U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`       
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-0175 1
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 7,356,482
`Issue Date: April 8, 2008
`Title: Integrated Change Management Unit
`
`Inter Parte Review No. 2015-01751
`      
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REDACTED PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE
`
`PETITION
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. The petition must be denied for failure to name Salesforce, a time-
`barred real party in interest. ............................................................................. 3
`A.
`The flexible approach to RPI analysis .................................................. 3
`B.
`RPX is in the business of acting as a proxy for accused
`infringers like Salesforce ....................................................................... 7
`Salesforce has a real and critical interest here ...................................... 8
`RPX has a history of acting as a proxy, and adopted a “willful
`blindness” strategy to justify ignoring its RPI obligations ................... 9
` ................................................ 12
`E.
`RPX is Salesforce’s proxy, just like it was for Apple and others ....... 14
`F.
`III. Claim construction .......................................................................................... 22
`A.
`Level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art .................................. 22
`B.
`“Application” or “application program” ............................................. 23
`C.
`“change management layer” element .................................................. 25
`D.
`“automatically detecting” step ............................................................ 28
`E.
`“intelligent agent” element .................................................................. 28
`IV. The petition fails to show that any claim is likely invalid ............................. 29
`A.
`Popp does not anticipate apparatus claims 1, 7-13, 18-20, 41,
`47-52 and 57-59 because it does not disclose a “change
`management layer” .............................................................................. 30
`Popp does not anticipate method claims 21, 27-33 or 38-40
`because it does not disclose “automatically detecting changes” ........ 31
`C. Kovacevic does not anticipate apparatus claims 1, 7-13, 18-20,
`41, 47-52 and 57-59 because it does not disclose a “change
`management layer” .............................................................................. 32
`
`B.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`D. Kovacevic does not anticipate method claims 21, 27-33 or 38-
`40 because it does not disclose a “automatically detecting
`changes” .............................................................................................. 34
`Balderrama does not render obvious apparatus claims 1, 7-13,
`18-20, 41, 47-52 and 57-59 because it does not disclose a
`“change management layer” ................................................................ 34
`Balderrama does not anticipate claims method 21, 27-33 or 38-
`40 because it does not disclose a “automatically detecting
`changes” .............................................................................................. 36
`V. RPX has abused the IPR process and should be sanctioned .......................... 37
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 38
`
`(cid:3)
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(cid:3)
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`Patent owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the petition for
`
`failure to name a real party in interest, and, in the alternative, for failure to show
`
`that any claim is likely invalid. The claims are not anticipated or rendered obvious
`
`by petitioner’s references. Further reflective of RPX’s abusive behavior, the
`
`asserted grounds for patentability mirror what arose in original examination. The
`
`applicants’ appeal brief in the ‘482 prosecution history clearly explains why the
`
`claims are patentable over disclosures such as those cited in the petition. The
`
`petition entirely ignores this, despite the clearly relevance of this prosecution
`
`history to claim interpretation here.
`
`The petition for inter parte review of U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482 (the ‘482
`
`patent) fails because, yet again, petitioner RPX Corp. (RPX) comes before the
`
`Board as an agent, not a principal. RPX has no interest in the ‘482 patent or the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. Salesforce.com, Inc. (Salesforce) is the only party that
`
`has ever been accused of infringing the ‘482 patent, and apparently the only party
`
`with an interest in this proceeding.
`
`to the highest level – these two publicly traded companies even have overlapping
`
` Privity of RPX and Salesforce goes
`
`(cid:3)
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`boards. Because RPX failed to name the time-barred real party in interest (RPI),
`
`the petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a) and 315(b).
`
`Regardless of the RPI defect, the petition also fails to demonstrate that any
`
`claim is likely unpatentable. The petitioner challenges claims 1, 7-21, 27-41 and
`
`47-59 for anticipation and obviousness. Yet, in each of the four asserted grounds,
`
`at least one claim element is not found in petitioner’s references – a “change
`
`management layer.” Petitioner asserts that the internal user input controls and data
`
`management controls of the references disclose a “change management layer.”
