`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Filed: July 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VIPTELA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 1
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`A. Background
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Viptela, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) seeking to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 4–15, 19, and 22–24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,775,235 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’235 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311–319. FatPipe Networks India Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response.1 (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.”
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 on the following specific grounds (Pet. 4, 9–60):
`
`Reference(s)
`Karol2
`Karol and Stallings3
`Karol
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§ 102 4–11, 14, 19 and 22–24
`§ 103 5, 6, 11–15, 19, and 22–24
`§ 103 4–15, 19, and 22–24
`
`
`1 The panel takes notice that the caption in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6) reads “FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,”
`which is a change from what Patent Owner stated as the Real Party-In-
`Interest in its Mandatory Notices (Paper 5, 1). The panel reminds Patent
`Owner that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), new mandatory notices must
`be filed within 21 days if there are any changes to the information required
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b).
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,617 B1 (“Karol,” Ex. 1006).
`
`3 William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, Prentice-Hall, 5th
`Ed., 1997, ISBN-81-203-1240-6 (“Stallings,” Ex. 1011).
`
`2
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 2
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are
`
`based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`
`decision as to patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed
`
`during trial. For reasons discussed below, we institute inter partes review of
`
`claims 6 and 22–24 of the ʼ235 patent.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner informs us that the ’235 patent has been asserted in the
`
`following proceeding: FatPipe, Inc. v. Viptela, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-182 (D.
`
`Del.). Pet. 1; see also Paper 5, 1. In addition, the ’235 patent is the subject
`
`of a separate proceeding, IPR2016-00976, filed by Talari Networks, Inc.
`
`Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2.
`
`C. The ʼ235 Patent
`
`The ’235 patent describes a system and method for communicating
`
`using two or more disparate networks in parallel. Ex. 1001, Abstract. For
`
`example, an embodiment of this system could be composed of a virtual
`
`private network (“VPN”) in parallel with a frame relay network. Id. at 1:19–
`
`24. These parallel networks back each other up in case of failure and when
`
`both networks are operational their loads are balanced between the parallel
`
`networks. Id. at Abstract. An embodiment of this system is depicted in
`
`Figure 10, which is shown below.
`
`3
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 3
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts an example of the network topology described in the ’235
`
`patent. Id. at 8:29–30. Two sites 102 transmit and/or receive data from one
`
`another. Id. at 2:38–40. These sites are connected by two disparate
`
`networks, Internet 500 and frame relay network 106. Id. at 8:30–32. Each
`
`location has frame relay router 105 and Internet router 104. Id. at 8:32–33.
`
`“Access to the disparate networks at site A and site B is through an inventive
`
`controller 602 at each site.” Id. at 6:34–36. Controller 602 “allows load-
`
`balancing, redundancy, or other criteria to be used dynamically, on a
`
`granularity as fine as packet-by-packet, to direct packets to an Internet router
`
`and/or frame relay/point-to-point router according to the criteria.” Id. at
`
`9:12–17.
`
`4
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 4
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7 of the ’235 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts controller 602. Id. at 10:59–60. Controller 602 is
`
`connected to site 102 via site interface 702. Id. at 10:60–63. Packet path
`
`selector 704 is hardware or software that determines which path a given
`
`packet is to travel. Id. at 11:2–6. The criteria used to determine which path
`
`a packet travels may be based on concerns such as redundancy,
`
`load-balancing, or security. Id. at 11:6–63. Controller 602 also has two or
`
`more network interfaces 706 (at least one per each network for which
`
`controller 602 controls access). Id. at 11:64–67.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 4–15, 19, and 22–24 of
`
`the ʼ235 patent, of which claims 4, 5, 19, and 22 are independent. Claim 22
`
`is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`
`22. A computer storage medium having a configuration that
`represents data and instructions which will cause
`performance of a method for combining connections for
`access to multiple parallel disparate networks, the
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`5
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 5
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`obtaining at least two known location address ranges which
`have associated networks;
`obtaining topology information which specifies associated
`networks that provide, when working, connectivity
`between a current location and at least one destination
`location;
`receiving at the current location a packet which identifies a
`particular destination location by specifying a destination
`address for the destination location;
`determining whether the destination address lies within a
`known location address range; selecting a network path
`from among paths to disparate associated networks, said
`networks being in parallel at the current location, each of
`said networks specified in the topology information as
`capable of providing connectivity between the current
`location and the destination location;
`modifying the packet destination address to lie within a known
`location address range associated with the selected
`network if it does not already do so; and
`forwarding the packet on the selected network path.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:31–20:24.
