UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________________________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`Case Nos.:
`
`IPR2018-01238; IPR2018-01241; IPR2018-01242; and
`IPR2018-01243
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID H. CROCKER
`
`Petitioner Valve – Ex. 1026, Cover
`
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________________________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`Case Nos.:
`
`IPR2018-01238; IPR2018-01241; IPR2018-01242; and
`IPR2018-01243
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID H. CROCKER
`
`Petitioner Valve – Ex. 1026, Cover
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) .............................................. 2
`
`III. Requests for Comments (“RFCs”) .................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview and History ........................................................................... 3
`
`RFC Approval Process .......................................................................... 4
`
`Publication and Dissemination of RFCs ............................................... 6
`
`RFC Editor’s Official Repository ......................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`Publication of Specific RFCs .......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`RFC 1692: Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) ......................... 9
`
`RFC 791: Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification ........................................................................................ 10
`
`RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP
`Transport: Concepts and Methods ..................................................... 12
`
`RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol ........................................... 13
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. i
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. i
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`1011‘|Internet Protocol DARPAInternet Program Protocol Specification,
`RFC 791 (Sept. 1981)
`
`1018|Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDPTransport:
`
`/No._|Exhibit Description
`1010‘|Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMUX), RFC 1692 (Aug. 1994)
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Concepts and Methods, RFC 1001 (Mar. 1987)
`
`il
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. ii
`Petitioner Riot Games,Inc. - Ex. 1026,p. 11
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. ii
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I, David H. Crocker, make this declaration. I am over 21 and
`
`otherwise competent to make this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein made based on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Unless a specific time period is noted, all statements herein refer to the time period
`
`relevant to the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I am a principal at Brandenburg InternetWorking (“Brandenburg”),
`
`which I founded in 1991, and I have participated in the development of technical
`
`specifications for the Internet and its predecessor, the Advanced Research Projects
`
`Agency Network (“ARPANET”), since 1972. I understand that my CV has been
`
`filed as Exhibit 1027.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the publication status of several Request for Comments (“RFC”) documents. My
`
`opinions in this declaration are informed by my substantial background and
`
`expertise in the RFC development and publication process, as well as the specific
`
`RFC documents I discuss below and the other evidence I cite in this declaration.
`
`Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the
`
`opinions herein are my own.
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`II. The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”)
`
`5.
`
`The principal Internet technical standards body is the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”). The IETF produces technical documents
`
`relating to the design, use, and management of the Internet. The IETF has no
`
`formal membership or membership requirements, and all participants and
`
`managers are volunteers; it has a very small paid support staff.
`
`6.
`
`Prior to 1997, the IETF was entirely or partially supported by the U.S.
`
`government. Since then, the IETF has been independently funded by participants
`
`and through its association with the Internet Society, which is an international
`
`membership-based non-profit organization.
`
`7.
`
`The IETF comprises working groups that are organized into areas by
`
`subject matter. Each IETF area is overseen by an Area Director. The Area
`
`Directors, together with the IETF Chair, form the Internet Engineering Steering
`
`Group (“IESG”), which is responsible for the overall operation of the IETF. I was
`
`the first Area Director for the area of Network Management. I served as an Area
`
`Director for six years, from 1989 to 1995.
`
`8.
`
`The IETF’s Administrative Oversight Committee (“IAOC”)
`
`comprises ten members and provides logistical and administrative support for the
`
`IETF. I served on the IAOC for two years, from 2011 to 2013.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 2
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`9.
`
`The IETF Nominating Committee (“NomCom”) comprises ten voting
`
`members and is vested with the power to select members of the IESG, IAOC, and
`
`two related groups, the Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and the IETF
`
`Administrative Support Activity. I served on the NomCom for a total of five one-
`
`year terms between 1995 and 2013.
`
`10.
`
`IETF working groups comprise experts and other individuals
`
`interested in the working group topic. Each working group has a chairperson who
`
`is appointed by the Area Director. I have chaired several working groups,
`
`including Fax (facsimile over email) and EDI (electronic data interchange).
`
`III. Requests for Comments (“RFCs”)
`
`A. Overview and History
`
`11. The IETF oversees the development and publication of standards and
`
`related documents. These are published as RFCs, which are documents that
`
`describe methods, procedures, protocols, specifications, and similar concepts
`
`related to the Internet or Internet-connected systems. RFCs are widely considered
`
`by the Internet technical community to be the official documents for the standards
`
`that govern the design, use, and management of core Internet services. RFCs are
`
`maintained as part of a single document series. The RFC document series was
`
`established by my brother, Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, in 1969.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 3
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`12.
`
`The RFC document series has been well-known throughout the
`
`Internet technical community since 1969. Anyone working in the areas of the
`
`Internet or Internet-connected systems would have been aware of the RFC
`
`document series, would have considered RFCs widely publicly accessible, and
`
`would have known where and how to find copies of RFCs. My opinion is
`
`informed by my numerous experiences evaluating, discussing, and retrieving RFCs
`
`with other members of the Internet technical community around the world.
