IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`HOSPITALITY CORE SERVICES, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266 to Short et al.
`Issue Date: September 11, 2012
`Filing Date: January 11, 2010
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING DYNAMIC
`NETWORK AUTHORIZATION, AUTHENTICATION AND
`ACCOUNTING
`_____________________
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,266
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`Guest-Tek v. Nomadix, IPR2018-00376
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 7
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 7
`III. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)); PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS ...... 9
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................... 9
`A. Real Party–In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................... 9
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................. 9
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .........................10
`D. Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................10
`V. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFORE (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(A)) .................................................11
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested ......................................................11
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ..................................................................11
`C. The Proposed Alternative Grounds Are Not Redundant ............................12
`VI. PROSECUTION HISTORY ..........................................................................12
`A. Brief Description of the ʼ266 Patent ...........................................................12
`B. The ʼ266 File Wrapper ................................................................................16
`C. The ʼ894 Prosecution History .....................................................................19
`VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART .........................................................20
`A. Transparent Proxy and the Proxy Handshake .............................................20
`B. Browser Redirect Messages ........................................................................24
`C. Redirection Servers Configured As Separate Hardware Devices ...............25
`D. Slemmer and the Connect Group Hotel Gateway .......................................26
`E.
`Squid and the Slemmer Reexamination ......................................................28
`F. ATCOM’S IPORT System .............................................................................29
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................33
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL AND STATE OF THE ART .................34
`X. PRIOR ART REJECTIONS .............................................................................34
`A. Effective Filing Date ...................................................................................35
`B.
`Prior Art Status ............................................................................................36
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`C. Claims 1-28 Are Anticipated by Slemmer ..................................................37
`D. Claims 1-28 Are Obvious Over Slemmer in View of Vu ...........................45
`E. Claims 1-28 Obvious Over Slemmer in View of IPORT and Applegate ...45
`XI. CLAIM CHART FOR THE ʼ266 PATENT ..................................................50
`XII. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE .....................................................................58
`XIII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................60
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...................................................................................................36
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................ 36, 37
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................ 36, 37
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) ...................................................................................................37
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ................................................................................................. 9
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101-103 .............................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102(2) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ............................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(A)................................................................................................11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d) ..................................................................................................11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ..............................................................................................10
`
`Other Authorities
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 ........................36
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1008
`
`DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT
`Ex. No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266 to Short et al.
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266 Prosecution History Excerpts
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,894 to Short et al.
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,894 Prosecution History Excerpts
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,226,677 to Slemmer
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,623,601 to Vu
`IPORT Internet Access System – Connection Methods and
`1007
`Concepts for IPORT v2.x, White Paper, ATCOM/INFO,
`November 1998
`IPORT Internet Access System, IPORT Central Office
`Solution, White Paper, ATCOM/INFO, November 1998
`(IPORT Central Office White Paper)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,321,336 to Applegate et al.
`1010 U.S. Pat. 5,805,803 to Birrell et al.
`1011 Declaration of Keith Olson
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,389,462 to Cohen et al.
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,950,195 to Stockwell et al.
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,317,790 to Bowker et al.
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,182,139 to Brendel
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,987,611 to Freund
`1017 Web Spoofing: An Internet Con Game, Felten et al., Tech
`Rep. 540-96, Princeton University (Feb. 1997)
`RFC 1945 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.0
`(May 1996)
`
`1018
`
`iv
`
`DATE
`4/10/12
`9/26/11
`10/21/03
`12/8/99
`5/1/01
`4/22/97
`11/98
`
`11/98
`
`11/20/01
`9/8/98
`
`5/4/02
`9/7/99
`11/13/01
`1/30/01
`11/16/99
`2/97
`
`5/96
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`RFC 2139 – RADIUS Accounting (April 1997)
`Rizzo, Luigi, Dummynet: A Simple Approach to the
`Evaluation of Network Protocols, Diotisal vi 2,
`Dipartmimento di Ingegneria dell’Invormazione,
`Universita di Pisa. (Jan. 1997)
`Commit Message regarding support for IPFW based
`transparent forwarding
`1022 Vos, Jos et al., Linux Firewall Facilities for Kernel-Level
`Packet Screening (Nov. 18, 1996)
`Chatel, M., Classical versus Transparent IP Proxies,
`Network Working Group (March 1996) (RFC 1919)
`Srisuresh, P. et al., IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
`Terminology and Considerations, Network Working
`Group (August 1999) (RFC 2663)
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,018 to Gooderum et al.
`Fielding, R. et al., Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP
`1026
`/1.1, Network Working Group (Jan. 1997) (RFC 2068)
`1027 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/109,878
`entitled “Controlled Communications over a Global
`Computer Network”
`Beermann, Cord, Support for cern like Pass/Fail Proxy
`Limits?;
`Dumazet, Eric, Transparent Proxy and Squid
`Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,226,677
`(Control. No. 90/007,307)
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`4/97
`1/97
`
`7/6/98
`
`11/18/96
`
`3/96
`
`8/99
`
`6/29/99
`1/97
`
`11/25/98
`
`11/25/96;
`9/12-
`9/13/96;
`5/31/05;
`4/11/06
`
`1/14/98
`
`26th Annual HITEC Set for June 16-18 in Los Angeles,
`www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4000506.html
`
`Lodgenet Acquires Connect Group, Delivers High – Speed
`Laptop Connectivity, Hotel Online Press Releases, June
`1998
`
`6/16/98
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`1032 Microsoft Awards Hospitality Industry’s Top Software
`Developers, News Center, June 17, 1998
`
`1033
`
`Industry-Leading Internet Access System Now Makes
`Plug and Play – High-Speed Internet Access for the Road
`Warrior Easier Than Ever, ATMCOM/INFO, July 20,
`1998
`1034 ATCOM/INFO Announces IPORT 2.5 for High-Speed
`Internet Access, Business Wire, October 21, 1998
`
`6/17/98
`
`7/20/98
`
`10/21/98
`
`1035 ATCOM/INFO Releases IPORT Central Office Solution,
`Business Wire, October 21, 1998
`
`10/21/98
`
`1036 Wingate Inns Sets Industry Standard by Introducing Latest
`Technologicalenity – High-Speed Internet Access,
`Business Wire, October 29, 1998
`1037 Messmer, Ellen, Article published in Network World,
`December 7, 1998
`Flowchart comparison of Nomadix and Slemmer
`Redirection Techniques
`
`1038
`
`1039 Diagrams Reading Claim Terms on IPORT
`
`10/29/98
`
`12/7/98
`
`
`
`
`
`1040 U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/111,497
`
`12/8/98
`
`1041
`
`Citations to U.S. Patent No. 5,263,601 to Vu
`
`1042 Declaration of William Peckham
`
`1043
`
`Claim Chart for Claims 1-28 of ʼ266 Patent
`
`1044
`
`Claim Chart Showing that U.S. Patent No. 6,226,677 to
`Slemmer (Ex. 1005) is entitled to the filing date benefit of
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/109,878 under
`35 U.SC. § 119(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`Hospitality Core Services LLC d/b/a/ Blueprint RF (“Petitioner”) petitions for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) seeking cancellation of claims 1-28 (all claims) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,266,266 (Ex 1001: “the ʼ266 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. The patent is owned by Nomadix, Inc. (“Nomadix”).
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`
`All of the claims of the ʼ266 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior
`
`art that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) did not have
`
`before it or fully consider during prosecution, or prior art that was not analyzed and
`
`applied in accordance with the law, rules and regulations governing patents.
