`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2017-02155
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The ‘494 Patent ................................................................................................ 3
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 4
`
`III. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`“a list of suspicious computer operations” (all challenged
`claims) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`“database” (all challenged claims) ...................................................... 11
`
`IV. The Petition Should be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................... 12
`
`A. General Plastic Factors 2–7 Weigh Strongly in Favor of
`Denial .................................................................................................. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Factor 2: The Cited References Were Available At the
`Time the Earlier Petitions Were Filed ...................................... 13
`
`Factor 3: At the Time of Filing, An Extensive Inter
`Partes Review Record Already Existed With Respect
`to the ‘494 Patent ...................................................................... 14
`
`Factor 4: The Timing of the Instant Petition Weighs in
`Favor of Denial ......................................................................... 16
`
`Factor 5: Petitioner Provides No Justification for
`Filing This Petition and Does Not Account for the
`Delay in Filing .......................................................................... 17
`
`Factors 6 and 7: The Board’s Resources Are Better
`Directed Elsewhere ................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`Factor 1 Is Neutral or Weighs In Favor of Denial .............................. 20
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`1.
`
`Factor 1: The Same Claims Have Previously Been
`Challenged and the Identity of Petitioner Does Not
`Preclude Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................... 20
`
`V.
`
`The Petition Should be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Provides No Justification For The
`USPTO To Consider This Petition Over 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............. 22
`
`The Same or Substantially the Same Arguments Have
`Already Been Presented to the USPTO .............................................. 23
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Uses the Other Decisions As a Roadmap ....................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Uses the Final Written Decisions as a
`Roadmap ................................................................................... 26
`
`Petitioner Uses the ‘1894 Institution Decision as a
`Roadmap ................................................................................... 27
`
`VI. Specific Reasons Why The Cited References Do Not Invalidate
`The Claims, And Why Inter Partes Review Should Not Be
`Instituted ........................................................................................................ 29
`
`A.
`
`Shear in View of Kerchen Does Not Render Obvious the
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 30
`
`1.
`
`Shear in View Kerchen Fails to Disclose a
`Downloadable Scanner For Deriving Downloadable
`Security Profile Data, Including a List of Suspicious
`Computer Operations ................................................................ 30
`
`(a) Shear’s “Well-Known Software Tools” Do Not
`Generate the Specification ................................................ 30
`
`(b) Shear’s Specification Does Not Include a List of
`Suspicious Computer Operations ...................................... 32
`
`(c) Kerchen Does Not Cure The Deficiencies of
`Shear .................................................................................. 34
`
`(d) It Would Not Have Been Obvious to Modify
`Shear with Kerchen ........................................................... 36
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`2.
`
`Shear in View Kerchen Fails to Disclose a Database
`Manager for Storing Downloadable Security Profile
`Data in a Database ..................................................................... 39
`
`(a) Petitioner Fails to Identify a Database Manager
`for Storing DSP Data ........................................................ 40
`
`(b) Shear and Kerchen Fail to Disclose a Database ................ 41
`
`B.
`
`Crawford ’91 In View of Knowledge of a POSA Does Not
`Render Obvious the Challenged Claims ............................................. 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Crawford ‘91 Fails to Disclose a Receiver for
`Receiving an Incoming Downloadable ..................................... 45
`
`Crawford ‘91 Fails to Disclose a Downloadable
`Scanner For Deriving Downloadable Security Profile
`Data, Including a List of Suspicious Computer
`Operations ................................................................................. 46
`
`Crawford ‘91 Fails to Disclose a Database Manager
`for Storing the DSP data in a Database ..................................... 47
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 9
`
`AG,
`IPR2016-01792, Paper 15 ..................................................................................... 5
`
`AG v. 511 Innovations, Inc.,
`Case IPR2016-01792, Decision Denying Institution of ....................................... 5
`
`Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2017-01371, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017) ........................................... 13
`
`Beachcombers v. WildeWood Creative Prods., Inc.,
`31 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................... 41, 48
`
`Blue Coat Systems, LLC, v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01443, Paper 1 ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Blue Coat Systems, LLC, v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01444 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Blue Coat Systems, LLC, v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01444, Paper 1 ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2017-02154 ................................................................................................... 21
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ..................................................................... 11
`
`FireEye, Inc., v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00155, Paper 1 ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`Case No. IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017) ................ 12, 13, 14
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014) ..................................... 34, 44
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`LG Display Co. v. Delaware Display Group LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01359, Decision Institution of ...................................................... 5
`
`Medtronic, Inc., v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00487 .......................................................................................... 23
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01354, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) ........................................... 13
`
`Netapp Inc. vRealtime Data
`LLC IPR 2017-01195-01195 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017) ..................................... 14
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc., v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00159, Paper 1 ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Sophos Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-00907, Paper 8 ..................................................................... 11
`
`Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01022 ................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Suong-Hyu Hyon,
`679 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014) ......................................... 2
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Silver State Intell. Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2017-01531, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017) ........................................... 19
`
`Unilever, Inc., v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00506 .......................................................................................... 27
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F. 3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) ..........................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) ............................................................................... 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................................... 34, 44
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc., (“Cisco” or “Petitioner”)
`
`submitted a Petition to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,677,494 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘494 Patent”), challenging claims 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) requests that the Board not institute inter partes
`
`review because Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the
`
`grounds asserted in its Petition, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`The Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and/or 325(d). The
`
`‘494 Patent has now been the subject of eight Petitions for Inter Partes Review.
`
`See generally Case Nos. IPR2015-01022, IPR2015-01892, IPR2015-01897,
`
`IPR2016-00159, IPR2016-00890, IPR2016-01174, IPR2016-01443, and IPR2017-
`
`02155. The Board has issued two Final Written Decisions (one concerning
`
`IPR2015-01892 and IPR2016-00890 (the “‘1892 FWD”), and one concerning
`
`IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174) (the “‘159 FWD”)), and three Petitions were
`
`denied institution (IPR2015-01022, IPR2015-01897 and IPR2016-01443). The
`
`challenged claims have survived each one of these challenges, and the multiplicity
`
`of requests for review presents an strain on the Board’s resources. Compounding
`
`these facts, Petitioner impermissibly uses the extensive record as a roadmap to
`
`construct the instant challenge and, unbelievably, provides no justification for why
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`the Board should consider this eighth Petition over 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds also substantively fail to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability with respect
`
`to the challenged claims. For example, despite the ‘1892 FWD and ‘159 FWD
`
`specifically finding that the prior art failed to disclose a Downloadable scanner and
`
`a database manager, Petitioner cites similarly flawed references.
`
`Although there are a variety of reasons why the ‘494 Patent is valid over
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, this Preliminary Response focuses on
`
`only limited reasons why inter partes review should not be instituted. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014) (“[N]othing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason.”). The deficiencies of the Petition noted herein, however, are sufficient for
`
`the Board to find that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`II. THE ‘494 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The ‘494 Patent1 describes an Internet-based technology that protects
`
`personal computers from the risk of “suspicious or other ‘malicious’ operations
`
`that might otherwise be effectuated by remotely operable code” from the Internet.
`
`‘494 Patent at 2:51–56. The ‘494 Patent technology protects against potentially
`
`malicious content by receiving incoming content (i.e a Downloadable) from the
`
`Internet and establishing that the code will not cause any harm before it is allowed
`
`to run on the computer. The Downloadable is reviewed and Downloadable
`
`security profile (“DSP”) data, 2 which includes a list of suspicious computer
`
`operations that the Downloadable may attempt, is derived. ‘194 Patent at 5:45–48.
`
`Importantly, the DSP is stored in a database. ‘494 Patent at 21:24–25; ‘194
`
`Patent at 4:14–18; 9:52–55. Accordingly, DSP data can be readily retrieved when
`
`
`1 The ‘494 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”),
`
`7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”), 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780 (Ex. 2028)
`
`(“the ‘780 Patent”), 6,092,194 (“the ‘194 Patent”), 6,480,962 (“the ‘962 Patent”),
`
`and 6,167,520 (“the ‘520 Patent”). The ‘494 Patent incorporates the disclosures of
`
`these patents by reference.
