throbber
Paper No.
`Filed: October 11, 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, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010471
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing and Suggestion for Expanded Panel
`
`1 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp, LLC, who filed petitions in IPR2016-00063 and
`IPR2016-00167, respectively, have been joined as Petitioners in the instant
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Challenges to the ’151 Patent ....................................................... 3
`
`Current Challenge to the ’151 Patent .................................................... 4
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Have Found at Least the Mangrove Partners
`Hedge Fund, a Company That Provided Funding for the IPR
`Petition, and Whose Executives Dictated the Contents of the
`Petition and Corresponding Expert Declaration, to be an RPI ............. 7
`
`The Board Should Not Have Given Any Weight to Dr. Guerin’s
`Declaration Given That It Was Altered, After Being Signed, by
`an Executive of a Company Involved in Preparing the IPR
`Petition .................................................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER SUGGESTS REHEARING BY AN EXPANDED
`PANEL THAT INCLUDES THE CHIEF JUDGE .......................................14
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aceto Agricultural Chems. Corp. v. Gowan Co.,
`IPR2015-01016, Paper No. 15 at 11 (Oct. 2, 2015) ..................................... 11, 15
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper No. 88 at 13 (Jan. 6, 2015) ...................................... 11, 15
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 at 6-7, 12 (Mar. 5, 2015) ............................. 10, 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012)............. 10, 14
`
`Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14 (May 8, 2015) ................................... 2, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. requests rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s Final Written Decision entered September 9, 2016 (Paper No. 80,
`
`“Decision”). This request presents two issues:
`
`(1) Whether a company that provides funding for an IPR petition, and
`
`whose executives dictate
`
`the contents of
`
`that petition and
`
`corresponding expert declaration, is a real party-in-interest (“RPI”)?
`
`(2) Whether an expert declaration accompanying an IPR petition should
`
`be given any weight by the Board if, after being signed by the
`
`declarant, the declaration was altered by an executive of a company
`
`involved in preparing the petition?
`
`The Decision misapprehended or overlooked arguments and evidence in the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response as to each of these issues.2
`
`With respect to the first issue, the Decision misapprehended or overlooked
`
`evidence regarding representations by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioner Mangrove”) to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`(“SEC”), and evidence uncovered during additional discovery, showing that RPIs
`
`
`2 In presenting this Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner reserves all rights to
`
`appeal these and other aspects of the Decision.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`were improperly omitted. Paper No. 48 (“Patent Owner’s Response” or
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`“Response”) at 51–52, 54–56. The Board should vacate its Decision and terminate
`
`this proceeding for this failure to disclose RPIs, as other panels have done before.
`
`With respect to the second issue, the Decision misapprehended or
`
`overlooked arguments and evidence that the content of the declaration of Dr. Roch
`
`Guerin (Petitioner’s expert), Exhibit 1003, was improperly changed, after being
`
`signed by Dr. Guerin, by (at a minimum) the Chief Operating Officer of an entity
`
`involved in preparing the Petition in this proceeding. Id. at 37–39. The Board
`
`should find that Exhibit 1003 is entitled to no weight and reverse its findings of
`
`unpatentability, which rely on Exhibit 1003.
`
`VirnetX suggests rehearing by an expanded panel that includes the Chief
`
`Judge in deciding at least the RPI issues raised in this request. Standard Operating
`
`Procedure 1, Rev. 14 (May 8, 2015), Section III.D (“When a judge, a merits panel,
`
`or an interlocutory panel . . . receives a suggestion for an expanded panel, the
`
`judge, merits panel, or interlocutory panel shall notify the Chief Judge, Deputy
`
`Chief Judge, and the Vice Chief Judges of the suggestion, in writing.”). The RPI
`
`issues need to be considered “by an expanded panel . . . to secure and maintain
`
`uniformity of the Board’s decisions,” given that the Decision here conflicts with
`
`what other panels have done under similar circumstances. See Standard Operating
`
`Procedure 1, Rev. 14, Section III.A.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Prior Challenges to the ’151 Patent
`A.
