United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`________________________________________________
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 
`Introduction and Summary of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
`Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
`A.  Status of Related Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
`B.  Chrimar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
`C.  The ’012 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
`Arguments and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
`A.  Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
`B.  Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
`1.  Prior Claim Constructions from the District
`Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
`2.  “wherein distinguishing information about the
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment is
`associated to impedance within the at least one
`path” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
`a.  The distinguishing-information phrase
`defines a structure that limits the claim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
`b.  Properly construed, the distinguishing-
`information phrase requires that the claimed
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment
`must be configured to be distinguishable
`from at least one other piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment in an Ethernet
`network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
`3.  “BaseT” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 
`4.  “path coupled across” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 
`
`– ii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`C.  Petitioner has not made a prima facie case that the
`’012 Patent’s claims are obvious in view of any of
`the alleged combinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
`1.  Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
`2.  Petitioner has not made a prima facie case that
`the ’012 Patent’s claims are obvious in view of
`the De Nicolo references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
`a.  The De Nicolo References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 
`i.  The ’666 Patent discloses a method and
`apparatus for allocating power among
`processor cards in a closed, modular
`system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 
`ii.  The ’468 Patent discloses a system for
`powering Ethernet-based telephones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
`b.  Petitioner does not assert that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to combine the De Nicolo
`references to achieve the apparatus claimed
`by the ’012 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
`c.  Petitioner offers only a conclusory statement
`that a person of ordinary skill would have
`known how to combine the De Nicolo
`references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 
`d.  Petitioner does not contend that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 
`3.  Applying the proper claim construction, the
`alleged combination of de Nijs and Chaudhry
`does not meet every element of the ’012 Patent
`claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 
`4.  There is no basis for instituting a trial based on
`the Ethernet-standard references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
`
`– iii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`a.  Petitioner has not attempted to show that
`independent claim 31 of the ’012 Patent, on
`which all of the remaining claims at issue
`depend, reads on a combination of the
`Ethernet-standard references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
`b.  Applying the proper claim construction, the
`Ethernet-standard references do not meet
`every element of the ’012 Patent claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 
`Certificate of Compliance with Word Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` Table of Authorities
`
`Federal Cases 
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 59
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 28
`AMX, LLC and Dell Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00569, Paper No. 19 (Aug. 10, 2016) ....................................................31
`Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 28
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 19
`Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.,
`596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................... 58
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 34
`Duro–Last, Inc. v. Custom Seal, Inc.,
`321 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 58
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 12
`Freeman v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`357 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Kan. 2005) ................................................................. 18
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 27
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 34
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 59
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................... 31, 32, 33, 46
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 17, 18
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) ............................................................... 34
`
`– v –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc.,
`107 F. Supp. 3d 656 (E.D. Tex. 2015),
`aff’d, 2016 WL 1599809 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2016) ............................................. 58
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 32, 33, 59
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................13
`Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.,
`242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................... 28, 31
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 27
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 33
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................... 27
`Princeton Biochems., Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 45
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2015-00155, Paper No. 30 (Apr. 7, 2016) ..................................................... 33
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 32
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................31
`Tietex Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01248, Paper No. 39 (2016) ................................................................. 12
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 (Apr. 8, 2013) ............................................... 33, 46
`State Cases 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 58
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 32, 34
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................... 1, 12, 28
`Federal Statutes 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .............................................................................................. 4, 65
`
`– vi –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .......................................................................................... 1, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .......................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................51
`
`
`
`– vii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 96,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 105,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 108,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 122,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 123,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 454,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN,
`Inc., et al.¸ Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-618-JRG-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Deposition of Rich Seifert (selected portions)
`(June 10, 2016)
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`– viii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Defendants’ Combined Motion for Summary
`Judgment and Claim Construction (selected
`portions), Dkt. No. 73, filed in Chrimar Systems,
`Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`(selected portions), Dkt. No. 432, filed in filed in
`Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et
`al.¸ Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-618-JRG-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 223,
`filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`Aug. 10, 2016
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`
`
`– ix –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`Introduction and Summary of Arguments
`
`Petitioner wrongly contends that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`(the “’012 Patent”) are rendered obvious in light of three alleged combinations:
`
`(1) the De Nicolo references—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,115,468 (the “’468 Patent”) and
`
`6,134,666 (the “’666 Patent”); (2) de Nijs (U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525) and
`
`Chaudhry (U.S. Patent No. 5,790,363); and (3) the Ethernet-standard
`
`references—IEEE standards 801.3-1993, 801.3l-1992, and 802.3r-1996.1
`
`The Board should dismiss the Petition and decline to institute a trial in this
`
`case. Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that one or
`
`more challenged claims of the ’012 Patent will be found unpatentable, as required
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Specifically, with respect to
`
`Ground 1, the De Nicolo references, Petitioner points to no evidence that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, facing the problems discussed in the ’012 Patent, would
`
`have been motivated to combine them to achieve the inventions claimed by the
`
`’012 Patent. Further, Petitioner offers only conclusory argument, unsupported by
`
`
`1 In each case, the claims at issue are: independent claim 31 and its dependent
`
`claims 35, 36, 40, 43, 52, 56, 59, 60 (across claims 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52), and 65
`
`(across claims 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52).
