throbber
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 362
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-855
`
`
`VirnetX Inc. and
`Science Applications International
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S AND PLAINTIFF SCIENCE
`APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) files this Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and
`
`Counterclaims to Plaintiff VirnetX Inc.’s (“VirnetX”) and Plaintiff Science Applications
`
`International Corporation’s (“SAIC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Original Complaint (Dkt. No.
`
`1).
`
`ANSWER
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.–2. Apple is without sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraphs 1–2 and therefore denies the same.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Apple admits that Plaintiffs allege a civil action for patent infringement under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, Title 35. Apple admits that this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over VirnetX’s claims for patent infringement. Apple denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2007
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2016-00063
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 363
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Apple admits that venue is proper in this Court, but Apple denies that this judicial
`
`district is the more convenient forum for this case. Apple denies all other allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Apple admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apple admits
`
`that it has conducted business in the State of Texas. Apple admits that it has and does sell
`
`products and provide services to persons within the State of Texas and this District, but it denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement within this District or the State of Texas, and
`
`specifically denies any wrongdoing, infringement, inducement of infringement, or contribution
`
`to infringement. Apple denies all other allegations in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Apple admits that, according to the face of the patent, United States Patent No.
`
`6,502,135 (“the ’135 patent”) is entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications
`
`with Assured System Availability” and reflects an issue date of December 31, 2002. Apple
`
`admits that Edmund Colby Munger, Douglas Charles Schmidt, Robert Dunham Short, III, Victor
`
`Larson, and Michael Williamson are listed as inventors on the face of the patent. Apple admits
`
`that what appears to be a copy of the ’135 patent is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint.
`
`Apple denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Apple admits that, according to the face of the patent, United States Patent No.
`
`7,418,504 (“the ’504 patent”) is entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications
`
`Using Secure Domain Names” and reflects an issue date of August 26, 2008. Apple admits that
`
`Victor Larson, Robert Dunham Short, III, Edmund Colby Munger, and Michael Williamson are
`
`listed as inventors on the face of the patent. Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 364
`
`’504 patent is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint. Apple denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Apple admits that, according to the face of the patent, United States Patent No.
`
`7,490,151 (“the ’151 patent”) is entitled “Establishment of a Secure Communication Link Based
`
`on a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request” and reflects an issue date of February 10, 2009.
`
`Apple admits that Edmund Colby Munger, Robert Dunham Short, III, Victor Larson, and
`
`Michael Williamson are listed as inventors on the face of the patent. Apple admits that what
`
`appears to be a copy of the ’151 patent is attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint. Apple denies
`
`all other allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that, according to the face of the patent, United States Patent No.
`
`7,921,211 (“the ’211 patent”) is entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications
`
`Using Secure Domain Names” and reflects an issue date of April 5, 2011. Apple admits that
`
`Edmund Colby Munger, Robert Dunham Short, III, Victor Larson, and Michael Williamson are
`
`listed as inventors on the face of the patent. Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the
`
`’211 patent is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint. Apple denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT I
`
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY APPLE
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–9 above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Apple denies that it has infringed or continues to infringe the ’135, ’151, ’504, or ’211 patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 365
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Apple admits that it provides or has provided the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`Lion operating system to others in the United States. Apple denies that these or any other Apple
`
`products infringe any asserted claims of the ’135 patent. Apple further denies all other
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it makes or has made, uses or used, sells or sold, offers for sale
`
`or offered for sale, imports or imported, exports or exported, supplies or supplied, and/or
`
`distributes or distributed within and from the United States the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`Lion operating system, but Apple denies that these or any other Apple products infringe any
`
`claim of the ’151 patent. Apple further denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 16 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Apple admits that it makes or has made, uses or used, sells or sold, offers for sale
`
`or offered for sale, imports or imported, exports or exported, supplies or supplied, and/or
`
`distributes or distributed within and from the United States the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`Lion operating system, but Apple denies that these or any other Apple products infringe any
