`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00151
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`The ‘154 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`
`III. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“dynamically generated” ....................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Ross is not Prior Art ........................................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`The ‘154 Patent Was Conceived and Diligently Reduced to Practice
`From a Time Predating Ross ................................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`Ross Does Not Render Claims 1–8, 10 and 11 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Ross does not disclose processing content received over a network,
`the content including a call to a first function, and the call including
`an input (claims 1, 4, 6, and 10) .......................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Board’s Institution Decision Identifies the Hook Script as
`Content Received Over the Network ........................................ 18
`
`Petitioner Has Not Identified a Call to a First Function in Ross
` ................................................................................................... 20
`
`Ross Does not Teach or Suggest Content Received Over a
`Network Including a Call to a First Function ........................... 22
`
`Ross Does not Teach or Suggest Receiving Content Over a
`Single Network, the Content Including a Call to a First
`Function .................................................................................... 25
`
`Ross’s Third Device Embodiment Fails to Disclose “Processing
`Content Received Over a Network” ......................................... 29
`
`B.
`
`
`Ross does not disclose “for invoking a second function with the input”
` ............................................................................................................. 35
`
`i
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Resposne
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`Ross does not disclose a receiver for receiving an indicator from the
`security computer whether it is safe to invoke the second function
`with the input” ..................................................................................... 38
`
`Ross does not disclose “calling a second function with a modified
`input variable” (claims 6 and 10) ........................................................ 40
`
`C.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`VI. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 44
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Commercial Success............................................................................ 44
`
`Long-Felt But Unresolved Need and Recognition of a Problem ........ 50
`
`Skepticism and Unexpected Results ................................................... 50
`
`The Failure of Others .......................................................................... 51
`
`VII. Petitioner did not Establish a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness Because it
`Neglected the Graham Factors ...................................................................... 51
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations Must be Considered .................................. 52
`
`Petitioner did not Identify Differences Between the Claimed Invention
`and the Prior Art .................................................................................. 52
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Resposne
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB,
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed.Cir.1989) ............................................................................ 33
`
`Bey v. Kollonitsch,
`806 F.2d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Brown v. Barbacid,
`436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Pat.
`Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC. V. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 42
`
`Finjan v. Websense, Inc.,
`13-CV-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Graftech Int’l Holdgs, Inc., v. Laird Techs., Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1796, -1797, -1798, 2016 WL 3357427 (Fed. Cir. June
`17, 2016) ............................................................................................................. 44
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................... 2, 51, 53
`
`Griffith v. Kanamaru,
`816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 6
`
`- i -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Resposne
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 26
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 53
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................ 2, 43
`
`In re Kumar,
`418 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 33
`
`In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`No. 2015-1300 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) ...................................................... 41, 42
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics,
`Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 49
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc.,
`261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.,
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Osram Sylvania Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 52
`
`In re Payne,
`606 F2d 303 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ............................................................................. 33
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 52
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`No. 2015-01346, -1347 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2016) .......................................... 5, 18
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ........................................................................ 36, 38
`
`- ii -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Resposne
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`Decision Denying Institution, IPR2014-01206, Valeo North America,
`Inc., v. Magna Electronics, Inc ........................................................................... 53
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ...................................................................................... 16, 17, 33
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(ii) .............................................................................................. 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 43
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2001 The Java Tutorials: Passing Information to a Method or a
`Constructor at 1, available at https://docs.oracle.com/javase/
`tutorial/java/javaOO/arguments.html
`
`Exhibit-2002 The Java Tutorials: Primitive Data Types, available at
`https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/nutsandbolts/datatypes.html
`
`Exhibit-2003 Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Defendant
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-13),
`in Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-04908-
`PJH, (N.D. Cal.), dated February 25, 2015.
`
`Exhibit-2004 Petition for Inter Partes Review, Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01547, Paper 1.
`
`Exhibit-2005 Decision Denying Institution, Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case
`No. IPR2015-01547, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016).