`
`2 This paper refers to the terms “security profile data for a Downloadable” and
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” as “DSP data.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`a known Downloadable is detected, thereby allowing security decisions to be made
`
`without generating security profiles for all incoming Downloadables, or the DSP
`
`data may be stored for later analyses. Indeed, the storage of the DSP in a database
`
`is one of the key features that distinguished the ‘494 Patent over the prior art.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 10, 11, and 14–16 of the ‘494 Patent, of which
`
`claims 10 is independent. Claim 10 is reproduced below:
`
`10. A system for managing Downloadables, comprising:
`
`a receiver for receiving an incoming Downloadable;
`
`a Downloadable scanner coupled with said receiver, for
`deriving security profile data for the Downloadable, including a list of
`suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`Downloadable; and
`
`
`a database manager coupled with said Downloadable
`scanner, for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a
`database.
`
`‘494 Patent at 22:7-16.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Petition should be rejected because Petitioner fails to identify “[h]ow
`
`the challenged claim is to be construed” under 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(3). In
`
`particular, although Petitioner identifies the term “a list of suspicious computer
`
`operations” as requiring construction in this case, it does not propose a
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`construction for the term or for any claim elements within the term. See ams AG v.
`
`511 Innovations, Inc., Case IPR2016-01792, Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`
`Partes Review, Paper 15 at 6–8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017) (denying a Petition for
`
`failure to provide an explicit construction for a disputed claim term); see also LG
`
`Display Co. v. Delaware Display Group LLC, Case IPR2014-01359, Decision
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 12 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2015). By not
`
`providing an explicit construction for this claim term, “Petitioner improperly
`
`attempts to shift the burden of construing the claim term . . . to the Board.” ams
`
`AG, IPR2016-01792, Paper 15 at 8.
`
`A.
` “a list of suspicious computer operations” (all challenged claims)
`Under the Phillips standard, the term “list of suspicious computer
`
`operations” means “a list of computer operations deemed suspicious.” Petitioner’s
`
`expert in Case No. IPR2016-01444, Dr. Bestavros, agrees:
`
`Q. In forming your opinion on the validity of the '086 patent, did you
`form an opinion about the meaning of the term "list of suspicious
`computer operations that may be attempted by the downloadable"?
`
`A. Can you give me a second? Yes. So a list of -- let me get the exact
`words -- "a list of suspicious computer 25 operations that may be
`attempted by the downloadable," I give that its ordinary meaning, that
`this is a list of computer operations that are deemed suspicious that
`may be attempted when the downloadable executes.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Ex. 2014 (Bestavros Tr.), 44:7-23. And, notably, Dr. Bestavros incorrectly applied
`
`the BRI standard in coming to his understanding of this claim term, which means
`
`that the correct meaning of the term “list of suspicious computer operations”
`
`cannot be broader than the definition Dr. Bestavros applied. See id. at 24:5–20
`
`(stating that he applied the BRI and because the ‘086 Patent is “[u]nexpired,
`
`obviously.”); id. at 110:11-111:4 (confirming on redirect that Dr. Bestavros
`
`applied the incorrect BRI standard to both his “declaration” and his “testimony”
`
`that day). Accordingly, there should be no question as to the proper construction
`
`of this term.
`
`In the ‘1892 FWD and the ‘195 FWD, the rejected Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction and “found ‘[m]ore helpful’ specific discussion in the Specification of
`
`the ’194 patent that Downloadable security profile data may be generated ‘as a list
`
`of all operations in the Downloadable code which could ever be deemed potentially
`
`hostile.’” See ‘1892 FWD at 11.
`
`In that case, the Board keyed in on—and misinterpreted—a single sentence
`
`from the specification to override all of the contrary intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence of how a POSITA would understand the term “a list of suspicious
`
`computer operations.” In particular, the Board found the following sentence “more
`
`helpful” than Finjan’s proposed construction, despite the fact that the passage
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`describes only an example of what DSP data may include, not what a list of
`
`suspicious operations is:
`
`The code scanner 325 may generate the DSP data 310 as a list of all
`operations in the Downloadable code which could ever be deemed
`potentially hostile and a list of all files to be accessed by the
`Downloadable code. . . .
`
`‘1892 FWD at 11 (citing ‘194 Patent at 5:50–54) (emphasis added).