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`fact, that a person of ordinary skill would have understood how to combine the
`
`references. Further still, Petitioner fails to argue, much less point to evidence, that
`
`a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that combining
`
`the references would have resulted in the inventions claimed by the patent.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a prima facie case that any claim of the ’012
`
`Patent is obvious in light of the De Nicolo references. The Board should reject
`
`Ground 1 of the Petition.
`
`With respect to Ground 2, Petitioner’s arguments are based on an improper
`
`claim construction. Independent claim 31—from which all of the other claims at
`
`issue depend—recites “[a]n adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment”
`
`that includes, among other things, at least one path “wherein distinguishing
`
`information about the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment is associated to
`
`impedance within the at least one path.” Properly construed, the claim requires
`
`that the path must be configured to have an impedance that can be used to
`
`distinguish the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment from at least one other
`
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment in an Ethernet network.
`
`Petitioner does not contend that the alleged combination of de Nijs and
`
`Chaudhry disclose this limitation. Rather, the combination discloses a device that
`
`can be used to distinguish equipment in one network from equipment in another
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`network. Indeed, it is undisputed that the alleged combination of de Nijs and
`
`Chaudhry would be unable to distinguish one piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment from another piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment. For at least
`
`this reason, the Board should reject Ground 2 of the Petition.
`
`With respect to Ground 3, the Ethernet-standard references, Petitioner fails to
`
`allege, much less show, that any combination of the references discloses the
`
`limitations of claim 31. Further, as with Ground 2, Petitioner’s arguments rely on
`
`an improper claim construction for the limitation requiring at least one path
`
`“wherein distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment is associated to impedance within the at least one path.” None of the
`
`standards, either alone or in combination, discloses an adapted piece of Ethernet
`
`data terminal equipment that includes at least one path with an impedance that can
`
`be used to distinguish a piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment from another
`
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment. Here again, this is undisputed.
`
`The allegedly distinguishing impedance that Petitioner relies on is the so-
`
`called “characteristic impedance,” which is necessarily common to a certain data-
`
`communication protocol and is different from the characteristic impedances of the
`
`other protocols, as set forth in the multiple prior-art standards. As Petitioner’s
`
`expert acknowledges, each data-communication protocol within each of the
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`standards requires that each piece of data terminal equipment in a particular
`
`network must have the same characteristic impedance. It necessarily follows that
`
`an impedance that is common to each device on a particular network cannot be
`
`used to distinguish one device in that network from another device in that network.
`
`Thus, like Ground 2, when the proper claim construction is applied to the
`
`undisputed facts, the Ethernet-standard references do not render the ’012 Patent
`
`obvious. The Board should therefore reject Ground 3 of the Petition.
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is being
`
`filed within three months of the Notice dated May 10, 2016, granting the Petition a
`
`filing date of April 29, 2016. While Patent Owner here addresses some limited
`
`aspects of the Petition, if instituted, Patent Owner expects to address these and
`
`other aspects of the petition in greater detail.
`
` Background
`A. Status of Related Litigation
`
`The ’012 Patent is currently one of four related patents2 asserted in litigation
`
`pending in the Eastern District of Texas against Petitioner: Chrimar Systems, Inc., et
`
`al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-618. The court in that case construed
`
`2 The four related patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (Ex. 1001);
`
`9,049,019; 8,942,107 and 9,019,012.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`certain terms of the ’012 Patent and denied Dell’s request to find certain claims of
`
`the ’012 Patent invalid as being indefinite.3 In other, earlier cases involving the ’012
`
`Patent, the Court also construed certain terms of the ’012 Patent, denied
`
`Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied
`
`Defendants’ motions of summary judgment of invalidity.4 Trial is scheduled for
`
`
`3 Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et al., No.
`
`6:15-cv-618-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., June 20, 2016 (ECF No. 454)) (Ex. 2030).
`
`4 Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-
`
`881 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2014 (ECF No. 96)) (Ex. 2017); Mem. Op. & Order,
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8,
`
`2015 (ECF No. 105)) (Ex. 2018); Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v.
`
`AMX, LLC, No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015 (ECF No. 108)) (Ex.
`
`2019); Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al., No.
`
`6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016 (ECF No. 122)) (Ex. 2020); Mem. Op.
`
`& Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al., No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016 (ECF No. 123) (Ex. 2021); Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar
`
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al., No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. July 29,
`
`2016 (ECF No. 223)) (Ex. 2034).
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`January of 2016 against Dell.
`
`B. Chrimar
`
`Chrimar was founded in 1993 by Chris Young and Marshall Cummings.5 After
`
`learning about a number of thefts of networked equipment at the University of
`
`Michigan, where Mr. Cummings worked, the two began developing security
`
`solutions for networked equipment. While many in the industry focused on locking
`
`computers to desks and installing video surveillance systems, Messrs. Cummings
`
`and Young began focusing on an easily overlooked fact—these devices were already
`
`individually wired to the network by their own network cabling.
`
`In 1992, Messrs. Cummings and Young filed a patent application, which
`
`issued in 1995 as U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 entitled “Network Security System for
`
`Detecting Removal of Electronic Equipment.”6 The ’260 Patent claimed
`
`inventions related to monitoring the physical connectivity of a piece of equipment
`
`(e.g., a computer) to a network using existing network wiring—even when the
`
`piece of equipment was powered off. Realizing the uniqueness and potentially
`
`broad appeal of this idea, Messrs. Cummings and Young founded Chrimar in 1993
`
`
`5 Chrimar is a combination of “Chri” from Chris and “Mar” from Marshall.
`
`6 Ex. 1004, the “’260 Patent.”
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`and began working on a commercial product they called EtherLock.
`
`In response to customer demand, Chrimar expanded and John Austermann
`
`joined the company in 1997 to oversee its general management and direct its sales
`
`and marketing efforts. He and Mr. Cummings began contemplating ideas to expand
`
`the company’s product offerings. They soon conceived of inventions related to
`
`managing, tracking, and controlling assets that physically connect to a network,
`
`which led to the ’012 Patent and six other granted patents—all of which claim
`
`priority to Chrimar’s provisional patent application dated April 10, 1998.7
`
`In early 1998, Chrimar began developing a new generation of products based
`
`on the inventions disclosed and claimed in those patents. And in the fall of 1998,
`
`Chrimar began selling new products that enabled physical control, tracking,
`
`management, and security of computer assets and network ports.
`
`C. The ’012 Patent
`
`The ’012 Patent is directed to methods and systems for managing devices
`
`
`7 Those patents are U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,650,622; 7,457,250; 9,019,838;
`
`9,049,019; 8,902,760; and 8,942,107, each of which claims priority to provisional
`
`application no. 60/081,279 (Ex. 1005). U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,250 was subjected to a
`
`reexam, and all reexamined claims were confirmed as patentable.
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`connected in a wired network. The claims “relate[] generally to computer networks
`
`and, more particularly, to a network management and security system for
`
`managing, tracking, and identifying remotely located electronic equipment on a
`
`network.”8 The “invention is particularly adapted to be used with an existing
`
`Ethernet communications link or equivalents thereof.”9
`
`More specifically, the patent discloses identifying an “asset,” such as a
`
`computer, “by attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`
`communicating with that device using existing network wiring or cabling.”10 The
`
`remote device is referred to as a “remote module.”11 An asset can be managed,
`
`tracked, or identified by using the remote module to communicate information
`
`about the asset to network monitoring equipment, referred to as a “central
`
`
`8 ’012 Patent at 1:23–26 (Ex. 1001); see also Declaration of Dr. Vijay K.
`
`Madisetti ¶ 17 (Ex. 2015, “Madisetti Dec.”).
`
`9 ’012 Patent at 3:35–37 (Ex. 1001).
`
`10 ’012 Patent at 1:67–2:2 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1001).
`
`11 ’012 Patent at 3:22–25 (Ex. 1001).
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`module.”12
`
`The basic configuration of an embodiment of the system claimed by the patent
`
`is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below with highlights and annotations.
`
`
`
`
`High-frequency data in an Ethernet network propagates between a hub (1) and
`
`a PC (3a) over two pairs of conductive lines—a pair of transmit lines, highlighted in
`
`green (conductors 1 & 2), and a pair of receive lines, highlighted in red (conductors
`
`3 and 6). A central module (15a) and a remote module (16a) are placed between the
`
`hub and the PC, with the high-frequency data propagating through them. What’s
`
`novel about the system is that the remote module can convey information about the
`
`PC to the central module through the same conductive lines that convey the high-
`
`frequency data without adversely affecting the high-frequency data. This is
`
`
`12 ’012 Patent at 3:22–27; 6:1–6; 8:58–66 (Ex. 1001); see also Madisetti Dec.
