`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`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 SUR-REPLY REGARDING
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315(e)(1), 325(d), AND 312
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Pursuant to the Board’s November 10, 2016, authorization, Finjan, Inc.,
`
`(“Patent Owner”) submits this sur-reply regarding petitioner estoppel under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 315(e)(1), 325(d), and 312, in response to Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 7
`
`(“Petitioner Reply”). As set forth below, the Board should exercise its discretion
`
`to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and/or terminate the proceedings
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312. Petitioner is involved in two other IPR proceedings
`
`involving U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494, each of which is based on the same primary
`
`reference at issue in this petition. Petitioner cannot maintain a proceeding with
`
`respect to any ground that Petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised
`
`previously, as is the case here.
`
`I.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED AS INCOMPLETE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312 by
`
`failing to identify (1) claims 1 and 10 as challenged claims or (2) the “grounds on
`
`which the challenge to each claim is based.” See Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”) at 15–
`
`16. Indeed, Petitioner explicitly recognizes that “[p]arent claims must be
`
`considered to the extent the challenged claims incorporate their limitations,” as is
`
`the case here. Petitioner Reply at 5. Petitioner’s omission of the independent
`
`claims in the current proceeding thus appears to be nothing more than an attempt to
`
`evade the estoppel of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 325 which, as discussed below, are
`
`fatal to this Petition. The Board should not permit such gamesmanship and should
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`dismiss the Petition based on Petitioner’s failure to meet its statutory obligation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(D)
`The Board should also exercise its discretion to deny the Petition under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition reargues substantially the same prior art
`
`and substantially the same arguments that Petitioner previously presented in Case
`
`Nos. IPR2016-00890 and IPR2016-01174.1 See Prelim. Resp. at 9–10; see also 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d). Specifically, Petitioner’s challenge of dependent claims 7–9 and
`
`16–18 requires the additional challenge of independent claims 1 and 10, which are
`
`at issue in those cases. If Petitioner had intended all along to challenge dependent
`
`claims 7–9 and 16–18 based on Ji, Luotonen, Apperson, and Lo—notably,
`
`Petitioner does not argue that these references were not readily available at the
`
`time it filed its first two petitions—Petitioner should have done so in its earliest
`
`petition, rather than file serial petitions concerning the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Petitioner, however, fails to acknowledge that the Board has granted joinder
`
`in cases where the grounds differed from the grounds at issue in the underlying
`
`proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. at 13 (citing Oxford Nanopore Techs. LTD. v.
`
`University of Washington, Case IPR2015-00057, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015)).
`
`1 As discussed below, Petitioner is essentially challenging claims 1 and 10 of the
`
`’494 Patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Instead, Petitioner attempts to justify its piecemeal petitions by stating that its
`
`petitions were only three months apart. Petitioner Reply at 4. This is irrelevant to
`
`§ 325 analysis and only bolsters Patent Owner’s argument because Patent Owner is
`
`forced to respond to substantially the same arguments in a shorter timeline.
`
`The cases that Petitioner cites are inapposite because those cases concerned
`
`claims that were substantively different, as Petitioner acknowledges. Petitioner
`
`Reply at 3–4; Koito Mfg. Co. v. Adaptive Headlamp Techs., Inc., IPR2016-00079,
`
`Paper 11 at 38 (PTAB May 5, 2016) (concerning claims that were amended during
`
`inter partes reexamination). Am General is similarly inapplicable because the
`
`basis of Patent Owner’s § 325(d) argument was that the prior art was presented
`
`during prosecution. Am Gen. LLC v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2016-01050, Paper 17 at 4
`
`(PTAB Nov. 14, 2016). Westlake Services turned on the “unique circumstances”
`
`of a material intervening change in law. Westlake Servs., LLC v. Credit Accept.
`
`Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 at 7 (PTAB May 14, 2015). Moreover, here,
`
`the Petition concerns dependent claims in the same patent, implicitly challenging
`
`the independent claims for which the Board has already instituted review.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner’s argument that “the rules contemplate multiple co-
`
`pending reviews over subsets of claims as a consequence of the page limits” is a
`
`blatant mischaracterization of the USPTO’s response to comment 85 found at 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48612, 48634 (2012). In particular, in response to a concern that “page
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`limits impact the rights of the parties and the ability of the parties to fully present
`
`arguments,” the USPTO indicated that its “modification to the proposed rules
`
`regarding page limits… permit a party to have a great deal of flexibility in
`
`presenting its case and responding to the opposing party.” Accordingly, far from
`
`encouraging this type of behavior, the USPTO explicitly indicated that such
`
`concerns were unfounded.
`
`Therefore, the Board should reject the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`III. PETITIONER WILL BE ESTOPPED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) will estop Petitioner from maintaining this IPR.
`
`Petitioner’s grounds raised in the current Petition either were raised or “reasonably
`
`could have been raised” in either of Petitioner’s two previous petitions concerning
`
`the ’494 Patent, mandating dismissal of this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. at 6–8;
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 2. In particular, the unnumbered ground, which proposes that
`
`“Swimmer Discloses or Renders Obvious Each Element of Independent Claims 1
`
`and 10” was explicitly raised in IPR2016-00890, and the numbered grounds 1–4—
`
`involving Ji, Lo, Luotonen, and Apperson—reasonably could have been raised in
`
`either of those proceedings. See Petition at 18–29.
`
`Petitioner is now challenging the dependent claims of independent claims
`
`for which the Board has already instituted review and for which a final written
`
`decision will issue no later than March 18, 2017. Although Petitioner challenges a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`number of claims not at issue in the instituted proceedings, claims 7–9 and 16–18
`
`depend from the claims already subject to review and rely wholly on Petitioner’s
`
`unnumbered ground, which it will be estopped from maintaining. See, e.g.,
`
`Petition at 30 (“[a]s discussed above, Swimmer teaches or suggests each element
`
`of claims 1 and 10. See supra, Section VII.A.”). Petitioner’s tactic of bringing a
`
`third Petition styled as only challenging dependent claims is a transparent attempt
`
`to avoid the estoppel that would arise from once again directly challenging
`
`independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s challenge to the
`
`dependent claims encompasses independent claims 1 and 10, Petitioner will be
`
`estopped from maintaining this proceeding.
`
`Allowing this case to proceed would declaw the petitioner estoppel
`
`provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) to the point of rendering it useless, and the
`
`Board and parties will have needlessly expended substantial resources during the
`
`interim. The petitioner estoppel provision of § 315(e)(1) is essential to preserving
`
`the balance of interests that the IPR scheme strikes between the interests of the
`
`patent owner and the petitioner by preventing a petitioner from having the
`
`opportunity subjecting the patent owner to the harassment and burden of serial
`
`challenges based on information which was reasonably available to the petitioner
`
`at the time it filed an IPR. Consistent with this Congressional policy, the Board
`
`should exercise its discretion to deny the Petition.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny institution of
`
`IPR2016-01443.
`
`Dated: November 30, 2016
`
`(Case No. IPR2016-01443)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Michael Lee (Reg. No. 63,941)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 650.752.1800
`
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Shannon Hedvat (Reg. No. 68,417)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.7502 Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Michael Kim (Reg. No. 40,450)
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: 650.397.9567
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2016-01443 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Regarding 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`315(e)(1), 325(d), and 312 was served on November 30, 2016, by filing this
`
`document through the Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering via
`
`electronic mail upon the following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew. S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew A. Argenti
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`margenti@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /James Hannah/
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`7
`
`