UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00480
`Patent 7,647,633
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE ‘633 PATENT ................................................................................................ 6
`
`A. Overview ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims .................................................................................................. 8
`
`III. The Board Should Dismiss The Petition Because it is Unquestionably Time
`Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) ............................... 11
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Should be Denied as Premature ......................... 12
`
`A. Granting Petitioner’s Joinder Request Would Defeat the Purpose of the Time
`Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and the Estoppel Provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(e) ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Relevant Factors do not Weigh in Favor of Joinder ..................................... 16
`
`Joinder is not Appropriate .................................................................................... 17
`
`Briefing and Discovery Would not be Simplified and the IPR Trial Schedule
`Could be Negatively Impacted ............................................................................. 19
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. 20
`
`“mobile protection code (“MPC”)” (all challenged claims) ................................ 20
`
`“information re-communicator” (challenged claims 2, 14, and 19) ..................... 20
`
`“means for receiving downloadable-information” (claim 13) ............................. 21
`
`“means for determining whether the downloadable-information includes
`executable code” (claim 13) ................................................................................. 23
`
`“means for causing mobile protection code to be communicated to at least
`one information-destination of the downloadable-information, if the
`downloadable information is determined to include executable code” (claim
`13) 23
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`VI. SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW
`SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ...................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Deny the Petition Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ......................... 26
`
`The Board Should Deny the Petition Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c),
`42.22(a)(2), and 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................... 34
`
`C. Ground 1: Shin does not Render Obvious Claims 1–4, 6–8, 13, 14, and 19 ....... 38
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Shin Discloses “[a content inspection
`engine communicatively coupled to the information monitor for/means for]
`determining [,by the computer] whether the downloadable-information
`includes executable code” (claims 1, 8, and 13) .................................................. 40
`
`Petition Has Not Demonstrated that Shin Discloses claim 14 as it Relies on
`Conflating Claim Terms ....................................................................................... 43
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Shin Discloses “causing mobile
`protection code to be executed by the mobile code executor at a
`downloadable-information destination such that one or more operations of
`the executable code at the destination, if attempted, will be processed by the
`mobile protection code” (claims 14) .................................................................... 45
`
`D. Ground 2: Poison Java Does Not Anticipate Claim 28 ........................................ 47
`
`1.
`
`E.
`
`1.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Poison Java Discloses “receiving a
`sandboxed package that includes mobile protection code (“MPC”) and a
`Downloadable and one or more protection policies at a computer at a
`Downloadable-destination” (claim 28) ................................................................. 48
`
`Ground 3: Poison Java in view of Shin does not Render Claim 1 Obvious ......... 51
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Poison Java in view of Shin Discloses
`“determining ,by the computer whether the downloadable-information
`includes executable code” (claim 1) ..................................................................... 52
`
`Ground 4: Poison Java in view of Brown does not Render Claims 14, 19,
`and 34 Obvious ..................................................................................................... 52
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Poison Java in view of Brown
`Discloses “causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`code executor at a downloadable-information destination such that one or
`more operations of the executable code at the destination, if attempted, will
`be processed by the mobile protection code” (claim 14) ..................................... 52
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Poison Java in view of Shin Discloses
`“a sandboxed package capable of being received an initiated by the mobile
`code executor on the computer, the sandboxed package including a
`Downloadable and mobile protection code (“MPC”) for causing one or more
`Downloadable operations to be intercepted by the computer and for
`processing the intercepted operations by the computer, if the Downloadable
`attempts to initiation the operations” (claim 34) .................................................. 56
`
`VII. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE CUMULATIVE ........................................ 57
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 57
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 45
`
`EMC Corp, v. Secure Axcess, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00475, Paper No. 10 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014) ............................ 37
`
`Goertek, Inc. v. Knowles Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00523, Paper 26 (PTAB May 30, 2014) ............................................... 7
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 51
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 51
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) ....................................... 17
`
`Linear Technology Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-01994 ................................................................................... 13
`
`mFormation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Prism Pharma Co., v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (PTAB July 8, 2014) ................................ 25
`
`Ring & Pinion Service Inc. v. ARB Corp.,
`743 F. 3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 51
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 21
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) ............................................. 5
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d at 1385 ................................................................................................. 45
`
`ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00136 (Nov. 5, 2013) .................................................................... 37, 38
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ............................................................................................. 21, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ............................................................................................. 13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e), and (3) ........................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 37
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.22(a)(2), and 42.104(b)(4) ........................... 25, 26, 34, 37
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b) ............................................................................. 16
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 49
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) ........................................................................................... 1, 11
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 44
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.101(b) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On January 20, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner” ” or “Blue
`
`Coat”) submitted a Petition to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,647,633 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘633 Patent”), challenging claims 1–4, 6–8, 13, 14,
`
`19, 28, and 34. The instant Petition is unquestionably time-barred under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b). In an effort to evade the statutory timing
`
`restriction, Blue Coat seeks to join a pending inter partes review brought by Palo
`
`Alto Networks, namely Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01974 (“the ‘1974 IPR”).1 See Paper No. 4 (“Joinder Motion”).