`
`13.
`
`The formal process of preparing, publishing, and widely distributing
`
`RFCs is a very important part of Internet culture, which works to develop
`
`standards in an open and transparent process. It is also important to the adoption
`
`of these standards and the stability and functionality of the Internet for developers
`
`to adhere to standards and evolving best practices.
`
`14.
`
`I have authored more than 60 RFCs and have contributed to the
`
`development of many others. I have been involved with the development of RFCs
`
`since 1972. I consider myself an expert with respect to RFC development and their
`
`publication process.
`
`B.
`
`RFC Approval Process
`
`15. RFCs are developed through several activity streams, one of which is
`
`pursuant to the IETF’s Internet Standards Process. The formal Internet Standards
`
`Process has been in existence since the late 1980s, although its essential
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 4
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`characteristics date back to the Internet’s inception. The Internet Standards
`
`Process was formally documented in the RFC series in March of 1992 as RFC
`
`1310. Ex. 1028 (RFC 1310). It was revised in March of 1994 as RFC 1602 and
`
`again in October of 1996 as RFC 2026. Ex. 1021 (RFC 1602); Ex. 1029 (RFC
`
`2026). The purpose of formally publishing the Internet Standards Process as an
`
`RFC was to keep the Internet technical community informed as to the current
`
`status of policies and procedures for work related to Internet standards.
`
`16.
`
`Internet Standards are typically developed through IETF working
`
`groups. IETF working groups are open to all who want to participate; anyone may
`
`observe and contribute to discussions. A majority of working group discussions
`
`are held via a mailing list for the group, to which anyone may subscribe. Some
`
`working group discussions are held in person and anyone may attend those
`
`meetings. The dates and locations for in-person meetings are announced via the
`
`working group’s mailing list, and more widely.
`
`17.
`
`In developing specifications, working groups generally seek to
`
`explore competing views and select among them based on technical superiority.
`
`Rather than formal voting, working group decisions are made through a “rough
`
`consensus” process, where the “strongly dominant” sense of the group is assessed.
`
`18. Some working group documents (e.g., draft specifications) are
`
`eventually published as RFCs. The process to publish a working group document
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 5
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`as an approved standard and published as an RFC is initiated when the working
`
`group makes a recommendation to its cognizant Area Director. The Area Director
`
`then presents the recommendation to the IESG, which circulates the document to
`
`the wider IETF community, for comment, and then decides whether to publish the
`
`document as an RFC.
`
`C.
`
`Publication and Dissemination of RFCs
`
`19. The RFC Editor is the official source for RFCs on the Internet and is
`
`responsible for publishing RFCs. If the IESG approves a draft specification for
`
`publication as an RFC, the RFC is transferred to the RFC Editor for editorial
`
`refinement. After any necessary editorial work is completed, the RFC Editor
`
`publishes the specification for distribution on the Internet. It has been the IETF’s
`
`standard practice since at least the 1980s to publish RFCs as soon as possible
`
`following final approval for publication.
`
`20. The publication date of each RFC is typically on every page of the
`
`document, and the cover page of each RFC typically lists the title of the RFC, the
`
`RFC’s authors, and the working group through which the RFC was developed.
`
`21. The publication of RFCs is announced through a mailing list to which
`
`anyone may subscribe. The existence of the mailing list, and the process for
`
`signing up to receive mailing list announcements, has been well-known to
`
`members of the Internet technical community since the late 1980s. Anyone with
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 6
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`an interest in Internet and Internet-connected technologies would have been able to
`
`locate this mailing list, subscribe, and then receive announcements of new RFCs.
`
`A similar mechanism existed within the earlier Internet research and development
`
`community.
`
`22. Published RFCs are widely distributed without any restrictions. All
`
`published RFCs are available publicly through “anonymous FTP” login and
`
`through the World Wide Web from a number of Internet hosts. The RFC Editor
`
`also maintains its own database of RFCs that is regularly updated with new RFCs.
`
`23. The RFC Editor periodically publishes an “Internet Official Protocol
`
`Standards” RFC, which summarizes the status of all Internet protocol and service
`
`specifications. These RFCs are made publicly available pursuant to the standard
`
`RFC publication process.
`
`24.
`
`In the 1990s, an official summary of published RFCs appeared in each
`
`issue of the Internet Society’s newsletter. The Internet Society’s newsletter was
`
`well-known to members of the Internet technical community as a source for an
`
`official summary of published RFCs.
`
`D. RFC Editor’s Official Repository
`
`25. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved from the RFC Editor’s
`
`website: https://www.rfc-editor.org. Specific RFCs can be retrieved directly from
`
`the RFC Editor’s website by entering a standard URL form that includes the host
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 7
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`name “www.rfc-editor.org” followed by the file path “/rfc/rfc[NUMBER].txt,”
`
`where “[NUMBER]” is the specific RFC number to be retrieved. For example,
`
`RFC 1602 can be retrieved by entering the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt.