`
`Despite the use of intricate yet vague claim language appearing nowhere in the
`
`specification of the ʼ266 patent, the claims merely feature transparent redirection
`
`of a user’s browser to “alternate content” such as a portal or login page. Ex. 1001
`
`at Col. 38, lines 4 to Col. 40, line 59. The ʼ266 patent contends that “[a] unique
`
`advantage of the transparent redirection of users to a portal page, and, in certain
`
`circumstances from the portal page, to a login page where users subscribe for
`
`network access is that a user can obtain access to networks or online services
`
`without installing any software onto the user's computer.” Id. at Col. 8, lines 57-
`
`67. However, this type of network access system was already well known in the
`
`prior art more than a year before the effective filing date of the ʼ266 patent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`The prior art described herein reveals that transparent proxies and browser
`
`redirect messages were standard computer networking techniques years before the
`
`‘266 patent. More importantly, hotel gateways using these techniques to
`
`transparently redirect a user’s browser to a portal or login page for network access
`
`authorization were disclosed by prior art publications available more than a year
`
`before the effective filing date of the ʼ266 patent. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,226,677 (Ex 1005: “Slemmer”) and the IPORT documentation (Exs 1007-1008:
`
`collectively the “IPORT system”) describe the independent and dependent claims
`
`of the ʼ266 patent with remarkable correspondence. The prior art also describes
`
`transparent redirection both without and with address translation (packet address
`
`modification), and locating the gateway device and redirection server both on the
`
`same hardware platform, and on separate platforms.
`
`In sum, Nomadix did not invent the use of transparent redirection for network
`
`access authorization—it was a widely publicized conventional practice for more
`
`than a year before the effective filing date of the ʼ266 patent. The hotel gateway
`
`system taught by Slemmer and the IPORT system describe all of the features in the
`
`ʼ266 patent claims, as well as any unclaimed features (mainly address translation)
`
`that could potentially be added by amendment. Even though claims of the ʼ266
`
`patent employ intricate and wordy language to capture the implementation-specific
`
`details of transparent redirection, once the meaning of this language is correctly
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`interpreted, it is evident that there is no innovation described or claimed in the ʼ266
`
`patent.
`
`III. STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)); PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ʼ266 patent is available for IPR and (2) Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of any claim of the ʼ266 patent under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101-103. The petition is not barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(2), Petitioner certifies that the ʼ266 patent is not
`
`described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
`
`This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). A Power of
`
`Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) and an Exhibit List are filed concurrently
`
`herewith. The required fee is submitted herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.103(a) and 42.15(a). The Office is authorized to charge fee deficiencies and
`
`credit overpayments to Deposit Account No. 02-4300, Order No. 063208.004.
`
`IV. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party–In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Hospitality Core Services LLC d/b/a/ Blueprint RF is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Hospitality Core Services LLC, d/b/a Blueprint RF (Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-08256-DDP (VBKx)), C.D. Calif. Petitioner is not aware of any other
`
`administrative or judicial actions involving the ʼ266 patent. Petitioner recently
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`filed IPRs challenging related U.S. Pat. No. 6,636,894 (Ex 1003: “ʼ894 patent”)
`
`and U.S. Pat. No. 8,156,246 (“ʼ246 patent”) (IPR Nos. 2016-00052 and 2016-
`
`00073, respectively) and is concurrently filing IPRs challenging U.S. Pat. Nos.
`
`8,266,269 and 8,364,806 (“ʼ269 patent” and “ʼ806 patent”, respectively).
`
`Nomadix recently filed post-grant Terminal Disclaimers in the ʼ266 patent based
`
`on these related patents. Ex 1002, Terminal Disclaimer filed June 30, 2015.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Michael J. Mehrman
`USPTO Reg. 40,086
`MEHRMAN LAW OFFICE, PC
`PO Box 420797
`Atlanta, GA 30342
`5555 Oakbrook Parkway, Suite 640
`Norcross, GA 30342
`Tel: (404) 497-7400 phone
`Fax: (404) 420-2435 fax
`mike@mehrmanlaw.com
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Stephanie D. Scruggs
`USPTO Reg. 54,432
`SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
`Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`202-263-4308 phone
`202-263-4329 fax
`sscruggs@sgrlaw.com
`
`
`D. Service Information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`
`
`Please direct all correspondence regarding this Petition to lead counsel at the
`
`above address. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the email addresses
`
`provided above.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`V.
