Paper No. _____
`Filed: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent No. 8,225,408 B2
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`BLUE COAT’S REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`REGARDING 35 U.S.C. §§ 312, 315(e)(1)
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`Filed: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent No. 8,225,408 B2
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`BLUE COAT’S REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`REGARDING 35 U.S.C. §§ 312, 315(e)(1)
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`The Board authorized (Paper 7) Petitioner Blue Coat Systems LLC to file
`
`this reply to Patent Owner’s (“PO”) preliminary response contention that the
`
`petition is procedurally barred under 35 U.S.C. §§ 312,
`
`and 315(e)(1).
`
`PO’s contention is without merit. First, there is no bar to challenging only
`
`dependent claims. As for estoppel, Blue Coat is not now, nor could it ever be,
`
`estopped by final written decisions that do not cover the challenged claims—
`
`claims 2, 8, 11, 24-28, and 30-34—which were never previously challenged in any
`
`IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`§ 315(e)(1): ONLY “WITH RESPECT TO THAT CLAIM”
`
`PO argues that Blue Coat “will be estopped” by final written decisions in
`
`related cases involving different claims, namely the parent claims from which the
`
`presently challenged claims depend. POPR 8-10. PO is wrong because the claims
`
`challenged here were not challenged in those related cases, and § 315(e)(1)
`
`estoppel applies and a claim-by-claim basis. § 315(e)(1) (“The petitioner…may not
`
`request or maintain a proceeding…with respect to that claim”) (emphasis added).
`
`Thus final written decisions that do not involve the claims challenged in the
`
`present petition are of no consequence. See Westlake Servs., LLC v. Credit
`
`Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 at 4-5 (prec.) (estoppel applied on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis); Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309,
`
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (no estoppel on uninstituted claims).
`
`To the extent one would argue Blue Coat “reasonably could have”
`
`challenged the dependent claims in the related proceedings, Blue Coat could not
`
`have reasonably done so, as explained in § II below. And in any case, § 315(e)(1)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`refers to grounds that could have been raised with respect to the same previously
`
`challenged claims, not different claims that could have been challenged.
`
`§ 315(e)(1) (“with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or
`
`reasonably could have raised”) (emphasis added). PO’s argument regarding the
`
`“new reference” to Knuth (POPR at 9) underscores how PO’s arguments are
`
`misplaced—Knuth is “new” here because the claims against which it is being
`
`applied were not previously challenged.
`
`Moreover, PO admits that Blue Coat is not presently estopped, so its request
`
`is premature at best. POPR 8-9. The Board can later terminate a review if it ever
`
`becomes moot. Kofax, Inc., v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2015-01207, Paper 22 at 8,
`
`11-12 (terminating review). Even assuming arguendo that estoppel could
`
`theoretically apply, termination of the proceeding would be neither automatic nor
`
`required. The Board may, for example, terminate an estopped party, yet maintain
`
`the proceeding itself. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00015, Paper 49
`
`at 5-6 (noting public interest in resolving patentability).
`
`The present review involves different claims compared to claims previously
`
`challenged. PO’s request should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PO argues that Blue Coat should have added the claims to joinder petitions.
`
`But the Board encourages essentially identical joinder petitions. E.g., Enzymotec
`
`Ltd. v. Neptune Techs., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19 at 6, citing 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (“identical petition will be joined”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`III. § 312(a)(3): “EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED”
`
`PO improperly conflates the different concepts of “challenged claims”
`
`versus those “considered.” POPR 15-20. Parent claims must be considered to the
`
`extent the challenged claims incorporate their limitations, but dependent claims are
`
`separate claims and must be judged on their own merits. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2014-01367, Paper 46 at 3-4 (vacating decision
`
`on dependent claim). Blue Coat has correctly described the scope of its present
`
`challenge. While incorporated limitations from the parent claims require
`
`consideration, PO’s treating such consideration as a challenge to those claims is
`
`contrary to the rules and well-established dependency law. E.g., § 42.15(a)(3)
`
`(payment for unchallenged parent claims). And even if PO were correct, the only
`
`remedy might be to deny institution for the putatively challenged parent claims, not
`
`to deny institution for the entire IPR petition.
`
`As to PO’s fee arguments (POPR at 20-22), as instructed, Blue Coat has
`
`sought correction of the inadvertent Board error in calculating fees. Paper 7 at 2.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the relief Patent Owner seeks is unfounded,
`
`extraordinary, and extreme. Trial should be instituted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: December 16, 2016
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2016-01441
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`I certify that the foregoing Blue Coat’s Reply to the Preliminary Response
`
`Regarding 35 U.S.C. §§ 312, 315(e)(1)
`
` was served on this 16th day of
`
`December 2016 on the Patent Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent
`
`Owner as follows:
`
`James Hannah
`Michael Lee
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Email: jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`Email: mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`Shannon Hedvat
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Email: jprice@kramerlevin.com
`Email: shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`Email: svdocketing@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Email: mkim@finjan.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Redacted as required by the Board's Order (Paper No. 10)
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
