Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Kevin E. Paganini
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC. AND
`ARMORIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-00966
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Introduction......................................................................................................1
`
`II. Mandatory notices - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ....................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Party-ln-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).....................................2
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..............................................2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...........................3
`
`Service Information...............................................................................3
`
`Power of Attorney .................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`Payment of Fees - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103.............................................................4
`
`IV. Requirements for inter partes review - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND 42.108.....4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)......................................4
`
`Identification of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement
`of Precise Relief Requested...................................................................4
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art...........................................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Poison Java is prior art................................................................5
`
`Shin is prior art............................................................................5
`
`Brown is prior art ........................................................................6
`
`D.
`
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c)................................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Background Of Technology Related To The ’633 Patent...............................7
`
`Summary Of The ’633 Patent........................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’633 Patent ...................................................................................11
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’633 Patent ........................................12
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Ex Parte Reexamination History of the ’633 Patent....................13
`
`Priority Dates of the Petitioned Claims...............................................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Priority Claims to the ’667 and ’302 Applications and
`Their Parent Applications Are Improper ..................................14
`
`Claimset 1 – Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 13–14, 19, 28, and 34 lack
`written description support until May 17, 2000........................16
`
`Claimset 2 – Claims 4, 6, and 7 lack written description
`support until May 17, 2001.......................................................17
`
`VII. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)...................................17
`
`A.
`
`The Petitioned Claims of the ʼ633 Patent ........................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“mobile protection code (“MPC”)” (all claims)..................................19
`
`“information re-communicator” (claims 2, 14, and 19)......................21
`
`“means for receiving downloadable-information” (claim 13)............21
`
`“means for determining whether the downloadable-information
`includes executable code” (claim 13) .................................................22
`
`“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
`
`VIII. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art......................................................25
`
`IX.
`
`The Prior Art..................................................................................................25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Poison Java.....................................................................25
`
`Overview of Shin.................................................................................26
`
`Overview of Brown.............................................................................27
`
`Poison Java, Shin, and Brown Are Analogous Art.............................27
`
`X.
`
`The Petitioned Claims Of The ’633 Patent Are Unpatentable......................28
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 – Shin Renders Claims 1–4, 6–8, 13, 14, and 19
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)......................................................28
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................28
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1[a]: “A computer processor-based method,
`comprising”.....................................................................28
`
`Claim 1[b]: “receiving, by a computer,
`downloadable-information”............................................28
`
`Claim 1[c]: “determining, by the computer, whether
`the downloadable information includes executable
`code”...............................................................................29
`
`Claim 1[d]: “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.”..............................................................................30
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein the
`receiving includes monitoring received information of an
`information re-communicator.” ................................................31