`
`claim of the ’151 patent. It is not clear what is referenced by “media that store, cache, or
`
`distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies allegations in paragraph 17 regarding the
`
`foregoing statement. Apple further denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 366
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Apple admits that it provides or has provided the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`Lion operating system to others in the United States. Apple denies that these or any other Apple
`
`products infringe any asserted claims of the ’151 patent. It is not clear what is referenced by
`
`“media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies allegations in
`
`paragraph 18 regarding the foregoing statement. Apple further denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it makes or has made, uses or used, sells or sold, offers for sale
`
`or offered for sale, imports or imported, exports or exported, supplies or supplied, and/or
`
`distributes or distributed within and from the United States the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, Apple computers containing the Mountain Lion
`
`operating system, and Apple computers that can run Apple’s FaceTime for Mac application, but
`
`Apple denies that these or any other Apple products infringe any claim of the ’504 patent. It is
`
`not clear what is referenced by “Apple computers running ... iMessage” and “Apple’s servers,
`
`master discs and other media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies
`
`allegations in paragraph 22 regarding the foregoing statements. Apple further denies all other
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it provides or has provided the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 367
`
`Lion operating system to others in the United States. Apple denies that these or any other Apple
`
`products infringe any asserted claims of the ’504 patent. It is not clear what is referenced by
`
`“media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies allegations in
`
`paragraph 24 regarding the foregoing statement. Apple further denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it makes or has made, uses or used, sells or sold, offers for sale
`
`or offered for sale, imports or imported, exports or exported, supplies or supplied, and/or
`
`distributes or distributed within and from the United States the iPhone 5, iPod touch (5th
`
`generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain
`
`Lion operating system, but Apple denies that these or any other Apple products infringe any
`
`claim of the ’211 patent. It is not clear what is referenced by “Apple’s servers, master discs and
`
`other media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies allegations in
`
`paragraph 28 regarding the foregoing statement. Apple further denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it provides or has provided the iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5th
`
`Generation, iPad 4th Generation, iPad mini, and Apple computers containing the Mountain Lion
`
`operating system to others in the United States. Apple denies that these or any other Apple
`
`products infringe any asserted claims of the ’211 patent. It is not clear what is referenced by
`
`“media that store, cache, or distribute iPhone OS.” As such, Apple denies allegations in
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 368
`
`paragraph 30 regarding the foregoing statement. Apple further denies all other allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Apple admits that it received notice of infringement of the asserted patents after
`
`the filing of the lawsuit in the VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Inc., 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex.) action but
`
`denies that any Apple products infringe the ’135, ’151, ’504, or ’211 patents. Apple further
`
`denies all other allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Denied. Apple also incorporates by reference the Stipulation between Apple and
`
`VirnetX filed in the VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Inc., 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex.) action (Dkt. No. 551) as
`
`it relates to willful infringement.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Apple also demands a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Apple opposes VirnetX’s requested relief against Apple or any other relief VirnetX
`
`
`
`
`
`requests against Apple, including those specified in paragraphs 1–15 of this Section of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`DENIAL OF ANY REMAINING ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`Except as specifically admitted herein, Apple denies any remaining allegations in the
`
`Complaint that are directed at Apple.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 369
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Apple asserts the following Affirmative Defenses.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Infringement)
`
`37.
`
`Apple does not infringe and has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Claims of the ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents are invalid for failure to satisfy
`
`the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without
`
`limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Laches)
`
`39.
`
`VirnetX’s claims are barred in whole or in part by laches.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Waiver)
`
`40.
`
`VirnetX’s claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Estoppel)
`
`41.
`
`VirnetX’s claims are barred in whole or in part by estoppel.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Notice, Damages, and Costs)
`
`42.
`
`VirnetX’s claims for damages, if any, against Apple are statutorily limited by 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 286 and/or § 287.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`VirnetX’s claims for damages, if any, against Apple are limited by the one
`
`compensation rule.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 370
`
`
`
`44.
