throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`
`US Patent No. 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`
`Case IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B2‘
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO
`
`PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTE REVIEW
`
`(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 The Word-for-Word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`
`heading.
`
`
`
`

`
`The RPI issue is fact-intensive, and the specific facts here demonstrate that
`
`Petitioner RPX is Salesforce’s proxy. Once Patent Owner adequately raised RPI as
`
`an issue,
`
`the burden of production shifted to RPX. The ultimate burden of
`
`Guards, Inc., IPR2013—00453, Paper 91 at 6 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2015). Despite having
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the opportunity to do so, RPX has failed to meet either burden on this issue. The
`
`persuasion always rested with RPX. Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1-—
`
`undisputed facts are sufficient to show that Salesforce is the RPI:
`
`2. Salesforce and RPX share a board member. (Ex. 2009-201 1, 2021).
`
`3-
`
`4. RPX acts as “an extension of the client’s in—house legal
`
`team” and
`
`“represent[s] clients who are accused of patent infringement, acting as their proxy
`
`to ‘selectively clear’ liability for infringement as a part of RPX’s ‘patent risk
`
`9
`management solutions,” including “attacking patents that are or will likely be
`
`asserted against its clients.” (Exs. 2006-2008).
`
`5. In the Salesforce Litigation, Patent Owner asserted two of its patents, the
`
`‘482 patent and the ‘l 11 patent (Ex. 2002), though Patent Owner has a third patent,
`
`USP 6,341,287, which is the parent of the ‘482 patent and the grandparent of the
`
`‘ 1 11 patent. (Ex. 1001).
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`

`
`7. On Feb. 2, 2015, Salesforce’s petitions for CBM on those two patents were
`
`denied. (CBM20l4—00 l 62, Paper 11; CBM20l4— l 0 l 68, Paper 11).
`
`8-
`
`Based at least upon these facts Salesforce is the RPI. Some specific issues
`
`raised for the first time in Petitioner’s reply are addressed below.
`
`The Chuang declaration demonstrates that RPX is Salesforce’s proxy,
`
`and they have cloaked the relationship in willful blindness. In its reply,
`
`3><
`
`relies heavily upon the declaration of attorney and RPX Senior Vice President
`
`5.B O:r5:S395
`
`9° /5F11>4
`
`Pi G Di \D2-’
`
`N
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Chuang’s explanation of why RPX filed the Related IPRs supports
`
`4-r
`
`CD
`
`reasonable inferences suggested by Patent Owner.
`
`Still,
`
`there is one and only one company that demonstrably benefi
`
`er-C/J
`
`53:”OB 9CD
`
`Related IPRs — Salesforce,
`
`><
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`

`
`had no time-bar problem. It could have waited until the Salesforce Litigation was
`
`resolved, or at least until Patent Owner had
`
`U3CtoQ- go(—FF3‘to’''§ 0§
`"5
`
`g
`
`'‘.<
`
`conspicuously like a “second bite at the apple”
`
`RPX leaves many questions unanswered. Through the additional
`
`|—|-(‘F iO OW‘(/3
`
`$2‘
`
`‘'6Q.3§'5.o5<noco :-Q (/1 #593
`
`89E23O>-t-2E:3
`
`01 o93no.
`
`><1 8S33U3 3
`*5*5
`
`o U)(Dca.
`
`(-Fo
`
`"23cO CD
`
`(DS.c.8O (D
`
`cr
`
`Q~< !—‘e-rEB‘
`
`Although Patent Owner owns three patents, RPX elected to challenge only
`
`the two patents asserted in the Salesforce Litigation.
`
`4;
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`

`
`why did RPX only challenge the two asserted patents?
`
`Now is the time to end the harassment of Patent Owner. “[T]o protect
`
`patent owners from harassment via successive petitions by the same or related
`
`parties, and to prevent parties from having a second bite at the apple,” Paper 11,
`
`pp. 4-5 (internal quotes omitted). Patent Owner simply asks the Board to end the
`
`harassment. Salesforce had its opportunity before the Board, and it will have its
`
`day in court. Here, once the burden was shifted,
`
`the Board gave RPX an
`
`opportunity to meet its burden of proving that Salesforce is not an RPI. Despite
`
`RPX’s protestations, it has not. Salesforce is a time—barred RPI.
`
`Date: December 23, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /j onathan pearce/
`Jonathan P. Pearce (Reg. No. 37,035)
`SoCa1IP Law Group LLP
`310 N. Westlake Boulevard, Suite 120
`
`Attorneys for Applications in Internet Time
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`SUR—REPLY TO PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTE REVIEW has been served Via
`
`email on December 23, 2015, upon the following:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`
`Randy J. Pritzker
`
`Rgiunta—PTAB@wo1fgreenfield.com
`EHunt—PTAB@wo1fgreenfield.c0m
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`
`By:
`
`/Anneliese G. Lomonaco
`Anneliese G. Lomonaco
`
`(cid:3)
`
`#

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