`
`Finjan, Inc., (“Patent Owner” or “Finjan”) requests that the Board deny the
`
`Petition and Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder requesting to join Case No. IPR2016-
`
`00149 at least because (1) 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) prohibit
`
`Petitioner’s time-barred Petition (2) Petitioner has already chosen to forego the
`
`filing a petition for inter partes review of the ‘633 Patent in favor of challenging
`
`the patent in district court, where Petitioner has already had a full and fair chance
`
`to challenge the patents without the spectre of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e),
`
`and (3) the relevant factors do not weigh in favor of joinder. Accordingly, Patent
`
`1 Petitioner states that its Petition is “practically a copy of Palo Alto Networks’
`
`petition with respect to the proposed grounds, including the same analysis of the
`
`prior art and expert testimony.” Joinder Motion at 1.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Owner requests that Petitioner’s Motions for Joinder be denied with prejudice. In
`
`the event that the Board grants Petitioner’s Joinder Motion, Patent Owner notes
`
`that joinder would only be appropriate for the grounds on which trial was instituted
`
`in the ‘1974 IPR—namely, claims 14 and 19 as allegedly being obvious over (1)
`
`Shin, and (2) Poison Java in view of Brown. See ‘1974 IPR, Paper No. 7 at 13–16
`
`(Ex. 2007, “’1974 Institution Decision”). In any case, Petitioner’s Petition should
`
`be denied as to these two grounds for the additional reasons discussed in the instant
`
`Preliminary Response that were not raised in Patent Owner’s preliminary response
`
`to Palo Alto Networks’ petition.
`
`Additionally, the Board should also not institute inter partes review because
`
`Petitioner has not met its threshold burden of showing unpatentability, as described
`
`below. The ‘633 Patent generally discloses systems and methods for protecting
`
`network-connectable devices from undesirable downloadables. ‘633 Patent at
`
`1:30–33. One set of independent claims requires, inter alia, receiving
`
`downloadable-information, determining whether downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code and, if the downloadable-information is determined to
`
`include executable code, transmitting mobile protection code to an information
`
`destination of the downloadable-information. See ‘633 Patent at independent
`
`claims 1, 8, and 13. Another set of independent claims requires, inter alia, a
`
`sandboxed package including a Downloadable and mobile protection code. See id.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`at independent claims 28 and 34. Yet another independent claim requires (1)
`
`receiving, at the information re-communicator, downloadable-information
`
`including executable code and (2) causing mobile protection code to be executed
`
`by the mobile code executor at a downloadable-information destination such that
`
`one or more operations of the executable code at the destination, if attempted, will
`
`be processed by the mobile protection code. See id. at claim 14.
`
`As a result, Finjan’s approach is able to provide efficient and flexible
`
`protection against malicious operations hidden within apparently inert or otherwise
`
`“friendly” downloadable-information, including web pages, streaming media,
`
`transaction-facilitating information, program updates or other downloadable-
`
`information. See id. at 4:16–27.