`
`Yet, under a proper definition in view of the specification and prosecution history,
`
`it is clear that this element detects changes to metadata about the application
`
`program or other changes external to the application program, not changes internal
`
`to an application program. Lacking this element of all of the claims, petitioner’s
`
`arguments for unpatentability necessarily fail.
`
`RPX has engaged in a pattern of abuse of the IPR process by callously
`
`avoiding naming its clients as RPIs. While dismissal of the petition in this case is
`
`proper, the PTAB should do more. RPX has a demonstrated record of abusing the
`
`system. Patent owner therefore urges that the Board sanction RPX for this abuse.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`II.
`
`The petition must be denied for failure to name Salesforce, a time-
`
`barred real party in interest.1
`
`A.
`
`The flexible approach to RPI analysis
`
`The Board acting in this case explained the law exceptionally well in its
`
`order granting patent owner additional discovery:
`
`As stated in the Trial Practice Guide, proper RPI identification
`
`is necessary “to assure proper application of the statutory estoppel
`
`provisions,” in order “to protect patent owners from harassment via
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1 This section is identical to the corresponding section in patent owner’s
`
`preliminary response in Case No. 2015-01750, except for corrections of an error in
`
`the spelling of Sanford Robertson’s name.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`successive petitions by the same or related parties,” and “to prevent
`
`parties from having a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Id. at 48,759.
`
`Further, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) specifically prevents inter partes review if
`
`a “petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after
`
`the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`patent.” RPX v AIT, Paper 11, pp. 4-5.
`
`The legislative history indicates that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) was intended to set
`
`a “deadline for allowing an accused infringer to seek inter partes review after he
`
`has been sued for infringement.” 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen. Kyl). The deadline helps to ensure that inter partes review is not
`
`used as a “tool[] for harassment” by “repeated litigation and administrative
`
`attacks.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48, as reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 78.
`
`Allowing such attacks “would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing
`
`quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.” Id.
`
`The Patent Act requires a petition to identify all real parties-in-interest
`
`“without qualification.” See 35 U.S.C. 312(a); see 37 CFR 42.8 and 42.104. Prior
`
`to institution, when a patent owner provides sufficient evidence that reasonably
`
`brings into question the accuracy of a petitioner’s identification of RPI, the overall
`
`(cid:3)
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`burden remains with the petitioner to establish that it has complied with the
`
`statutory requirement to identify all RPI. Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Case IPR2014-
`
`01254, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Feb 12, 2015) (Paper 32). The ultimate burden of
`
`proof on the issue of RPI also lies with the petitioner. See, e.g., Zerto, Inc. v. EMC
`
`Corp., Case IPR2014-01254, slip op. at 6–15 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015) (Paper 35).
`
`This allocation of the burden acknowledges that a petitioner is more likely than a
`
`patent owner to be in possession of, or have access to, evidence relevant to the
`
`issue. Zerto, slip op. at 6–7.
`
`The issue of real party in interest has evolved, and the Board continues to
`
`recognize new fact patterns which demonstrate the presence of an un-named RPI.
`
`As stated in the Trial Practice Guide, whether a party who is not a named
`
`participant in a given proceeding is a “real party-in-interest” to that proceeding “is
`
`a highly fact-dependent question.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (citing Taylor v.
`
`Sturgell, 533 U.S. 880 (2008)). “[T]he spirit of that formulation as to IPR . . .
`
`proceedings means that, at a general level, the ‘real party-in-interest’ is the party
`
`that desires review of the patent. Thus, the ‘real party-in-interest’ may be the
`
`petitioner itself, and/or it may be the real party or parties at whose behest the
`
`petition has been filed.” Id. There is no “bright line test.” Id.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`The Supreme Court listed six categories that create an exception to the
`
`common law rule that normally forbids nonparty preclusion in litigation. Taylor,
`
`553 U.S. at 893– 895. Under a category relevant here, “a party bound by a
`
`judgment may not avoid its preclusive force by relitigating through a proxy.” Id. at
`
`895. Taylor refers to a proxy as a “representative or agent of a party who is bound
`
`by the prior adjudication.” Id. at 905. Additional relevant factors include:
`
`(cid:120) the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner;
`
`(cid:120) the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature
`
`and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and
`
`(cid:120) the nature of the entity filing the petition.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760. Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759
`
`(1st Cir. 1994). The inquiry is not based on isolated facts, but rather must consider
`
`the totality of the circumstances. Id.
