Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: March 21, 2016
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC., and
`BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010471
`Patent 7,490,151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp IP, LLC, who filed petitions in IPR2016-00063 and
`IPR2016-00167, respectively, have been joined as a Petitioner in the instant
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“DNS Request” (Claims 1, 7, and 13) ................................................... 4
`
`“Determining” (Claims 1, 7, 13) ........................................................... 6
`
`“Secure Server” (Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14) ............................................ 7
`
`“Client” (Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14) ......................................................... 8
`
`“Between [A] and [B]” (Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14) ...............................10
`
`Other Terms .........................................................................................11
`
`III. Kiuchi Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 12-14 .............................12
`
`A. Kiuchi’s Disclosure .............................................................................12
`
`B. Kiuchi Does Not Anticipate Independent Claim 1 .............................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Kiuchi Does Not Disclose the Recited DNS Features ..............13
`
`Kiuchi Does Not Disclose a “Determining Whether the
`Intercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure
`Server”.......................................................................................17
`
`Kiuchi Does Not Disclose a “Automatically Initiating an
`Encrypted Channel Between the Client and the Secure
`Server”.......................................................................................17
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Theory Advanced by Petitioners Mangrove
`and Apple Is Deficient ....................................................18
`
`The Theory Advanced by Petitioner Black Swamp
`Is Deficient ......................................................................19
`
`4.
`
`Kiuchi Does Not Disclose a “Domain Name Server
`(DNS) Proxy Module” that Performs the Recited Claim
`Steps “for Each Intercepted DNS Request” ..............................23
`
`i
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`C. Kiuchi Does Not Anticipate Independent Claims 7 and 13 ................24
`
`D. Kiuchi Does Not Anticipate Dependent Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, and
`14 .........................................................................................................25
`
`IV. Kiuchi Combined with Rescorla and/or RFC 1034 Do Not Render
`Obvious Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 12-14 .............................................................27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Rescorla and/or RFC 1034 Do Not Remedy the Deficiencies of
`Kiuchi ..................................................................................................28
`
`Long-Felt Need, Failure of Others, Skepticism, Commercial
`Success, and Praise and Acceptance by Others Demonstrate
`Nonobviousness ...................................................................................29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Long-Felt Need .........................................................................29
`
`Failure of Others .......................................................................31
`
`Skepticism .................................................................................32
`
`Commercial Success .................................................................33
`
`Praise and Acceptance by Others ..............................................34
`
`Nexus Between the Objective Evidence of
`Nonobviousness and the Claimed Invention ............................35
`
`V. Dr. Guerin’s Testimony Should be Accorded Little, If Any Weight ............36
`
`A. Dr. Guerin Did Not Properly Analyze the Claims ..............................36
`
`
`
`
`..............................................................37
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Black Swamp Was Improperly Joined ...............................39
`
`VI. Petitioners Have Failed to Prove All References Are Prior Art ....................40
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Do Not Establish by a Preponderance of the
`Evidence that RFC 1034 or Rescorla Was Publicly Accessible .........41
`
`ii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`B.