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFORE (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(A))
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review and cancellation of all
`
`claims (claims 1-28) of the ʼ266 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`In support of the proposed grounds for unpatentability, this Petition is
`
`accompanied by the declaration of expert Keith Olson (Ex 1011), which explains
`
`what the prior art would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) as of the priority date of the ʼ266 patent. The Board should initiate inter
`
`partes review and invalidate all claims in the ’266 patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 35 U.S.C. Section
`(pre-3/16/2013)
`1
`§ 102(e)
`2
`§ 103
`
`3
`
`§ 103
`
`Index of References
`
`Slemmer (Ex 1005)
`Slemmer (Ex 1005); Vu (Ex
`1006)
`Slemmer (1005); IPORT (1007-
`1008); Applegate (Ex 1009)
`
`ʼ266 Patent
`Claims
`1-28
`1-28
`
`1-28
`
`Petitioner’s full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is set forth in
`
`detail in Section X pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d). Copies of the references are
`
`filed with this Petition.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`C. The Proposed Alternative Grounds Are Not Redundant
`
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds are not redundant because differences exist
`
`between the applied prior art and their respective grounds for finding the claims
`
`unpatentable in view of different potential claim constructions. Each reference
`
`provides a non-cumulative difference resulting in a teaching of a different aspect of
`
`the alleged invention relevant to a specific potential claim construction.
`
`VI. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`A. Brief Description of the ʼ266 Patent
`
`The ʼ266 patent describes a gateway procedure commonly known as “browser
`
`spoofing” to implement “transparent redirection” to a portal or login page
`
`including a “connection handshake” and a “browser redirect message” that
`
`“pretend” or “appear to have come” from an address requested by the user,
`
`typically the user’s homepage. The network connection procedure begins when a
`
`user’s computer, which has not been previously authorized to connect to the
`
`network, initially attempts to connect to the network. The user’s browser initiates
`
`the process through a browser request (GET message) to a website, typically the
`
`default or “homepage” that the browser is programmed to automatically request
`
`(also referred to as the “intended recipient” or the “original destination address”).
`
`The gateway procedure begins with a “connection handshake” that allows the
`
`gateway to establish a network connection with the user’s computer “as if it is” the
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`intended recipient. This is necessary to cause the protocol stack on the user’s
`
`computer (which is set to communicate with the intended recipient) to accept the
`
`packets initiating the session in a manner that appears to be with the website
`
`requested by the user’s browser, so that the user’s computer will create the network
`
`connection. More specifically, this is accomplished by including the original
`
`destination address of the intended recipient in the “sender” field of the packets
`
`sent by the gateway to the user’s computer during the connection handshake.
`
`Instead of delivering the user’s request to the intended recipient, the gateway
`
`intercepts and diverts the message to a “proxy” processor known as the redirection
`
`server. The redirection server responds by generating a browser redirect message
`
`that causes the user’s browser to request (a second GET message) a portal or login
`
`page identified in the browser redirect message. Browser redirect messages are
`
`particularly efficient standard HTTP commands because they cause the user’s
`
`browser to request the redirection site, which avoids the need for additional
`
`management of the connection. The “proxy” browser redirect message created by
`
`the redirection server includes the “source address corresponding to” the site
`
`requested by the user in the “sender” field of the packet header so that it “appears
`
`to be” from the intended recipient. Again, this is necessary to cause the protocol
`
`stack on the user’s computer (which is set to communicate with the intended
`
`recipient) to accept the browser redirect message.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`
`The gateway procedure described above is a type of transparent proxy in which
`
`the gateway “spoofs” the user’s browser by “responding as if it is” the intended
`
`recipient. This particular transparent proxy delivers a browser redirect message
`
`causing the user’s computer to request a portal or login page specified in the
`
`browser redirect message. Taken together, a transparent proxy delivering a
`
`browser redirect message is referred to as transparent redirection. To facilitate
`
`the discussion of the concepts claimed in the ʼ266 patent, Petitioner has coined the
`
`term “proxy handshake” to refer to spoofing (the gateway responding “as if it is”
`
`the intended recipient) during the network connection handshake, and the term
`
`“proxy redirect message” to refer to spoofing in the browser redirect message.1
`
`Rather than using the terms appearing in the patent’s specification, the claims of
`
`the ʼ266 patent are infused with ambiguity (in some cases apparently intended to
`
`broaden (see, e.g., Ex 1002, Rescission of Any Prior Disclaimers and Request to
`
`Revisit Prior Art filed January 15, 2010)) by relabeling the claim terms with often
`
`intricate language not found anywhere in the specification of the ‘266 patent. For
`
`example, the gateway in the claims of the ʼ266 patent is referred to as a “network
`
`system,” “network access management system” and “processor” in a network
`
`system; and the “redirection server” is referred to as a “redirection data generation
`
`1 The terms “proxy handshake” and “proxy redirect message” are shorthand terms
`coined by Petitioner for descriptive convenience. They do not appear in the ʼ266
`patent or the cited references.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`module.” Ex. 1001 at Col. 38, line 4 to Col. 40, line 58. Claim clarity is further
`
`sacrificed by referring to the proxy redirect message as “response data customized
`
`for the HTTP server request” and “response data including the alternate content.”
