`
`________________________________________________
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`________________________________________________
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`iv
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
`Introduction and Summary of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
`3
`A. Status of Related Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`B. Chrimar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
`5
`C. The ’012 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`Arguments and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`A. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 11
`B. Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`1. Prior Claim Constructions from the District-
`Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`2. “distinguishing information about the piece of
`Ethernet data terminal equipment” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`C. Ground 1: Petitioner has not made a prima facie
`case that the ’012 Patent’s claims are obvious in
`view of the combination of Hunter and Bulan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`1. Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`24
`2. Bulan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
`25
`3. The Hunter and Bulan references teach away
`from combining the two references to create the
`system proposed by Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`4. The combination of Hunter and Bulan does not
`meet every limitation of the claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`a. Hunter and Bulan do not teach or disclose
`“distinguishing information about the piece
`of Ethernet data terminal equipment.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`b. Hunter and Bulan do not teach or disclose
`“at least one path coupled across selected
`contacts” on an Ethernet connector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`a. Hunter and Bulan do not teach or disclose
`“impedance within the at least one path.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
`D. Ground 2: Petitioner has not made a prima facie
`case that the ’012 Patent is obvious in view of
`Bloch, Huizinga, and the IEEE Ethernet standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`1. There was no motivation to combine Bloch and
`Huizinga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`2. There was no motivation to combine Bloch and
`Huizinga with the IEEE Ethernet standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
`45
`Certificate of Compliance with Word Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`47
`
`
`
`38
`
`– iii –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 36
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`In re Sponnoble,
`405 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.,
`242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`Phillips v. AWH Corp,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
` 39
`
`– iv –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Tietex Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01248, Paper 39 (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11, 23
`
`Rules
` 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2, 48
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
` 11
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Memorandum Opinion and order denying AMX’s
`motion for summary judgment of non-
`infringement of the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No. 96,
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and order construing
`certain terms of the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No. 105,
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and order construing
`certain terms of the ’012 Patent and denying
`AMX’s motion for summary judgment of
`indefiniteness regarding the “distinguishing”
`terms of the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No. 108, Chrimar
`Sys., Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No.
`6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and order denying AMX’s
`motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness
`regarding certain claims of the ’012, ’107, and ’760
`Patents, Dkt. No. 122, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-164-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
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`– vi –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`2030
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`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
`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 Chrimar
`Sys., 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 Sys., Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et
`al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL, Eastern
`District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and order on ALE’s
`motion to construe certain claim terms of the ’012
`and ’760 Patents, Dkt. No. 318, filed in Chrimar
`Sys., Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No.
`6:15-cv-164-JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`10/27/2016
`
`Response to Office Action (Reexam Control No.
`90/009,513) (June 15, 2010)
`
`10/27/2016
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
`Certificate (Reexam Control No. 90/009,513)
`(Nov. 22, 2010)
`
`10/27/2016
`
`– vii –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`2050
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.’s Patent Rule 4-2
`Disclosures (Preliminary claim constructions)
`(August 19, 2016)
`
`10/27/2016
`
`– viii –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`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 two alleged combinations:
`
`(1) Hunter (WO 96/23377) and Bulan (U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927); and (2) Bloch
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714), Huizinga (U.S. Patent. No. 4,046,972), and IEEE
`
`International Standards ISO/IEC 802.3.1
`
`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, Petitioner has failed
`
`to make a prima facie case that the ’012 Patent is obvious in view of the combination
`
`of either Hunter and Bulan or of Bloch, Huizinga, and the IEEE Ethernet
`
`standards.
`
`With respect to Ground 1, Petitioner fails to show that the combination of
`
`Hunter and Bulan meets or discloses every limitation of the claims. Further,
`
`
`1 In each case, the claims at issue are: independent claim 31 and its dependent
`
`claims 34, 36, 40, 43, 52, 55, 56, 59 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52), 60, and 65
`
`(across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52).
`
`– 1 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine Hunter and Bulan to create the inventions claimed in the
`
`’012 Patent. In fact, the two references actually teach away from such a
`
`combination because doing so would result in an unacceptable and unworkable
`
`network environment. Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a prima facie case that
`
`any claim of the ’012 Patent is obvious in light of Hunter and Bulan. The Board
`
`should reject Ground 1 of the Petition.