`Before the challenge in IPR2015-01047, the ’151 patent was challenged
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`several times in IPR proceedings. New Bay Capital, LLC filed the first IPR
`
`petition against the ’151 patent on June 23, 2013, in IPR2013-00376. That
`
`proceeding was terminated in favor of VirnetX, pursuant to New Bay’s request for
`
`adverse judgment. IPR2013-00376, Paper No. 17 (Nov. 12, 2013).
`
`Apple filed the next IPR petition against the ’151 patent on July 1, 2013, in
`
`IPR2013-00354. The Board denied this petition because Apple was time-barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as it had been served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’151 patent in August 2010, more than a year before it filed its
`
`IPR petition. IPR2013-00354, Paper No. 20 (Dec. 13, 2013), reh’g denied Paper
`
`No. 24 (Feb. 12, 2014).
`
`RPX Corporation, which the Board found was acting as a proxy for time-
`
`barred Apple, filed one other IPR petition against the ’151 patent on November 20,
`
`2013, in IPR2014-00173. As VirnetX explained, Apple tried to hide its
`
`involvement in the RPX proceedings in several ways, giving the false impression
`
`that Apple and RPX were unconnected entities without a privity or real party-in-
`
`interest relationship. IPR2014-00173, Paper No. 54 at 6–8 (redacted) (Mar. 6,
`
`2014). Despite these efforts, the Board found that Apple was a real party-in-
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`interest for RPX’s petitions, and accordingly denied institution given Apple’s time-
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`barred status. IPR2014-00173, Paper No. 56 at 10 (redacted) (June 5, 2014).
`
`Microsoft then filed a petition in IPR2014-00610 on April 10, 2014,
`
`challenging the ’151 patent. The Board instituted trial. IPR2014-00610, Paper No.
`
`9 (Oct. 15, 2014). However, the proceeding was subsequently terminated pursuant
`
`to a joint motion to terminate. IPR2014-00610, Paper No. 14 (Dec. 19, 2014),
`
`Paper No. 19 (January 26, 2015). Apple tried to join the Microsoft IPR proceeding
`
`by filing its own IPR petition in IPR2015-00187 and a motion for joinder on
`
`October 30, 2014. But in part because of the termination of IPR2014-00610, and
`
`given Apple’s time-barred status, the Board again denied institution. IPR2015-
`
`00187, Paper No. 11 at 2–3 (February 17, 2015).
`
`B. Current Challenge to the ’151 Patent
`Petitioner Mangrove filed the sixth IPR petition against the ’151 patent in
`
`IPR2015-01047, which the Board subsequently allowed Apple and Black Swamp
`
`to join. Petitioner Mangrove is part of a complex web of entities linked to a hedge
`
`fund registered in the Cayman Islands that goes by a similar name, Mangrove
`
`Partners (the “Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund”). Ex. 2001 at 3–4; Ex. 2002 at 1–
`
`2; Ex. 2003 at 1; Response at 46. These Mangrove entities are one of RPX’s
`
`largest shareholders, having an equity position in the tens of millions of dollars.
`
`Ex. 2057 at 14–15; Response at 52.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`The Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund is “the investment manager” for
`
`Petitioner Mangrove, as well as The Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P. (“the US
`
`Feeder”) and The Mangrove Partners Fund (Cayman), Ltd. (“the Cayman Feeder”).
`
`Ex. 2001 at 3; see also id. at 4; Ex. 2036 at 6–7 (listing Petitioner Mangrove as a
`
`master fund in a master-feeder arrangement controlled by the Mangrove Partners
`
`Hedge Fund); Ex. 2015 at 34 (describing the structure of a master-feeder
`
`arrangement); Response at 47. All of the funds have a “shared investment
`
`objective . . . [to] compound their net worth while minimizing the chances of a
`
`permanent loss of capital.” Ex. 2001 at 4; Response at 47.