`
`A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the
`
`evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am.
`
`Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15).
`
`These circumstances may include that a favorable outcome in the Board
`
`proceeding would directly benefit the un-named party. Id. at 6.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`B.
`
`RPX is in the business of acting as a proxy for accused infringers
`
`like Salesforce
`
`RPX has no interest in a review of the AIT patents and RPX has nothing to
`
`gain. None. As explained on its website, “RPX Corporation is the leading provider
`
`of patent risk solutions, offering defensive buying, acquisition syndication, patent
`
`intelligence, insurance services, and advisory services.” Ex. 2016. RPX is in the
`
`business of making money for its shareholders and serving the interests of its
`
`clients, and these clients pay a lot. RPX has at least 225 clients, and expects that
`
`these clients will pay RPX over $250 million in 2015.2 On average, therefore, RPX
`
`clients pay it more than $1 million per year. In exchange for these huge sums, RPX
`
`solves its clients’ “patent risk” problems.
`
`Petitioner’s business model is built upon petitioner acting as an agent or
`
`proxy for third parties in cases just like this. RPX states that its interests are “100%
`
`aligned” with those of clients
`
`. Ex. 2015. To achieve its goals,
`
`RPX serves as “an extension of the client’s in-house legal team.” Ex. 2006. RPX
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`2 “Subscription revenue for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 was $67.6 million, up
`
`5% compared to $64.3 million in the prior year period. There were 225 clients in
`
`RPX's network as of June 30, 2015, including 62 insurance policy holders.”
`
`(cid:3)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`“represent[s] clients who are accused of patent infringement, acting as their proxy
`
`to ‘selectively clear’ liability for infringement as part of RPX’s ‘patent risk
`
`management solutions,’” including “attacking patents that are or will likely be
`
`asserted against its clients.” Exs. 2006–2008.
`
`This is not mere speculation. The Board has already held that RPX’s
`
`business model includes attacking patents in inter partes review petitions on behalf
`
`of its clients. RPX Corp. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-00171, Paper 52, pp. 9-10
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 23, 2014). In that case the Board held that “RPX [was] acting as a
`
`proxy” for a client when it improperly filed a petition in several IPRs where it was
`
`“at most, a ‘nominal plaintiff’ with ‘no substantial interest’” in the proceedings. Id.
`
`C.
`
`Salesforce has a real and critical interest here
`
`Patent owner’s patents clearly are a “patent risk” for Salesforce, but not for
`
`RPX. As admitted in the petition, patent owner sued Salesforce for patent
`
`infringement in 2013 (the Salesforce Litigation). Salesforce has had its own fair
`
`opportunity to have the Board invalidate AIT’s patents, having petitioned for
`
`covered business method review of both patents-in-suit. The Board denied the
`
`Salesforce petitions. Salesforce v AIT, CBM2014-00162, paper 11 (February 2,
`
`2015); CBM2014-00168, paper 10 (February 2, 2015). The Board also denied
`
`Salesforce’s requests for rehearing. CBM2014-00162, paper 13 (July 28, 2015);
`
`(cid:3)
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`CBM2014-00168, paper 12 (July 28, 2015). Because the Salesforce Litigation is
`
`more than one year old, Salesforce is barred from filing an inter partes review
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Having failed to invalidate patent owner’s patents,
`
`Salesforce’s only hope of escaping this “patent risk” is RPX’s proxy petitions.
`
`D.
`
`RPX has a history of acting as a proxy, and adopted a “willful
`
`blindness” strategy to justify ignoring its RPI obligations
`
`In RPX Corp. v. VirnetX, Inc., in seven related IPRs, the PTAB held that
`
`RPX was “at most, a ‘nominal plaintiff’ with ‘no substantial interest’” in the
`
`proceedings. IPR2014-00171, Paper 52, pp. 9-10 (June 23, 2014). In the VirnetX
`
`case, RPX’s client Apple Corp. was time-barred from filing the petition. RPX
`
`petitioned for IPR without informing the PTAB that it had no interest, and that the
`
`sole interested party was Apple.