`
`VirnetX is barred from recovering costs in connection with this action under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 288.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Sales to Government)
`
`45.
`
`VirnetX’s claims are limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel)
`
`46.
`
`VirnetX’s claims are limited by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
`
`
`
`
`
`estoppel.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unclean Hands and Inequitable Conduct)
`
`
`
`47.
`
`As more fully outlined in Apple’s Count III, specifically paragraphs 10–46 in
`
`Apple’s Counterclaims, which are hereby incorporated by reference, the claims of the ’135, ’151,
`
`’504, and ’211 patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, infectious unenforceability,
`
`and/or unclean hands committed by the inventors, their counsel, VirnetX, and/or others
`
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the ’135, ’151, ’504, or ’211 patents.
`
`RESERVATION OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Apple hereby reserves the right to supplement additional affirmative defenses as
`
`discovery proceeds in this case.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`Apple asserts the following counterclaims against VirnetX Inc. and SAIC (collectively,
`
`VirnetX).
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaim plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at One Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 371
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief based on the Complaint, Counterclaim Defendant
`
`VirnetX Inc. is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business at 308 Dorla Ct.,
`
`Zephyr Cove, NV 89448.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief based on the Complaint, Counterclaim Defendant
`
`Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is a Delaware corporation having its
`
`principal place of business at 1710 SAIC Drive, Mclean, Virginia 22102.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`4.
`
`These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States as enacted
`
`under Title 35 of the United States Code and the provisions of the Federal Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`COUNT I—DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`6.
`
`Based on the filing of this action, SAIC’s ownership interest in the asserted
`
`patents, and Apple’s Affirmative Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists
`
`between Plaintiffs and Apple as to whether Apple has infringed or is infringing one or more
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (the ’135 patent), 7,490,151 (the ’151 patent), 7,418,504
`
`(the ’504 patent), and 7,921,211 (the ’211 patent).
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`
`Apple requests the declaration of the Court that Apple does not infringe and has not infringed
`
`any valid and enforceable claim of the ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents.
`
`COUNT II—DECLARATION OF PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Based on the filing of this action, SAIC’s ownership interest in the asserted
`
`patents, and Apple’s Affirmative Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 372
`
`between Plaintiffs and Apple as to the validity of the asserted claims of the ’135, ’151, ’504, and
`
`’211 patents.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., Apple
`
`requests the declaration of the Court that the ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents are invalid.
`
`COUNT III—DECLARATION OF UNENFORCEABILITY
`
`10.
`
`Based on VirnetX’s filing of this action, SAIC’s ownership interest in the asserted
`
`patents, and Apple’s Affirmative Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists
`
`between Plaintiffs and Apple as to the enforceability of the ’135, ’151, ’504, and ’211 patents.
`
`11.
`
`The ’135 patent, which issued on December 31, 2002, was filed with the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) on February 15, 2000 as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/504,783 (the ’783 application).
`
`12.
`
`The ’151 patent, which issued on February 10, 2009, was filed with the Patent
`
`Office on September 30, 2002 as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/259,494 (the ’494 application).
`
`13.
`
`The ’504 patent, which issued on August 26, 2008, was filed with the Patent
`
`Office on November 18, 2003 as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/714,849 (the ’849 application).
`
`14.
`
`The ’211 patent, which issued on April 5, 2011, was filed with the Patent Office
`
`on August 17, 2007 as U.S. Patent Application No. 11/840,560 (the ’560 application).
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, the applications that matured into the ’135 and ’151
`
`patents were assigned to SAIC. On information and belief, SAIC assigned to VirnetX certain
`
`rights in the ’135 patent after issuance and certain rights in the application that matured into the
`
`’151 patent. On information and belief, the applications that matured into the ’504 and ’211
`
`patents were assigned to VirnetX.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 373
`
`The ’135 Patent
`
`16.