`
`Dependent Claim 3: “The method of claim 2, wherein the
`information re-communicator is a network server.”.................32
`
`Dependent Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein the
`determining comprises analyzing the downloadable-
`information for an included type indicator indicating an
`executable file type.”.................................................................32
`
`Dependent Claim 6: “The method of claim 1, wherein the
`determining comprises analyzing the downloadable-
`information for an included file type indicator and an
`information pattern corresponding to one or more
`information patterns that tend to be included within
`executable code.” ......................................................................32
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 7: “executable code characteristics”............33
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Independent Claim 8 .................................................................33
`
`Independent Claim 13...............................................................36
`
`Independent Claim 14...............................................................38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 14[a]: “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”.....................................38
`
`Claim 14[b]: “providing a system, wherein the
`system comprises distinct software modules”................39
`
`Claim 14[c]: “wherein the distinct software modules
`comprise an information re-communicator and a
`mobile code executor”....................................................40
`
`Claim 14[d]: “receiving, at the information re-
`communicator, downloadable-information including
`executable code”.............................................................41
`
`Claim 14[e]: “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.”.................................................42
`
`10. Dependent Claim 19: “The method of claim 14, wherein the
`re-communicator is at least one of a firewall and a network
`server.” ......................................................................................44
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 – Poison Java Anticipates Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(a)...................................................................................................44
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claim 28[a]: “A processor-based method,
`comprising”.....................................................................44
`
`Claim 28[b]: “receiving a sandboxed package that
`includes mobile protection code (“MPC”) and a
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Downloadable and one or more protection policies at
`a computer at a Downloadable-destination”...................44
`
`Claim 28[c]: “causing, by the MPC on the computer,
`one or more operations attempted by the
`Downloadable to be received by the MPC” ...................46
`
`Claim 28[d]: “receiving, by the MPC on the
`computer, an attempted operation of the
`Downloadable” ...............................................................46
`
`Claim 28[e]: “initiating, by the MPC on the
`computer, a protection policy corresponding to the
`attempted operation.”......................................................46
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3 – Poison Java in view of Shin Renders Claim 1 Obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).....................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................47
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1[a]: “A computer processor-based method,
`comprising:” ...................................................................47
`
`Claim 1[b]: “receiving, by a computer,
`downloadable-information”............................................47
`
`Claim 1[c]: “determining, by the computer, whether
`the downloadable-information includes executable
`code”...............................................................................48
`
`Claim 1[d]: “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.”..............................................................................50
`
`D.
`
`Ground 4 – Poison Java in view of Brown Renders Claims 14, 19,
`and 34 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)..........................................50
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 14...............................................................50
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Claim 14[a]: “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”.....................................50
`
`Claim 14[b]: “providing a system, wherein the
`system comprises distinct software modules,”...............51
`
`Claim 14[c]: “wherein the distinct software modules
`comprise an information re-communicator and a
`mobile code executor”....................................................51
`
`Claim 14[d]: “receiving, at the information re-
`communicator, downloadable-information, including
`executable code”.............................................................53
`
`Claim 14[e]: “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.”.................................................53
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claims 19: “The method of claim 14, wherein
`the re-communicator is at least one of a firewall and a
`network server.”........................................................................54
`
`Independent Claim 34...............................................................54
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 34[a]: “A processor-based system for