`
`The Additional Evidence Presented by Petitioner Apple Is
`Insufficient to Establish by a Preponderance of the Evidence
`that RFC 1034 Was Publicly Accessible ............................................42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`RFC 1034 ..................................................................................43
`
`Rescorla .....................................................................................44
`
`VII. Review is Barred by 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2) and 315(b)-(c) ........................45
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Filed by Mangrove Fails to Name All of the Real
`Parties-in-Interest ................................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`The Complex Web of Mangrove Entities .................................46
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`The Mangrove Entities ...................................................47
`
`The Unnamed Investors ..................................................50
`
`Recent Representations to the United States
`Securities and Exchange Commission ............................51
`
`RPX Corporation.......................................................................52
`
`
`..................................................................54
`
`Failure to Identify All RPIs Prohibits Review ..........................56
`
`2.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`Review is Barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)-(c) .......................................57
`
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aceto Agricultural Chems. Corp. v. Gowan Co.,
`IPR2015-01016, Paper No. 15 (Oct. 2, 2015) .............................................. 56, 57
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper No. 9 (June 25, 2015) .................................................... 41
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00404, Paper No. 42 (July 29, 2015) .................................................. 15
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Concepts In Optics, Inc.,
`111 F. App’x 582 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 36, 37
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper No. 88 (Jan. 6, 2015) ..................................................... 56
`
`Becton, Dickenson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Brand v. Miller,
`487 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 33
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Butamax Adv. Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00581, Paper No. 8 (Oct. 14, 2014) .................................................... 39
`
`Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc.,
`390 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 36
`
`In re Cuozzo,
`793 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 2016 WL 205946 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) ............................................. 4
`
`iv
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 29, 35
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. ITC,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 (Mar. 5, 2015) ................................................... 50
`
`GEA Process Eng., Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00041, Paper No. 15 (Dec. 23, 2014) .................................................. 56
`
`Google Inc. v. Art+Com Innovationpool GMBH,
`IPR2015-00788, Paper No. 7 (September 2, 2015) ............................................ 41
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (June 11, 2013) .................................................... 3
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00690, Paper No. 43 (October 19, 2015) ...................................... 40, 44
`
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Lantech Inc. v. Keip Machine Co.,
`32 F.3d 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 19
`
`Loughrin v. United States,
`134 S. Ct. 2384 (2014) ........................................................................................ 59
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 17
`
`v
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`Oshkosh Truck Corp. v. United States,
`123 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee,
`797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,
`536 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 36, 37
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 19
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00171, Paper No. 52 (June 23, 2014) .................................................. 51
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 36, 37
`
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Square Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`CBM2014-00156, Paper No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2015) ............................................... 41
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,
`IPR2015-00371, Paper No. 13 (July 17, 2015) .................................................. 41
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ............................................................................................ 51
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 15
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 3
`
`vi
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Typeright Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 44
`
`In re VirnetX Inc.,
`No. 2016-119, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2016) ............................................... 58
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 4, 21
`
`Ex Parte Weideman,
`Appeal No. 2008-3454, Decision on Appeal (BPAI Jan. 27, 2009) .................. 19
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1746 ...................................................................................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ............................................................................................. 40, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(c) ................................................................................................... 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ........................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ................................................................................................... 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b) ................................................................................................ 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ....................................................................................................... 37
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(4) .............................................................................................. 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................................... 42, 44
`
`vii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) .............................................................................................. 60
`
`154 Cong. Rec. S9988 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008) .................................................... 58
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012)............................................................................ 50
`
`
`
`viii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Mangrove Partners Brochure, filed with the Securities and
`Exchange Commission, March 27, 2015
`2002 Mangrove Partners Schedule A, filed with the Securities
`and Exchange Commission,
`Cayman Islands Search Report of Mangrove Partners
`Form 13-F for Mangrove Partners, filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission, February 17, 2015
`Excerpt of Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms,
`Fifth Edition
`Form 13-F for Mangrove Partners, filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission, May 15, 2015
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer Asta Funding, Inc., June 10, 2013
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer JGWPT Holdings, Inc.,
`November 8, 2013
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer JGWPT Holdings, Inc., December
`31, 2013
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer Asta Funding, Inc., December 31,
`2013
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer The First Marblehead
`Corporation, December 31, 2013
`Schedule 13G filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, for issuer Asta Funding, Inc., December 31,
`2014
`Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, reporting Mangrove Partners Press Release,
`February 9, 2015
`Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission, reporting Mangrove Partners Press Release,
`February 12, 2015
`2015 Hedge Fund Regulation (2nd Edition), Scott J Lederman,
`
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`Description
`
`ix
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`Chapter 2, Form Over Substance: Hedge Fund Structures
`EDGAR Search Results, Mangrove Partners Fund
`(Cayman), Ltd.
`EDGAR Search Results, Mangrove Partners Master Fund,
`Ltd.
`Cayman Islands Search Report of The Mangrove Partners
`Fund (Cayman), Ltd.