`
`The Board’s error on this matter is clear based upon its misreading of the
`
`“Example List of Operations Deemed Potentially Hostile” disclosed in the
`
`specification, which it incorrectly refers to as “the ‘list of all operations in the
`
`Downloadable code which could ever be deemed potentially hostile’”:
`
`Indeed, column 9, lines 20–42, of the ’194 patent, cited by Patent
`Owner in support of its assertion that “generating the ‘list of
`suspicious computer operations’ first requires that a determination be
`made as to whether the operations to be listed are suspicious” (see PO
`Resp. 10), directly links the term “suspicious” with “the list described
`above with reference to FIG. 3”—i.e., the “list of all operations in the
`Downloadable code which could ever be deemed potentially hostile.”
`
`‘1892 FWD, pp. 11–12 (emphasis added). Not so. As a POSITA would
`
`appreciate, this “Example List” is not a “list of all operations in the Downloadable
`
`code which could ever be deemed potentially hostile” but rather exemplary subset
`
`of computer operations that have been “deemed potentially hostile,” or
`
`“suspicious”:
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`
`‘194 Patent at 5:58–6:4. That is, computer operations are only “suspicious” to the
`
`extent that they have been deemed so, because there are no computer operations
`
`that are known or otherwise accepted to be suspicious a priori.
`
`Without deeming certain operations as suspicious, there would be no
`
`difference between the claims as recited and “deriving security profile data for the
`
`Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable.” And as this Federal Circuit has recently
`
`reconfirmed, “[i]t is highly disfavored to construe terms in a way that renders them
`
`void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`
`853 F. 3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`
`441 F.3d 945, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (refusing to construe claim terms in a way
`
`that made other limitations meaningless)). Therefore, suspicious computer
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`operations are “computer operations that have been deemed suspicious,” and the
`
`claimed “list of suspicious computer operations” is the “list of computer operations
`
`that may be attempted by the Downloadable, which have been deemed suspicious.”
`
`In fact, the specification describes embodiments of how to derive list of
`
`suspicious operations is generated that fully comport with Finjan’s proposed
`
`construction and conflict with the Board’s overbroad construction:
`
`The code scanner 325 in step 710 resolves a respective command in
`the machine code, and in step 715 determines whether the resolved
`command is suspicious (e.g., whether the command is one of the
`operations identified in the list described above with reference to
`FIG. 3).
`
`See ‘194 Patent at 9:24–29 (emphasis added); see also ‘194 Patent at 5:42–50.
`
`That is, the specification describes a code scanner resolving a command and
`
`determining whether it is suspicious—by cross-referencing a list of operations that
`
`have been deemed potentially hostile—before adding it to the list of suspicious
`
`commands in the DSP data. Id.
`
`Importantly, the Board’s overbroad construction in Case No. IPR2015-
`
`01892 breaks with the Federal Circuit’s dictate that “a claim interpretation that
`
`excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever,
`
`correct.” Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). That is, the embodiments disclosed
`
`for deriving “a list of suspicious computer operations” that may be attempted by
`
`the Downloadable would not result in “a list of all operations that could ever be
`
`deemed potentially hostile” at least because there would never be a need for
`
`“determin[ing] whether the resolved command is suspicious (e.g. whether the
`
`command is one of the operations identified in the list described above with
`
`reference to FIG .3).” ‘194 Patent at 9:24–29.
`
`This is because there is no limitation as a matter of grammar or logic on
`
`“operations that could ever be deemed potentially hostile,” nor did the Board in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01892 ever ascertain one. Thus, every computer operation the
`
`Downloadable may attempt would be on such a list, and the embodiments of the
`
`‘494 Patent describing deriving “a list of suspicious computer operations by
`
`“determin[ing] whether the resolved command is suspicious” would not result in
`
`the claimed “list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`
`Downloadable” according to the Board’s overbroad instruction in the ‘1892 FWD
`
`and the ‘159 FWD.
`
`Accordingly, the proper construction of the term “list of suspicious computer
`
`operations” means “a list of computer operations deemed suspicious.”
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`“database” (all challenged claims)
`
`B.
