Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 74
`Entered: October 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., and
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-010461
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”), in its Request for Rehearing (“Req.
`Reh’g.” or “Request”), seeks reversal of the Board’s Decision (“Decision”)
`pertaining to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Petitioner’s alleged
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a
`Petitioner in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 74
`Entered: October 20, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., and
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-010461
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”), in its Request for Rehearing (“Req.
`Reh’g.” or “Request”), seeks reversal of the Board’s Decision (“Decision”)
`pertaining to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Petitioner’s alleged
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a
`Petitioner in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`failure to name all real parties in interest and disputes all references to
`Exhibit 1003 in the Decision. See Req. Reh’g. 1. For the reasons that
`follow, the Board denies the requested relief.
`The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part:
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for
`rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify all matters the party believes the Board
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a
`reply.
`
`Patent Owner argues that The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
`failed to name all real parties in interest and that “[t]he Decision
`misapprehended or overlooked that a number of new arguments were
`presented in Patent Owner’s Response.” Paper 73, 7. In particular, Patent
`Owner argues that “the Decision misapprehended or overlooked [that]:
`In a form filed with the SEC on March 17, 2016, Petitioner
`Mangrove admitted that the US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder
`are “controlling shareholders” of the Mangrove Petitioner and,
`because of this relationship, shares of RPX Corporation owned
`by the Mangrove Petitioner “may be deemed to be beneficially
`owned by the US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder.” Ex. 2057 at
`14; Response at 52.
`
`Paper 73, 7-8.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Even assuming
`that Petitioner, in fact, “admitted that the US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder
`are ‘controlling shareholders’ of the Mangrove Petitioner,” as Patent Owner
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`asserts, Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively that Petitioner also
`“admitted” that the “US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder” exerted control
`over the filing or preparation of the Petition. Nor does Patent Owner
`provide sufficient evidence demonstrating such control.
`Patent Owner also argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked”
`the following argument that was allegedly previously presented:
`The SEC filing explained that by virtue of the relationship between
`Nathaniel August, the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund, Mangrove
`Capital, and the Mangrove Petitioner, “each of [the] Mangrove
`Partners [Hedge Fund], Mangrove Capital, and Mr. August may be
`deemed to beneficially own the Shares owned by the [Mangrove
`Petitioner].” Ex. 2057 at 14; Response at 52.
`
`Paper 73, 8
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Even assuming
`that an SEC filing, in fact, states that “each of [the] Mangrove Partners
`[Hedge Fund], Mangrove Capital, and Mr. August may be deemed to
`beneficially own the Shares owned by the [Mangrove Petitioner],” as Patent
`Owner asserts, Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively that the
`alleged SEC filing also states that “each of [the] Mangrove Partners [Hedge
`Fund], Mangrove Capital, and Mr. August” exerted control over the filing or
`preparation of the Petition. Nor does Patent Owner provide sufficient
`evidence demonstrating such control.
`Patent Owner also argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked”
`that Ward Dietrich (Chief Operating Officer of the Mangrove Partners
`Hedge Fund) allegedly reimbursed the filing fees for filing the Petition in
`accordance with a prior “agreement to reimburse such fees.” Paper 73, 8
`(citing Ex. 2061, Paper 50, 23), Paper 50, 23. Patent Owner does not
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`demonstrate sufficiently that a party honoring a prior agreement to
`reimburse fees to Petitioner constitutes sufficient control of the preparation
`or filing of the Petition. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument.
`Patent Owner also argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked”
`the following argument that was allegedly previously presented:
`Nathaniel August, Ward Dietrich, and Jeff Kalicka (who, as discussed
`above, work for the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund), also commented
`extensively on the petitions and expert declarations in IPR2015-01046
`and IPR2015-01047, even asking for changes to be made after
`Petitioner Mangrove’s attorneys thought the papers “were ready to
`file.” Ex. 2061 at 12–18, 20–23, 28, 29; see also Ex. 2062 at 3 (“It is
`likely that Mr. Dietrich had one or more oral conversations that were
`not immediately reduced to writing with Nathanial August and/or Jeff
`Kalicka pertaining to Mr. Dietrich’s involvement in the preparation
`and filing of the Petitions.”); Response at 55.
`
`Paper 73, 9.