`
`Id. Spoofing is described as “at least in part by including, in a header of the
`
`response data, a source address corresponding to the server located external to the
`
`network system.” Id. The user’s initial connection request is referred to as the
`
`“HTTP server request” and the “incoming request for access to the first device.”
`
`Id. The intended recipient is referred to as the “server located external to the
`
`network system,” the “first device that is external to the network access
`
`management system,” and the “first network location external to the network
`
`management system.” Id. The proxy handshake is described as “sending, from the
`
`network system, TCP connection handshake completion data to the user device in
`
`response to the request to open the TCP connection, the handshake completion data
`
`being configured to appear to be from the server located external to the network
`
`system, wherein the network system need not communicate with the server located
`
`external to the network system.” Id.
`
`Apart from this label changing, the claims of the ʼ266 patent are essentially the
`
`same as the claims in other patents in the family (i.e., the ʼ246, ʼ269, and ʼ806
`
`patents), which (along with the ʼ894 patent), are referred to by Nomadix as its
`
`“captive portal” patents—yet another term for transparent redirection to a portal
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`page. Indeed, once the claim language is correctly interpreted, it is clear that the
`
`claims of the ʼ266 patent cover nothing more than transparent redirection of a
`
`user’s browser to any type of alternate content—which is a broadened claim
`
`concept apparently intended to include, but not be limited to, a portal or login page.
`
`This same concept is recited in the claims of the ʼ269 and ʼ806 patents as “content
`
`from a second device.” However, the Written Description in the ‘266 patent is
`
`significantly narrower. Indeed, the ʼ266 patent touts the “unique advantage of the
`
`transparent redirection of users to a portal page” and explains that “the method and
`
`apparatus of the present invention” is to facilitate “transparent access to destination
`
`networks without requiring a user to reconfigure the home network settings
`
`resident on the user computer and without having to install reconfiguration
`
`software.” Ex 1001 at Col. 8, lines 57-67. To provide only two of many examples,
`
`the terms “alternate content” and “handshake completion data” appear nowhere in
`
`the ʼ266 patent other than the claims filed years after the purported priority date.
`
`B. The ʼ266 File Wrapper
`
`The ʼ266 patent was filed on January 11, 2011 as app no. 12/685,585 (“the ʼ585
`
`application”). The ʼ266 patent ultimately claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`App. No. 60/111,497 (Ex 1040: “the ʼ497 application”) through the ʼ894 patent.
`
`Ex 1001 at Related U.S. Application Data. The application that ultimately resulted
`
`in the ʼ266 patent was filed with three method claims, of which there was one
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`independent claim. Ex 1002, Original Claims. Before examination on the merits,
`
`the Patent Owner filed two Preliminary Amendments; the first added 13 figures
`
`and the second amended the original claims and added 23 new claims. Id. at First
`
`Prelim. Amendment filed Jan. 20, 2010 and Second Prelim. Amendment filed July
`
`29, 2010. Fifteen Information Disclosure Statements were filed with a total of
`
`1257 references. Ex 1002, Feb. 4, Apr. 19, May 27, Dec. 17, 20, 21, 2010, Apr. 6,
`
`Nov. 8, 11, 23, Dec. 15, 19, 2011, Jan. 6, and July 26, 2012 IDS submissions.