`Cayman Islands Search Report of The Mangrove Partners
`Master Fund, Ltd.
`Form D for Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P., filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission
`Complaint For Civil Extortion, Malicious Prosecution,
`and Unfair Business Practices Arising From U.S. Patent
`Laws, Allergan, Inc. v. Ferrum Ferro, Capital, LLC, case
`no. 8:15-cv-00992 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2015)
`“New Hedge Fund Strategy: Dispute the Patent, Short the
`Stock,” The Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2015
`Cayman Islands Search Report of Hayman Credes Master
`Fund L.P.
`2024 Website of Maples and Calder, available at
`http://www.maplesandcalder.com/offices-
`contacts/cayman-islands/
`2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel
`Networks Corp. et al., Case No. 6:11-CV-00018 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 1, 2012)
`2026 Declaration of Dr. Fabian Monrose in IPR2014-00237
`2027
`RFC 2535
`Excerpts from McGraw-Hill Computer Desktop
`2028
`Encyclopedia (9th ed. 2001)
`2029 Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex.
`Apr. 25, 2012)
`2030 Memorandum Opinion in VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corp., Case No. 6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2009)
`2031 Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief in
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:10-
`CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2011)
`
`Description
`
`x
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2032
`2033
`2034
`2035
`2036
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2051
`
`Transcript of Teleconference of November 10, 2015
`Transcript of Teleconference of November 18, 2015
`Patent Owner’s Requests for Production
`Patent Owner’s Interrogatories
`Schedule D filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission
`Transcript of Teleconference of November 24, 2015
`2037
`2038 Declaration of Dr. Fabian Monrose
`2039
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Roch Guerin
`2040
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Roberto Tamassia in
`IPR2015-00810, IPR2015-00812
`Transcript of Trial, Morning Session, VirnetX, Inc. v.
`Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5,
`2012)
`CONFIDENTIAL Mangrove Production Bates Numbered
`000001-000011
`Form 13-F for Mangrove Partners, filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission, August 14, 2015
`Form 13-F for Mangrove Partners, filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission, November 16,
`2015
`Form 13-F for Mangrove Partners, filed with the
`Securities and Exchange Commission, February 16, 2016
`RPX Client Relations, http://www.rpxcorp.com/rpx-
`client-relations (last visited Jan. 23, 2014)
`RPX Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Mar. 11, 2013)
`RPX Why Join, http://www.rpxcorp.com/why-join-rpx
`(last visited Jan. 24, 2014)
`Transcript filed in IPR2014-00946, IPR2014-00947,
`IPR2014-00948
`2050 Declaration of Dr. Robert Dunham Short III, submitted in
`inter partes reexamination control nos. 95/001,714;
`95/001,697, dated July 19, 2012, with supporting exhibits
`B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5
`VirnetX and NEC Corporation and NEC Corporation of
`America Sign a Patent License Agreement, Press Release
`dated August 3, 2012
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`xi
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2052
`
`Description
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Verdict, VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:12-
`CV-855 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2016)
`Jury Verdict, VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No.
`6:07-CV-80 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2010)
`Schedule 13D, filed with the Securities and Exchange
`Commission on March 17, 2016, available at:
`http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000101
`359416000896/rpx13d-031716.htm
`Letter to RPX Corporation, filed with the Securities and
`Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, available at:
`http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000101
`359416000896/rpxex991-031716.pdf
`2056 Office Action dated February 15, 2012 in inter partes
`reexamination control no. 95/001,679
`Right of Appeal Notice dated September 15, 2015 in inter
`partes reexamination control no. 95/001,679
`CONFIDENTIAL Mangrove Production Bates Numbered
`000012-000063
`CONFIDENTIAL Petitioner Mangrove Partner’s Master
`Fund Ltd.’s Objections and Responses to VirnetX
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. respectfully submits this Response to the Board’s
`
`decisions to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) in IPR2015-01047 (Paper No. 11,
`
`the “Decision”), in IPR2016-00063 (Paper No. 29, the “00063 Decision”), and in
`
`IPR2016-00167 (Paper No. 12 in IPR2016-00167, the “00167 Decision”); and the
`
`petitions for IPR filed by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. in IPR2015-
`
`01047 (the “Petition”), by Apple Inc. in IPR2016-00063 (the “Apple Petition”),
`
`and by Black Swamp IP, LLC in IPR2016-00167 (the “Black Swamp Petition”).
