UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01443
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`FACTS ............................................................................................................. 3 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`The ‘494 Patent ..................................................................................... 3 
`
`Overview of Swimmer .......................................................................... 5 
`
`
`
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 III.
`
`IV.
`
`  THE PETITION IS MOOT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(E)(1).......................... 6 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(D) ........................................................................................................... 9 
`
`VI.
`
`  THE PETITION IS BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(B) ....................... 14 
`
`  THE PETITION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER Considered VII.
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................. 15 
`
`  SWIMMER DOES NOT INVALIDATE CLAIMS 1 AND 10 OF VIII.
`
`
`THE ‘494 PATENT ....................................................................................... 17 
`
`IX.
`
`  PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS 1–4 DO NOT
`INVALIDATE CLAIMS 7–9 AND 16–18 OF THE ‘494 PATENT ........... 19 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Swimmer in view of Ji does not Render Obvious “wherein the
`Downloadable security profile data includes a URL from where
`the Downloadable originated” (claims 7 and 16) ................................ 19 
`
`Swimmer in view of Luotonen does not Render Obvious
`“wherein the Downloadable security profile data includes a
`URL from where the Downloadable originated” (claims 7 and
`16) ........................................................................................................ 22 
`
`Swimmer in view of Apperson does not Render Obvious
`“wherein the Downloadable security profile data includes a
`digital certificate” (claims 8 and 17) ................................................... 26 
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`Swimmer in view of Lo does not Render Obvious “wherein
`said deriving Downloadable security profile data comprises
`disassembling the incoming Downloadable” (claim 9) or
`“wherein said Downloadable scanner comprises a disassembler
`for disassembling the incoming Downloadable” (claim 18) ............... 30 
`
`X.
`
` 
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............. 31 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`Long-Felt But Unresolved Need and Recognition of a Problem ........ 38 
`
`Skepticism and Unexpected Results ................................................... 39 
`
`The Failure of Others .......................................................................... 39 
`
`Teaching Away by Others ................................................................... 40 
`
`XI.
`
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB,
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 18
`
`In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release
`Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 32
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Ford Motor Co., v. Paice LLC,
`Case No. IPR2015-00767, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) ............................. 11
`
`Graftech Int’l Holdgs, Inc., v. Laird Techs., Inc.,
`No. 2015-1796, 2016 WL 3357427 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2016) ........................... 32
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 31
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Kofax, Inc., v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01207, Decision on Motion to Terminate Inter
`Partes Review, Paper 22 (PTAB June 2, 2016) ................................................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`In re Kumar,
`418 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 18
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Life Techs. Corp. v. Unisone Strategic IP,
`CBM2016-00025, Paper 7 (PTAB July 5, 2016) ............................................... 11
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson
`Orthopaedics, Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.,
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Osram Sylvania Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs. Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 40
`
`Oxford Nanopore Techs. LTD. v. University of Washington,
`Case IPR2015-00057, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) ..................................... 13
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2016-00157, Paper 3 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2015) ............................... 15
`
`In re Payne,
`606 F.2d 303 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc., v. Ino Therapeutics LLC,
`Case IPR2016-00781, Paper 10 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2016) ...................................... 7
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`Case No. IPR2012-00042, Paper 60 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2014) .............................. 14
`
`Travelocity.com L.P., Priceline.com Inc. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2015-00047, Paper 7 (PTAB June 15, 2015) ............................................. 11
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case No. IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (PTAB July 7, 2014) ................................ 13
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013) ............................................. 10
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ......................................................................................... 2, 14, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ..................................................................................... 1, 6, 7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .............................................................................. 23, 28, 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ........................................................ 7
`
`77 F.R. 48702 ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011).......................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2001 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2002 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2003 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2004 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2005 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2006 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2007 Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D. on the Validity of Claims
`7-9 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit-2008 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Exhibit-2009 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2010 Declaration of S.H. Michael Kim in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response in Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-
`01892
`
`Exhibit-2011 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2012 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2013 Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.),
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, dated April 22, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2014 Claim charts created by Dr. Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of Finjan’s licensees and the ‘494 Patent
`
`Exhibit-2015 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Web Gateways, May 28,
`2013
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2016 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Email Gateways, July 2,
`2013
`
`Exhibit-2017 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated April 7, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2018 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated December 30, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2019 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 14, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2020 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 20, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2021 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated November 15, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2022 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated September 24, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2023 Proofpoint Inc. 10-K, dated February 25, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2024 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2025 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2026 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2027 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2028 U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780
`
`Exhibit-2029 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2030 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2031 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2032 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2033 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2034 Websense, Inc. brochure - Triton APX (2015), available at
`https://www.websense.com/assets/brochures/brochure-triton-apx-
`en.pdf.