`
`Exhibit-2006 Gruzman et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289
`
`Exhibit-2007 Email Chain Re: Invention Disclosure
`
`Exhibit-2008 Email Chain Re: Filing U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475
`
`Exhibit-2009 U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475 – File History Excerpt
`
`Exhibit-2010 Declaration of Dr. Marc Berger, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit-2011 Declaration of Yuval Ben-Itzhak
`
`Exhibit-2012 Deposition Transcript of Aviel Rubin in Case No. IPR2016-01979,
`taken on 5/20/16
`Exhibit-2013 Excerpt from: MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 5th Ed. (2002)
`
`Exhibit-2014 Excerpt from: Brown, WORLD WIDE WEB PLUG-INS COMPANION
`(1996)
`
`1
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2015
`
`Infringement chart created by Dr. Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of Avast Software and the ‘154 Patent
`
`Exhibit-2016
`
`Infringement chart created by Dr. Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of F-Secure and the ‘154 Patent
`
`Exhibit-2017
`
`‘154 Patent Infringement chart regarding the products of
`Websense, Inc., served in Finjan v. Websense, Inc., 13-CV-04398-
`BLF (N.D. Cal.), February 28, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2018
`
`‘154 Patent Infringement chart regarding the products of
`Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc., served in
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc.,
`13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.), April 17, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2019 Proofpoint, Inc.’s 10-K, dated December 31, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2020 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated April 7, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2021 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated December 30, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2022 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 14, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2023 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 20, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2024 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated November 15, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2025 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated September 24, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2026 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Web Gateways, May 28,
`2013
`
`Exhibit-2027 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Email Gateways, July 2,
`2013
`
`Exhibit-2028 Reuters news article - Avast worth ‘upwards of $2 billion’; no IPO
`before 2017, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-avast-
`ceo-idUSKCN0SN2MJ20151029
`
`2
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2029 F-Secure 2015 revenue and financials, available at https://www.f-
`secure.com/en/web/investors_global/financials.
`
`Exhibit-2030 F-Secure Whitepaper - F-Secure DeepGuard, available at
`https://www.f-
`secure.com/documents/996508/1030745/deepguard_whitepaper.pd
`f.
`
`Exhibit-2031 Websense, Inc. Revenue and Financial Data, available at
`http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-
`financial.websense_inc.89ee9262879a5b65.html.
`
`Exhibit-2032 Websense, Inc. brochure - Triton APX (2015), available at
`https://www.websense.com/assets/brochures/brochure-triton-apx-
`en.pdf.
`
`Exhibit-2033 Proofpoint Inc. 10-K, dated February 25, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2034 Proofpoint, Inc. Press Release - Proofpoint Announces Fourth
`Quarter and Full Year 2015 Financial Results (Jan. 28, 2016),
`available at
`http://investors.proofpoint.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=95229
`5
`
`Exhibit-2035 Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic on the Validity of Claims 1-
`5, 6-8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 in Support Patent
`Owner Response in Case No. IPR2016-00151
`
`Exhibit-2036 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Exhibit-2037 Declaration of S.H. Michael Kim in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response in Case No. IPR2015-00151
`
`Exhibit-2038 Deposition Transcript of Aviel Rubin in Case No. IPR2016-00151,
`taken on 8/19/16
`
`Exhibit-2039 Transaction History, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/595,839
`
`Exhibit-2040 Transaction History, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/730,326
`
`3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2041 Transaction History, European Patent No EP0965094
`
`Exhibit-2042 Transaction History, Canadian Patent No. CA 2,275,771
`
`
`4
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, challenging claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,141,154 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘154 Patent”). Based on a limited record, the Board
`
`instituted inter partes review of claims 1–8, 10, and 11 of the ‘154 Patent on April
`
`20, 2016. Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-00151, Paper No. 10
`
`at 18. (“Institution Decision”). Patent Owner, Finjan, Inc., respectfully submits
`
`that, based on the full record for the Board should find that Petitioner has not met
`
`its burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatenable over the sole
`
`reference at issue in this case, Ross U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2007/0113282 (Ex. 1003, “Ross”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable because, as a threshold issue, Ross is not prior art to the ‘154
`
`Patent. The record demonstrates diligence in constructively reducing to practice
`
`the claimed invention from a time prior to Ross’ § 102(e) date, November 17,
`
`2005, and extending to the filing of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/298,475
`
`on December 12, 2005. The ‘154 Patent is a divisional of, claims priority to, and
`
`shares a specification with U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/298,475, which
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (Ex. 2006, the “‘289 Patent”) on July 13,
`
`2010.
`
`1
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Apart from this threshold issue, Ross fails to teach or suggest several
`
`elements of the challenged claims, including:
`
` a content processor for processing content received over a network,
`the content including a call to a first function, and the call including
`an input” (all claims);
` invoking a second function with the input (claims 1 and 4);
` receiving an indicator from the security computer whether it is safe to
`invoke the second function with the input (claims 1 and 4); and
` calling a second function with the modified input variable
`(independent claims 6 and 10).