`computer security, the system comprising”....................54
`
`Claim 34[b]: “a mobile code executor on a computer
`for initiating received mobile code”...............................55
`
`Claim 34[c]: “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
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`intercepted operations by the computer, if the
`Downloadable attempts to initiation [sic] the
`operations”......................................................................55
`
`E.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness.................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Licensing...................................................................................57
`
`Alleged Copying .......................................................................58
`
`Alleged Commercial Success ...................................................58
`
`Alleged Industry Praise.............................................................59
`
`XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................59
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Description of Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“Edery et al.”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin in support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review
`
`90/013,016, Final Office Action (“633 Reexam”) (May 22, 2015)
`
`Eva Chen “Poison Java” IEEE Spectrum (1999)
`
`2015-09-10 Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier in support of the “Poison
`Java” reference
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006 Webpage: Workshop and Miscellaneous Publications, Insik Shin
`
`1007 Webpage: Filewatcher – 7/27/98
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Ian Welch and Robert Stroud “Kava – A Reflective Java Based on
`Bytecode Rewriting” (January 1999)
`
`Insik Shin and John C. Mitchell “Java Bytecode Modification and Ap-
`plet Security” (1998)
`
`Carey Nachenberg “The Evolving Virus Threat”
`
`David M. Chess “Security Issues in Mobile Code Systems” (1998)
`
`R. Braden and J. Postel “Requirements for Internet Gateways” (June
`1987)
`
`International Publication No. WO 9821683 to (“Touboul”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,803 (“Tso”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,889,943 (“Ji”)
`
`Li Gong et al. “Going Beyond the Sandbox: An Overview of the New
`Security Architecture in the Java Development Kit 1.2” (1997)
`
`1017 Webpage: Oracle - Java Security Architect
`
`-viii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1018
`
`Description of Document
`
`Paul Sabanal, Mark Yason, and Mark Vincent “Digging Deep Into the
`Flash Sandboxes” (2012)
`
`1019 Webpage: Oracle - Deploying With the Applet Tag
`Yougang Song et al. “BRSS: A Binary Rewriting Security System for
`Mobile Code”
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Yougang Song and Brett D. Fleisch “Utilizing Binary Rewriting for
`Improving End-host Security” IEEE Vol. 18, No. 12 (Dec. 2007)
`
`Stephen McCamant and Greg Morrisett “Efficient, Verifiable Binary
`Sandboxing for CISC Architecture”
`
`Virus Bulletin (March 1991)
`
`Patent Application 11/159,455 Office Action – Non-Final Rejection
`
`Patent Application 11/159,455 – Patent Owner Amendment and Re-
`sponse to Office Action Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111
`
`Patent Application 11/159,455 - Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) due
`(May 26, 2009)
`
`90/013,016 Reexam Non-Final Office Action (November 19, 2013)
`
`90/013,016 Reexam Supplemental Amendment to Correct Priority Par-
`agraphs Required by 37 CFR §§ 1.78 (August 25, 2014)
`
`90/013,016 Reexam Notice of Appeal (June 22, 2015)
`
`Patent Application 11/159,455 Data Sheet
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,804,780 (“Touboul”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,962 (“Touboul”)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Finjan, Inc. v.
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 13-cv-3999-BLF (July 7, 2014)
`
`-ix-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Description of Document
`
`Joint Post-Hearing Claim Construction Chart, Ex. A, Finjan Software,
`Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corporation, et al. 06-cv-369-GMS (October
`30, 2007)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Finjan, Inc.
`v. Websense, Inc., 13-cv-4398-BLF (September 23, 2014)
`
`Order Construing Claims, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 13-
`cv-3999-BLF (October 20, 2014)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Finjan, Inc.
`v. Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc., 5:13-cv-5808-
`HSG (May 1, 2015)
`
`Claim Construction Order, Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing
`et al. 06-cv-369-GMS (December 11, 2007)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Finjan, Inc.
`v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 13-cv-3999-BLF (June 16, 2014)
`
`1040
`Provisional Application No. 60/205,591
`1041 Mark Brown “Using Netscape 3” (1996)
`1042
`90/013,016 Reexam Response to Non-Final Office Action (February
`19, 2014)
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`Finjan Investor Presentation, Q1 (2013)
`
`Dr. Frederick Cohen “Computer Viruses: Theory and Experiments”
`(1987)
`
`Thomas M. Chen and Jean-Marc Robert “The Evolution of Viruses and
`Worms”
`
`Virus Bulletin Issue Archive
`
`Sandeep Kumar and Eugene H. Spafford “A Generic Virus Scanner in
`C++,” (September 17, 1992)
`
`-x-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1048 Morgan B. Adair “Detecting Viruses in the NetWare Environment”
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`Virus Bulletin (November 1991)
`