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2035 F-Secure Whitepaper - F-Secure DeepGuard, available at
`https://www.f-
`secure.com/documents/996508/1030745/deepguard_whitepaper.pd
`f.
`
`Exhibit-2036 Proofpoint, Inc.’s 10-K, dated December 31, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2037 F-Secure 2015 revenue and financials, available at https://www.f-
`secure.com/en/web/investors_global/financials.
`
`Exhibit-2038 Websense, Inc. Revenue and Financial Data, available at
`http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-
`financial.websense_inc.89ee9262879a5b65.html.
`
`Exhibit-2039 Proofpoint, Inc. Press Release - Proofpoint Announces Fourth
`Quarter and Full Year 2015 Financial Results (Jan. 28, 2016),
`available at
`http://investors.proofpoint.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=95229
`5
`
`Exhibit-2040 Reuters news article - Avast worth ‘upwards of $2 billion’; no IPO
`before 2017, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-avast-
`ceo-idUSKCN0SN2MJ20151029
`
`Exhibit-2041 Press Release - Symantec Completes Acquisition of Blue Coat to
`Define the Future of Cyber Security, dated August 1, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2042 Symantec Corporation Form 8-K, dated August 1, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2043 Complaint for Patent Infringement in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
`Systems, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03295 (N.D. Cal.), filed on July 15,
`2015
`
`Exhibit-2044 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement in Finjan, Inc.
`v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02998 (N.D. Cal.), filed on
`September 11, 2014
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2045 Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Supplemental Rule 7.1
`Certification of Interested Entities or Persons in Finjan, Inc. v.
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc., filed on August 25, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2046 Symantec Corporation Form 8-K, dated June 12, 2016
`
`- vii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This case is the third filed by Blue Coat Systems, Inc., (“Blue Coat” or
`
`“Petitioner”) against the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (Ex. 1001) (“the ‘494
`
`Patent”) owned by Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan” or “Patent Owner”). See Case Nos.
`
`IPR2016-01443, IPR2016-01174 (joined with Case No. IPR2016-00159), and
`
`IPR2016-00890 (joined with IPR2015-01892) (the “Blue Coat Petitions”) 1. Each
`
`of the Blue Coat Petitions relies upon the same primary reference, Swimmer et al.,
`
`Dynamic Detection and Classification of Computer Viruses Using General
`
`Behaviour Patterns. Ex. 1005 (“Swimmer”). The only substantive difference
`
`between these three petitions is in the dependent claims challenged in each case:
`
`IPR2016-00890: Challenged Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15;
`
`IPR2016-01147: Challenged Claims 1–6 and 10–15; and
`
`IPR2016-01443: Challenged Claims 1, 7–10, and 16–18.
`
`Given that Petitioner is already involved in two inter partes review proceedings
`
`involving the ‘494 Patent (which will give rise to estoppel under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(e)(1)), that the current challenge relies on the same primary reference at
`
`issue in those two proceedings, that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason for its
`
`piecemeal and harassing challenges, and that Petitioner has not demonstrated that
`
`
`1 Blue Coat’s parent company, Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”), has also filed
`IPR2015-1892 and IPR2015-1897.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`the references cited against claims 7–9 and 16–18 were unavailable at the time the
`
`prior two petitions were filed, the Board should deny the instant Petition under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`The Petition should also be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the
`
`Petition was filed more than one year after September 11, 2014, the date on which
`
`Symantec Corp., the real party in interest, was served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘494 Patent. As Petitioner notes, Blue Coat Systems, Inc., and
`
`Symantec Corp. “announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement
`
`under which Symantec will acquire Blue Coat, Inc.” Petition at 14. Symantec
`
`Corp.’s acquisition closed on August 1, 2016, less than two weeks after Blue
`
`Coat’s Petition was filed. See Ex. 2041; Ex. 2042.
`
`Furthermore, the Petition is substantively deficient and fails 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.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
` The ‘494 Patent
`
`The invention described in the ‘494 Patent2 is an Internet-based technology
`
`that protects personal computers from the risk of “suspicious or other ‘malicious’
`
`operations that might otherwise be effectuated by remotely operable code” from
`
`the Internet. ‘494 Patent at 2:51–56. The invention described in the ‘494 Patent
`
`protects against potentially malicious content by receiving incoming content (i.e. a
`
`Downloadable) from the Internet and establishing that the code will not cause any
`
`harm before it is allowed to run on the computer. The Downloadable is reviewed
`
`and Downloadable security profile (“DSP”) data, 3 which includes a list of
`
`suspicious computer operations that the Downloadable may attempt, is derived.
`
`‘194 Patent at 5:45–48.
`
`
`2 The ‘494 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”),
`
`7,613,926 (Ex. 1011) (“the ‘926 Patent”), 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780
`
`(Ex. 2028) (“the ‘780 Patent”), 6,092,194 (Ex. 1010) (“the ‘194 Patent”),
`
`6,480,962 (“the ‘962 Patent”), and 6,167,520 (“the ‘520 Patent”). The ‘494 Patent
`
`incorporates the disclosures of these patents by reference.
`
`3 This paper refers to the terms “security profile data for a Downloadable” and
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” as “DSP data.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Importantly, the DSP is stored in a database. ‘494 Patent at 21:24–25; ‘194
`
`Patent at 4:14–18; id., 9:52–55. Accordingly, DSP data can be readily retrieved or
`
`used when a known Downloadable is detected, thereby allowing security decisions
`
`to be made without generating security profiles for all incoming Downloadables.
`
`Indeed, the storage of the DSP in a database is one of the key features that
`
`distinguished the ‘494 Patent over the prior art.
`
`Petitioner submitted a Petition to institute IPR on July 15, 2016, challenging
`
`claims 7–9 and 16–18 of the ‘494 Patent. Paper No. 2. Claims 1 and 10 are
`
`independent claims and are purportedly not challenged in this case. Independent
`
`claim 1 and claims 7–9, which depend therefrom are reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer-based method, comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an incoming Downloadable;
`
`deriving security profile data for the Downloadable, including a
`list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`Downloadable; and
`
`storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.
`
`the
`The computer-based method of claim 1 wherein
`7.
`Downloadable security profile data includes a URL from where the
`Downloadable originated.
`
`The computer-based method of claim 1 wherein
`8.
`Downloadable security profile data includes a digital certificate.
`
`the
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`The computer-based method of claim 1 wherein said deriving
`9.
`Downloadable security profile data comprises disassembling the
`incoming Downloadable.
`
`‘494 Patent at claims 1 and 7–9. Independent claim 1 and claims 7–9, which
`
`depend therefrom are reproduced below:
`
`10. A system for managing Downloadables, comprising:
`
`a receiver for receiving an incoming Downloadable;
`
`a Downloadable scanner coupled with said receiver, for
`deriving security profile data for the Downloadable, including a list of
`suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`Downloadable; and
`
`a database manager coupled with said Downloadable scanner,
`for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.
`
`16. The system of claim 10 wherein the Downloadable security
`profile data includes a URL from where the Downloadable originated.
`
`17. The system of claim 10 wherein the Downloadable security
`profile data includes a digital certificate.
`
`18. The system of claim 10 wherein said Downloadable scanner
`comprises a disassembler for disassembling the incoming
`Downloadable.
`
`‘494 Patent at claims 10 and 16–18.
`
`B.
`
` Overview of Swimmer
`
`Swimmer discloses a DOS-based theoretical system that is of interest to
`
`virus researches and is not designed to be of practical use to end users. Swimmer
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`at 76, ¶ 3. Swimmer teaches that to overcome the proliferation of polymorphic
`
`viruses that are able to circumvent database-based solutions, Swimmer analyzes a
`
`real-time stream of data from an emulator and processes all opcodes corresponding
`
`to program events within that activity stream. Id. at 75, ¶ 2 (“ASAX is used to
`
`analyse the stream of data which the emulator produces”); see also id. at 83, ¶ 6
`
`(“The audit system was integrated into an existing PC emulation by placing hooks
`
`into the module for processing all opcodes corresponding with the events.”).
`
`Swimmer does not teach a network based solution that is able to identify a list of
`
`suspicious computer operations and teaches against the use of a database. Id. at 77,
`
`¶¶ 1-3 (teaching away from the use of scanners and databases because they
`
`allegedly cannot detect polymorphic viruses).
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`III.
`
`For purposes of this Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does
`
`not dispute Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the terms “database” and
`
`“downloadable.” See Petition at 17–18.
`
`IV.
`
` THE PETITION IS MOOT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(E)(1)
`
`The instant Petition is moot because Petitioner will be estopped from
`
`maintaining this proceeding upon the issuance of a Final Written Decision in Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01892 or IPR2016-00159, two pending cases involving the ‘494
`
`Patent to which Petitioner, Blue Coat, Inc., is a party. See IPR2015-01892, Paper
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`30 (decision granting Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-01892);
`
`IPR2016-00159, Paper 20 (decision granting Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder with
`
`IPR2016-00159). Because there is no question that the grounds raised in this
`
`Petition “reasonably could have been raised,” in either Case No. IPR2015-01892 or
`
`IPR2016-00159, Petitioner will not be permitted to maintain any inter partes
`
`review instituted based on this Petition:
`
`The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under
`this chapter that results in a final written decision under section
`318(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not
`request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to
`that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could
`have raised during that inter partes review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner has not even argued that the “new” references could not
`
`reasonably have been raised in the prior proceedings, which the Board has held to
`
`include any “prior art which a skilled researcher conducting a diligent search
`
`reasonably could have been expected to discover.” See Praxair Distribution, Inc.,
`
`v. Ino Therapeutics LLC, Case IPR2016-00781, Paper 10 at 7 (PTAB Aug. 25,
`
`2016) (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Kyl)). Indeed, of the “new” references now cited against the challenged claims, Ji
`
`and Lo appear on the face of the ‘494 Patent (and Ji was cited by the Examiner
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`during prosecution), and Apperson was cited by Blue Coat’s owner, Symantec
`
`Corp., against a related Finjan patent, 6,154,844, in Case No. IPR2015-01894. See
`
`Ex. ‘494 Patent at page 2 (citing U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 to Ji); see also id. at
`
`page 5 (citing “Towards a Testbed for Malicious Code Detection,” by Lo, et al.
`
`(1991)); IPR2015-01892, Paper 1.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11), the Board will be required to issue a
`
`Final Written Decisions in Case No. IPR2015-01892 no later than March 18, 2017,
`
`and in Case No. IPR2016-00159 no later than May 13, 2017. See IPR2015-01892,
`
`Paper 9 (instituting trial on March 18, 2016); see also IPR2016-00159, Paper 8
`
`(instituting trial on March 18, 2016). Accordingly, after March 18, 2016, the
`
`estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) will ripen and prevent Petitioner from
`
`maintaining this case. See, e.g., Kofax, Inc., v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01207, Decision on Motion to Terminate Inter Partes Review, Paper 22
`
`at 8, 11–12 (PTAB June 2, 2016) (terminating an inter partes review in which a
`
`party to an earlier action that ended in a final written decision was found to have
`
`“had an opportunity to raise the grounds in the earlier proceeding within one month
`
`of its institution by filing the [new] grounds in an inter partes review petition and
`
`requesting joinder”).
`
`Patent Owner recognizes that the issue of estoppel per se is not yet ripe
`
`because no Final Written Decision has issued yet in Case Nos. IPR2015-01892 or
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`IPR2016-00159. However, because estoppel will attach to Blue Coat once a Final
`
`Written Decision does issue in either one of those cases, Patent Owner requests
`
`that the Board consider the substantial waste of resources attendant to instituting
`
`trial on this moot Petition in its determination of whether to exercise its discretion
`
`to reject this Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`V.
`
` THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D)
`
`The Board should deny Grounds 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the
`
`Petition recycles substantially the same prior art and substantially the same
`
`arguments that were already presented to the Patent Office in Case Nos. IPR2016-
`
`00890 and IPR2016-01147:
`
`The Board has previously instituted inter partes review of the ‘494
`patent, including of the independent claims from which claims 7-9
`and 16-18 depend, in Nos. IPR2015-01892 and IPR2016-00159. This
`petition presents essentially the same disclosure and arguments for
`those independent claims.
`
`Petition at 1 (emphasis added); see also 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“In determining
`
`whether to institute or order a proceeding…the Director may take into account
`
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”). Indeed, in
`
`its attempt to elide the fact that any IPR instituted in this proceeding will
`
`necessarily involve independent claims 1 and 10—which are already the subject of
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`two proceedings to which Petitioner is a party—Petitioner “ignores the burden and
`
`inequity on the Patent Owner if it is forced to defend the same claims twice from
`
`attack by the same Petitioner.” ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 at 7 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013) (informative opinion).
