relief pursuant to 37 CFR 1.182, the Office must balance the equities of
`granting such relief with respect to all parties to the reexamination proceedings, as well as any
`impact on the Office.
`In this instance, the relief requested could prejudice the patent owner and
`place unwarranted administrative burden on the Office. Accordingly,
`for at
`least
`the
`aforementioned reasons, the petition under 1.182 is dismissed.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Requester’s December 5, 2012 petition under 37 CFR 1.182 is dismissed.
`
`Any questions concerning this communication should be directed to Erin M. Harriman,
`Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7747 or to the undersigned at 571-272-7726.
`
`"F. L_. L.
`
`Pinchus M. Laufer
`
`°/.-£..,
`
`Senior Legal Advisor
`Office of Patent Legal Administration
`
`March 1 1, 2013
`
`'5 MPEP §2662(C) states, “The patent owner may once ‘file written comments and/or present a proposed amendment
`to the claims within the time period set in the ACP. 37 CFR l.95l(a). Normally, the ACP will set a period of 30
`days or one month (whichever is longer) from the mailing date of the ACP.”
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`Page 10 of 10

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