`Virus Bulletin, (December 1991)
`
`1051 Webpage: McAfee Antivirus product page
`
`1052 Webpage: Norton Antivirus product page
`
`1053 Webpage: Information Security StackExchange
`
`1054 Webpage: W3Schools, JavaScript Tutorial page
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`Sarah Gordon and David Chess “Attitude Adjustment: Trojans and
`Malware on the Internet: An Update”
`
`Andreas Moser et al. “Limits of Static Analysis for Malware Detec-
`tion”
`
`Ian Goldberg “A Secure Environment for Untrusted Helper Applica-
`tions (Confining the Wily Hacker)” (July 1996)
`
`1058 Wayne A. Jansen “Countermeasures for Mobile Agent Security”
`Byron Cook et al. “Proving Program Termination,” Communications of
`the ACM, Vol. 54, No. 5 (May 2011)
`
`1059
`
`1060 Webpage: Schneier on Security
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`Javier Esparza “Decidability of Model Checking for Infinite-State Con-
`current Systems”
`
`Edmund Clarke et al. “Model Checking and State Explosion Problem”
`
`Drew Dean et al. “Java Security: From HotJava to Netscape and Be-
`yond”
`
`NSA Defense in Depth
`
`Dr. Thomas Porter “The Perils of Deep Packet Inspection”
`
`-xi-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1066 Mark J. Smith et al. “Protecting a Private Network: The AltaVista
`Firewall”
`
`Description of Document
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`Check Point Firewall-I™ White Paper, Version 3.0 (June 1997)
`
`Emin Gün Sirer et al. “Design and Implementation of a Distributed
`Virtual Machine for Networked Computers”
`
`Intrusion Detection Systems Group Test (Edition 2) – An NSS Group
`Report
`
`Dries Vanoverberghe and Frank Piessens “A Caller-Side Inline Refer-
`ence Monitor for an Object-Oriented Intermediate Language”
`
`Ulfar Erlingsson “The Inlined Reference Monitor Approach to Security
`Policy Enforcement” (2004)
`
`Ari Luotonen and Kevin Altis “World-Wide Web Proxies” (April
`1994)
`James Gosling and Henry McGilton “The JavaTM Language Environ-
`ment: A White Paper” (May 1996)
`
`1074 Webpage: “A Simple Guide to HTML”
`David M. Martin Jr. et al. “Blocking Java Applets at the Firewall”
`(1997)
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`Eric Perlman and Ian Kallen “Common Internet File Formats”
`
`“Developing Stored Procedures in Java: An Oracle Technical White
`Paper” (April 1999)
`
`Larry L. Peterson et al. “OS Support for General-Purpose Routers”
`
`Roel Wieringa “Traceability and Modularity in Software Design”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,499 (“Ulrich”)
`
`90/013,016 Reexam Renewed Petition to Accept Unintentionally De-
`
`-xii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Description of Document
`
`layed Priority Claim Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78
`
`2015-09-13 Declaration of Peter Kent in support of the “Brown” refer-
`ence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (“Edery”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/030,639
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194 (“Touboul”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,520 (“Touboul”)
`
`2014-02-18 Phil Hartstein declaration in 90/013,016 Reexam
`
`90/013,016 Reexam Final Rejection (September 8, 2014)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`1088
`
`1089
`
`1090 Webpage: Finjan Software Company Overview
`Excerpted Markman Hearing Transcript, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys-
`tems, Inc., 13-cv-3999-BLF (August 22, 2014)
`
`1091
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`
`1095
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler of the Internet Archive (“Brown”)
`
`Affidavit of David Sherfesee of Alexa Internet
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/861,229
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler of the Internet Archive (“Shin”)
`
`-xiii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for
`
`inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1–4,
`
`6–8, 13, 14, 19, 28, and 34 (“the Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`(“the ’633 patent”; Ex. 1001) based on the substantively identical grounds as pre-
`
`sented in the pending IPR2015-01974 proceeding. For the exact same reasons pre-
`
`viously considered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), Petitioner
`
`respectfully seeks to join IPR2015-01974. This Petition asserts substantively iden-
`
`tical arguments in connection with the grounds already presented in IPR2015-
`
`01974; it does not add to or alter any argument that has already been considered by
`
`the Board. As explained below, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Be-
`
`cause this Petition is filed along with a Motion for Joinder within one month of the
`
`institution of IPR2015-01974, it is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`The ’633 patent is directed at protecting computers from potentially mali-
`
`cious programs in the form of “Downloadables,” such as Java applets, ActiveX
`
`controls, JavaScript script, or other executable code that a user might download on-
`
`to her computer from the Internet. The ’633 patent claims determining whether
`
`“downloadable-information” includes potentially malicious executable code and, if
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`so, causing “mobile protection code” to be communicated to the downloadable-
`
`information’s destination. Some claims recite forming a sandboxed package that
`
`includes the downloadable-information,
`
`the mobile protection code, and pre-
`
`determined protection policies. The ’633 patent further claims the transmission of
`
`this sandboxed package to the Downloadable’s destination, where it may be exe-
`
`cuted in a sandbox.
`
`As explained in greater detail below, prior art such as Poison Java and Shin
`
`anticipate and/or render the claims obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-ln-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner certifies that Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies,
`
`Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) has asserted the ’633 patent against
`
`Petitioner in Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3-13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
`
`(“the Proofpoint Litigation”). Finjan also asserted the ’633 patent in the following
`
`litigations: Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 3-14-cv-04908 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`(the “PAN Litigation”); Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., No. 13-cv-03133-SBA (N.D.
`
`Cal.) (“the FireEye Litigation”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-
`
`03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (“the Blue Coat Litigation”); Finjan, Inc. v. Websense,
`
`Inc., No. 5-13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.) (“the Websense I Litigation”); and Finjan,
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-15-cv-01353 (N. D. Cal.) (“the Websense II Litiga-
`
`tion”). The ‘633 patent is subject to IPR in IPR2015-01974 which was instituted
`
`and IPR2016-00480 which remains pending.
`
`The ’633 patent is undergoing ex parte reexamination in Control Nos.
`
`90/013,016 (“the ’633 reexam”) and 90/013,652 (“the second ’633 reexam”). Cer-
`
`tain claims of the ’633 patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822, have undergone
`
`ex parte reexamination in Control No. 90/013,017 (“the ’822 reexam”) and have
`
`been confirmed. Claims 1–7 and 28–33 of the ’633 patent stand rejected in Control
`
`No. 90/013,016 (Ex. 1003 at 3, 22.) These rejections are on appeal to the Board. In
`
`addition, the Examiner has granted reexamination of claims 8 and 12 in the second
`
`‘633 reexam, however, no office action has yet issued.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024) of Bryan Cave LLP
`
`as lead counsel and Kevin Paganini (Reg. No. 66,286) of Bryan Cave LLP as back-
`
`up counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Bryan Cave LLP, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
`
`10104. Petitioner consents to service by email at joe.richetti@bryancave.com,
`
`kevin.paganini@bryancave.com,
`
`IPR2016-00966@bryancave.com and PTAB-
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`NY@bryancave.com.
`
`The Petition and Exhibits are being served by Federal Express overnight de-
`
`livery to the ‘633 Patent Owner’s attorneys of record, Dawn-Marie Bey, Bey &
`
`Cotropia PLLC. The petition and exhibits are also being served by Federal Ex-
`
`press overnight delivery to counsel of record in IPR2015-01974.
`
`E.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Filed concurrently with this petition per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition is accompanied by a payment of $23,000. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15.
`
`This Petition meets the fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND
`42.108
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘633 Patent is available for IPR and that Petition-
`
`er is not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds in
`
`this Petition because this Petition is filed within one month of institution of
`
`IPR2015-01974 along with a Motion for Joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of
`Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ‘633 Patent Petitioned Claims based on the
`
`substantively identical grounds already considered for the pending IPR2015-01974
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`proceeding. Petitioner requests that the Board institute IPR of claims 1–4, 6–8, 13,
`
`14, 19, 28, and 34 of the ’633 patent and find each claim unpatentable on the fol-
`
`lowing grounds:
`
`Ground
`1.
`
`’633 Claim(s)
`1–4, 6–8, 13, 14,
`and 19
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`28
`
`1
`
`14, 19, and 34
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Obvious over Insik Shin & John C. Mitchell, “Java
`Bytecode Modification and Applet Security,” under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Anticipated by Poison Java under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(a)
`Obvious over Poison Java in view of Insik Shin &
`John C. Mitchell, “Java Bytecode Modification and
`Applet Security,” under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Obvious over Poison Java in view of Mark W.
`Brown et al. “Special Edition Using Netscape 3,”
`(Que Corp. 1996) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Additional support for each ground appears in the Declaration of Dr. Aviel
`
`Rubin (Ex. 1002, “Rubin”), an expert in the field.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art
`
`Poison Java is prior art
`
`Poison Java is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) because it was pub-
`
`lished by August 31, 1999, in IEEE Spectrum (Ex. 1005), before the May 17, 2000
`
`priority date of Claimset 1 and more than one year before the May 17, 2001 priori-
`
`ty date of Claimset 2. (§ VI.D.)
`
`2.
`
`Shin is prior art
`
`Shin is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was available to the
`
`public more than one year before May 17, 2000, which is the earliest possible pri-
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`ority date of the Petitioned Claims. (See § VI.D.) Evidence showing Shin’s public
`
`availability includes a 1998 publication date on the author’s website. (Ex. 1006,
`
`listed under “Technical Reports.”) Shin was also publicly available at another web-
`
`site belonging to the author (Insik Shin) no later than April 18, 1998, as confirmed
`
`by the Internet Archive (Archive.org). (Ex. 1095 at 1, 3-25.) The Internet Ar-
`
`chive’s Web page repository is supplied by Alexa Internet. The Affidavit of David
`
`Sherfesee confirms that the contents of the Archive are from the publicly available
`
`Internet, and that the time/date information associated with the Archive’s contents
`
`is accurate. (Ex. 1093 at 1-5.) Shin was also catalogued by www.filewatcher.com
`
`with a date stamp of July 27, 1998. (Ex. 1007 at 1.) And Shin was cited with a pub-
`
`lication date of 1998 in a paper titled “Kava – A Reflective Java Based on
`
`Bytecode Rewriting” published in January 1999, and presented at a conference in
`
`Denver, Colorado, in November 1999. (See Ex. 1008 at 1, 3, and 14.) Kava conclu-
`
`sively demonstrates that Shin was published and publicly available to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in this country no later than Kava’s publication date of Jan-
`
`uary 1999—more than one year before May 17, 2000. (Id.)
`
`3.
`
`Brown is prior art
`
`Brown is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published in
`
`1996, which is more than one year before May 17, 2000, the earliest possible prior-
`
`ity date of the Petitioned Claims—as confirmed in the attached declarations by one
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`of the book’s authors and the Internet Archive. (Ex. 1082; 1092.) The Internet Ar-
`
`chive’s web page repository is supplied by Alexa Internet. The Affidavit of David
`
`Sherfesee confirms that the contents of the Archive are from the publicly available
`
`Internet and that the time/date information associated with Archive content is accu-
`
`rate. (Ex. 1093.)
`
`D.
`
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`Inter partes review of the Petitioned Claims should be instituted because this
`
`Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect
`
`to each of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’633 PATENT
`
`Since at least 1988, antivirus software has served as a barrier between com-
`
`puter processors and malware, which can steal data, destroy data, and disrupt oper-
`
`ations. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 40-41.) Antivirus software was developed in an era when
`
`malware was passed between computers via floppy disks and other types of re-
`
`movable data storage media. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 46.) By the mid-1990s, however, the
`
`widespread adoption of email and Internet browsing made it possible to transmit
`
`malware directly between computers. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 46-47; Ex. 1010 at 1-8.) This
`
`increased the exposure—and the risk of harm—to users’ computers by malicious
`
`software or malware. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 46-47; Ex. 1010 at 1-8.)
`
`The exposure and risk of harm increased even more with the advent of mo-
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`bile code in the mid-to-late 1990s. Mobile code, such as Java applets, is download-
`
`ed and executed by the computer (e.g., when loading a webpage in an Internet
`
`browser) without any explicit actions by the user. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 48; Ex. 1011 at 2.)
`
`So when, for example, a Java applet automatically executes, any instructions with-
`
`in the code are automatically executed as well. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 48; Ex. 1011 at 2.)
`
`These instructions may include malicious or dangerous “system calls,” asking the
`
`computer processor’s operating system to do t