`
`The instant Petition differs from those filed in Case Nos. IPR2016-00890
`
`and IPR2016-01147 only in the dependent claims challenged. See IPR2016-00890
`
`(challenging dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15); see also IPR2016-01147
`
`(challenging dependent claims 2–6 and 11–15); IPR2016-01443 (challenging
`
`dependent claims 7–9 and 16–18). But these serial challenges to Patent Owner’s
`
`rights should not be countenanced, and the Board should exercise its discretion to
`
`reject the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In its comments on the proposed rules
`
`for implementing the AIA, the USPTO specifically indicated that § 325(d) is the
`
`appropriate mechanism addressing harassment of patent owners through
`
`“piecemeal challenges against specific claims in the same patent:”
`
`Comment 55: A few comments expressed concerns regarding
`piecemeal challenges against specific claims in the same patent, and
`encouraged the Board to use its authority under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) to
`discourage efforts by petitioners to avoid estoppel through successive
`petitions against different claims within a patent.
`
`Response: The Office recognizes these concerns and will exercise its
`authority under 35 U.S.C. 325(d), where appropriate, to deny petitions
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`that submit the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`previously presented to the Office.
`
`77 F.R. 48702 (emphasis added). Although Petitioner cites Life Techs. Corp. v.
`
`Unisone Strategic IP, CBM2016-00025—a case that is neither binding nor
`
`informative—for the premise that § 325(d) is not applicable in cases where a
`
`second petition challenged different claims than the first, it is apparent that the
`
`Board was not articulating a rule, but only that the Patent Owner did not “persuade
`
`[the Board] that the timing of Petitioner’s filing of the Petition in this case
`
`translates to a ‘waste’ of Board resources or that the filing constitutes ‘a misuse of
`
`USPTO proceedings.’” Id., Paper 7 at 18 (PTAB July 5, 2016); Petition at 17.
`
`Indeed, the Board has denied petitions under § 325(d) despite the follow-on
`
`petition challenging previously unchallenged claims. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co., v.
`
`Paice LLC, Case No. IPR2015-00767, Paper 14 at 7 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (“We
`
`also have considered Petitioner’s arguments that because it presents a new set of
`
`claims, e.g., consisting of previously challenged claims, but also including newly
`
`challenged claims, we must consider the Petition…. We are not persuaded by this
`
`argument because the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) does not mention
`
`claims as being a factor in deciding whether to institute trial.”); see also
`
`Travelocity.com L.P., Priceline.com Inc. v. Cronos Techs., LLC, CBM2015-00047,
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Paper 7 at 11–13 (PTAB June 15, 2015) (dismissing a follow-on petition that
`
`challenged claims not challenged in the first petition).
`
`The legislative history also indicates that § 325(d) was designed to prevent
`
`precisely the type of piecemeal challenges raised in this case and its predecessors.
`
`See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (warning that the AIA’s procedures,
`
`including inter partes review, should “not… be used as tools for harassment or a
`
`means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative
`
`attacks on the validity of a patent.”). Indeed, given that Petitioner waited until the
`
`very end of the one year window from when it was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘494 Patent. Compare Petition (filed on 7/15/16) with
`
`Ex. 2043, Blue Coat II complaint (filed on 7/15/15); see also Ex. 2044, Symantec
`
`Complaint (filed on 9/11/14). Thus, this Petition appears to be nothing more than
`
`an attempt to further tie up the ‘494 Patent in USPTO proceedings—and thereby
`
`delay district court litigation of the ‘494 Patent—as long as possible.
`
`There is no reason that Petitioner could not have presented the grounds
`
`raised in the instant Petition in either of its previous Petitions. Petitioner’s sole
`
`explanation for not raising these grounds in its earlier petitions is that “Blue Coat
`
`could not reasonably have addressed claims 7–9 and 16–18 in [the IPR2016-00890
`
`and IPR2016-01174] petitions because doing so would have added issues not
`
`present in the Symantec and Palo Alto Networks IPRs and jeopardized Blue Coat’s
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`joinder requests.” Petition at 16. However, Petitioner was not compelled to
`
`request joinder with either one of these proceedings, nor has Petitioner cited any
`
`“governing law, rules [or] precedent”—as is its obligation under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.22(a)(2)—indicating that addressing these grounds in its earlier petitions
`
`would have “jeopar