`
`The Board has already determined, with respect to U.S. Patent 7,058,822
`
`(Ex. 1083, “the ‘822 Patent”), of which the ‘633 Patent is a continuation, that the
`
`techniques disclosed in the various references cited in Grounds 1–4 of the Petition
`
`do not disclose Finjan’s approach at least because they do not determine whether
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code or form a sandboxed package
`
`including mobile protection code and the downloadable-information. See Ex. 2002
`
`at 5–7. In reversing an Examiner’s decision regarding the ‘822 Patent, the Board
`
`ruled that applet instrumentation does not disclose the claimed determining of
`
`executable code nor the use of a sandboxed package. See id. (affirming the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`patentability of the ‘822 Patent in view of applet instrumentation). The Board
`
`recently affirmed this decision in its Decision on Institution in the ‘1974 IPR, in
`
`which inter partes review of claims 1−4, 6−8, 13, 28, and 34 was denied. See
`
`‘1974 Institution Decision at 16.
`
`The primary references cited in this Petition (i.e. Shin and Poison Java)
`
`disclose the same functionality the Board rejected, namely applet instrumentation.
`
`See Ex. 1009 (“Shin”) at Abstract; and Ex. 1004 (“Poison Java”) at 5, col. 3–6,
`
`col. 1. In fact, Poison Java discusses the exact same technology that the Board
`
`distinguished, namely AppletTrap. See Ex. 2005 (demonstrating that Ji U.S. Patent
`
`5,983,348, which issued to Trend Micro, Inc., is directed to its AppletTrap
`
`product). Thus, the Board should deny Grounds 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`because the Petition inappropriately recycles the same applet instrumentation
`
`arguments already presented to the Board and which the Board already rejected in
`
`the reexamination of the related ‘822 Patent.
`
`Like the ex parte reexamination in which the Board confirmed the
`
`patentability of the ‘822 claims, the instant Petition never identifies how applet
`
`instrumentation references disclose or render obvious each of the claim elements.
`
`Instead, Petitioner attempts to abstract away claim elements by lumping them
`
`together with other distinct claim elements. Indeed, none of the Petition’s grounds
`
`identifies how the prior art discloses determining “whether the downloadable-
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`information includes executable code,” forms the claimed “sandboxed package
`
`including the MPC and the Downloadable,” or “one or more operations of the
`
`executable code.” At best, both Shin and Poison Java simply modify every applet
`
`encountered into an instrumented applet without making the required executable
`
`code determination, forming the claimed “sandboxed package,” or processing one
`
`or more operations of the executable code at the destination, which was received at
`
`an information re-communicator. Brown, which is directed towards a Java-
`
`enabled Web browser, does not cure these fatal deficiencies in the primary
`
`references. Ex. 1041 (“Brown”).
`
`Although there are a variety of reasons why the ‘633 Patent is valid over
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, this Preliminary Response focuses on
`
`only limited reasons why inter partes review should not be instituted. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10
`
`(PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“[N]othing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason.”). Patent Owner specifically reserves its right to dispute that Petitioner has
`
`correctly named all real-parties-in-interest in the event that sufficient factual bases
`
`supporting such a challenge surface during the pendency of this proceeding. The
`
`deficiencies of the Petition noted herein, however, are sufficient for the Board to
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`find that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`II. THE ‘633 PATENT
`A. Overview
`Patent Owner’s ‘633 Patent claims priority to a number of patents and patent
`
`applications, including U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/205,591 and
`
`U.S. Patents Nos.7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”),
`
`6,092,194 ( “the ‘194 Patent”), 6,480,962 (“the ‘962 Patent”), and 6,167,520 with
`
`an earliest claimed priority date of January 29, 1997. See Ex. 2003 at 1.
`
`The ‘633 Patent describes systems and methods for protecting against
`
`executable code downloaded from remote sites, such as web servers. ‘633 Patent at
`
`Abstract. In particular, the ‘633 Patent describes a network “re-communicator”
`
`that intercepts downloadable-information and determines whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code (i.e. is a “Downloadable”).
`
`‘633 Patent at 2:39–44. For this purpose, the ‘633 Patent further discloses a
`
`detection engine that is able to determine whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code, thus identifying that the downloadable is a “detected-
`
`downloadable.” ‘633 Patent at 12:8–17. If the downloadable-information includes
`
`executable code, in one example, the re-communicator causes the mobile
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`protection code (“MPC”) to be transferred to the destination. ‘633 Patent at 2:66–
`
`3:4.
