`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PARTIAL REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Partial Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED KEY
`ARGUMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE PATENTABILITY OF
`THE ‘494 PATENT OVER SWIMMER ........................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Board Overlooked the Petition’s Improper Conflation of
`Claim Limitations .................................................................................. 4
`
`The Board Overlooked Swimmer’s Failure to Disclose
`“Storing” its Audit Records ................................................................... 7
`
`The Institution Decision Should Be Reconsidered to Avoid an
`Inconsistent Outcome ............................................................................ 9
`
`The Board Misapprehended the Significance of Patent Owner’s
`Argument Regarding Petitioner’s Failure to Address Objective
`Indicia of Nonobviousness ..................................................................13
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Partial Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`mFormation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01022, Decision Denying Request for
`Rehearing, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2015) ............................................. 10
`
`Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01022, Decision Denying Request for
`Rehearing, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016) ............................................... 10
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S.,
`393 F. 3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 1, 11
`
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00220, Decision on Request for Rehearing,
`Paper No. 61 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2015) ................................................................. 9
`
`Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00142, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing,
`Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2013)................................................................ 9
`
`Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2013-00142, Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for
`Rehearing, Paper No. 17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2013) ............................................. 9
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) ........................................................................ 2, 5
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................... 1, 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Patent Owner, Finjan, Inc., (“Finjan” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully
`
`requests partial rehearing of the Board’s Decision on Institution (Paper No. 9)
`
`(“Institution Decision”) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In particular, Finjan
`
`respectfully requests reconsideration of the decision to institute trial on Ground 3
`
`of the Petition, which proposes that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,677,494 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
`
`Swimmer et al., Dynamic Detection and Classification of Computer Viruses Using
`
`General Behaviour Patterns (Ex. 1005, “Swimmer”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 18, 2016, the Board decided to institute inter partes review as to
`
`Ground 3 which asserts that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ‘494 Patent
`
`is unpatentable over Swimmer under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Finjan requests
`
`reconsideration because the Board “misapprehended or overlooked” arguments
`
`presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 7) (“POPR”). See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The matters misapprehended or overlooked by the Board
`
`amount to an abuse of discretion resulting in a decision that is based on an
`
`erroneous interpretation of law. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F. 3d 1277,
`
`1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based
`
`on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`
`relevant factors.”) (citation omitted).
`
`First, reconsideration is appropriate because the Board overlooked
`
`Petitioner’s inappropriate conflation of claim terms and Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that Petitioner improperly conflated the claim limitations of “deriving security
`
`profile data for the Downloadable…” with “storing the Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database.” See POPR at 20–21 (asserting that Swimmer’s creation
`
`of an audit record cannot satisfy both the claimed “deriving security profile data
`
`for the Downloadable” and “storing the Downloadable security profile data in a
`
`database”). In its Decision, the Board seemed to adopt Petitioner’s fatally flawed
`
`argument by equating both limitations with Swimmer’s creation of “audit records.”
`
`See Institution Decision at 22–23. In contrast, the Federal Circuit requires proper
`
`consideration of each claim term in judging the patentability of a claim against the
`
`prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (“All words in a
`
`claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior
`
`art.”). As such, reconsideration is appropriate given Petitioner’s failure to give
`
`proper consideration to each claim term.
`
`Furthermore, the Board overlooked Patent Owner’s argument that Swimmer
`
`does not teach “storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database”
`
`because Swimmer does not teach “storing” its audit records anywhere, let alone
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`storing them in a database. See POPR at 21. As such, reconsideration is
`
`appropriate given Petitioner’s failure to give proper consideration to the
`
`“storing…” language recited in each of the independent claims.
`
`Moreover, the Board’s determination that Swimmer’s “audit record is a
`
`database” is inconsistent with the Board’s previous determinations as to the proper
`
`construction for the claimed “database.” Thus, the Institution Decision should be
`
`modified to avoid an inconsistent outcome with the Board’s own determinations
`
`for the same patent.
`
`Additionally, the Board misapprehended the significance of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments with respect to objective indicia of nonobviousness, namely that
`
`Petitioner’s failure to consider Finjan’s objective indicia of nonobviousness
`
`renders the Petition deficient as a matter of law. See POPR at 48-51.