`
`The ’135 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Based on a review
`
`of the file history and based on Apple’s understanding of the allegations by VirnetX, one or more
`
`of the people substantively involved in the prosecution of the application leading to the ’135
`
`patent, including a reexamination, were aware of information material to the patentability of the
`
`claims of the ’135 patent, but withheld that information from the Patent Office with the intent to
`
`deceive.
`
`17.
`
`The withheld information includes U.S. Patent Application No. 09/399,753 (the
`
`Miller Application), which was pending during the prosecution of the ’135 patent. The pendency
`
`of the Miller Application was information material to patentability of the ’135 patent based on
`
`Apple’s understanding of the allegations by VirnetX. The withheld information also includes
`
`RFC 2401-Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol (RFC 2401) and information
`
`concerning the publication date of the Aventail Administrator’s Guide (Aventail), which are
`
`material to patentability based upon Apple’s understanding of the allegations by VirnetX. This
`
`withholding of information material to patentability with the intent to deceive the Patent Office
`
`constitutes inequitable conduct.
`
`18.
`
`The Miller Application, RFC 2401, and the Aventail reference are not cumulative
`
`to the prior art made of record during prosecution of the ’135 patent. On information and belief,
`
`there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have considered this art in
`
`determining whether to allow the ’135 patent to issue.
`
`19.
`
`During the prosecution of the application leading to the ’135 patent, one or more
`
`of the people substantively involved in its prosecution (including Ross Dannenburg) were aware
`
`of the Miller Application. Mr. Dannenburg was involved in the prosecution of the Miller
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 374
`
`Application at least as early as June 14, 2002, when he signed an Amendment / Response in the
`
`prosecution history of the Miller Application. Mr. Dannenburg was involved in the prosecution
`
`of the ’135 patent at least as early as January 28, 2002, when he signed a Transmittal Form for an
`
`Amendment / Response in the prosecution file history of the ’135 patent. Therefore, Mr.
`
`Dannenburg was involved in the prosecution of the Miller Application while he was prosecuting
`
`the ’135 patent. Based on Apple’s understanding of the allegations by VirnetX, the pendency of
`
`the Miller Application is information material to patentability. Nonetheless, those substantively
`
`involved in the prosecution of the application intentionally failed to disclose this material
`
`information to the Patent Office at any time during the prosecution of the ’135 patent with intent
`
`to deceive. Moreover, the materiality of the Miller Application leads to an inference of intent to
`
`deceive. This withholding of information material to patentability with the intent to deceive the
`
`Patent Office constitutes inequitable conduct.
`
`20.
`
`During the prosecution of the application leading to the ’135 patent, one or more
`
`of the people substantively involved in its prosecution were aware of RFC 2401, including Mr.
`
`Dannenburg, because it is mentioned in the specification of the ’135 patent. Based on Apple’s
`
`understanding of the allegations by VirnetX, RFC 2401 is material prior art. Nonetheless, those
`
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the application intentionally failed to submit this
`
`material prior art reference to the Patent Office as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 and 37 C.F.R. 1.97,
`
`with intent to deceive. Moreover, in mentioning RFC 2401 in the application, those
`
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the application described RFC 2401 in a way that
`
`concealed its materiality, with intent to deceive. Moreover, the materiality of RFC 2401 leads to
`
`an inference of intent to deceive. This conduct, undertaken with the intent to deceive the Patent
`
`Office, constitutes inequitable conduct.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 375
`
`21.
`
`On or about February 15, 2007, VirnetX Inc. filed a lawsuit against Microsoft
`
`Corporation (Microsoft) in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, C.A. No. 6:07-CV-80
`
`(the Microsoft Case), alleging that Microsoft infringed certain VirnetX Inc. patents, including the
`
`’135 patent. SAIC was eventually added to that case as a plaintiff.
`
`22.
