`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`VIPTELA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00684
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 1
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`II. The Board should exercise its discretion
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition. ................................. 1
`A. The Petition presents the same prior art and
`substantially the same arguments as those presented
`to the Board in IPR 2016-00976. ....................................................... 2
`B. The Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys and
`Dr. Kevin Negus are substantially the same. ................................... 7
`III. If instituted, this proceeding should be merged
`with IPR 2016-00976. ........................................................................ 9
`IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 2
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102……………………………………………….. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103………………………………………… …..2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)…………………………………..1, 2, 9, 10
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107…………………………………………….1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)……………………………………………9
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 3
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`PTAB Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review in IPR 2016-
`2001
`00976
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR 2016-00976
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus filed in IPR 2016-00976
`
`2002
`2003
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 4
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Viptela, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 (the “’235 Patent”) on January 13, 2017
`
`(Paper 1, the “Petition”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) mailed a Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition on
`
`February 2, 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 submits this Preliminary
`
`Response.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board exercise its
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition because the
`
`Petition presents the same prior art and substantially the same
`
`arguments as those already being considered by the Board in IPR 2016-
`
`00976.
`
`II. 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 prior art and arguments already
`
`1
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 5
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`considered by the Office. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) sets forth that
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`“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 the same prior art and
`
`presents substantially the same arguments that were presented in the
`
`petition in IPR 2016-00376, which was instituted on November 2, 2016.
`
`(Ex. 2001.)
`
`A. The Petition presents the same prior art and
`substantially the same arguments as those presented
`to the Board in IPR 2016-00976.
`The Petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 to Karol et al.
`
`(“Karol”; Ex. 1006) and Data and Computer Communications by
`
`William Stallings, Prentice-Hall, 5th Edition, 1997, ISBN-81-203-1240-
`
`6 (“Stallings”; Ex. 1011) in order to present its grounds of rejection.
`
`Specifically, the Petition contends that claims 4-11, 14, 19, and 22-24
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Karol; that claims 5-6, 11-15,
`
`19, and 22-24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Karol and
`
`2
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 6
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stallings; and that Claims 4-15, 19, and 22-24 are obvious under 35
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on Karol. (Petition at 3-4.) The petition in IPR 2016-
`
`00976 also relied on Karol and Stallings to propose the identical
`
`grounds of rejection except that claims 6 and 22-24 were not included.
`
`(Ex. 2002 at 3-4.) Nevertheless, the Petition presents substantially the
`
`same arguments with regard to claims 6 and 22-24 as presented in IPR
`
`2016-00976 because of the overlap in claimed subject matter. (Petition
`
`at 21 and 30-31, for example.) As such, the Petition does not add any
`
`new prior art over the prior art already being considered by the Board
`
`in IPR 2016-00976.
`
`The Petition also presents nearly verbatim arguments as those
`
`presented in IPR 2016-00976. For example, in attempting to describe
`
`how Karol purportedly anticipates the preamble of claim 4, the Petition
`
`states at pages 9-10:
`
`
`
`3
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 7
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The petition in IPR 2016-0976 uses nearly identical language (Ex. 2002
`
`at 10-11):
`
`4
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 8
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to the preamble of claim 4, the Petition concludes at
`
`page 10:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 9
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, the petition in IPR 2016-00976 states (Ex. 2002 at 11-12):
`
`
`
`This is just one of many examples of how the Petition merely
`
`parrots arguments that rely on the same prior art and are nearly
`
`identical to those already being considered by the Board in IPR 2016-
`
`00976.
`
`6
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 10
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`B. The Declaration of Dr. Leonard J. Forys and Dr. Kevin
`Negus are substantially the same.
`Petitioner filed a Declaration from Leonard J. Forys (“The Forys
`
`
`
`Declaration”; Ex. 1005) to support the arguments in the Petition.
`
`However, the statements in the Forys Declaration closely mirror those
`
`in the Declaration of Kevin Negus (“the Negus Declaration”; Ex. 2003)
`
`filed in IPR 2016-00976 in support of the petition in that proceeding.
`
`With regard to the purported anticipation of claim 4 by Karol, the
`
`Forys Declaration states (Ex. 1005 at 74-75):
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 11
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Negus Declaration makes virtually the same statement with
`
`the same emphases (Ex. 2003 at 76-77.):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 12
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`
`
`This is just one of many examples of how the Forys Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filed in support of the Petition and the Negus Declaration filed in IPR
`
`2016-00976 include nearly identical statements. Thus, the Petition,
`
`even when considered in light of the Forys Declaration, does not add
`
`any new arguments that are not already being considered by the Board
`
`in IPR 2016-00976.
`
`III. If instituted, this proceeding should be merged with IPR
`
`
`2016-00976.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has discretion to merge
`
`proceedings. Given that this inter partes review relies on the same
`
`prior art and presents substantially the same arguments as IPR 2016-
`
`00976, Patent Owner respectfully requests that, if this inter partes
`
`review is instituted, the two proceedings be merged for the sake of
`
`securing a just, speedy and inexpensive resolution to the dispute
`
`regarding the ‘235 Patent. (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).)
`
`9
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 13
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Case IPR2017-00684
`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. Alternatively, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`this inter partes review be merged with IPR 2016-00976 if this inter
`
`partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 14, 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)
`
`
`10
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 14
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`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: April 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2005, pg. 15
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`