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we
`
`construe claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
`
`their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`
`otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
`
`applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997).
`
`6
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 6
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`Petitioner submits a list of terms for which Patent Owner has
`
`proposed construction in a co-pending district court case. Pet. 6–7.
`
`Petitioner, however, asserts that for the purposes of this Decision no terms
`
`need to be construed. Id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction
`
`in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We reviewed the
`
`asserted grounds, and, for the purposes of this Decision, we have determined
`
`that no terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response focuses on the issue of whether
`
`the Board should exercise its discretion and deny institution of Petitioner’s
`
`asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 1–9. We
`
`instituted inter partes review in IPR2016-00976 (the “’976 IPR”) on
`
`November 2, 2016. In that proceeding we instituted inter partes review of
`
`claims 4, 5, 7–15, and 19 (the “previously instituted claims”) of the ’235
`
`patent over the same art and the same grounds now asserted in this Petition.
`
`See generally ’976 IPR, Paper 7 (PTAB Nov. 2, 2016). We note that in this
`
`proceeding Petitioner challenges additional claims, claims 6 and 22–24 (the
`
`“newly challenged claims”), not challenged in IPR2016-00976. Patent
`
`Owner argues the arguments presented in this Petition are substantially the
`
`same arguments as those before the office in the ’976 IPR and, therefore, we
`
`should exercise our discretion and decline institution of the instant Petition.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 1–2.
`
`Petitioner characterizes its Petition as having substantial identity with
`
`the previously instituted proceeding, specifically stating that “[t]he ‘235
`
`7
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 7
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`Patent is also subject to a separate proceeding before the Board in IPR2016-
`
`00976, filed by Talari Networks, Inc. (the ‘’976 IPR’).” Pet. 2. Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that we instituted review in that proceeding and describes its
`
`Petition as “substantially identical to the Petition in the ’976 IPR.” Id.
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) (authorizing institution of an inter partes review under particular
`
`circumstances, but not requiring institution under any circumstances);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“the Board may authorize the review to proceed”)
`
`(emphasis added); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but
`
`never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). Therefore, the question
`
`before us is whether we should exercise our discretion and decline to go
`
`forward with this Petition in light of the “substantially identical” proceeding
`
`that is already before us. Our concern is not only whether “the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to
`
`the Office” as expressed in § 325(d), but also managing the resources of the
`
`Office in order to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the
`
`challenges to the patentability of the ’235 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b);
`
`see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations for inter partes review proceedings
`
`take into account “the efficient administration of the Office” and “the ability
`
`of the Office to timely complete [instituted] proceedings”); and see H.R.
`
`Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1, at 48 (2011) (post-grant proceedings conducted under
`
`the AIA “are not to 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. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the section as
`
`providing quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”). We review
`
`8
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 8
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`the facts and analyze the issues before us in light of the discretion afforded
`
`to us pursuant to §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
`
`First, we note that the ’976 IPR is in an advanced stage. The Patent
`
`Owner Response (’976 IPR, Paper 22 (PTAB Feb. 8, 2017)) was filed nearly
`
`six months ago, the Petitioner’s Reply was filed approximately two months
`
`ago (’976 IPR Paper 26, (PTAB May 18, 2017)), and the proceeding is set
`
`for final oral hearing in a few weeks (’976 IPR, Paper 29 (PTAB June 14,
`
`2017), setting the proceeding for oral hearing on August 14, 2017). A final
`
`decision is due in the ’976 IPR by November 2, 2017. Thus, the ’976 IPR is
`
`in its final stages and the grounds asserted in the instant Petition, which are
`
`“substantially identical” to those in the ’976 IPR, are set for a final
`
`disposition in the near term. This is a fact that weighs in favor of us
`
`exercising discretion not to move forward with the instant Petition, at least
`
`with respect to the previously instituted claims, because the issues raised
`
`herein are fully briefed and ripe for a final decision in the ’976 IPR.
`
`Second, we are mindful of the fact that Petitioner is not involved in
`
`the ’976 IPR. It is important that we not extinguish Petitioner’s access to the
`
`proceedings before this body just because another party has sought review of
`
`the same claims. This is significant because a second petitioner has no
`
`control over the decision to see a review through a determination on the
`
`merits if the second petitioner is not a party in that matter. We must
`
`examine the facts of the matter before us to take care that we do not impose
`
`a strict bright line determination barring petitions from entities that are not
`
`party to the original proceeding. Therefore, we need to examine the facts of
`
`the case before us to determine whether it is appropriate to exercise our
`
`discretion in this particular circumstance. As discussed previously, the
`
`9
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 9
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`parties to the ’976 IPR have fully briefed that matter and it is set for final
`
`oral hearing in a matter of weeks. At this point, the decision in the ’976 IPR
`
`as to whether to see the matter through to final determination is squarely in
`
`our hands, regardless of whether any settlement is reached between the
`
`parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) (“The parties may agree to settle any issue
`
`in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may
`
`independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office
`
`practice.”). Thus, if we deem it appropriate, we can reach a final decision on
`
`the grounds presented in the ’976 IPR with or without participation from the
`
`petitioner in that matter. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner is not a party to
`
`the ’976 IPR is at best neutral to our analysis regarding the previously
`
`instituted claims due to the identity of the issues presented in the two
`
`petitions.
`
`Third, Petitioner makes no argument as to why we should go forward
`
`with this Petition in light of the ’976 IPR. Petitioner knew of the previous
`
`petition and described the two petitions as “substantially identical.” Pet. 2.
`
`The instant Petition was filed January 13, 2017, more than two months after
`
`the institution of the ’976 IPR. See ’976 IPR, Paper 7 (PTAB Nov. 2, 2016)
`
`(instituting the ’976 IPR on November 2, 2016). Thus, Petitioner had the
`
`benefit of reviewing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and our Decision
`
`on Institution in the ’976 IPR prior to filing its Petition. Petitioner did not
`
`seek to join the prior proceeding, but instead decided to go forward with its
`
`own “substantially identical” Petition. We are not persuaded that it would
`
`be an efficient use of our resources to address duplicative grounds that raise
`
`no new art or arguments. See Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rembrandt Wireless
`
`Techs., LP, Case IPR2015–00114, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) (Paper
`
`10
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 10
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`14) (“[I]t is more efficient for the parties and the Board to address a matter
`
`once rather than twice.”). This is especially true in light of the advanced
`
`stage of the ’976 IPR. Therefore, we find these facts also weigh against
`
`proceeding with respect to the previously instituted claims.
`
`The newly challenged claims in this proceeding, which we noted
`
`above were not challenged in the ’976 IPR, include a claim limitation not
`
`addressed in the ’976 IPR that relates to modifying a packet destination
`
`address to lie within a known location address range associated with the
`
`selected network. Ex. 1001, 18:10–31, 19:31–20:30. Because the newly
`
`challenged claims raise an issue not before us in the ’976 IPR, this factor
`
`weighs in favor of our proceeding with respect to these claims.
`
`As discussed above, the facts of this case support exercising our
`
`discretion under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) with respect to the previously
`
`instituted claims. Thus, we decline Petitioner’s request to institute inter
`
`partes review of claims 4, 5, 7–15, and 19 of the ’235 patent. We do not,
`
`however, decline institution of claims 6 and 22–24 under §§ 314(a) and
`
`325(d) because those claims raise an issue not before us in the ’976 IPR.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that, should we institute inter partes review
`
`in this proceeding, we should exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and
`
`merge this proceeding with the ’976 IPR. Prelim. Resp. 9. However,
`
`because the ’976 IPR is at an advanced stage, as discussed above, and the
`
`newly challenged claims raise an issue not present in the ’976 IPR, we
`
`decline to merge the proceedings.
`
`B. Unpatentability of Claims 6 and 22–24
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 22–24 are anticipated by Karol.
`
`Pet. 4, 21–22, 30–31. Petitioner also contends that claims 6 and 22–24
`
`11
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 11
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`would have been obvious over Karol in view of Stallings.4 Id. at 4, 35–37,
`
`44–45. Finally, Petitioner argues that claims 6 and 22–24 would have been
`
`obvious over Karol. Id. at 4, 52–53, 60. Petitioner supports its arguments
`
`with a declaration from Dr. Leonard J. Forys (Ex. 1005). For the reasons
`
`described below we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a showing
`
`sufficient to satisfy the threshold of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) as to at least one
`
`challenged claim.
`
`1. Overview of Karol
`
`Karol is directed to “the internetworking of connectionless (e.g.,
`
`Internet Protocol or ‘IP’) and connection oriented (e.g., ATM, MPLS,
`
`RSVP) networks.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–10. Connectionless (“CL”) networks
`
`require no explicit connection setup prior to transmitting datagrams. Id. at
`
`1:19–24. In contrast, connection oriented (“CO”) networks determine a
`
`route for the connection and allocate bandwidth resources along the route.
`
`Id. at 1:31–39. Figure 1 of Karol is reproduced below.
`
`
`4 We note that Petitioner does not make any argument in support of its
`contention that claim 24 would have been obvious over Karol in view of
`Stallings. Nevertheless, because we seek to achieve finality of review at the
`Board and avoid a parallel or serial review at the district court, we exercise
`our discretion and our institution of trial includes the ground of whether
`claim 24 is unpatentable as obvious over Karol in view of Stallings.
`
`12
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 12
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts CO and CL networks in a parallel configuration. Id. at
`
`3:44–46. Datagrams ultimately destined for endpoint 151 may be sent from
`
`source 101 to node 111 in CL network 110. Id. at 4:36–44. The datagrams
`
`may be routed over either the CO or CL network in order to arrive at
`
`endpoint 151. Id. at 4:40–44. CL-CO gateways 140 and 150 interconnect
`
`the CL and CO networks and “allow[] datagrams (sometimes hereinafter
`
`called messages) originated on the CL network to be transported . . . on the
`
`CO network.” Id. at 3:30–37. “When a datagram arrives at CL-CO gateway
`
`140 of FIG. 1, a determination is made if that packet should be carried by
`
`CO network 160.” Id. at 5:23–25. CL-CO gateway 140 is described in more
`
`detail in Figure 4, which is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 13
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`Figure 4 illustrates the internal arrangements of CL-CO gateway 140. Id. at
`
`6:31–32.
`
`Generally speaking, each CL-CO gateway arranged in
`accordance with the present invention includes hardware and
`software modules that typically comprise (a) a switch fabric for
`CO networking, shown in FIG. 4 as CO switch 410, (b) a CL
`packet forwarding engine, shown in FIG. 4 as CL router/switch
`420, (c) a protocol converter 450, (d) a moderately sized
`packet buffer 440 for temporarily storing packets waiting for
`CO network setup or turnaround; and (e) a processor 430 and
`associated database 431 for controlling the gateway packet
`handling operations and for storing forwarding, flow control,
`header translation and other information. Input line cards 401
`and output line cards 402 connect the gateway of FIG. 4 to
`external networks, such that datagrams received in input line
`cards 401 can be directed either to CO switch 410 or CL
`router/switch 420, and such that output line cards 402 can
`receive datagrams from either of the last mentioned elements
`and direct them to external networks.
`
`Id. at 6:32–50. The elements depicted in Figure 4 are controlled by
`
`processor 430 and such control is implemented via programs stored in the
`
`processor. Id. at 6:55–59. The routing procedures used by gateway 140
`
`may adjust routing dynamically “to divert connections away from
`
`overloaded call processors.” Id. at 17:64–67. In other words, routing “can
`
`be adjusted to reflect bandwidth availability.” Id. at 18:1–2.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Claim 22 is similar to claim 5 (which we addressed in the ’976 IPR),
`
`but has the following differences. Claim 5 recites a method, whereas
`
`claim 22 recites a computer storage medium configured to perform a
`
`method. The method steps recited in claim 22 are identical to the method
`
`steps recited in claim 5, except that claim 22 includes the following
`
`14
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 14
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`additional step: “modifying the packet destination address to lie within a
`
`known location address range associated with the selected network if it does
`
`not already do so.”
`
`For the preamble of claim 22, Petitioner relies on Karol’s description
`
`of how each CL-CO gateway includes hardware and software to perform the
`
`various relevant steps in Karol. Pet. 30.