`
`With respect to Ground 2, Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bloch, Huizinga, and the
`
`IEEE Ethernet standards to create the inventions claimed in the ’012 Patent. As a
`
`result, Petitioner has not made a prima facie case that any claim of the ’012 Patent is
`
`obvious in light of Bloch, Huizinga, and the IEEE Ethernet standards. The Board
`
`should reject Ground 2 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 mailed July 27, 2016, granting the
`
`Petition a filing date of July 8, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 2 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` Background
`
`A. Status of Related Litigation
`
`The ’012 Patent is currently one of four related patents asserted in litigation
`
`pending in the Northern District of California against Petitioner: Chrimar Systems,
`
`Inc., et al. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-558.2 The case against Juniper
`
`Networks is currently stayed. The ’012 Patent is also asserted against several
`
`defendants in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas.3 The court in
`
`Eastern District of Texas construed certain terms of the ’012 Patent and denied
`
`defendants’ request to find certain claims of the ’012 Patent invalid as being
`
`indefinite.4 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
`
`
`2 The four related patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (Ex. 1001);
`
`9,049,019; 8,942,107 and 9,019,838.
`
`3 Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-163
`
`and Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-618.
`
`4 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).
`
`– 3 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`summary judgment of invalidity.5 In an earlier case involving the ’012 Patent, a jury
`
`trial was held against Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise, USA, Inc. the week of October 3,
`
`2016, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of Chrimar.6
`
`
`5 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); Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al.
`
`v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al., No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2016 (ECF No.
`
`318)) (Ex. 2035).
`
`6 Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-
`
`163.
`
`– 4 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`B. Chrimar
`Chrimar was founded in 1993 by Chris Young and Marshall Cummings.7 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.” 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 and began
`
`working on a commercial product they called EtherLock.
`
`In response to customer demand, Chrimar expanded and John Austermann
`
`
`7 Chrimar is a combination of “Chri” from Chris and “Mar” from Marshall.
`
`– 5 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`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 an Ethernet
`
`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, 1998.8
`
`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
`
`connected in a wired Ethernet network. The claims “relate[] generally to computer
`
`networks and, more particularly, to a network management and security system for
`
`
`8 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. U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,250 was subjected to a reexam, and
`
`all reexamined claims were confirmed as patentable.
`
`– 6 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`managing, tracking, and identifying remotely located electronic equipment on a
`
`network.”9 The “invention is particularly adapted to be used with an existing
`
`Ethernet communications link or equivalents thereof.”10
`
`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.”11 The
`
`remote device is referred to as a “remote module.”12 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
`
`module.”13
`
`The basic configuration of an embodiment of the system claimed by the patent
`
`is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below with highlights and annotations.
`
`
`9 ’012 Patent at 1:23–26 (Ex. 1001).
`
`10 ’012 Patent at 3:35–37 (Ex. 1001).
`
`11 ’012 Patent at 1:67–2:2 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1001).
`
`12 ’012 Patent at 3:22–25 (Ex. 1001).
`
`13 ’012 Patent at 3:22–27; 6:1–6; 8:58–66 (Ex. 1001).
`
`– 7 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`generally represented in the figure above by the black arrows between the central
`
`and remote modules, and this can happen even when the PC is powered off.
`
`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
`
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`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.14
`
`In short, the patentees were looking for a way to identify, communicate with,
`
`and manage distributed assets in an Ethernet network, over existing network wires,
`
`even when the assets are turned off. The innovative devices, methods, and systems
`
`described and claimed by the ’012 Patent achieve each of these goals. Specifically,
`
`they are able to: (1) transmit information about assets—e.g., a company’s
`
`computers—along the same lines already being used to convey high-frequency data
`
`communications to the assets, without interrupting the high-frequency data
`
`
`14 ’012 Patent at 1:63–2:11 (Ex. 1001).
`
`– 9 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`communications15; and (2) convey information about the assets even when the
`
`assets are powered off.16
`
`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 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).
`
`16 See, e.g., ’012 Patent at 4:66–67 (describing an embodiment of the invention
`
`“capable of identifying the existence and location of network assets without power
`
`being applied to the assets.”) (Ex. 1001); id. at 12:48–50 (“[T]he system provides a
`
`means for permanently identifying the location of network assets without applying
`
`power to the assets.”).
`
`– 10 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
` 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
`
`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 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).
`
`– 11 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Description
`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)
`
`– 12 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2030
`
`2035
`
`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))
`Memorandum Opinion and order on ALE’s motion to construe
`certain claim terms of the ’012 and ’760 Patents (Chrimar Systems,
`Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern
`District of Texas, ECF No. 318)
`
`The table below identifies relevant terms of the ’012 Patent together with the
`
`Court’s construction for each term.
`
`Claim Language
`
`“BaseT”
`(claims 36, 56, and 60)
`
`Court’s Construction
`“twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the
`10BASE-T or 100BASE-T standards”
`Ex. 2021, claim-construction order at 18; Ex. 2030,
`claim-construction order at 23.