`
`26. The RFC Editor’s site is well-known to persons in the Internet
`
`networking industry. Since the early 1990s, the RFC Editor repository has been
`
`freely accessible to the general public with no login, password, or membership
`
`requirement, and was similarly available to the Internet technical community since
`
`the 1970s. The RFC Editor’s website today is the authoritative source page for
`
`RFCs on the Internet.1
`
`27. Visitors to the RFC Editor’s website may search, browse, and
`
`download any RFC without restriction. The website’s search function allows
`
`visitors to search by numerous fields, including RFC number, title/keyword,
`
`publication date, area, and author surname. In addition to the RFC Editor, many
`
`publicly accessible sites maintain informal copies of the RFC archive, for example,
`
`http://rfc-archive.org and http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/.
`
`
`
`1 “Below are links to RFCs, as available from ietf.org and from rfc-editor.org.
`Note that there is a brief time period when the two sites will be out of sync. When
`in doubt, the RFC Editor site is the authoritative source page.”
`http://ietf.org/rfc.html (emphasis added).
`8
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 8
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`IV. Publication of Specific RFCs
`
`A. RFC 1692: Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)
`
`28. Request for Comments 1692 (“RFC 1692”) is titled “Transport
`
`Multiplexing Protocol (TMux).” Ex. 1010 (RFC 1692). I authored RFC 1692
`
`along with Peter Cameron, Danny Cohen, and Jon Postel. RFC 1692 was
`
`developed through the Network Working Group and was published as a “Standards
`
`Track” RFC. I became involved with what would ultimately become RFC 1692
`
`after receiving a draft specification through the working group’s mailing list. I
`
`thought I could improve on the draft and subsequently drafted my own
`
`specification. I presented my draft specification at an in-person meeting of the
`
`working group. The “rough consensus” of the working group preferred the
`
`specification I drafted over the draft that had been previously circulated. After the
`
`meeting, additional discussion took place via the working group’s mailing list.
`
`Eventually, the working group reached a consensus and recommended to the Area
`
`Director that the specification be published as an RFC. The IESG considered the
`
`working group’s recommendation and ultimately approved the specification, which
`
`the RFC Editor assigned as RFC 1692.
`
`29. RFC 1692 was published in August of 1994 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 9
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`Ex. 1010 (RFC 1692). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`30. RFC 1692 has been available for anonymous FTP and web access
`
`from a number of Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with
`
`the Internet technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have
`
`known where and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1692.
`
`31.
`
`In November 1994, pursuant to the Internet Standards Process in place
`
`at the time, the IAB published its quarterly “Internet Official Protocol Standards”
`
`as RFC 1720. RFC 1692 is listed within the section of RFC 1720 titled “New
`
`RFCs.” Ex. 1022 (RFC 1720).
`
`32. RFC 1692 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1692 is
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1692.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1692 if it
`
`was published by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above. I downloaded RFC 1692 from this URL and compared it to
`
`Exhibit 1010. They are the same document.
`
`B. RFC 791: Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification
`
`33. Request for Comments 791 (“RFC 791”) is titled “Internet Protocol
`
`DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification.” Ex. 1011 (RFC 791). RFC 791
`10
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 10
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`was prepared for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency by the
`
`Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. Id.
`
`34. RFC 791 was published in September of 1981 through a process
`
`within the Internet research community that was a precursor to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1011 (RFC 791). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`general distribution on the Internet.
`
`35. RFC 791 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 791.
`
`36. RFC 791 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its publication
`
`date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 791 is publicly
`
`available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt. This is
`
`where one would expect to find RFC 791 if it was published by the RFC Editor
`
`pursuant to standard publication process described above. I downloaded RFC 791
`
`from this URL and compared it to Exhibit 1011. They are the same document.
`
`37.
`
`I am personally familiar with RFC 791 based on my research and
`
`experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can confirm that it was widely
`
`publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 11
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`C. RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a
`TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and Methods
`
`38. Request for Comments 1001 (“RFC 1001”) is titled “Protocol
`
`Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and
`
`Methods.” Ex. 1018 (RFC 1001). RFC 1001 was developed under the auspices of
`
`the Internet Activities Board, especially the End-to-End Services Task Force. Id. I
`
`participated in the development of RFC 1001.
`
`39. RFC 1001 was published in March of 1987 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1018 (RFC 1001). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`40. RFC 1001 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1001. I am personally familiar with RFC 1001
`
`based on my research and experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can
`
`confirm that it was widely publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`41. RFC 1001 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1001 is
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1001.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1001 if it
`12
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 12
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`was published by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above. I downloaded RFC 1001 from this URL and compared it to
`
`Exhibit 1018. They are the same document.
`
`D.
`
`RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol
`
`42. Request for Comments 1459 (“RFC 1459”) is titled “Internet Relay
`
`Chat Protocol.” