throbber
IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-00967
`U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF IPR2015-02001
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS....................................................2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED..................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Standard.......................................................................................5
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely.............................................5
`
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder...............................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate and Petitioner Presents No New
`Grounds.......................................................................................6
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial
`Schedule......................................................................................7
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery.........................9
`
`D. Without Joinder, Petitioner is prejudiced............................................10
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice the Parties to the Consolidated PAN
`IPRs .....................................................................................................11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`submits this Motion for Joinder, together with a petition (the “Proofpoint Petition”)
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “‘408 patent”) filed con-
`
`temporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with
`
`IPR2015-02001 filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”), which was instituted
`
`and consolidated with PAN’s IPR2016-00157 on March 29, 2016 concerning the
`
`same ‘408 patent (together the “Consolidated PAN IPRs”). The Proofpoint Peti-
`
`tion duplicates the grounds in IPR2015-02001.
`
`Petitioner timely filed the
`
`Proofpoint Petition and this motion within one month of the institution of the PAN
`
`IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner is also concurrently filing a second petition
`
`duplicating the grounds in IPR2016-00157 together with a motion requesting join-
`
`der in the Consolidated PAN IPRs.
`
`Joinder will efficiently resolve the challenges to the ‘408 patent in the Con-
`
`solidated PAN IPRs, and will neither impact the substantive issues or schedule in
`
`those proceedings, nor prejudice the parties. The Proofpoint Petition raises the
`
`same grounds of unpatentability for which PAN’s IPR2015-02001 was instituted,
`
`challenges the same claims, and relies on the same prior art, arguments and evi-
`
`dence presented by PAN in IPR2015-02001. Similarly, Proofpoint’s second peti-
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`tion concerning the ‘408 patent raises the same grounds of unpatentability for
`
`which IPR2016-00157 was instituted, challenges the same claims, and relies on the
`
`same prior art, arguments and evidence presented by PAN in IPR2016-00157. In
`
`addition, Petitioner explicitly agrees to consolidated discovery and briefing as de-
`
`scribed below, and is willing to accept a limited role with PAN’s counsel acting as
`
`the lead counsel as long as PAN remains in the proceedings.1 Accordingly, Peti-
`
`tioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not prejudice the parties or
`
`impact the substantive issues and schedule in the Consolidated PAN IPRs, while
`
`efficiently resolving the question of the ‘408 patent’s validity based on the institut-
`
`ed grounds in those consolidated proceedings.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. The ‘408 patent is entitled “Method and system for adaptive rule-
`
`based content scanners” and lists Moshe Rubin et al. as inventors. The ‘408 patent
`
`1 Petitioner notes that on April 27, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”)
`
`also filed a motion requesting joinder to the PAN IPRs (IPR2016-00955 and 2016-
`
`00956). In the event that Blue Coat’s motion for joinder are granted, Petitioner
`
`agrees to the same procedures for simplified briefing and discovery discussed here-
`
`in and, in the event that PAN settles with Patent Owner, Petitioner agrees to work
`
`with Blue Coat to determine which counsel will replace PAN’s counsel as the lead
`
`counsel in the proceedings.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`issued on July 17, 2012. Finjan, Inc. (the “Patent Owner”) is believed to have all
`
`rights, title, and interest in ‘408 patent.
`
`2. On December 16, 2013, Patent Owner filed a civil action asserting the
`
`‘408 patent, along with other patents, against Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Tech-
`
`nologies, Inc. in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-05808. A jury trial concerning the pa-
`
`tents that remain in this suit is currently scheduled for June 13, 2016.
`
`3. On November 4, 2014, Patent Owner filed a civil action asserting the
`
`‘408 patent, along with other patents, against PAN in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
`
`04908.
`
`4. On September 30, 2015, PAN filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`requesting cancellation of claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of the ‘408 patent (the
`
`“PAN Petition”), which was subsequently assigned Case No. IPR2015-02001.
`
`5. On November 6, 2015, PAN filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`requesting cancellation of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12-16, and 18-21 of the ‘408 patent,
`
`which was subsequently assigned Case No. IPR2016-00157.2
`
`2 Petitioner notes that PAN’s petition in IPR2016-00157 initially omitted claims 1
`
`and 9 from the specified challenge. The Board, however, indicated that claims 1
`
`and 9 were also subject to review due to the dependence of the listed challenged
`
`claims on claims 1 and 9. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-
`
`00157, paper 3 at 1 (PTAB November 17, 2015).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`6. On March 29, 2016, the Board instituted inter partes review in Case
`
`Nos. IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157, finding that a reasonable likelihood ex-
`
`isted that based upon its petitions PAN would prevail in showing the unpatentabil-
`
`ity of claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18-23, 29, and 35 of the ‘408 patent. As part of the
`
`order instituting trial, the Board Consolidated Case Nos. IPR2015-02001 and
`
`IPR2016-00157.
`
`7. On April 12, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing claim-
`
`ing that the Board overlooked arguments and requesting that the Board reverse its
`
`decision to institute trial as to claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18-23, 29, and 35 of the
`
`‘408 patent. No decision has been rendered on Patent Owner’s Request for Re-
`
`hearing.
`
`8. On April 27, 2016, Blue Coat filed petitions and a motion for joinder
`
`to join IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. Blue Coat’s petitions have been as-
`
`signed Case Nos. IPR2016-00955 and 2016-00956 (the “Blue Coat IPRs”). Like
`
`Proofpoint, Blue Coat submits that its petitions are “substantially identical to the
`
`corresponding instituted grounds of the Consolidated PAN IPRs.” Blue Coat Sys-
`
`tems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-00955, paper 3 at 2 (PTAB April 27, 2016). No
`
`decision has been rendered in the Blue Coat IPRs.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). Any request for joinder must be filed no later than one month af-
`
`ter the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`In deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the
`
`Board considers factors including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2)
`
`whether the new petition presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what
`
`impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and
`
`(4) how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Macronix Int’l Co. v. Span-
`
`sion, IPR2014-00898, paper 13, at 4 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) (citing Kyocera Cor-
`
`poration v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, paper 15 at 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013));
`
`Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., IPR2015-01026, pa-
`
`per 10 at 4 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2015); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG, et
`
`al., IPR2015-00265, paper 17 at 4 (PTAB April 10, 2015); Ciena Corp., et al. v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-01958, paper 11 (PTAB April 1, 2016).
`
`B. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`March 29, 2016 institution decision in the Consolidated PAN IPRs which includes
`
`IPR2015-02001. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The one-year bar set forth in 37
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply when a petition is filed concurrently with a mo-
`
`tion for joinder, as is currently the case here with the Proofpoint Petition. Id.
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors to be considered by the Board in ruling on this mo-
`
`tion weighs in favor of joinder. As explained in further detail below, joinder is
`
`proper because the Proofpoint Petition does not present any new grounds of un-
`
`patentability, is substantively identical to the PAN Petition, will have minimal im-
`
`pact, if any, on the trial schedule, briefing and discovery in the Consolidated PAN
`
`IPRs, and allows all issues to be resolved in a single proceeding before the Board.
`
`Petitioner further agrees to take on a limited role in the proceeding.
`
`1. Joinder is Appropriate and Petitioner Presents No New
`Grounds
`
`Joinder is appropriate because the Proofpoint Petition involves the same pa-
`
`tent, challenges the same claims, and relies on the same prior art, arguments and
`
`expert declaration presented in IPR2015-02001.3 Importantly, the Proofpoint Peti-
`
`tion does not raise any new grounds of unpatentability. Further, the Proofpoint Pe-
`
`tition relies on the same grounds from the PAN Petition on which the Board insti-
`
`tuted review on March 29, 2016, and is substantively identical to the PAN Petition.
`
`3 The Proofpoint Petition is submitted with the same Exhibits as those submitted
`
`with IPR2015-02001.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`Indeed, the substantive challenges presented in the Proofpoint Petition are copied
`
`verbatim from the PAN Petition and rely on the same supporting expert declara-
`
`tion. The primary differences between the Proofpoint Petition and the PAN Peti-
`
`tion relate to removal of certain portions of the introduction in the PAN petition,
`
`minor formalities associated with the parties involved with filing the petitions and
`
`references to related proceedings. The Proofpoint Petition presents the same ar-
`
`guments, expert declaration, and prior art presented in the PAN Petition; it does not
`
`add to or alter any argument that has already been considered by the Board, nor
`
`does it seek to expand the grounds of unpatentability that the Board has already in-
`
`stituted. Proofpoint’s second petition, which is filed concurrently herewith and
`
`which similarly duplicates PAN’s petition in IPR2016-00157, also does not add to
`
`or alter any argument that has already been considered by the Board, nor does it
`
`seek to expand the grounds of unpatentability that the Board has already instituted
`
`in that IPR, which has been consolidated with IPR2015-02001. Accordingly, join-
`
`der is appropriate and allows the Board to efficiently resolve the instituted grounds
`
`in a single proceeding.
`
`2. Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial
`Schedule
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) provides that “the final determination in an inter
`
`partes review be issued not later than one year after the date on which the Director
`
`notices the institution of a review.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Joinder in this
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`case will not impact this mandate and will not even require modification of the ex-
`
`isting scheduling order. See, IPR2015-02001, paper 8. As explained above, the
`
`Proofpoint Petition is substantively identical with respect to the instituted grounds
`
`contained in the PAN Petition. Thus, the Preliminary Response and Request for
`
`Rehearing already filed by Patent Owner in IPR2015-02001 address any and all
`
`issues in the Proofpoint Petition. See IPR2015-02001, papers 6 and 9. Further-
`
`more, there are no new issues for Patent Owner to address and Patent Owner will
`
`not be required to file additional responses or arguments. Consequently, the Patent
`
`Owner response will also not be impacted; joining Petitioner to the Consolidated
`
`PAN IPRs will not require any additional analysis by Patent Owner beyond what
`
`they will already undertake to respond to the PAN Petition. Also, since the
`
`Proofpoint Petition relies on the same expert declaration, no additional depositions
`
`are needed for the proposed joined proceeding. Proofpoint’s second petition,
`
`which is filed concurrently herewith and which is substantially identical with re-
`
`spect to the instituted grounds contained in PAN’s petition in IPR2016-00157, also
`
`does not raise any new issues or require additional responses, arguments, analysis
`
`or depositions in the proposed joined proceeding with the Consolidated PAN IPRs.
`
`For efficiency’s sake, if joined, Petitioner further agrees to consolidated discovery
`
`with PAN’s counsel acting as the lead counsel so long as PAN remains in the pro-
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`ceeding.4
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, there is no reason to delay or alter
`
`the schedule already present in the Consolidated PAN IPRs, and Petitioner explic-
`
`itly consents to this schedule. Accordingly, joinder of these proceedings will not
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule of the Consolidated PAN IPRs.
`
`3. Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner offers no new grounds for invalidity and Peti-
`
`tioner does not anticipate that its presence will introduce any additional arguments,
`
`briefing or need for discovery. As long as PAN remains an active participant in
`
`the Consolidated PAN IPRs, Petitioner is willing to accept a limited role and agree
`
`to: (1) consolidate filings with PAN; (2) refrain from raising any new grounds not
`
`already considered by the Board in the Consolidated PAN IPRs; (3) be bound by
`
`any agreement between Patent Owner and PAN concerning discovery and/or depo-
`
`sitions; (4) limit any direct, cross-examination or redirect time beyond that permit-
`
`ted for PAN alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between PAN
`
`and the Patent Owner, such that Petitioner’s participation in the Consolidated PAN
`
`IPRs does not result in any additional time being required for any deposition; and
`
`4 As referenced in fn. 1, in the event that Blue Coat is joined and PAN settles with
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner agrees to work with Blue Coat to determine which coun-
`
`sel will replace PAN’s counsel as the lead counsel in the proceedings.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`(5) limit any presentation at oral hearing to unused time previously allocated to
`
`PAN.5 By accepting this limited role, both the Board and parties will be able to
`
`comply with the existing schedule in the Consolidated PAN IPRs and avoid any
`
`duplication of efforts. The Board has consistently granted joinder motions allow-
`
`ing Petitioners to take a similar role as that proposed by Petitioner in this proceed-
`
`ing.6 Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board grant Petitioner’s motion for
`
`joinder, particularly in light of the foregoing procedural safeguards and limited role
`
`that Petitioner is willing to accept in this proceeding.
`
`D. Without Joinder, Petitioner is prejudiced
`
`Petitioner will be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join in the Consolidated
`
`5 In the event that Blue Coat’s motion for joinder is also granted, Petitioner agrees
`
`to the same procedures for simplified briefing and discovery or other reasonable
`
`conditions for the conduct of the combined, joined proceedings that are deemed
`
`appropriate by the Board.
`
`6 See, e.g., Ciena Corp., et al. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-01958, paper 11
`
`(PTAB April 1, 2016); Sony Corp., et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01376, paper 12 at 16-20 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2015); Ciena Corp., et al. v. Capella
`
`Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00894, paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2015); Dell Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, paper 17 (PTAB July 29,
`
`2013).
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`PAN IPRs. Patent Owner has asserted the ‘408 patent against Petitioner in a pend-
`
`ing litigation and the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR by Petitioner has been
`
`exhausted. Although the issue of Petitioner’s alleged infringement of the ‘408 pa-
`
`tent is no longer being pursued by Patent Owner in that litigation, Petitioner should
`
`be permitted to join the pending IPR to participate in proceedings affecting the
`
`claims of a patent asserted against it, and thereby allowed to continue the proceed-
`
`ings should PAN and Patent Owner settle under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 before a final
`
`written decision is issued.
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice the Parties to the Consolidated PAN
`IPRs
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice PAN or Patent Owner. It is Petitioner’s
`
`understanding that PAN does not intend to oppose this joinder motion. Also, Pa-
`
`tent Owner is not prejudiced as all of the issues raised by Petitioner are already
`
`known to Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner is not expected to incur any addi-
`
`tional burden as a result of this joinder. This is particularly true in light of the lim-
`
`ited role that Petitioner proposes to undertake in the joined proceedings. Joinder
`
`will allow the Board to address the same patent validity questions in a single
`
`proceeding within a statutory deadline without adding costs or burdens on any of
`
`the parties.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors outlined above, Petitioner requests the Board grant the
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`Proofpoint Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 and grant
`
`joinder with the Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-02001 proceed-
`
`ing.
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024)
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`IPR2016-00967@bryancave.com
`PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner – Proofpoint, Inc. and
`Armorize Technologies, Inc.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF IPR2015-02001” was served in its entirety on
`
`April 29, 2016, upon the following parties via FedEx:
`
`Attorney of Record for U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408:
`
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`Marc Berger
`Christopher Cotropia
`Sang Kim
`Julie Mar-Spinola
`BEY & COTROPIA PLLC
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond, VA 23229
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157:
`
`James Hannah
`Paul J. Andre
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`Benu C. Wells
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim
`Finjan Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`Counsel for Petitioner in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157:
`
`Orion Armon
`Brian Eutermoser
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, Colorado 80021
`oarmon@cooley.com
`beutermoser@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Christopher Max Colice
`COOLEY LLP
`500 Boylston Street, 14th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3736
`mcolice@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Mathew I. Kreeger
`Matthew Chivvis
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`MKreeger@mofo.com
`MChivvis@mofo.com
`FinjanPANMofoTeam@mofo.com
`
`Jennifer Volk-Fortier
`COOLEY LLP
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 20194
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Orion Armon
`Christopher Max Colice
`Jennifer Volk-Fortier
`Brian Eutermoser
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`zPaloAltoNetworksIPR@cooley.com
`
`Jonathan Bockman
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22101
`JBockmanr@mofo.com
`FinjanPANMofoTeam@mofo.com
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00967
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024)
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`IPR2016-00967@bryancave.com
`PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner – Proofpoint, Inc.
`and Armorize Technologies, Inc.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket