Filing: June 29, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., WISTRON CORP., and DELL, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING DATA
`CORRESPONDING TO A TCP CONNECTION
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01707, Wistron Corp.,
`
`which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00329, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition
`
`in Case IPR2018-00375, have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., WISTRON CORP., and DELL, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING DATA
`CORRESPONDING TO A TCP CONNECTION
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01707, Wistron Corp.,
`
`which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00329, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition
`
`in Case IPR2018-00375, have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Intel Corp. (“Intel”) files its Response to Patent Owner’s
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`
`
`Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination. Paper 61 (“Motion”). The
`
`purpose of observations is to “draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-
`
`examination testimony of a reply witness because no further substantive paper
`
`is permitted after the reply.” See Paper 12 (“Scheduling Order”) at 5. “An
`
`observation (or response) is not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue
`
`issues, or pursue objections.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Motion is replete with attorney argument,
`
`including new attorney argument, which is in violation of the Trial Practice
`
`Guide. The Board should thus decline to consider or enter these observations.
`
`To the extent the Board considers the purported observations, the Board
`
`should give no weight to them because they include attorney argument, are not
`
`relevant to the issues identified, and/or mischaracterize Dr. Horst’s testimony.
`
`Ultimately, each observation fails to contradict any of Petitioner’s positions in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`1. Response to Observation No. 1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner improperly injects new attorney argument to contend for the
`
`first time that the first and second scripts do not perform the “transferring” and
`
`“dividing” limitations [e.g., limitations 1.3 and 1.4]. Paper No. 61 at 3; see also
`
`Paper No. 34 at 24-33 (PO Opposition containing no argument regarding transfer
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`then dividing). In addition, Patent Owner’s citation to Dr. Horst’s testimony should
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`be ignored because Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Horst’s testimony. Dr.
`
`Horst testified that the network interface both transfers and divides the data. Ex.
`
`2600 at 17:5-18:8; 19:20-20:16.
`
`2. Response to Observation No. 2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s citation to Dr. Horst’s testimony is irrelevant because it is
`
`incomplete and Patent Owner’s characterization of the testimony is incorrect. The
`
`cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s argument because Patent Owner
`
`omitted the portion of Dr. Horst’s testimony where he states that the windowing
`
`process is described in both his report and in Tanenbaum. Ex. 2600 at 13:21-14:4.
`
`Patent Owner further omits Dr. Horst’s testimony that the code to handle window
`
`size is described in Stevens2 and a POSA would have merely included that code in
`
`the TCP/IP script for Erickson. Ex. 2600 at 24:22-25:5. Importantly, it is also not
`
`relevant because none of the challenged claims are directed to windowing.
`
`3. Response to Observation No. 3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s citation to Dr. Horst’s testimony is irrelevant because it is
`
`incomplete and Patent Owner’s characterization of the testimony is incorrect. The
`
`
`2 While the transcript states Stevenson, it should be Stevens. Ex. 2600 at 24:22-
`
`25:5.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`cited testimony does not support Patent Owner’s argument about the alleged
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`complexity of combining Erickson and Tanenbaum96 because Patent Owner
`
`omitted the portion of Dr. Horst’s testimony where he states that the windowing
`
`process is described in both his report and in Tanenbaum. Ex. 2600 at 13:21-14:4.
`
`Patent Owner further omits Dr. Horst’s testimony that the code to handle window
`
`size is described in Stevens3 and a POSA would have merely included that code in
`
`the TCP/IP script for Erickson. Ex. 2600 at 24:22-25:5. The testimony cited by
`
`Patent Owner is accordingly not relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that there
`
`was no reasonable expectation of success and is also incomplete because Dr. Horst
`
`testified to the contrary. Importantly, it is also not relevant because none of the
`
`challenged claims are directed to windowing.
`
`
`
`
`3 While the transcript states Stevenson, it should be Stevens. Ex. 2600 at 24:22-
`
`25:5.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2018
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Garland T. Stephens
`Garland T. Stephens, Reg. No. 37,242
`Justin L. Constant, Reg. No. 66,883
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 546-5000
`Fax: (713) 224-9511
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`Anne M. Cappella, Reg. No. 43,217
`Adrian Percer, Reg. No. 46,986
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3000
`Fax: (650) 802-3100
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`William S. Ansley, Reg. No. 67,828
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 682-7000
`Fax: (202) 857-0940
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Intel Corporation
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 29, 2018, a copy of PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was served
`
`by filing this document through the PTAB’s E2E Filing System as well as
`
`delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`James M. Glass
`Registration No. 46,729
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Ave., 22nd Fl.
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-7000
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Registration No. 59,033
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel.: (213) 443-3000
`Email: joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`Brian E. Mack
`Registration No. 57,189
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Fl.
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 875-6600
`Email: brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`
`Mark Lauer
`Registration No. 36,578
`Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
`7901 Stoneridge Dr., Ste. 528
`Pleasanton, CA 94588
`Tel.: (925) 621-2121
`Email: mark@siliconedgelaw.com
`
`Dated: June 29, 2018
`
`/s/ Garland T. Stephens
`Garland T. Stephens
`Reg. No. 37,242
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