`
`The Board should enter judgment against Petitioners for several reasons.
`
`For one, each of the claims-at-issue of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 (“the ’151
`
`patent”) should be confirmed because Petitioners have not carried their “burden of
`
`proving . . . unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(e). The asserted references fail to disclose each of the claimed features.
`
`Petitioners makes vague assertions of unpatentability that, when unobscured,
`
`reveal inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and contradictions with past holdings from the
`
`Board and the Federal Circuit. Petitioners’ positions are also based on expert
`
`testimony that should be given little to no weight (or, in the case of Black Swamp,
`
`not based on any expert testimony at all) because it fails to describe how any of the
`
`claim features are allegedly taught or suggested in the asserted references. In
`
`addition, Petitioners have not established at least two of the references, RFC 1034
`
` 1
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`and Rescorla, are prior art printed publication. As such, Petitioners have not
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that any claim is anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious by Kiuchi, RFC 1034, and/or Rescorla.2
`
`In addition, review of the Petitions is barred by statute. Petitioner Mangrove
`
`Partners Master Fund, Ltd. failed to name all of the real-parties-in-interest
`
`associated with its Petition, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Moreover,
`
`review is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)-(c).
`
` Claim Construction II.
`
`
`Petitioners identified seven terms for construction. The Decision found that
`
`“no claim terms require express construction.” (Decision at 6.) Patent Owner
`
`respectfully disagrees and addresses construction of the terms below.
`
`In IPR, claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, terms are
`
`“generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill3 at the time of the invention. See
`
`2 The Board first instituted based on RFC 2660. (Paper No. 11.) After VirnetX
`
`filed preliminary responses to Apple and Black Swamp’s Petitions, the instituted
`
`grounds were changed, with RFC 2660 replaced by Rescorla. (Paper No. 24.)
`
`3 A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a master’s degree in
`
`computer science or computer engineering and approximately two years of
`
`2
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`VirnetX acknowledges
`
`that
`
`this Board applies
`
`the broadest
`
`reasonable
`
`interpretation (BRI) standard, and VirnetX’s constructions represent the BRI of the
`
`claims in light of the specification and prosecution history. Nevertheless, VirnetX
`
`submits that the Board should apply the claim construction standard applied by the
`
`courts, especially given the litigations and prosecution histories of the ’151 patent
`
`and patents in the same family as the ’151 patent. The BRI standard “is solely an
`
`examination expedient, not a rule of claim construction.” In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
`
`1262, 1267-68 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It is justified in examination because applicant
`
`has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution. In re Yamamoto, 740
`
`F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But IPR is “more adjudicatory than
`
`examinational, in nature.” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027,
`
`Paper No. 26 at 6 (June 11, 2013).
`
`The ability to amend claims during IPR is so severely restricted that the
`
`rationale underpinning the BRI—the ability to freely amend claims—does not
`
`apply especially given the litigations and prosecution histories of the ’151 patent
`
`and patents in the same family as the ’151 patent. As a result, to the extent the
`
`Board would have adopted a narrower construction under the courts’ claim
`
`experience in computer networking and computer security. (Ex. 2038 at ¶ 13.)
`
`3
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`construction standard than it has adopted here, it should adopt the narrower
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`construction because the BRI standard should not apply to this proceeding.