`
`Because the Board’s misapprehension resulted in an Institution Decision that
`
`is erroneous as a matter of law, it meets the stringent “abuse of discretion”
`
`standard. Patent Owner respectfully requests, therefore, that the Board reconsider
`
`its decision to institute trial and deny the Petition.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`II. THE BOARD MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED KEY
`ARGUMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE PATENTABILITY OF THE
`‘494 PATENT OVER SWIMMER
`A. The Board Overlooked the Petition’s Improper Conflation of
`Claim Limitations
`
`The Board should reconsider instituting trial with respect to Swimmer
`
`because its decision overlooked Petitioner’s failure to separately address each
`
`claim term and Patent Owner’s argument that Swimmer’s creation of an audit
`
`record cannot satisfy both the claimed “deriving security profile data for the
`
`Downloadable” and “storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.”
`
`See POPR at 20–21. As a result, the Institution Decision is based on an erroneous
`
`interpretation of law that conflates claim terms rather than consider all words in the
`
`claim. See id. at 21 (citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d at 1385) (“All words in a claim
`
`must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
`
`Each of the independent claims recite two different claim limitations:
`
`• “deriving security profile data for the Downloadable…”
`
`• “storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database”
`
`Thus, in order to meet its threshold burden the Petition was, at least, required to
`
`specify where (1) the deriving of security profile data; as well as (2) the storing of
`
`this security profile data in a database are found in Swimmer. See POPR at 1
`
`(quoting 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4) (“[t]he petition must specify where each element
`
`of the claim is found in the prior art…”)); see also POPR at 20–21.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`In contrast, Petitioner took the position that both “security profile data” and
`
`“database” should be redundantly the same, by mapping both to Swimmer’s audit
`
`records. See POPR at 20 (citing Petition at 18 (“Swimmer discloses deriving
`
`security profile data (e.g., audit records).”); see also id. at 20 (citing Petition at 19
`
`(“[T]he audit record includes a list of suspicious operations identified by the audit
`
`system that are organized according to a clearly defined structure with various
`
`fields….”). In instituting trial, the Board overlooked Petitioner’s legally deficient
`
`position. In fact, the Institution Decision states that Swimmer’s “audit record is a
`
`database” despite acknowledging that Petitioner already relies on these “audit
`
`records” to be the claimed “security profile data.” Institution Decision at 16
`
`(“Lastly, Petitioner argues that Swimmer discloses that the audit records (i.e.,
`
`Downloadable security profile data)…”) (emphasis added); id. at 23 (“we are
`
`persuaded on this record that the audit record is a database…”) (emphasis added).
`
`But conflating the “security profile data” itself with the “database” that stores the
`
`“security profile data,” would render these limitations redundant, giving no effect
`
`to the additional requirement of “storing…in a database” as recited by the claims.
`
`In contrast, the law requires that “all words in a claim must be considered in
`
`judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
`
`at 1385; see also mFormation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d
`
`1392, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reaffirming that claim limitations cannot be construed
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`in a way that “would render another limitation superfluous.”) (citation omitted);
`
`see also Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(dictating that claims must be “interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all
`
`terms in the claim.”) (citation omitted).
`
`This erroneous interpretation of law was exactly what Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments warned against in the POPR. Indeed, the Institution Decision overlooks
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that interpreting Swimmer’s audit records to be both the
`
`claimed “security profile data” and the claimed “database” is contrary to the law by
`
`giving no effect to the “storing … in a database” language recited in the claims:
`
`Furthermore, such an interpretation would be contrary to the claim
`language which requires the generation of security profiles as well as
`storing the profiles in a database. Here, Petitioner already relies on
`Swimmer’s audit record to be the claimed “Downloadable
`security profile data.” See id. at 18 (“Swimmer discloses deriving
`security profile data (e.g., audit records).” Swimmer’s creation of
`this audit record alone cannot satisfy both limitations. Indeed,
`such an interpretation gives no effect to the “storing … in a
`database” language in the claim contrary to the law. In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d at 1385 (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging
`the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
`
`POPR at 20–21 (emphasis added). This fatal deficiency was not addressed in the
`
`Institution Decision despite being explicitly raised in the POPR.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Accordingly, the Institution Decision should be reconsidered at least because
`
`the Board’s overlooking of Patent Owner’s argument regarding Petitioner’s
`
`improper conflation led the Board to adopt an erroneous result as a matter of law.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Overlooked Swimmer’s Failure to Disclose “Storing”
`its Audit Records
`
`The Board should also reconsider instituting trial with respect to Swimmer
`
`because the Institution Decision overlooked Swimmer’s failure to disclose
`
`“storing” its audit records. As described above, Petitioner improperly conflated
`
`“security profile data” with “database,” by equating both to Swimmer’s audit
`
`records. Petitioner’s improper conflation also reveals Swimmer’s fatal “storing”
`
`deficiency.