`
`In order to achieve this objective, the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund has
`
`“complete discretion regarding the investment of [the US Feeder’s, the Cayman
`
`Feeder’s, and Petitioner Mangrove’s] assets in accordance with the investment
`
`objectives, policies and parameters set forth in the applicable offering documents
`
`of each Fund.” Ex. 2001 at 3, 17 (emphasis added); Response at 47–48. Petitioner
`
`Mangrove exists for the purpose of receiving funding from investors via the US
`
`Feeder and Cayman Feeder, making investments directed by the Mangrove
`
`Partners Hedge Fund, and paying out profits to investors via the US Feeder and
`
`Cayman Feeder. See Ex. 2036 at 6–11; Response at 47–48.
`
`The Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund’s complete discretionary control over
`
`Petitioner Mangrove is not merely theoretical. For example, Ward Dietrich, Chief
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Operating Officer of the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund (see Ex. 2002 at 2), held
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`himself out as an “authorized person” to sign the Power of Attorney on behalf of
`
`Petitioner Mangrove, despite having no formal role in Petitioner Mangrove, and no
`
`evidence in the record identifying such a role. See Paper No. 1 at 2; Response at
`
`48. Indeed, in light of this evidence, the Board previously “grant[ed] Patent
`
`Owner’s motion for additional discovery for the limited purpose of providing
`
`communications and/or agreements pertaining to Ward Dietrich’s involvement in
`
`the preparation and filing of the Petition and/or control or ability to control the
`
`preparation and filing of the Petition.” Paper No. 39 at 3. The additional
`
`discovery, and other statements made by the Mangrove entities to the SEC,
`
`revealed that several unnamed entities had, in fact, been improperly omitted as
`
`RPIs, including at least the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund. See infra Section
`
`IV.A. The additional discovery also revealed that the expert declaration submitted
`
`in this proceeding had been improperly altered by executives of the Mangrove
`
`Partners Hedge Fund, including at least Ward Dietrich, after being signed by
`
`Petitioner’s expert. See infra Section IV.B.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. The Board Should Have Found at Least the Mangrove Partners
`Hedge Fund, a Company That Provided Funding for the IPR
`Petition, and Whose Executives Dictated the Contents of the
`Petition and Corresponding Expert Declaration, to be an RPI
`
`As explained in Patent Owner’s Response, a number of RPIs were
`
`improperly omitted, such as the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund. Response at 46–
`
`52 (also identifying other improperly omitted RPIs, such as Nathaniel August, The
`
`Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P. (“the US Feeder”), The Mangrove Partners Fund
`
`(Cayman), Ltd. (“the Cayman Feeder”), Mangrove Capital, the unnamed investors
`
`that provided funding for the Petition, and RPX Corporation); see also infra
`
`Section IV.B (discussing the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and Nathaniel
`
`August in the context of changes made to Dr. Guerin’s declaration).
`
`The Decision stated that “Patent Owner re-iterates arguments that were
`
`previously raised and addressed in the record,” and that the Board “remain[ed]
`
`unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” Decision at 28. The Decision
`
`misapprehended or overlooked that a number of new arguments were presented in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including those based on discovery that was not
`
`available earlier in the record. For example, the Decision misapprehended or
`
`overlooked at least the following evidence of improperly omitted RPIs:
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`• 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 51–52.
`
`• 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.
`
`• Ward Dietrich, who, as discussed above, is Chief Operating Office of
`
`the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund, wired $46,000 to Petitioner
`
`Mangrove’s attorneys for the filing of IPR2015-01046 and IPR2015-
`
`01047.
`
` Ex. 2058 at 24, 25, 29
`
`(showing emails
`
`from
`
`); Response at 55; see also Paper
`
`No. 56 at 22 (Petitioners admitting that Ward Dietrich provided
`
`“payment of the IPR filing fees,” and only asserting, without
`
`supporting evidence, that this was subject to an agreement to
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`reimburse such fees).
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`• 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. 2058 at 12–18, 20–23, 28, 29; see also Ex. 2059 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.
`
`• 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.
`
`2042 at 9, 10; Response at 55–56.
`
`• 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
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`agencies” (Ex. 2042 at 2–3), which would include the Patent Office.