`
`For the steps recited in claim 22, Petitioner relies on its analysis for
`
`claim 5, except for the “modifying” step, for which Petitioner relies on its
`
`analysis with respect to claim 6 which depends from claim 5 and recites the
`
`“modifying” step. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s allegations regarding independent claim 5 may be
`
`summarized as follows: Karol discloses multiple parallel disparate networks
`
`through its discussion of CL and CO networks. Pet. 15–16. Karol discloses
`
`obtaining at least two known location address ranges through its discussion
`
`of routing tables. Id. at 16–17. Petitioner further asserts that Karol’s routing
`
`tables contain information about route topology and connectivity. Id. at 17–
`
`19. Karol’s datagrams are relied upon to disclose a packet that identifies a
`
`particular destination location. Id. at 19. Karol “compar[es] the destination
`
`IP address in each packet received at the CL-CO gateway to entries in the
`
`databases to determine if the destination address lies within the routing
`
`tables that include a known location address range for the destination
`
`location.” Id. at 19–20. Petitioner argues in the alternative that Karol’s
`
`discussion of the CL-CO gateway alone or the gateway in combination with
`
`its associated routers and/or switches discloses the step of selecting a
`
`network path from among the disparate parallel CO and CL networks. Id. at
`
`15
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 15
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`20. In addition, Karol’s routing tables provide information as to the
`
`connectivity between the current location and the destination. Id. at 20–21.
`
`Petitioner’s allegations regarding dependent claim 6 may be
`
`summarized as follows: Karol discloses modifying the packet destination
`
`address through its disclosure of a protocol conversion that includes
`
`converting the headers containing address information. Pet. 21–22. Of
`
`necessity, the modified address lies within a known location address range
`
`associated with the selected network because it is associated with the
`
`connection oriented service. Id. Petitioner relies also on Karol’s disclosure
`
`of a message that is modified to include route node information. Id. at 22.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not raise any arguments
`
`regarding whether Karol discloses the limitations of claim 22. On the record
`
`before us, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to be persuasive.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence,
`
`and we are persuaded, for purposes of this Decision, that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of claim 22 of the ’235 patent as anticipated by Karol.
`
`Having decided that Karol evinces a reasonable likelihood that at least
`
`one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable, and in keeping
`
`with our mission of resolving patent validity disputes in a just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive manner, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R § 42.108 to
`
`have the inter partes review proceed on challenged claims 6 and 22–24 on
`
`all grounds for which Karol is proffered as evidence of unpatentability. In
`
`doing so, we seek to achieve finality of review at the Board and avoid a
`
`parallel or serial review at the district court, at least with respect to Petitioner
`
`and the aforementioned statutory grounds for which Karol serves as a basis
`
`16
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 16
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`of the challenge. See Intex Recreation Corp. v. Bestway Inflatables &
`
`Material Corp., Case IPR2016-00180, slip op. at 8–11 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2016)
`
`(Paper 13); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d
`
`1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “[t]he validity of claims for which
`
`the Board did not institute inter partes review can still be litigated in district
`
`court”).
`
`In exercising our discretion, we note that in the ’976 IPR, we found
`
`the same arguments and grounds of unpatentability that are argued in this
`
`proceeding to be persuasive for the purposes of institution, see generally
`
`’976 IPR, Paper 7 (PTAB Nov. 2, 2016), except that in this proceeding a
`
`new claim limitation, relating to modifying an address, is present. Petitioner
`
`relies on Karol for this additional limitation. For reasons discussed above,
`
`on the present record we are persuaded that Karol discloses this feature.
`
`Also, we are “cognizant of the ramifications of partial institution
`
`where the grounds are in different statutory classes.” Amendments to the
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 80
`
`Fed. Reg. 50,720, 50,739 (Aug. 20, 2015) (Response to Comment 12). As
`
`such, concerns of fairness and efficiency in this case persuade us to institute
`
`not only on the ground of anticipation by Karol, but also on grounds of
`
`obviousness that include Karol as a basis of the challenge. See HP Inc. v.
`
`MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC, 817 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
`
`petitioner was “not estopped from raising the obviousness of claim 13 in a
`
`subsequent court or Board proceeding” where Board instituted only on
`
`grounds of anticipation of claim 13).
`
`17
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 17
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we institute inter partes review of claims 6
`
`and 22–24 of the ’235 patent. At this time, however, we have not made a
`
`final determination with respect to the patentability of these claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 18
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 6 and 22–24 of the ’235 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 6 and 22–24 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Karol;
`
`B. Claims 6 and 22–24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the teachings of Karol; and
`
`C. Claims 6 and 22–24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the teachings of Karol and Stallings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, inter partes review of the ʼ235 patent shall commence on
`
`the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`
`trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than that specifically
`
`provided above is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 19
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00684
`Patent 6,775,235 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert Hilton
`George Davis
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`gdavis@mcguirewoods.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Mattson
`Thomas Yebernetsky
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`tyebernetsky@oblon.com
`
`20
`
`Fatpipe Exhibit 2009, pg. 20
`Cisco v. Fatpipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`