`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`VIPTELA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01125
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Background ........................................................................................ 1
`III. The Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`to deny the Petition. .......................................................................... 2
`A. The Petition presents substantially the same prior art and
`substantially the same arguments as those presented to the Board
`in the 684 Petition. ............................................................................ 2
`B. Alternative factors previously expressed by the Board in favor of
`denying serial petitions are applicable to the instant Petition. ...... 3
`IV. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. 103………………………………………………….…..2, 3
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. 325(d)……………………………………………. …1, 2, 6
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107………………………………………………….. 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR 2017-00684
`2001
`Decision Declining Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`2002
`IPR2014-00628
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
` This is the third petition for inter partes review filed against the
`
`subject patent, and the second petition filed by petitioner Viptela, Inc.
`
`Such serial filings should be discouraged. Patent Owner requests that
`
`the Board exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the
`
`instant Petition because it presents substantially the same prior art
`
`and substantially the same arguments as those already being
`
`considered by the Board in Petitioner’s first challenge of the subject
`
`patent, IPR 2017-00684 (“the 684 Petition”).
`
`II. Background
`Viptela, Inc. filed its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,775,235 (“the ’235 Patent”) on March 21, 2017 (Paper 1,
`
`“the Petition”). The Board mailed a notice of filing date on April 5, 2017
`
`(Paper 3). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, patent owner FatPipe
`
`Networks Private Limited and exclusive licensee FatPipe, Inc. (for the
`
`purposes of consistency with Board convention, referred to as “Patent
`
`Owner”) timely submit this preliminary response.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) to deny the Petition.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) the Board has discretion to deny a
`
`petition if it merely presents substantially the same prior art and
`
`arguments already presented to the Office. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d) sets forth that “In determining whether to institute or order a
`
`proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, 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.”
`
`As explained below, the Petition relies on substantially the same
`
`prior art and presents substantially the same arguments that were
`
`presented in the 684 Petition. (Ex. 2001.)
`
`A. The Petition presents substantially the same prior art
`and substantially the same arguments as those
`presented to the Board in the 684 Petition.
`The instant Petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 to Karol
`
`
`
`et al. (“Karol,” Ex. 1006) as a primary reference in order to present its
`
`challenge. (Petition at 4-5.) Specifically, the Petition contends that: (i)
`
`claims 5-11, 14, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent are obvious over the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combination of Karol and Zhang; (ii) claims 4 and 19 of the ’235 Patent
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`are obvious over the combination of Karol and Pearce; (iii) claims 9, 10,
`
`and 14 of the ’235 Patent are obvious over the combination of Karol,
`
`Zhang, and Pearce; and (iv) claims 6, 9-15, and 22-24 of the ’235 Patent
`
`are obvious over the combination of Karol, Zhang, and McCullough.
`
`(Petition at 4).
`
`The 684 Petition also relied on Karol as a primary reference in
`
`every ground for challenging claims 4-15, 19, and 22-24. (Ex. 2001 at 4.)
`
`Consequently, the instant Petition presents substantially the same
`
`prior art and arguments as the 684 Petition.
`
`B. Alternative factors previously expressed by the Board
`in favor of denying serial petitions are applicable to
`the instant Petition.
`The present Petition is merely a serial challenge against the same
`
`patent claims as the 684 Petition. The facts presented are similar to the
`
`facts before the Board in Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever v. The Proctor &
`
`Gamble Co, where the Board declined to institute review where the
`
`petition raised “substantially the same” arguments as a previously filed
`
`petition, even though the prior art relied upon was somewhat different
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the two petitions. (Ex. 2002, Case IPR2014-00628, at 9-10). Of note,
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`the Board in Unilever stated the following.
`
`Additional factors support our decision declining to institute
`review. Unilever does not argue that the other references
`applied in the instant Petition—Cosmedia, Bar-Shalom, or
`Uchiyama—were unknown or unavailable at the time of
`filing the 510 Petition. That fact supports a reasonable
`inference that those references were known and available to
`Unilever when it requested review the first time. Prelim.
`Resp. 1, 7. On this record, the interests of fairness, economy,
`and efficiency support declining review—a result that
`discourages the filing of a first petition that holds back prior
`art for use in successive attacks, should the first petition be
`denied. See id. at 1 (the instant Petition “simply swap[s] in
`new references, all of which were available to Unilever” at
`the time of filing of the 510 Petition; Unilever should have
`“presented its ‘best case’ in the first petition”).
`(Ex. 2002 at 11).
`
`The same additional factors apply here because Petitioner did not
`
`argue that the new secondary references applied in the instant Petition
`
`(Zhang, McCullough, and Pearce) were unknown or unavailable at the
`
`time of the filing of the 684 Petition. Thus, similar to the facts of
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Unilever, the Petitioner should have presented its “best case” in the first
`
`
`
`petition, and the Board should decline review in the present Petition in
`
`the interests of fairness, economy, and efficiency in order to discourage
`
`the filing of a first petition that holds back prior art for use in
`
`successive attacks.
`
`Not only has Petitioner engaged in such successive attacks that
`
`rely on the same primary reference, but its serial filings were timed to
`
`gain a tactical advantage. The 684 Petition is essentially a “copy-cat”
`
`petition to IPR2016-00976, filed by a third party. By waiting over two
`
`months after its first petition to file the instant Petition, Petitioner was
`
`able to read Patent Owner’s February 8, 2017 response in IPR2016-
`
`00976, affording Petitioner the tactical advantage of seeing how Patent
`
`Owner would respond to the same grounds for challenge presented in
`
`the copy-cat 684 Petition. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2015-01423, Paper 7, at 9 (“[T]he opportunity to read Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response … prior to filing the Petition here, is
`
`unjust.”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, similar to the facts noted by the Board in Unilever
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`(Ex. 2002 at 11-12), multiple grounds of rejection are raised against the
`
`same claims in both the 684 Petition and the present Petition. There is,
`
`therefore, a legitimate concern that Patent Owner will have to
`
`continually defend against repetitive challenges to the same patent
`
`claims, given the multiplicity of grounds applied in each petition. The
`
`Board’s resources are wasted if it has to address Petitioner’s second
`
`attempt to raise duplicative grounds for challenge against the same,
`
`previously-challenged patent claims.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, the Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`
`that the Board exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny
`
`the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
` 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier &
`Neustadt, LLP
`
`
`
`
`/Robert C. Mattson/
`Robert C. Mattson (Reg. No. 42,850)
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies the present Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response complies with the type-volume limitation of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(a). The word count application of the word processing program
`
`used to prepare this Preliminary Response indicates that the Preliminary Response
`
`contains 1,057 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(a)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
` 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier &
`Neustadt, LLP
`
`
`
`
`/Robert C. Mattson/
`Robert C. Mattson (Reg. No. 42,850)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-01125
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE on the counsel of record for
`
`the Petitioner by filing this document through the PTAB E2E System as well as
`
`delivering a copy via electronic mail to the following address:
`
`Robert C. Hilton
`George B. Davis
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Robert C. Mattson/
`Robert C. Mattson (Reg. No. 42,850)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`