`
`In December 2009, Microsoft filed a reexamination request with the Patent Office
`
`requesting reexamination of claims 1–10 and 12 of the ’135 patent, citing, among other
`
`references, the Aventail reference as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Microsoft asserted that
`
`the Aventail reference anticipated claims 1–10 and 12 of the ’135 patent.
`
`23.
`
`On or about December 31, 2009, the Patent Office ordered reexamination of
`
`claims 1–10 and 12 of the ’135 patent, finding, in part, that the Aventail reference raised a
`
`substantial new question of patentability of all of the requested claims of the ’135 patent.
`
`24.
`
`On or about January 15, 2010, the Patent Office issued a non-final action rejecting
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, and 12 of the ’135 patent as being anticipated by the Aventail reference.
`
`25.
`
`On or about February 22, 2010, VirnetX Inc. filed a petition to extend its deadline
`
`for responding to the office action, pointing out, in part, that it needed additional time to
`
`investigate whether the Aventail reference was proper prior art, including investigating the dates
`
`of conception and reduction to practice of the inventions claimed in the ’135 patent as well as
`
`diligence there between. The petition also cited as a basis for extension that the Microsoft Case
`
`was causing a “significant drain” on VirnetX Inc.’s resources. Moreover, the petition stated that
`
`the extension “would likely also permit consideration of any court conclusions regarding the
`
`claims presently under reexamination.” The petition was filed by Toby Kusmer of McDermott
`
`Will & Emery, the same firm that represented VirnetX Inc. in the Microsoft Case until 2009.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 376
`
`The Patent Office responded on or about February 24, 2010, granting an extension, and setting
`
`the deadline for response as April 15, 2010.
`
`26.
`
`On or about March 8, 2010, trial of the Microsoft Case (Microsoft Trial)
`
`commenced. During the Microsoft Trial, one or more witnesses for VirnetX Inc., including
`
`inventor Edward Munger, testified that the claims of the ’135 patent were conceived no earlier
`
`than three months after September 23, 1999, placing the date of conception for claims 1–10 and
`
`12 on or about December 23, 1999. During the Microsoft Trial, Microsoft alleged, in part, that
`
`claims 1–10 and 12 of the ’135 patent were anticipated by the Aventail reference, which on
`
`information and belief bears a copyright date 1996–1999. Microsoft presented evidence
`
`indicating that the Aventail reference may have been published as early as June 1999. Inventor
`
`Edward Munger was present in the courtroom as VirnetX’s corporate representative when this
`
`evidence was presented. Based on a review of the trial record, VirnetX Inc. did not dispute the
`
`publication date of the Aventail reference. The Microsoft Trial concluded on or about March 16,
`
`2010.
`
` Therefore, at least as of March 16, 2010, VirnetX Inc. and its corporate
`
`representative/inventor Edward Munger were aware that the Aventail reference may have been
`
`published at least as early as June 1999, which is prior to the February 15, 2000, filing date of the
`
`application that matured into the ’135 patent and prior to the earliest conception date of
`
`December 1999 claimed by the inventor of the ’135 patent.
`
`27.
`
`On or about March 25, VirnetX Inc. gave notice to the Patent Office of the
`
`outcome of the case and submitted the jury verdict form from the case. On or about March 29,
`
`2010, VirnetX Inc. filed a petition requesting that the reexamination proceeding be suspended.
`
`The Patent Office did not respond to the request until after the date set for VirnetX Inc.’s
`
`response to the non-final office action rejection.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 377
`
`28.
`
`On or about April 15, 2010, VirnetX Inc. responded to the office action rejection,
`
`in part, by asserting that the Aventail reference should not be considered prior art because no
`
`evidence had been submitted by Microsoft that established the actual publication date of the
`
`Aventail reference. Moreover, VirnetX Inc. did not provide the result of any investigation it may
`
`have made with respect to the publication date of the Aventail reference or the dates of
`
`conception or reduction to practice of the ’135 patent that it indicated it would make in its
`
`petition for an extension of time, nor did VirnetX Inc. provide any information that it learned
`
`from the Microsoft Trial that related to the publication date of the Aventail reference. Based on
`
`a review of the prosecution history, VirnetX Inc. did not disclose that its conception date for the
`
`claims of the ’135 patent was no earlier than December 1999, nor did VirnetX Inc. disclose that
`
`the Aventail reference may have been published as early as June 1999, as it was made aware of
`
`during the Microsoft Trial.