`
`The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to consider the application of
`
`the BRI standard in Board proceedings. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15-
`
`446, 2016 WL 205946, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016). VirnetX respectfully submits
`
`that, given “the adjudicative nature and the limited amendment process of IPRs,”
`
`claims in IPR proceedings should be given their “actual meaning.” In re Cuozzo,
`
`793 F.3d 1297, 1299, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Prost, C.J., dissenting from denial
`
`of en banc rehearing). Should the Supreme Court hold that the Board must apply
`
`the standard applied by the courts (i.e., the Phillips standard), the challenged
`
`claims of the ’151 patent must be confirmed, since the Federal Circuit has
`
`confirmed the validity of the subject claims over Kiuchi based on such claim
`
`constructions. VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1313-14, 1324
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Ex. 2029 at 14-16, 23-24, 26.
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`“DNS Request” (Claims 1, 7, and 13)4
`A.
`VirnetX’s and Black
`Mangrove’s and Apple’s
`Swamp’s Proposed
`Proposed Construction
`Construction
`A request for a resource
`corresponding to a
`
`4 Patent Owner identifies only challenged claims that expressly recite the terms at
`
`A request for a resource
`corresponding to a
`
`No construction proposed
`
`issue. Claims that depend from these claims may also implicitly contain the terms.
`
`4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`domain name
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`network address
`
`The BRI of “DNS request” is “a request for a resource corresponding to a
`
`domain name.” Mangrove and Apple’s construction is not the BRI of the term, is
`
`inconsistent with the specification, and should be rejected.
`
` The patent
`
`specification discloses that a “DNS request” may request an IP address or other
`
`non-IP address resources, such as public keys for encryption. (See Ex. 1001 37:21-
`
`32, citing Ex. 2027, RFC 2535; Ex. 2038 at ¶¶ 15-17.) The RFC cited by the
`
`specification explains that a computer or resolver may make “[a]n explicit request
`
`for KEY RR’s [public key resource records].” (Ex. 2027 at 17.) The ’151 patent
`
`specification further explains that a DNS request involves the sending of a domain
`
`name. (See Ex. 1001 at 37:33-38, 37:43-47, 37:60-64; see also id. at 37:4-6,
`
`37:14-19; Ex. 2038 at ¶ 17.) As discussed below (infra Section II.F), the parties
`
`agree that a domain name is “a name corresponding to a network address” and,
`
`depending on the embodiment, the name may encompass, inter alia, an email
`
`address or telephone number.
`
`Petitioners Mangrove and Apple allege that they simply substitute the
`
`agreed-upon construction of “domain name” into “DNS request.” (Pet. at 10.)
`
`However, their construction reads in only a portion of the construction of “domain
`
`name.” (Id.) Petitioners’ abridged construction is ambiguous and either (1) fails to
`
`take into consideration that a “DNS request” plainly must involve a “DN”, i.e.,
`
`5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`domain name, or (2) contradicts its own construction of a “domain name” and
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`restricts the “domain name” to being a “network address.” Neither interpretation
`
`of their construction is supported by the specification.
`
`“Determining” (Claims 1, 7, 13)
`
`B.
`VirnetX and Black
`Swamp’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Decision’s Construction
`
`No construction proposed
`
`Mangrove’s and Apple’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`To come to a decision
`concerning as the result
`of investigation or
`reasoning, or to cause or
`elicit a determination of
`
`
`
`Mangrove and Apple argue that “‘determining’ should be given its ‘plain
`
`and ordinary meaning’ of ‘‘to come to a decision concerning as the result of
`
`investigation or reasoning’ or ‘to cause or elicit a determination of.’’” (Pet. at 10.)
`
`Mangrove and Apple base their construction on a preliminary construction
`
`proposed by the Board in IPR2014-00610. (See Pet. at 10; Ex. 1011 at 11-12.)
`
`Patent Owner does not believe a construction is necessary. To the extent the Board
`
`disagrees, the first part of the construction (“to come to a decision concerning as
`
`the result of investigation or reasoning”) is confusing and creates ambiguity, and
`
`the second part (“to cause or elicit determination of”) does not reflect the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “determining.”
`
`Mangrove and Apple cite to definition 1.c (“to come to a decision
`
`concerning as the result of investigation or reasoning”) and definition 6 (“to cause
`
`6
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`
`
`or elicit determin