United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`________________________________________________
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