`
`¶ 18 (Ex. 2015).
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`generally represented in the figure above by the black arrows between the central
`
`and remote modules.
`
`This system allowed the patentees to solve a number of problems associated
`
`with prior-art asset-management systems. As the patent explains:
`
`[The prior art was] generally incapable of detecting the electrical
`
`connection status of equipment[;] it cannot detect the physical
`
`location of equipment, the identifying name of equipment is not
`
`permanent, and the monitored assets must be powered-up.
`
`Therefore, a method for permanently identifying an asset by
`attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`communicating with that device using existing network
`wiring or cabling is desirable. . . . Such a device would allow a
`
`company to track its assets, locate any given asset, and count the
`
`total number of identified assets at any given time, thus
`
`significantly reducing its [total cost of ownership] of identified
`assets.13
`
`In short, the patentees were looking for a way to identify, communicate with,
`
`and manage distributed assets in a network. The innovative devices, methods, and
`
`systems described and claimed by the ’012 Patent achieve this goal. Specifically,
`
`they are able to convey information about assets—e.g., a company’s computers—
`
`
`13 ’012 Patent at 1:63–2:11 (Ex. 1001); see also Madisetti Dec. ¶ 32 (Ex. 2015).
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`over the same lines already being used to convey high-frequency data
`
`communications to the assets, without substantially interfering with the high-
`
`frequency data communications.14
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’012 Patent would
`
`have, at a minimum, an undergraduate degree or the equivalent in the field of
`
`electrical engineering or a related ancillary field, and one to three years of
`
`experience with data-communications networks, such as Ethernet networks.
`
`Having experience with data-communications networks, such a person would also
`
`be familiar with data-communications protocols and standards.15
`
` Arguments and Authorities
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`14 See, e.g., ’012 Patent at 11:64–66 (“The system transmits a signal over pre-
`
`existing network wiring or cables without disturbing network communi-
`
`cations . . . .”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`15 Madisetti Dec. ¶ 32 (Ex. 2015).
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The petitioner bears the burden of proof to
`
`“demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). At all stages of
`
`the IPR, this burden of proof stays with the petitioner and never shifts to the patent
`
`owner to prove the patentability of the challenged claims. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Tietex
`
`Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., IPR2014-01248, Paper No. 39 at 11
`
`(2016).
`
` When filing an IPR Petition, the petitioner must include sufficient evidence
`
`and argument to meet its burden of proof. The petition must include “[a] full
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of
`
`the significance of the evidence including material facts, the governing law, rules,
`
`and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (requiring IPR
`
`petitions to meet the requirements of §§ 42.6, 42.8, 42.22, and 42.23).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review of an unexpired patent, the Board gives the claims the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification . . . .” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). The broadest reasonable construction, however, is still bounded by
`
`what is legally correct and supported by the patent specification. Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`1. Prior Claim Constructions from the District Court Litigation
`
`Certain terms of the ’012 Patent and several of its related patents sharing a
`
`common specification have been construed in district-court litigation and have
`
`faced several motions for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement.
`
`None of the claims involved were found invalid. The following orders are included
`
`as exhibits and provide claim-construction guidance from the district-court
`
`litigation.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, No.
`
`6:13-cv-881-JDL (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2014 (ECF No. 96))
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, No.
`
`6:13-cv-881-JDL (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2015 (ECF No. 105))
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, No.
`
`6:13-cv-881-JDL (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2015 (ECF No. 108))
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et
`
`al., No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016 (ECF No. 122))
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et
`
`al., No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016 (ECF No. 123)
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2030
`
`Description
`
`Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et
`
`al., No. 6:15-cv-618-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., June 20, 2016 (ECF No.
`
`454))
`
`The table below identifies relevant terms of the ’012 Patent together with the
`
`Court’s construction for each term.
`
`Claim Language
`
`Court’s Construction
`“twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the
`
`“BaseT”
`
`10BASE-T or 100BASE-T standards”
`
`(claims 36, 56, and 60)
`
`Ex. 2021, claim-construction order at 18; Ex. 2030,
`
`claim-construction order at 23.
`
`“distinguishing information
`
`about the piece of Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment”
`
`“information to distinguish the piece of Ethernet
`
`data terminal equipment from at least one other
`
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equ