`
`The PTAB’s VirnetX decision has not stopped RPX from filing petitions, but
`
`RPX has changed its tactics to better conceal that it is just a proxy. For example, in
`
`three pending related IPRs RPX Corp. v. ParkerVision, IPR2014-00946, IPR2014-
`
`(cid:3)
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`00947 and IPR2014-00948, RPX seems to be a proxy for its client Qualcomm.3
`
`This is no surprise because RPX makes a business of attacking patents in IPR
`
`petitions on behalf of its clients. VirnetX, page 4. This is no different than what a
`
`law firm does.
`
`RPX is trying it again here, albeit using a thicker veil after having learned a
`
`bit from its past errors. The conclusion though remains the same. Once again RPX
`
`is a proxy. The real party in interest is
`
` Salesforce.
`
`What RPX does not state affirmatively also is telling—that Salesforce had
`
`no role in the petition. The circumstantial evidence – and there is quite a bit –
`
`shows that Salesforce is a covert RPI, and that RPX is yet again facilitating
`
`
`
` IPRs as a tool for harassment through repeated administrative
`
`attacks.
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`3 See Decision Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery, Paper
`
`25 in IPR2014-00946; Paper 23 in IPR2014-00947; Paper 23 in IPR2014-00948
`
`(February 20, 2015).
`
`(cid:3)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`Willful blindness,
`
` has no place in
`
`patent law. The Supreme Court made that clear in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., v
`
`SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) (applying the doctrine of willful blindness to
`
`induced infringement). In Global-Tech, the Supreme Court explained that a
`
`willfully blind party is “one who takes deliberate actions to avoid confirming a
`
`high probability of wrongdoing and who can almost be said to have actually known
`
`the critical facts.” Id., slip opinion at 14. In holding that a party was willfully blind
`
`in Global-Tech, the Court said, “On the facts of this case, we cannot fathom what
`
`motive Sham could have had for withholding this information other than to
`
`manufacture a claim of plausible deniability in the event that his company was
`
`later accused of patent infringement.” Id., slip opinion at 15.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`E.
`
`“We work to ensure that each RPX client avoids more in legal costs and
`
`settlements each year than they pay RPX in subscription fees.” Ex. 2007.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Note, too, how
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`about one month after the PTAB denied Salesforce’s
`
`CBM petitions against the AIT patents.
`
` According to the AIPLA, a typical
`
`budget for an IPR petition in January 2014 was $50,000, and a total cost of
`
`$225,000. Ex. 2020 at 21. The three Related IPRs have substantial overlap, so one
`
`would expect that the three cases would cost a lot less than three unrelated cases.
`
`Thus, the sensible inference here is that
`
`Second, Mr. Sanford Robertson has been and continues to be on the Board
`
`of Directors for both RPX and Salesforce. This is akin to RPX and Qualcomm
`
`sharing counsel, as addressed by the Board in RPX v Qualcomm. By serving as a
`
`director for RPX, Mr. Robertson has the opportunity to exert significant but hidden
`
`control over this proceeding. By serving as a director for Salesforce, Mr. Robertson
`
`advances Salesforce’s interests. By sharing Mr. Robertson with RPX, Salesforce
`
`has at least “implicitly authorized RPX to represent [Salesforce] in the instant
`
`(cid:3)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`proceedings,” which the Board has found to weigh in favor of finding the
`
`authorizing party to be an RPI. RPX Corp., IPR2014-00171, Paper 52 at 8-9.
`
`Indeed, when RPX was asked to produce documents sufficient to show how
`
`Sanford R. Robertson separates his fiduciary duties to RPX and Salesforce despite
`
`serving simultaneously as a Board Member of RPX and as a Board Member of
`
`Salesforce, (Ex. 2021), RPX
`
` The only inference to be drawn is
`
`that Mr. Robertson has dutifully served both companies. Yet, like so much of
`
`RPX’s business, this falls neatly into RPX’s plausible deniability strategy, which is
`
`nothing more than willful blindness.
`
`F.
`
`RPX is Salesforce’s proxy, just like it was for Apple and others
`
`Clearly, because RPX has no interest here and Salesforce is very interested,
`
`RPX’s debacle in its IPR petitions for its client Apple, it was only natural for RPX
`
`to become more circumspect in hiding from the Board its proxy role. Yet, the
`
`evidence plainly shows an implicit authorization to challenge the AIT patents.
`
` After
`
`(cid:3)
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`
`Inter Parte— Review
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR20l5—01751
`
` This is
`
`easily seen Visually. First, a combined timeline of important events in the
`
`Salesforce Litigation, the prior CBMs and the Related IPRS:
`
`com lalm med
`p
`
`Salesforce mes
`answer
`
`Salesforce files
`agamst
`
`All" flles E_Q_BI3§
`
`
`
`Salesforce
`
`r°q“°5t'°'
`rehearing
`BIAS denies
`SEEM Petitions
`
`stay lifted in
`'aW5“"
`
`PTAB authorizes
`Hmriiotion for
`additional discovery
`PTAB denies requests
`for rehearing
`
`
`
`4— in response to patent owners discovery
`
`request, “Documents sufficient to show the names, dates, locations and times of
`
`any meetings or communications between Salesforce and RPX, or their attorneys,
`
`after the Salesforce Litigation began.”
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`19
`
`

`
`US. Patent No. 7.356.482
`
`Inter P(m‘e- Review
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR20l5-01751
`
`After the PTAB denied Salesforce’s requests for rehearing on 7/28/2015.,
`
` RPX had
`
`already prepared the petitions and was just waiting for the need to file them. Once
`
`the need arose. within a few weeks RPX had filed the petitions in the Related IPRs.
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`The facts here are analogous to those that supported a finding of real party-
`
`in-interest in General Foods, including implicit authorization for the trade
`
`association to represent the paying member, challenged regulations that]did not
`
`affect the trade association itself but only the members, and payments by
`
`association members which provided funding for the litigation. See General Foods
`
`Corp. v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 648 F.2d 784, 787-788 (1st
`
`Cir. 1981); see also Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1233 (2nd Cir.
`
`1977).
`
`In sum, there is a strong public policy toward a petitioner honestly disclosing
`
`the real parties in interest. Patent owner has suffered repeated administrative
`
`attacks – first directly by Salesforce
`
` RPX has not and
`
`cannot establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement to identify all
`
`RPIs. Instead, RPX has dodged the issue, attempting to hide behind the limited
`
`case law addressing certain fact patterns.
`
` RPX
`
`has failed to do so.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`21
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(cid:3)
`III. Claim construction
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`Claims in an IPR are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 778 F. 3d 1271 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). “Reasonable” breadth is taken from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`A.
`
`Level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Patent owner does not dispute petitioner’s definition of the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See Petition, p. 6 (“at least a B.S. in Computer Science or
`
`the equivalent, along with at least two years of computer programming experience
`
`in developing applications for client-server systems”). The Board in this case has
`
`two excellent resources for the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art --
`
`Judge Pettigrew and lead counsel for patent owner -- at least according to
`
`petitioner’s definition.
`
`(cid:120) Judge Pettigrew earned a B.S., cum laude, in electrical engineering in
`
`1986 and an M.S.E. in electrical engineering in 1987, then worked for
`
`several years as a systems engineer at AT&T Bell Laboratories.
`
`(cid:120) Steve Sereboff, lead counsel for patent owner, earned a B.S. in
`
`electrical engineering in 1986, then worked for two years as a
`
`(cid:3)
`
`22
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`programmer developing application programs for client-server
`
`systems.
`
`Thus, Judge Pettigrew, and Mr. Sereboff, prior to the December 1998
`
`priority date of the ‘482 patent, were POSAs, at least according to petitioner’s
`
`definition. Indeed, Judge Pettigrew, and Mr. Sereboff more closely fall within
`
`petitioner’s POSA definition than petitioner’s expert.
`
`As a signatory to this paper, Mr. Sereboff stands behind all of its technical
`
`views, though of course neither is providing testimony. Patent owner trusts Judge
`
`Pettigrew to exercise good judgment in considering the competing technical
`
`arguments of patent owner and petitioner.
`
`B.
`
`“Application” or “application program”
`
`Patent owner for the present purposes accepts petitioner’s reliance upon two
`
`dictionaries as aids in construing the term “application,” but believes that petitioner
`
`mischaracterized those definitions.5 Turning to the dictionaries, we have:
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`5(cid:3)Because the term “application” has different meanings in patent law and in
`
`computer technology, for clarity this response uses the term “application program”
`
`to refer to the computer technology.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`23
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:120) Webster’s: “A program that enables you to do something useful with
`
`the computer, such as writing or accounting (as opposed to utilities,
`
`programs that help you maintain the computer).” Ex. 1009, p. 30.
`
`Webster’s explains that an application program “transforms the
`
`computer into a tool for performing a specific kind of work, such as
`
`word processing, financial analysis (with an electronic spreadsheet),
`
`or desktop publishing.” Ex. 2023, p. 418.
`
`(cid:120) Barron’s: “a computer program that performs useful work not related
`
`to
`
`the computer
`
`itself. Examples
`
`include word processors,
`
`spreadsheets, accounting systems, and engineering programs.
`
`Contrast UTILITY; OPERATING SYSTEM.” Ex. 1010, p. 22.
`
`Thus, an “application” or “application program” is more than just some
`
`collection of computer instructions. It is a higher level program for use by an end-
`
`user to perform a specific kind of work that is useful to the end-user. Its work is not
`
`related to the computer itself, and therefore is not a utility. While an application
`
`program can perform specific tasks, its purpose is broader – performing useful
`
`work.
`
`Notably, petitioner proposes a definition which is different from its expert.
`
`Compare petitioner’s definition, “a program executable by a computer to do
`
`(cid:3)
`
`24
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`something useful other than maintaining the computer itself,” petition, p. 10, with
`
`the expert’s quotation of the two dictionary definitions and implicit inclusion of
`
`those definitions into his own. Ex. 1002, para. 21. Because petitioner itself
`
`disagrees with its expert’s definition, both should be disregarded. Petitioner’s
`
`definition is unreasonably broad; the definition of petitioner’s expert is imprecise
`
`and fails to capture the underlying meaning proposed in the dictionaries which one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated.
`
`C.
`
`“change management layer” element
`
`As shown in the specification and prosecution history, the “change
`
`management layer” automatically detects changes which impact how the
`
`application program should operate. These changes may arise from changes to
`
`metadata about the application program or other changes external to the application
`
`program. Petitioner summarily and incorrectly argues that the term “change
`
`management layer” (independent claims 1 and 41) is not defined in the
`
`specification. The “change management layer” limitation recites:
`
`a change management layer for automatically detecting changes
`
`that affect an application
`
`(cid:3)
`
`25
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01751
`
`(cid:3)
`
`This limitation, and especially the phrase, “changes that affect an
`
`application,” takes on a more particular meaning when read in light of the
`
`specification. In particular, the specification explains:
`
`E. Change Management Layer
`
`The change layer primarily involves an intranet or the Internet
`
`and uses one or more intelligent agents (IA's) that continually search on
`
`the Web for relevant changes in a selected business area. The changes
`
`may be regulatory and/or non-regulatory, and each IA is defined by
`
`rules and constraints that focus on the selected business area. When an
`
`IA discovers a relevant change, the IA obtains all available information
`
`concerning this change and delivers this information to the Java data
`
`management layer. A user may configure the system to apply pre-
`
`defined rules to the change in order to determine whether the change
`
`information delivered by the IA will be accepted and acted upon by the
`
`Java data management layer. Alternatively, the user may decide
`
`manually (or manually override the pre-defined rules) whether the
`
`delivered change information will be accepted and acted upon, or
`
`ignored.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`26
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,356,482
`Inter Parte- Review
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Respons