`
`The MPC and protection policies can be packaged with the downloadable-
`
`information in a “sandbox.” Id. “The sandboxed package includes mobile
`
`protection code (‘MPC’) for causing one or more predetermined malicious
`
`operations or operation combinations of a Downloadable to be monitored or
`
`otherwise intercepted.” Id. at 3:7–11. When an undesirable operation is
`
`intercepted, the protection policy causes one or more predetermined operations to
`
`be performed. Id. at 3:11–16.
`
`As noted in the Background of the Invention Section, the invention disclosed
`
`and claimed in the ‘633 Patent provided distinct advantages over the virus
`
`protection paradigms that existed at the time:
`
`To make matters worse, certain classes of viruses are not well
`recognized or understood, let alone protected against. It is observed by
`this inventor, for example, that Downloadable information comprising
`program code can include distributable components (e.g. Java™
`applets and JavaScript scripts, ActiveX™ controls, Visual Basic, add-
`ins and/or others). It can also include, for example, application
`programs, Trojan horses, multiple compressed programs such as zip
`or meta files, among others. U.S. Pat. No. 5,983,348 to Shuang,
`however, teaches a protection system for protecting against only
`distributable components
`including “Java applets or ActiveX
`controls”, and further does so using resource intensive and high
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`bandwidth static Downloadable content and operational analysis, and
`modification of the Downloadable component; Shuang further fails to
`detect or protect against additional program code included within a
`tested Downloadable.
`
`Id. at 1:58–2:6. Notably, the Poison Java article cited against the claims discusses
`
`“InterScan AppletTrap,” which is the product that corresponds to the Shuang (Ji)
`
`patent discussed in this section.2 See Ex. 2005 at 1.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 12, 16–20, 22, 24, and 27 of the
`
`‘633 Patent, of which claims 1, 4, 9, 12, and 16 are independent. Claim terms
`
`specifically discussed in this Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are highlighted
`
`below. Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A computer processor-based method, comprising:
`
`receiving, by a computer, downloadable-information;
`determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code; and
`
`based upon the determination, transmitting from the computer
`mobile protection code to at least one information-destination of the
`downloadable-information,
`if
`the downloadable-information
`is
`determined to include executable code.
`
`
`2 A feature-by-feature comparison of the description of AppletTrap with U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”) (Ex. 2006) is provided below in § IV.A.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`‘633 Patent at 20:54–62 (emphasis added). Claim 8 recites:
`
`8. A computer processor-based system for computer security, the
`system comprising
`
`an information monitor for receiving downloadable-information
`by a computer;
`a content inspection engine communicatively coupled to the
`
`information monitor for determining, by the computer, whether
`the downloadable-information includes executable code; and
`
`a protection agent engine communicatively coupled to the
`content inspection engine for causing mobile protection code
`(“MPC”) to be communicated by the computer to at least one
`information-destination of
`the downloadable-information,
`if
`the
`downloadable-information is determined to include executable code.
`
`Id. at 21:19–32 (emphasis added). Claim 13 recites:
`
`13. A processor-based system for computer security, the system
`comprising:
`
`means for receiving downloadable-information;
`means
`for determining whether
`the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code; and
`
`means for causing mobile protection code to be communicated
`to at
`least one
`information-destination of
`the downloadable-
`information, if the downloadable-information is determined to include
`executable code.
`
`Id. at 21:49–57 (emphasis added). Claim 14 recites:
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`14. A computer program product, comprising a computer usable
`medium having a computer readable program code therein, the
`computer readable program code adapted to be executed for computer
`security, the method comprising:
`
`providing a system, wherein the system comprises distinct
`software modules, and wherein the distinct software modules
`comprise an information re-communicator and a mobile code
`executor;
`re-communicator,
`information
`the
`at
`receiving,
`
`downloadable-information including executable code; and
`causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile
`
`code executor at a downloadable-information destination such
`that one or more operations of the executable code at the
`destination, if attempted, will be processed by the mobile
`protection code.