`
`“distinguishing information
`about the piece of Ethernet
`terminal equipment”
`(claim 31)
`
`
`“information to distinguish the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment from at least one other
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment”
`Ex. 2017, claim-construction order at 15; Ex. 2030,
`claim-construction order at 22.
`
`“Ethernet data terminal
`equipment”
`(claim 31)
`
`“device at which Ethernet data transmission can
`originate or terminate”
`Ex. 2030, claim-construction order at 16.
`
`“impedance”
`(claims 31 and 35)
`
`“opposition to the flow of current”
`Ex. 2018, claim-construction order at 12.
`
`– 13 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`“path coupled across”
`(claim 31)
`
`Preamble of claim 31:
`“an adapted piece of
`Ethernet data terminal
`equipment”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“path permitting energy transfer”
`Ex. 2021, claim-construction order at 22; Ex. 2030,
`claim-construction order at 23.
`
`The preamble is limiting. The court held that
`“‘adapted’ should be construed consistently with its
`plain and ordinary meaning to mean ‘designed,
`configured, or made’ in accordance with the
`elements of claim 1.”
`Ex. 2018, claim-construction order at 17; Ex. 2035,
`claim construction order at 7.
`
`2. “distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment”
`
`Claim 31 of the ’012 Patent claims an apparatus that is able to manage, track,
`
`and identify remotely located assets in an Ethernet network. It recites (emphasis
`
`added):
`
`An adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment comprising:
`
`an Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts; and
`
`at least one path coupled across selected contacts, the selected contacts
`
`comprising at least one of the plurality of contacts of the Ethernet
`
`connector and at least another one of the plurality of contacts of the
`
`Ethernet connector,
`wherein distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data
`terminal equipment is associated to impedance within the at least one
`
`– 14 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`path.17
`
`Petitioner does not offer a proposed construction for this term “distinguishing
`
`information about the piece of Ethernet terminal data equipment,” but its
`
`obviousness arguments are clearly based on an improper understanding of the
`
`limitation it defines.18 The term states a requirement 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 the same network.
`
`Unless impedance in the claimed path within the claimed piece of Ethernet data
`
`terminal equipment can be used to differentiate the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment from at least one other piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment in the
`
`network, it is not covered by the claims.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments here contradict the intrinsic record and the district
`
`court’s construction in the Texas litigation, as well as Petitioner’s own
`
`claim-construction position in the district court litigation. In the Texas litigation,
`
`the question was whether “distinguishing information” must “differentiate each
`
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment from each other piece of Ethernet data
`
`
`17 ’012 Patent claim 1 (Ex. 1001).
`
`18 See below at 31–33.
`
`– 15 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`terminal equipment,” as the defendants argued, or from “at least one other piece
`
`of Ethernet data terminal equipment,” as Chrimar argued.19 In short, the Texas
`
`defendants argued that the claim required having a unique identifier associated
`
`with the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to differentiate it from every other
`
`piece of equipment on the network, which is the same position Petitioner took in its
`
`district-court litigation.20 Finding Petitioner’s proposed construction was
`
`“unclear,” “inconsistent with the intrinsic record,” and “likely [to] confuse rather
`
`than clarify the scope of the claims,” the Texas court construed the term to mean:
`
`“information to distinguish the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment from at
`
`least one other piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment.”21
`
`
`19 See Mem. Op. & Order, No. 6:15-cv-618 (E.D. Tex., June 20, 2016 (ECF No.
`
`454)), at 22 (Ex. 1004-1).
`
`20 Juniper Networks, Inc.’s P.R. 4-2 Disclosure dated August 19, 2016 (Ex.
`
`2050) (proposing a construction of “information to differentiate each piece of
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment from each other piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment”).
`
`21 See Mem. Op. & Order, No. 6:15-cv-618 (E.D. Tex., June 20, 2016 (ECF No.
`
`454)), at 22 (Ex. 1004-1) (citing Mem. Op. & Order, No. 6:13-cv-881 (E.D. Tex.
`
`– 16 –
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Despite their disagreement over whether the claimed piece of equipment must
`
`be distinguishable from one or every other piece of equipment, the parties agreed
`
`that claim 31 is directed to making the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment
`
`distinguishable within an Ethernet network based on impedance within a path
`
`within the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment. The defendants, for
`
`example, argued that “the entire intrinsic record . . . repeatedly emphasizes that
`
`the purpo