`
`29.
`
`On June 16, 2010, the Patent Office issued an Action Closing Prosecution. In the
`
`action, the examiner recites that he made an attempt to determine the publication date of the
`
`Aventail reference, but was unsuccessful. Based on the lack of evidence of the publication date,
`
`the examiner withdrew all of the rejections that had been based on the Aventail reference.
`
`Therefore, VirnetX’s withholding and misrepresentations were the “but-for” cause of the Patent
`
`Office dismissing the reexamination proceeding of the ’135 patent that was initiated by
`
`Microsoft.
`
`30.
`
`On July 11, 2011. Apple filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the ’135
`
`patent. Apple’s request for inter partes reexamination asserted, among other things, that claims
`
`1–10, 12–15, and 18 of the ’135 patent were anticipated by the Aventail reference. Apple’s
`
`request for inter partes reexamination included declarations from three different people with
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 378
`
`knowledge of Aventail’s public availability, corroborating the evidence produced in the
`
`Microsoft Trial establishing that Aventail was publicly available and disseminated by Aventail
`
`Corporation at least as early as June 1999. Notwithstanding the considerable documentary and
`
`testimonial evidence establishing that Aventail is prior art to the ’135 patent, VirnetX continues
`
`to argue to the Patent Office that Aventail is not prior art, for example in its May 15, 2012 Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to Office Action at 5–6. In particular, VirnetX stated “And, for Aventail, the
`
`only support provided are the uncorroborated declarations of three individuals whom Patent
`
`Owner has no ability to depose.” That statement is demonstrably false and further evidence of
`
`VirnetX’s intent to deceive the Patent Office with respect to the Aventail reference. One of the
`
`submitted declarations was from Chris Hopen, a co-founder of Aventail Corporation who has
`
`consistently sworn and testified that the Aventail reference was publicly disseminated by
`
`Aventail in June or July 1999. VirnetX has deposed Mr. Hopen twice—once in the Microsoft
`
`litigation and once in prior litigation with Apple. The other two declarations were from persons
`
`disclosed on Apple’s initial disclosures in the prior litigation with Apple—individuals whom
`
`VirnetX had every opportunity to subpoena and depose.
`
`31.
`
`The inter partes reexamination of the ’135 patent initiated by Apple in July 2011
`
`confirms that the Aventail reference (and its priority date) is but-for material to the claims of the
`
`’135 patent. In granting Apple’s request for reexamination, the Patent Office found that the
`
`Aventail reference raised a substantial new question of patentability for claims 1–10, 12–14, and
`
`18 of the ’135 patent and that arguments by the Patent Owner in the previous reexamination, that
`
`the Aventail reference was not prior art, warranted consideration of the reference in a new light
`
`relative to its prior consideration. On February 12, 2012 the Patent Office issued an Office
`
`Action rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, and 12–14 as anticipated by the Aventail reference.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 25
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 28 Filed 01/23/13 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 379
`
`32.
`
`VirnetX Inc. and/or its representatives, agents, and attorneys who were
`
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the reexamination knew or should have known of
`
`the Microsoft trial and the evidence presented regarding the publication date of the Aventail
`
`reference. For example, Mr. Kusmer specifically referenced the Microsoft Trial and the potential
`
`for additional material information to come to light during that trial when seeking an extension to
`
`respond to an office action, as set forth in paragraph 25 above. VirnetX Inc. and/or its
`
`representatives, agents, and attorneys withheld this information with the intent to deceive, either
`
`willfully or with such gross negligence or recklessness as constituting an act of willfulness
`
`amounting to inequitable conduct. Moreove

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