`
`During prosecution, the pending claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and 103 based on U.S. Patent No. 6,516,416 to Gregg et al. and U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,779,118 to Ikudome et al. and also under § 103 based on U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,112,212 to Heitler (“Heitler”) . Ex 1002 at Non-Final Rejection mailed October
`
`19, 2010, Final Rejection mailed March 28, 2011, Non-Final Rejection mailed
`
`November 4, 2011, and Final Rejection mailed February 28, 2012 based primarily
`
`on Heitler in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,389,462 to Cohen at al. (Ex 1012: “Cohen”).
`
`The Patent Owner ultimately obtained allowance of the ʼ266 patent claims after
`
`filing a Request for Continued Examination along with a Request for Prioritized
`
`Examination (Track 1). Ex 1002 at May 25, 2012 RCE. At that time, the Patent
`
`Owner amended the claims to introduce the step for “generating response data …
`
`including alternate content different from content requested by the HTTP server
`
`request, wherein the response data is customized for the HTTP server request …
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`by appearing to be from the server located external to the network system, … by
`
`including, in a header of the response data, a source address corresponding to the
`
`server located external to the network system” and a “redirection data generation
`
`module” configured to perform the “generating” step. Ex 1002, Response filed
`
`May 25, 2012. The Request for Prioritized Examination (Track 1) was approved
`
`on June 12, 2012, followed by a Notice of Allowance on June 12, 2012.
`
`Interestingly, the ʼ266 patent, which was filed as a continuation of the ʼ585
`
`application, issued the same day as the ʼ269 patent. The ‘266, ‘269 and ʼ806
`
`patents were all allowed through Track 1 Prioritized Examination after the Patent
`
`Owner filed amendments similar to the “generating” step and “redirection data
`
`generation module” discussed above. The Patent Owner just recently filed a
`
`Terminal Disclaimer disclaiming the terminal portions based on the ʼ894, ‘246,
`
`ʼ269 and ‘806 patents. Ex 1002, Terminal Disclaimer filed June 30, 2015.
`
`As discussed below, the “redirection server” played a pivotal role in those
`
`proceedings. The ʼ266 patent also claims the “redirection server” but as the
`
`“redirection data generation module” in claim 11 or implicitly through the steps of
`
`“generating response data customized for the HTTP server request” in claim 1 and
`
`“the processor further configured to generate response data customized for the user
`
`device” in claim 24. The ’266 patent claims appear to be broader than the ʼ894
`
`claims in some respects and narrower in others. For example, the ʼ266 patent
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`claims omit the recitation of address translation (packet address modification)
`
`included in the ʼ894 patent claims, but include language describing the proxy
`
`handshake not featured in the ʼ894 patent claims.
`
`C. The ʼ894 Prosecution History
`
`The ʼ894 patent was reconsidered in Reex. Cont. No. 90/007,220 and a
`
`subsequent inter partes petition was denied in Reex. Cont. No. 95/110,831. See Ex
`
`1004 and 1014-1019. Notably, the original examination and both reexamination
`
`proceedings found the ʼ894 claims patentable based on a claim construction
`
`requiring the “gateway device” and “redirection server” to be separate hardware
`
`devices. Ex 1004. When the Petitioner in the ʼ831 proceeding filed its Petition for
`
`Reconsideration, the Central Reexamination Unit (“CRU”) explained that the
`
`claims of the ʼ894 patent were determined to be patentable over Applegate (Ex
`
`1009) because the claims of the ʼ894 patent required, “a redirection server that is
`
`a piece of hardware that can be configured as a stand-alone unit or an add-in
`
`module for a gateway device... The redirection server disclosed by and claimed in
`
`the ‘894 patent is not software.” Ex 1004, February 28, 2012 Decision on Petition
`
`at Page 11 (emphasis added). In an apparent effort to avoid the narrow claim
`
`construction articulated by the CRU, Nomadix filed a Post-Decision Statement
`
`disavowing and directly contradicting the basis for the confirmation of
`
`patentability in the original examination and both the ʼ220 and ʼ831 proceedings.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition For Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`
`
`Ex 1004, June 26, 2012 Comments on Denial of Petition at Pages 1-2. More
`
`specifically, Nomadix stated that “the ‘894 patent discloses that the gateway itself
`
`can act as the redirection server, in addition to external or internal components,
`
`including software components, which can provide the redirection
`
`f