`Finally, Petitioner provided an incomplete obviousness analysis by failing to
`
`detail any “differences between the claimed invention and the prior art” or address
`
`the abundant secondary considerations of nonobviousness of which it was aware.
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For these reasons, and those stated below,
`
`Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges to the instituted claims of the
`
`‘154 Patent should be denied and all claims found patentable.
`
`II. THE ‘154 PATENT
`The ‘154 Patent was filed June 14, 2010, and claims priority to the ‘289
`
`Patent, which was filed December 12, 2005. The systems and methods of the ‘154
`
`Patent are generally directed to protecting a computer from dynamically generated
`
`malicious content. ‘154 Patent at Abstract. This type of malware takes advantage
`
`2
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`of dynamic features of web content, to evade traditional detection when received
`
`over the network. ‘154 Patent at 3:36–39. For example, dynamic web pages can
`
`include input that initially appears to be merely innocuous text embedded within
`
`HTML pages, only to subsequently generate malicious content on the fly. ‘154
`
`Patent at 3:30–4:8.
`
`To protect against such dynamically generated malicious content, the ‘154
`
`Patent not only processes content when it is received over a network but also
`
`transmits input within the received content to a security computer, with a specific
`
`timing requirement, namely when the first function is invoked. See ‘154 Patent at
`
`5:4–25. A second function is then invoked with the input only if the security
`
`computer deems that such invocation is safe. Id. Thus, even if the input was
`
`unknown when the content was received over the network, the claimed invention
`
`can still protect against dynamically generated malicious content by transmitting
`
`the input to a security computer for inspection when the received content is
`
`processed. The call to the first function can be a call to a substitute function that is
`
`found in the content received over the network (e.g. Substitute_document.write
`
`(‘<h1>hello</h1>‘)), as shown below:
`
`3
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`‘154 Patent at 10:41–59.
`
`When the first function is invoked, the input of this first function is sent to
`
`the security computer for inspection. Using this method, the security computer can
`
`inspect dynamically generated function inputs that may not be identifiable or
`
`scannable using traditional scanning techniques. See ‘154 Patent at 3:65–4:2.
`
`Notably, each independent claim of the ‘154 Patent recites that the call to the first
`
`function be found in the content received over a network, a feature that is disclosed
`
`nowhere in the reference cited in the Petition. ‘154 Patent at Claims 1, 4, 6, and
`
`10.
`
`4
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“DYNAMICALLY GENERATED”
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board did not provide a construction for
`
`“dynamically generated.” Institution Decision at 4–5. As such, for the purposes
`
`of this proceeding, the plain and ordinary meaning controls for this term. SAS
`
`Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, No. 2015-01346, -1347, *17 (Fed. Cir. June
`
`10, 2016) (holding that an agency may not change theories in midstream without
`
`giving reasonable notice of the change and the opportunity to present argument
`
`under the new theory).
`
`IV. ROSS IS NOT PRIOR ART
`As threshold matter, claims 1–5 of the ‘154 Patent should be found
`
`patentable because the inventors conceived of the invention claimed in at least
`
`claims 1–5, and showed diligence in constructively reducing the invention to
`
`practice, from a time prior to Ross’ § 102(e) date.
`
`A.
`
` THE ‘154 PATENT WAS CONCEIVED AND DILIGENTLY REDUCED TO
`PRACTICE FROM A TIME PREDATING ROSS
`
`“The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive
`
`reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application.” Hyatt v.
`
`Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Yasuko Kawai v. Metlesics,
`
`480 F.2d 880, 885 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“[T]he act of filing the United States
`
`5
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`application has the legal effect of being, constructively at least, a simultaneous
`
`conception and reduction to practice of the invention.”); Hybritech Inc. v.
`
`Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“[C]onstructive
`
`reduction to practice occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is
`
`filed”); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 1232 (CCPA 1974)).
`
`Where a party is first to conceive but second to reduce to practice, that party
`
`must demonstrate reasonable diligence toward reduction to practice from a date
`
`just prior to the other party’s conception to its reduction to practice. Griffith v.
`
`Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624, 625–26, (Fed. Cir. 1987). “There is no rule requiring a
`
`specific kind of activity in determining whether the applicant was reasonably
`
`diligent in proceeding toward an actual or constructive reduction to practice.”