`
`In addition to generating security profile data, the independent claims further
`
`require the “storing” of that data, namely “storing the Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database.” In its POPR, Patent Owner pointed out that Petitioner’s
`
`“audit records” theory also fails because the “storing” of audit records is never
`
`disclosed by Swimmer. POPR at 21 (“In fact, Swimmer fails to disclose storing an
`
`audit record anywhere.”).
`
`Patent Owner further illustrated why Swimmer never stores its audit records,
`
`namely due to Swimmer’s critical “efficiency” requirement. As explained by
`
`Swimmer, because audit records are “large sequential files,” Swimmer’s critical
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`“efficiency” requirement only allows each record to be analyzed “only once,”
`
`regardless of the complexity of the analysis:
`
`In fact, Swimmer fails to disclose storing an audit record anywhere.
`Rather, Swimmer explicitly discloses that audit records are only
`analyzed once, which means that there would be no need to store the
`audit records after analysis, let alone in a database:
`Efficiency is a critical requirement for the analysis of
`large sequential files, especially when on-line monitoring
`is involved. The very principle of the rule-based language
`RUSSEL allows each record to be processed only once,
`whatever complex is the analysis.
`Swimmer at 13 (emphasis added).
`
`POPR at 21 (emphasis added).1 As shown above, Swimmer’s critical “efficiency”
`
`requirement for analyzing audit records further supports that Swimmer’s audit
`
`records are never stored, let alone stored in a database.
`
`Patent Owner’s “storing” arguments were not addressed in the Institution
`
`Decision despite being explicitly raised in the POPR. Rather, the Board focused
`
`on determining whether Swimmer’s “audit record is a database.” Institution
`
`Decision at 23 (“we are persuaded on this record that the audit record is a
`
`
`1 See also Swimmer at 7 (“As a matter of fact, ASAX itself is the logical choice to
`
`act as the filter. The first ASAX system reads the raw audit trail, converts it into
`
`generic data, and pipes its output as a NADF file for further processing….”).
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`database...”). However, the Board overlooked that its “database” finding does not
`
`address Finjan’s separate argument that Swimmer does not disclose “storing” audit
`
`records. Indeed, the Board’s “database” finding does not discuss the “storing”
`
`language at all. Institution Decision at 23. Because the “storing…” language is
`
`recited in each of the independent claims, Ground 3 should be denied based on
`
`Swimmer’s “storing” deficiency alone.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests rehearing because the
`
`Board overlooked Swimmer’s failure to disclosure “storing” its audit records
`
`C. The Institution Decision Should Be Reconsidered to Avoid an
`Inconsistent Outcome
`
`The Board should also reconsider its decision as its “database” finding with
`
`respect to Swimmer results in an inconsistent outcome with the Board’s previous
`
`determinations for the claimed “database.” See Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec
`
`Corp., Case No. IPR2013-00142, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, Paper
`
`No. 12 at 1, 4-6 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2013) (pointing out inconsistency in co-
`
`pending case); see also Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp., Case No.
`
`IPR2013-00142, Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, Paper No. 17
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2013) (granting patent owner’s rehearing request); Valeo N.
`
`Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00220, Decision on Request for
`
`Rehearing, Paper No. 61 at 3 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2015) (finding that the decision
`
`“should be reconsidered to avoid an inconsistent outcome…”).
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`In construing the term “database” with a meaning that is “consistent with the
`
`specification,” the Board correctly rejected multiple attempts to unduly broaden
`
`this term. See Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01022, Decision
`
`Denying Request for Rehearing, Paper No. 9 at 6–10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)
`
`(rejecting construing “database” to mean “data that are organized in some
`
`recognized fashion…”) (Ex. 2006); see also Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01022, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 7
`
`at 9–10, 14 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2015) (rejecting construing “database” to mean
`
`“any structured store of data”) (Ex. 2004); see also Institution Decision at 7–11
`
`(rejecting construing “database” to mean “an organized collection of data.”).
`
`Based on these rejections, prior art that merely discloses “an organized collection
`
`of data” or even “data that are organized in some recognized fashion…” would not
`
`meet the claimed “database.”
