`
`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)
`
`#