`
`Id. at 21:58–22:5 (emphasis added). Claim 28 recites:
`
`28. A processor-based method, comprising:
`includes mobile
`receiving a sandboxed package that
`
`protection code (“MPC”) and a Downloadable and one or more
`protection policies at a computer at a Downloadable-destination;
`
`causing, by the MPC on the computer, one or more operations
`attempted by the Downloadable to be received by the MPC;
`
`receiving, by the MPC on the computer, an attempted operation
`of the Downloadable; and
`
`initiating, by the MPC on the computer, a protection policy
`corresponding to the attempted operation.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Id. at 22:52–63 (emphasis added). Claim 34 recites:
`
`34. A processor-based system for computer security, the system
`comprising:
`
`a mobile code executor on a computer for initiating received
`
`mobile code; and
`
`a sandboxed package capable of being received and
`
`initiated by the mobile code executor on the computer, the
`sandboxed package
`including a Downloadable and mobile
`protection code (“MPC”) for causing one or more Downloadable
`operations to be intercepted by the computer and for processing the
`intercepted operations by the computer, if the Downloadable attempts
`to initiate the operations.
`
`Id. at 23:17–28 (emphasis added).
`
`III. The Board Should Dismiss The Petition Because it is Unquestionably
`Time Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.101(b)
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if
`
`the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on
`
`which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” See also 37 C.F.R. 42.101(b)
`
`(mirroring the language of section 315(b) in dictating “who may petition for inter
`
`partes review.”). Petitioner admits that “[a] complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`’633 patent was served on Petitioner more than a year before the date of this
`
`Petition….” Petition at 4; see also Joinder Motion at 2 (conceding that Petitioner
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘633 Patent on Aug. 28,
`
`2013, which is more than 2 years after the instant Petition.) Thus, Petitioner’s
`
`request for inter partes review of the ‘633 Patent should at least be denied because
`
`the Petition is prohibited under the time-bar of § 315(b) and §42.101(b).
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Should be Denied as Premature
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder should be denied it was filed before the
`
`existence of proceeding to be joined. In particular, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion
`
`was filed on January 20 , 2016, while the decision granting institution in the inter
`
`partes review for which joinder is requested was not entered until March 29, 2016.
`
`See ‘1974 IPR, Paper No. 7 at 13–16 (Ex. 2007, “’1974 Institution Decision”); see
`
`also IPR2016-00480, Paper No. 4 (“Joinder Motion”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) it
`
`is clear that the Director may only join a party to an inter partes review proceeding
`
`after the proceeding has been instituted:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his
`or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or
`the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added). The conditional phrase highlighted above
`
`leaves no doubt that the filing of a motion for joinder is only appropriate when the
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`case to be joined is an instituted inter partes review proceeding. Similarly, the
`
`Patent Rules provide that any request for joinder must be filed within one month of
`
`the institution date of the inter partes review to be joined:
`
`Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request
`for joinder must be filed, as a motion under §42.22, no later than one
`month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which
`joinder is requested. The time period set forth in §42.101(b) shall not
`apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`That is, a request for joinder is a request to join an inter partes review, which only
`
`exists after the Board’s institution decision. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Joinder
`
`Motion, which was filed prior to the institution of inter partes review in the case
`
`sought to be joined, should be denied as premature. See Linear Technology Corp.
`
`v. In-Depth Test LLC, Case No. IPR2015-01994 (“It is clear from both the statute
`
`and the rule that a request for joinder is appropriate only if a decision granting
`
`institution has been entered in the inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested.”).
`
`A. Granting Petitioner’s Joinder Request Would Defeat the Purpose
`of the Time Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and the Estoppel
`Provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)
`
`On August 28, 2013, Patent Owner filed a complaint against Petitioner
`
`alleging infringement of, inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”),
`
`6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”), 7,418,731 (“the ‘731
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00480 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Patent”), and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”), collectively “the challenged patents.”
`
`The challenged patents are currently the subject of requests for inter partes review
`
`in the following cases:
`
`Case No.
`
`Patent No. Original Petitioner
`
`Status
`
`IPR2015-01894
`
`6,154,844
`
`Symantec Corp.
`
`Institution Denied
`
`IPR2015-01974
`
`7,647,633
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Trial Instituted
`
`IPR2015-02000
`
`7,418,731
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Pending
`
`IPR2016-00149
`
`6,965,968
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Pending
`
`IPR2016-00150
`
`6,965,968
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Pending
`
`IPR2016-00165
`
`6,804,780
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Institution Denied
`
`Petitioner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to file petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the challenged patents within the one-year statutory period set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), opting instead to prosecute its invalidity cases at the
`
`district court, and thereby avoiding the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C.