`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00131
`Patent 6,226,686
`_______________
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 1
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 1
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 2
`V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, Paltalk Holdings, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests
`
`rehearing and modification of the Board’s May 15, 2018, Decision (Paper 11),
`
`granting institution of inter partes review on the challenged claims.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A rehearing request “must specifically identify all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The Board
`
`reviews a decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Petitioner, Riot Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requested inter partes review of
`
`various claims of United States Patent No. 6,226,686 (“the ‘686 Patent”) in a
`
`Petition filed November 2, 2017 (Paper No. 1). Petitioner provided RFC 1692 (Ex.
`
`1010), titled “Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux),” and RFC 1459 (Ex.
`
`1025), titled “Internet Relay Chat Protocol,” as 35 U.S.C. § 103 references. In the
`
`Petition, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of David H. Crocker (Ex. 1026) (“the
`
`Crocker Declaration”) as evidence that RFC 1692, and other RFC documents,
`
`namely, RFC 791, RFC 1001, and RFC 1459, are prior publications under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a)-(b). Pet. at 15-18. The Crocker Declaration explains Mr.
`
`Crocker’s role with the Internet Engineering Task Force, his status as an author of
`
`RFC 1692, and the general standard practices for RFC submissions and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`publications. See Ex. 1026.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserted that the
`
`Petition did not provide sufficient evidence that, on or before the critical date, RFC
`
`1692 was actually available to the public online, that the RFC was actually
`
`accessed or downloaded by any member of the public, or whether and how any
`
`alleged source such as the anonymous FTP hosts or the RFC Editor’s Website was
`
`indexed or cataloged. Prelim. Response at 13-19. The Board disagreed,
`
`concluding that Petitioner established, for purposes of institution, that RFC 791,
`
`RFC 1692, and RFC 1459, “were available to persons of ordinary skill in computer
`
`networking and security sufficiently to be deemed ‘publicly accessible’ at the
`
`relevant time.” Institution Decision at 30 (citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Security
`
`Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board abused its discretion in
`
`accepting Petitioner’s evidence that RFC 1692 and RFC 1459 are prior art
`
`publications to the ‘686 Patent. “Public accessibility” has been called the
`
`touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a “printed publication.”
`
`See Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. EnvisionIt, LLC, IPR2017-01246, Paper 7, page 14
`
`(October 16, 2017)(citing Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545
`
`F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In Re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`1986)). In EnvisionIt, the Board notes that evidentiary matters concerning Internet
`
`publications used as references are similar in nature to that of references stored in
`
`libraries, where “competent evidence of the general library practice” coupled with
`
`evidence that the reference “was sufficiently indexed or cataloged” is generally
`
`sought. IPR2017-01246, Paper 7, at 14 (citing In Re Hall, 781 F.2d at 899); (also
`
`citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`The Board in EnvisionIt, indicates that, “just as indexing plays a significant role in
`
`evaluating whether a reference in a library is publicly accessible,” indexing, such
`
`as via search engines, is an important consideration when determining whether a
`
`reference on a given webpage is “publicly accessible.” IPR2017-01246, Paper 7,
`
`at 14-15 (quoting Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1349).
`
`The Crocker Declaration states that RFC 791, RFC 1001, RFC 1459, and
`
`RFC 1692 are currently available at www.rfc-editor.org (“the RFC Editor’s
`
`Website”), and states that Mr. Crocker recently downloaded these RFCs from the
`
`RFC Editor’s Website. Ex. 1026 at ¶¶ 32, 36, 41, 45. The Crocker Declaration
`
`states that the current RFC Editor’s Website has a search function, but provides no
`
`evidence that the RFC Editor’s Website included a search function on or before the
`
`critical date. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27. The Board believes this is not an issue, since the
`
`Crocker Declaration states that the RFCs were available via FTP sites and because
`
`Mr. Crocker states that “[a]nyone involved with the Internet technical community
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where and how to obtain a
`
`copy of RFC 1692.” Institution Decision at 29 (citing Ex. 1026 at ¶ 35).
`
`With respect to RFC 1692 specifically, since the alleged publication date of
`
`RFC 1692 is August 1994, the standards used at that time according to the Crocker
`
`Declaration would be contained in RFC 1602 (Ex. 1021). Prelim. Resp. at 15-16.
`
`RFC 1602 mentions that “RFCs are available for anonymous FTP from a number
`
`of Internet hosts,” but RFC 1602 does not list these hosts. Ex. 1021 at 8. The
`
`Board relies on the statement in the Crocker Declaration that those involved with
`
`the Internet technical community would have known where and how to obtain a
`
`copy of RFC 1692 via anonymous FTP hosts. Institution Decision at 29.
`
`However, the Crocker Declaration does not provide evidence for this naked
`
`statement, and the Crocker Declaration does not provide any evidence as to what
`
`these hosts were or where they could be found in 1994. Ex. 1026 at ¶ 30.
`
`The Crocker Declaration and the cited exhibits also do not provide any
`
`indication that RFC 1692, specifically, was made available on these hosts, or that
`
`that anyone actually accessed or downloaded RFC 1692. Ex. 1026, ¶ 30. Similar
`
`problems are present in the Crocker Declaration and the relied upon exhibits with
`
`respect to RFC 791, RFC 1001, and RFC 1459. The Crocker Declaration also
`
`states that a summary of RFCs appeared in each issue of the Internet Society’s
`
`newsletter, but does not evidence this statement, such as by providing a copy of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`such a newsletter. Id. at ¶ 24.
`
`The Board states that “Mr. Crocker need not have been ‘personally
`
`responsible for publishing’ RFCs in order to provide credible testimony.”
`
`Institution Decision at 27. However, while Mr. Crocker may not need to have
`
`personally been tasked with publishing the RFCs, Mr. Crocker provides no
`
`testimony that he has actual knowledge that the dates listed on the RFCs are the
`
`actual dates of publication. With respect to RFC 1692, Mr. Crocker merely states
`
`that RFC 1692 was accepted for publication. Ex. 1026 at ¶ 28. Mr. Crocker does
`
`not state that he ever personally retrieved RFC 1692 once published. Mr. Crocker
`
`only states
`
`that he recently retrieved RFC 1692 from https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1692.txt, and compared the document with Exhibit 1010. Id. at ¶
`
`32. Thus, Petitioner provides no evidence that Mr. Crocker is in a position to have
`
`actual knowledge that, on or before the critical date, the publication was 1) actually
`
`stored on any publically available FTP site, 2) that the FTP web site was active, 3)
`
`that anyone was notified of any FTP link or 4) that anyone actually downloaded
`
`the publication. See Ex. 1026, ¶ 28.
`
`The Board also ignores Patent Owner’s comments concerning the RFC
`
`Editor’s Website presented in the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. at 17-18.
`
`The publication standards provided in the Crocker Declaration, such as RFC 1602,
`
`do not mention the RFC Editor’s Website as a source for retrieving RFCs on or
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`before the critical date. Ex. 1026 at ¶ 32. The Crocker Declaration only states that
`
`the “RFC Editor’s website today is the authoritative source page for RFCs on the
`
`Internet.” Id. at ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Crocker’s testimony that RFCs are
`
`currently available on the RFC Editor’s Website is not sufficient for Petitioner to
`
`establish that RFC 1692, or RFC 791, RFC 1001, and RFC 1459, were available on
`
`the RFC Editor’s Website on or before the critical date. Id. at ¶ 32.
`
`The Board also cites to other cases in which it was decided that certain RFCs
`
`were prior publications to the patent(s) at issue in those cases. Institution Decision
`
`at 29-30 (citing, e.g., VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2018 WL 1371144 (Fed. Cir. Mar.
`
`16, 2018) (IPR 2015-00870 & IPR2015-00871) (Rule 36)). However, as
`
`mentioned by the Board in the institution decision, the “determination of whether a
`
`document is a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-
`
`case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members
`
`of the public.” Institution Decision at 27 (citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). Thus, the other cases cited by the Board
`
`should not weigh against Patent Owner’s position, or ease Petitioner’s burden of
`
`proof in demonstrating that the RFCs are prior publications to the ‘686 Patent.
`
`The Board also notes that RFC documents “constitute the type of documents
`
`with a main purpose being for public disclosure and consideration.” Institution
`
`Decision at 30. The Board mentions immediately thereafter that the Crocker
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`Declaration specifically references the RFCs and their publication dates. Id.
`
`Patent Owner however contends here that the purpose of the RFCs, and the dates
`
`listed at the top of the RFCs, are not sufficient proof that the RFCs were published
`
`prior to the ‘686 Patent. A date listed on a document such as on RFC 1692, alone,
`
`is not self-proving. Rather, the burden is on the Petitioner to provide evidence that
`
`the RFCs, and specifically RFC 1692 and RFC 1459 as § 103 references, were in
`
`fact published prior to the critical date. While Petitioner provides evidence of
`
`general RFC practice, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that RFC
`
`1692 and RFC 1459 were published on the dates listed in the RFC documents.
`
`Thus, since the Crocker Declaration does not provide sufficient evidence
`
`that, on or before the critical date, RFC 791, RFC 1001, RFC 1459, and/or RFC
`
`1692 were actually available to the public online, that these RFCs were actually
`
`accessed or downloaded by any member of the public, or whether and how any
`
`alleged source such as the anonymous FTP hosts or the RFC Editor’s Website was
`
`indexed or cataloged, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that RFC 791, RFC
`
`1001, RFC 1459, and/or RFC 1692 were “publicly accessible” on or before the
`
`critical date.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to sufficiently
`
`establish with the evidence on record that RFC 791, RFC 1001, RFC 1459, and
`
`RFC 1692 can be used as prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and requests
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`that the Board modify the Institution Decision dated May 15, 2018, accordingly.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this rehearing
`
`request and modify its Decision to institute the inter partes review of the ‘686
`
`Patent for the reasons described herein. Specifically, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Decision be modified to deny institution because Petitioner has
`
`not sufficiently established that all the 35 U.S.C. § 103 references cited in the
`
`grounds for institution are prior art publications to the ‘686 Patent.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/Gregory M. Howison, Reg. #30646/
`Gregory M. Howison
`Registration No. 30,646
`ghowison@munckwilson.com
`
`MUNCK, WILSON, MANDALA, LLP
`12770 Coit Road, Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75251
`Telephone: (972) 628-3600
`Facsimile: (972) 628-3616
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00131 (Patent 6,226,686)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), a
`copy of the foregoing Request for Rehearing was served via electronic mail on
`May 29, 2018, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`P: 202-736-8492
`Riot_paltalk@sidley.com
`
`
`Samuel A. Dillon (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 65,197
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`P: 202-736-8298
`Riot_paltalk@sidley.com
`
`
`By:
`
`/Gregory M. Howison, Reg. #30646/
`Gregory M. Howison
`Registration No. 30,646
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`