`
`See also Ex. 2058 at 7 (providing Ward Dietrich with authorization to
`
`execute the power of attorney in this proceeding); Response at 56.3
`
`The Decision did not address any of the above evidence, let alone address it
`
`in the context of all of the other evidence presented in the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response showing that RPIs were improperly omitted. Decision at 28–31;
`
`Response at 46–57. This evidence, however, convincingly shows that the
`
`unnamed parties “exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s
`
`participation” in this proceeding, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`157 at 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012) (citations omitted), which cannot be reconciled with
`
`the Decision’s finding that the unnamed parties are not RPIs, Decision at 28–31.
`
`See also Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14
`
`at 6-7, 12 (Mar. 5, 2015). For instance, the evidence shows that at least the
`
`Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund not only had “complete discretion” over Petitioner
`
`Mangrove (see Ex. 2001 at 17; Response at 47), but actually exercised this control
`
`by way of funding and dictating the contents of papers being filed with the Board
`
`
`3 The Board only granted limited discovery on the RPI issues in this case. See
`
`Paper No. 39 at 3. If the Board had granted further discovery, additional evidence
`
`as to omitted RPIs would have been obtained.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`(going so far as to request changes to an already-signed declaration, infra Section
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`IV.B). Indeed, even Petitioners concede the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund made
`
`decisions as to “the filing of IPRs,” and only quibble that such decisions were
`
`“made for the benefit of Petitioner Mangrove,” an argument that is unsupported by
`
`the evidence and irrelevant to an RPI determination. Paper No. 56 at 21.
`
`As it has done in other cases with similar facts, the Board should terminate
`
`this proceeding given the failure to name all RPIs. Response at 56–57 (citing
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper
`
`No. 88 at 13 (Jan. 6, 2015); Aceto Agricultural Chems. Corp. v. Gowan Co.,
`
`IPR2015-01016, Paper No. 15 at 11 (Oct. 2, 2015)).
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Not Have Given Any Weight to Dr. Guerin’s
`Declaration Given That It Was Altered, After Being Signed, by an
`Executive of a Company Involved in Preparing the IPR Petition
`
`The Decision relied on Exhibit 1003, the purported declaration of
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Guerin. See Decision at 5, 25. In doing so, the Decision
`
`failed to address evidence and argument 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 37–39.4
`
`
`4 The Decision asserted that it “did not rely on Dr. Guerin’s testimony in
`
`determining whether ‘claim features are disclosed in asserted references’” in
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Email communications produced by Petitioner Mangrove leave little doubt
`
`that Exhibit 1003 was altered by another after being signed by Dr. Guerin:
`
`• On April 10, 2015, a person named Jeff Kalicka, a senior analyst for
`
`Mangrove Partners (see Ex. 2002 at 2) (which is a different entity than
`
`the similarly named Petitioner Mangrove) sent an email to Petitioner
`
`Mangrove’s attorneys, asking “[c]an we get the clean versions that
`
`you thought were ready to file so we could do one more review.” Ex.
`
`2058 at 18. One of Petitioner Mangrove’s attorneys responded: “Sure.
`
`Here are clean versions of the ’151 and ’135 Petitions and
`
`Declarations. We have signature pages on the Declarations from
`
`Roch Guerin. . . . There may be a nit here and there, but these should
`
`be just about final.” Id. (emphasis added). See Response at 37–39.
`
`• On April 13, 2015, three days after Dr. Guerin provided a signature
`
`page, Ward Dietrich, the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund’s Chief
`
`
`rejecting Patent Owner’s separate argument that Dr. Guerin failed to properly
`
`analyze the claims. Decision at 26. This assertion is belied by the Decision’s
`
`repeated invocation of Dr. Guerin’s declaration in its analysis. See supra. In any
`
`event, the Board found that “Dr. Guerin’s testimony is helpful in the other respects
`
`to which he testified and entitled to due weight.” Decision at 26.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Operating Officer (see Ex. 2002 at 2), sent a string of emails about
`
`petitions and declarations on the patents-at-issue in this proceeding
`
`and in IPR2015-01046, including “comments and changes” as to the
`
`Guerin declaration. Ex. 2058 at 14 (email with the subject line “151
`
`IPR 2015 04 10 Guerin Decl (EXECUTION) (CLEAN) (2).docx”);
`
`see also id. at 12, 13, 15, 16. See Response at 38.