`The term “database” means “a collection of interrelated data organized
`
`according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” This
`
`construction has been applied by every panel of the Board that has considered the
`
`term with respect to the ‘494 Patent and patents related to the ‘494 Patent, as well
`
`as the district court in Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014). See Ex. 2001 at 7; see also Sophos Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-
`
`00907, Paper 8 at 8–10; Ex. 2007 at 16; Ex. 2008 at 12; Ex. 2009 at 9–10, Blue
`
`Coat Systems, LLC, v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11at 11. Indeed,
`
`numerous Petitioners considering this term in the context of the ‘494 Patent and
`
`patents related thereto have agreed that this construction is correct. See Palo Alto
`
`Networks, Inc., v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159, Paper 1 at 21; Blue Coat Systems,
`
`LLC, v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01443, Paper 1 at 17; Blue Coat Systems, LLC, v.
`
`Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 1 at 14; FireEye, Inc., v. Finjan, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-00155, Paper 1 at 15.
`
`Petitioner ignores this generally-accepted construction because the
`
`references cannot cited in the Petition cannot be understood to disclose a database
`
`manager for storing DSP data in a database.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A)
`The PTAB may, at its discretion, deny a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in addition to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board
`
`recently articulated seven factors to be weighed in considering whether such a
`
`denial is warranted. See Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case
`
`No. IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017). These factors are:
`
`1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`
`2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have
`known of it;
`
`3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to
`the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to
`institute review in the first petition;
`
`4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`earned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of
`the second petition;
`
`5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the
`time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the
`same claims of the same patent;
`
`6. the finite resources of the Board; and
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final
`determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director
`notices institution of review.
`
`Id. at 9–10. Consideration of these factors weighs in favor of denying the instant
`
`Petition. “A central issue addressed by the General Plastic factors is balancing the
`
`equities between a petitioner and a patent owner when information is available
`
`from prior Board proceedings for a subsequent proceeding.” Apple Inc. v.
`
`Immersion Corp., IPR2017-01371, Paper 7 at 10–11 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017).
`
`Here, despite Cisco not being a party to the previous petitions filed against the ‘494
`
`Patent, there should be no question that the equities balance in favor of denying its
`
`Petition. See NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR2017-01354, Paper 9 at 10
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) (“[O]ur discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108(a) is not limited to situations where the same party files multiple
`
`petitions. . . . .”).
`
`A. General Plastic Factors 2–7 Weigh Strongly in Favor of Denial
`1.
`Factor 2: The Cited References Were Available At the Time the
`Earlier Petitions Were Filed
`
`Whether the instant Petitioner previously filed a petition requesting inter
`
`partes review is considered under General Plastics Factor 1. Factor 2 separately
`
`considers whether “at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of
`
`the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it.” IPR2016-
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`01357,. Paper 19 at 9. Thus, although this Petition is the first filed by Cisco
`
`against the ‘494 Patent, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating that the
`
`references cited herein were not known at the time the previous petitions were
`
`filed, nor is there any evidence demonstrating that any of the previous petitioners
`
`should or would not have known of these references.
`
`The PTAB held in General Plastics that “a petitioner is free to explain why
`
`a reasonably diligent search could not have uncovered the newly applied prior art.”
`
`Id. at 20. Petitioner undertook no effort to do so. Like in General Plastics, “the
`
`record is devoid of any explanation why [a] Petitioner could not have found the
`
`newly asserted prior art in any earlier search(es) through the exercise of reasonable
`
`diligence.” Id. Nor has Petitioner attempted to “argue that there were any changed
`
`circumstances that reasonably justified its new prior art searches and associated
`
`filing of follow-on petitions.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Factor 3: At the Time of Filing, An Extensive Inter Partes
`Review Record Already Existed With Respect to the ‘494
`Patent
`
`“Factor 3 is directed to situations in which a petitioner delays filing a
`
`subsequent petition so that it can tailor its arguments to address issues identified by
`
`the patent owner and/or the Board during a prior proceeding.” Netapp Inc.
`
`vRealtime Data LLC IPR 2017-01195-01195, at 11 n.12(P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017).
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2017-02155 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Prior to the instant Petition being filed, the ‘494 Patent was the subject of
`
`seven other Petitions for Inter Partes Review. Case Nos. IPR2015-01022,
`
`IPR2015-01892, IPR2015-01897, IPR2016-00159, IPR2016-00890, IPR2016-
`
`011