`
`Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Rather, “diligence and
`
`its corroboration may be shown by a variety of activities . . . [including] by an
`
`attorney’s work in preparing the patent application.” Id. (citing Bey v. Kollonitsch,
`
`806 F.2d 1024, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “Proof of reasonable diligence . . . does not
`
`require a party to work constantly on the invention or to drop all other work.”
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[t]he purpose of requiring reasonable
`
`diligence by the first to conceive the invention but second to reduce to practice is
`
`6
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`to assure that the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed by the first
`
`inventor during the period after the second inventor entered the field.” Brown v.
`
`Barbacid, 436 F.3d at 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the evidence of record
`
`demonstrates diligence in constructive reduction to practice of the invention
`
`claimed in the ‘154 Patent and no intent to “abandon or unreasonably delay[]” the
`
`invention in the critical period between the filing date of the Ross reference,
`
`November 17, 2005, and the December 12, 2005, filing date of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/298,475, the parent application of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154.
`
`As the record evidence demonstrates, the invention claimed in the ‘154
`
`Patent was conceived by October 31, 2005, at the latest. Yuval Ben-Itzhak, one of
`
`the inventors of the ‘154 Patent, emailed an invention disclosure, in the form of a
`
`draft patent application, to Dr. Marc Berger on October 31, 2005, more than two
`
`weeks before Ross’ filing date. Ex. 2007 at 2; Ex. 2010 (“Berger”), ¶ 5. Mr. Ben-
`
`Itzhak emailed Dr. Berger again two weeks later, on November 13, 2005, to follow
`
`up on the first email, demonstrating diligence and a lack of intent to abandon the
`
`invention on the part of the inventor, an officer of the original assignee, Finjan
`
`Software, Ltd. Ex. 2007 at 2; Ex. 2011 (“Ben-Itzhak”), ¶ 6; Berger, ¶ 5. Dr.
`
`Berger returned Mr. Ben-Itzhak’s email on December 6, 2005, with a number of
`
`questions and comments about the draft patent application. Ex. 2007 at 2; Ben-
`
`Itzhak, ¶ 7; Berger, ¶ 5. Between November 13 and December 12, 2005, Mr. Ben-
`
`7
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Itzhak spoke several times by telephone regarding the patent application. Ben-
`
`Itzhak, ¶ 6. Between December 6 and 12, 2005, Dr. Berger drafted the patent
`
`application that was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475. Berger, ¶ 5.
`
`At the time, Dr. Berger was working for Finjan Software, Ltd., the original
`
`assignee of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475. Berger, ¶ 4. Dr. Berger’s
`
`responsibilities at Finjan Software, Ltd., involved included preparing patent
`
`applications and responding to office actions. Berger, ¶ 4. Dr. Berger testified that
`
`in the months of November and December, 2005, he was working on a number of
`
`cases for Finjan Software, Ltd., “including (i) an Office action response for U.S.
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 09/595,839, (ii) an Office action response for U.S.
`
`Patent Application Serial No. 09/730,326, (iii) an Office action response for
`
`European Patent Application No. 97 950 351.3, and (iv) an Office action response
`
`to Canadian Patent Application No. 2,275.771.” Berger, ¶ 7. Each of these office
`
`actions was mailed by the relevant patent office prior to Mr. Ben-Itzhak sending
`
`the draft application on October 31, 2005. See Ex. 2039 (showing Office Action
`
`mailed Sept. 26, 2005); Ex. 2040 (showing Office Action mailed July 25, 2005);
`
`Ex. 2041 (showing Office Action mailed June 17, 2005); Ex. 2042 (showing Office
`
`Action mailed May 30, 2005). Thus, the work Dr. Berger performed in preparing
`
`responses to these office actions, before he took up drafting the patent application
`
`that was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475, was carried out in
`
`8
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`chronological order, demonstrating diligence on his part. Bey v. Kollonitsch, 806
`
`F.2d 1024, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[I]f the attorney has a reasonable backlog of
`
`work which he takes up in chronological order and carries out expeditiously, that is
`
`sufficient.”).
`
`Dr. Berger also started his own practice, Seqoul Group LLP, in the summer
`
`of 2005. Berger, ¶ 8. Dr. Berger testified that he had a full schedule working for
`
`several clients in the November–December 2005 timeframe. Berger, ¶ 8. Despite
`
`his full docket, Dr. Berger prepared a full non-provisional patent application for a
`
`relatively complicated invention within six weeks of first receiving the disclosure.