`
`In determining Swimmer’s “audit records is a database,” however, the Board
`
`overlooked its previous determinations and equated the claimed “database” with a
`
`meaning that is so broad that it inconsistently encompasses the very constructions
`
`it already rejected, including “data that are organized in some recognized
`
`fashion…” and “an organized collection of data.” Institution Decision at 23
`
`(finding that “audit record is a database,” because it is “organized with a specific
`
`“canonical format” to serve the ASAX tool.”).
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Notably, this decision also overlooked that Petitioner never purported that
`
`Swimmer’s audit records met the adopted construction of “database” which is “a
`
`collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve
`
`one or more applications.” Indeed, Petitioner chose to argue against the “database
`
`schema” requirement during claim construction, which is why the Petition does not
`
`discuss the “database schema” requirement at all for Swimmer. See Petition at 12.
`
`Rather, the Petition always carefully chose to use the broader term "schema"
`
`instead. See Petition at 19 (“(i.e., an organized collection of data that is organized
`
`based on a particular schema)”). Thus, to the extent the Board determined that
`
`Swimmer's canonical format is a "database schema," such a finding is not even
`
`supported by attorney argument, let alone the required “substantial evidence”
`
`necessary to support a factual finding. See Star Fruits, 393 F. 3d at 1281 (“An
`
`abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based …on factual findings that
`
`are not supported by substantial evidence...”).
`
`In challenging Swimmer, Patent Owner explained the significance of
`
`requiring “database schema” within the construction of “database,” including why
`
`storing DSP in accordance to a database schema is entirely different from
`
`Swimmer's technique. As explained in the POPR, Swimmer’s technique relies on
`
`audit records, which are “large sequential files.” See POPR at 21(citing Swimmer
`
`at 13). In stark contrast, the construction of “database” requires storing DSP
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`according to a “database schema,” advantageously allowing DSP to be efficiently
`
`retrieved when a previously scanned incoming Downloadable is received, as
`
`illustrated in the manner in which security database 240 stores DSP data 310
`
`below:
`
`See POPR at 10-11; see also id. at 21 (“This is the very reason that Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction of the term ‘database’ is ‘a collection of interrelated data
`
`organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.’ …
`
`With the DSP data stored according to a database schema, it can be efficiently
`
`retrieved when a previously scanned incoming Downloadable is received.”).
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board overlooked
`
`its previous “database” determinations and Patent Owner’s “database schema”
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`argument, which led the Board to adopt a decision that should be reconsidered to
`
`avoid an inconsistent outcome.
`
`D. The Board Misapprehended the Significance of Patent Owner’s
`Argument Regarding Petitioner’s Failure to Address Objective
`Indicia of Nonobviousness
`
`In light of the Institution Decision, Patent Owner respectfully submits that
`
`the Board has misapprehended its argument regarding the objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness. Stated simply, “Petitioner’s failure to present the Board with a
`
`complete obviousness analysis in its Petition is, as a matter of law, enough to deny
`
`the institution of a trial on Section 103 grounds.” POPR at 48. Patent Owner did
`
`not (nor did it intend to in its POPR—with its limited opportunity to provide new
`
`testimonial evidence) argue the merits of its secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness, which the Board nonetheless addressed. Rather, Patent Owner
`
`simply argued that in failing to address the secondary considerations of which
`
`Petitioner was aware, the Petition’s obviousness grounds were legally deficient
`
`under the framework provided by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). See POPR at 48. The Board’s decision appears to
`
`acknowledge that proper obviousness analysis requires consideration of objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. Institution Decision at 11. However, the Board
`
`never addressed the fact that consideration of objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness does not appear in the Petition.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests rehearing because the Board
`
`misapprehended the significance of Patent Owner’s argument regarding
`
`Petitioner’s failure to address objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully submits that the Board
`
`overlooked or misapprehended the arguments presented in the POPR that
`
`demonstrate that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success on the sole instituted ground. Finjan requests, therefore, that
`
`the Board modify its Institution Decision and decline to subject claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
`
`10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ‘494 Patent to inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in view of Swimmer.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Partial Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.7502 Fax: 212.715.8302
`
`Michael Kim (Reg. No. 40,450)
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: 650.397.9567
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: April 1, 2016
`
`(Case No. IPR2015-01892)
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Partial Request for Rehearing
`IPR2015-01892 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Partial Request for Rehearing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and 42.71(d) was served on April 1, 2016, by
`
`filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as well as
`
`delivering via electronic mail upon the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Daniel A. Crowe
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`One Metropolitan Square
`211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
`St. Louis, MO 63102
`dacrowe@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Joseph J. Richetti.
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`- 16 -