`
`• Nathaniel August (President of the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund,
`
`see Ex. 2002 at 2) and Jeff Kalicka also apparently provided changes,
`
`as indicated in an email from Nathaniel August stating, “You’ve got
`
`all of my comments and all of Jeff’s.” Ex. 2058 at 12. See Response
`
`at 38–39.
`
`Petitioners do not dispute that Dr. Guerin’s declaration was altered in this
`
`proceeding. Instead, Petitioners characterize the changes as “minor copy edits
`
`made with Dr. Guerin’s knowledge and approval before filing, but after he
`
`executed the signature page.” Paper No. 56 at 49 (emphasis removed). But this
`
`attorney argument, while constituting an admission that changes were made, is
`
`unsupported by any evidence whatsoever as to the scope of the alterations or
`
`Dr. Guerin’s purported “knowledge and approval” of the alterations. The record
`
`only includes evidence that Exhibit 1003 was changed after being signed by Dr.
`
`Guerin. The Board was left to guess as to what portions of Exhibit 1003 reflect
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Dr. Guerin’s testimony and what portions reflect the opinions of non-expert
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`corporate executives involved in preparing the Petition here.
`
`The Board overlooked undisputed evidence that Exhibit 1003 does not
`
`reflect Dr. Guerin’s direct testimony alone. The Board should find that Exhibit
`
`1003 is entitled to no weight and reverse its findings of unpatentability that
`
`improperly rely on Exhibit 1003. See Response at 37–39.
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER SUGGESTS REHEARING BY AN EXPANDED
`PANEL THAT INCLUDES THE CHIEF JUDGE
`
`Patent Owner suggests that an expanded panel that includes the Chief Judge
`
`consider this request for rehearing. See Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14
`
`(May 8, 2015), Section III.C; see also id., Section III.D. An expanded panel is
`
`necessary to consider at least the RPI issues raised in this request “to secure and
`
`maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions.” See Standard Operating Procedure
`
`1, Rev. 14, Section III.A.
`
`Specifically, failure to consider evidence showing control and funding of a
`
`proceeding in an RPI determination contradicts the Board’s own Trial Practice
`
`Guide. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157 at 48,760. The
`
`Decision also opined that VirnetX failed to “demonstrate persuasively” that the
`
`unnamed parties “exercised control over the preparation or filing of the present
`
`Petition.” Decision at 28–31. Patent Owner respectfully disagrees because the
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`evidence does show such control. In any event, this is in conflict with past Board
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`decisions that a patent owner only needs to present “evidence that reasonably
`
`brings into question the accuracy” of the RPI identification, and that the Board
`
`need not find an actual exercise of control—it is sufficient that the party had “‘the
`
`power … to call the shots.’” Galderma, IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 at 6-7, 12
`
`(citation omitted). And if the Board were to permit this proceeding to move
`
`forward, despite the RPI defect, that would be inconsistent with past Board
`
`determinations that the failure to disclose all RPIs is a substantive defect that
`
`should prohibit review. See Atlanta Gas Light Co., IPR2013-00453, Paper No. 88
`
`at 13; Aceto Agricultural Chems. Corp., IPR2015-01016, Paper No. 15 at 11.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For at
`least
`
`these
`
`reasons, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`reconsideration of the Decision and reversal of the Board’s unpatentability finding
`
`or termination of this proceeding.
`
`Dated: October 11, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing by electronic means on the date below at the following
`
`addresses of record:
`
`Abraham Kasdan (akasdan@wiggin.com)
`James T. Bailey (jtb@jtbaileylaw.com)
`IP@wiggin.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott Border
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`Thomas H. Martin
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`tmartin@martinferraro.com
`docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 11, 2016

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