`
`The “critical period” between Ross’ filing date and the filing date of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/298,475, was even shorter—only twenty-five days—at least
`
`seven days of which were devoted to working to complete the specification,
`
`claims, and drawings of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/298,475. Berger, ¶¶ 5, 8.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s claim charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that Mr.
`
`Ben-Itzhak’s invention disclosure, emailed to Dr. Berger on October 31, 2005,
`
`provides proof of conception of the invention claimed in the ‘154 Patent.
`
`Claim
`1[a] A system for
`protecting a
`computer from
`dynamically
`generated malicious
`content, comprising:
`1[b] a content
`
`Disclosure in Ex. 2007.
`“The present invention relates to the field of securing
`computer applications, networks and services. More
`particularly, the present invention relates to a method and
`system for inspecting dynamically generated executable
`code using a remote process.” Ex. 2007 at 3.
`
`The invention disclosure discloses a “content processor”
`
`9
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`(e.g. an operating system). Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`“Having the traffic/content received at the Client machine,
`220, and being executed by the operating system, the
`altered executable code will behave differently as originally
`provided from the Internet, 200, it will forward as the
`security gateway, 210, data the dynamically created code
`functions are expected to execute – for inspection, 240. Ex.
`2007 at 11.
`The invention disclosure discloses processing content
`received over a network (e.g. altered code), the content
`including a call to a first function (e.g. Finjan_write(“<h1>
`hello!</h1>“);), and the call including an input (e.g. “<h1>
`hello!</h1>“). Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`
`processor
`
`1[c] (i) for
`processing content
`received over a
`network, the content
`including a call to a
`first function, and
`the call including an
`input, and
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007 at 19; Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`“FIG. 6 shows and [sic] example of the altered code as made
`by the security gateway described in this invention. Note
`that the original function document.write was replaced by a
`custom function Finjan_write() and that a new code was
`appended to the original code to support such custom
`function.” Ex. 2007 at 13.
`“Finding such functions and/or commands and/or operator,
`the security gateway, 210, will alter the executable code to
`replace/rename these functions and/or commands and/or
`operator with custom functions as well as appending
`inspected code calls following by sending such
`
`10
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`traffic/content, 250, to the Client machine, 200.” Ex. 2007
`at 11.
`“Having known executable type, the security gateway alters
`the code to rename original dynamic code creation functions
`and appending inspected code calls 308. Having altered the
`downloadable, the downloadable content is forwarded to the
`Client machine, 312. Ex. 2007 at 12.
`The invention disclosure form discloses invoking a second
`function (e.g. document.write()) with the input (e.g.
`sometext), only if a security computer indicates that such
`invocation is safe (e.g. if Inspection_result = True).
`Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`
`1[d] (ii) for
`invoking a second
`function with the
`input, only if a
`security computer
`indicates that such
`invocation is safe;
`
`Ex. 2007 at 19; Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`“Since in this example no malicious code is included in the
`Finjan_write function, but just HTML text, the security
`gateway will reply with the original data and enable
`execution of the original code without change.” Ex. 2007 at
`13.
`
`“Having no malicious code detected in such data, the
`security gateway, 210, will reply to the client machine, 220,
`with the original data for execution. Having a malicious
`code detected, the security gateway, 210, will reply to the
`Client machine, 220, with a data that will represent no
`execution (e.g. a NULL value).” Ex. 2007 at 12.
`
`11
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`1[e] a transmitter for
`transmitting the
`input to the security
`computer for
`inspection, when the
`first function is
`invoked; and
`
`
`The invention disclosure document discloses a transmitter
`(e.g. the Client machine 220) for transmitting the input to
`the security computer for inspection (“data the dynamically
`created code functions are expected to execute – for
`inspection, 240”), when the first function (e.g.
`Finjan_write()) is invoked. Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2007 at 19; Medvidovic, ¶ 49.
`“Having the altered code executed on the client machine and
`the Finjan_write function will be called for execution, the
`data will be send [sic] to the remote security gateway for
`inspection – Call_gateway_to_inspect_content
`(sometext);.” Ex. 2007 at 13.
`“Having the traffic/content received at the client machine,
`220, and being executed by the operating system, the altered
`executable code will behave differently as originally
`provided from the Internet, 200, as it will forward the
`security gateway, 210, data the dynamically created code
`f