`
`Upon review of the cited portions of Exhibit 2061, we note that the
`only suggestions provided are a “few small nits” and questioning the use of
`the term “see” with no subsequent use of the term “see also.” Exhibit 2061,
`22, 28. While it is stated that suggestions are embedded in the draft, no
`other specific suggested modifications are noted, much less any indication
`that any alleged suggested modifications were actually adopted. In any
`event, we conclude that these suggestions (e.g., a “few small nits” and the
`use of the term “see”) are minor and do not rise to the level of exerting
`control over the filing or preparation of the Petition. Therefore, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked”
`the following argument that was allegedly previously presented:
`Petitioner Mangrove and the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund in fact
`had a pre-established plan as to the hiring of “intellectual property
`advisors and attorneys,” and fees that the Mangrove Partners Hedge
`Fund would receive based on the success of Petitioner Mangrove.
`Ex. 2049 at 9, 10; Response at 56.
`
`Paper 73, 9.
`
`We note that the cited portion of Exhibit 2049 states that “[t]he Master
`Fund” pays a “monthly management fee” to “the Investment Manager” and
`that “[t]he Funds . . . will reimburse the Investment Manager for . . .
`operating expenses of the Master Fund” that includes “legal and other
`costs.” Ex. 2049, 9, 10. In other words, Petitioner agrees to pay a
`management fee and reimburse legal costs to the Investment Manager. We
`do not identify, and Patent Owner does not indicate, where this agreement
`also mandates that the Investment Manager (or any specific entity other than
`Petitioner) controls the filing or preparation of the Petition. Therefore, we
`are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`Patent Owner also argues that we “misapprehended or overlooked”
`the following argument that was allegedly previously presented:
`An agreement between Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and Petitioner
`Mangrove shows that the former, as investment manager in its “sole
`and absolute discretion,” has the authority to “effect all necessary
`registrations, notices or other filings with governmental or similar
`agencies” (Ex. 2049 at 2–3), which would include the Patent Office.
`See also Ex. 2061 at 7 (providing Ward Dietrich with authorization to
`execute the power of attorney in this proceeding); Response at 56.
`
`Paper 73, 9-10.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`
`While Patent Owner asserts that a general agreement exists between
`Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and Petitioner that Mangrove Partners
`Hedge Fund has “sole and absolute discretion” to “effect all necessary
`registrations,” Patent Owner provides insufficient evidence to demonstrate
`that an agreement exists between Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and
`Petitioner that Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund controls the filing or
`preparation of the Petition or that Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund, in fact,
`exerted control over the filing or preparation of the Petition. Therefore, we
`are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`Patent Owner also argues that “the Decision failed to address evidence
`and arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response that Exhibit 1003
`should not be given any weight because it is an altered document that was
`not reviewed and signed by Dr. Guerin. Response at 39-41.” Paper 73, 11.
`The sole reference to Exhibit 1003 in the Decision is confirmation that “RFC
`documents are published on a specific date” and that the “publication date of
`each RFC is contained in the RFC, . . . in the top right corner of the first
`page of the document [which is] the date it was released for public
`distribution on the Internet.” Decision 22-23 (citing Ex. 1003, 44). The fact
`that RFC documents are published on a specific date and that the top right
`corner of such documents specify a date is clear on simple inspection of the
`RFC document itself. Therefore, we determine that the importance of any
`alleged modifications to Dr. Guerin’s testimony confirming what is already
`apparent on its face is of insubstantial importance. Also, Patent Owner does
`not demonstrate sufficiently that any modifications were, in fact, made to
`Dr. Guerin’s testimony that RFC documents are published on a specific date
`and that the top right corner of such documents specify a date.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner “suggests that an expanded panel that includes the Chief
`Judge consider this request for rehearing.” Paper 73, 14. Discretion to
`expand a panel rests with the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of the Director,
`may act to expand a panel on a suggestion from a judge or panel. AOL Inc.
`v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB
`Mar. 24, 2015)(Paper 12)(informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion was
`considered by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to
`expand the panel.
`
`
`ORDERS
`After due consideration of the record before us, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Abraham Kasdan
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`akasdan@wiggin.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott M. Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`IPRNotices@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`James T. Bailey
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`Daniel Zeilberger
`Chetan Bansal
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`danielzeilberger@paulhastings.com
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
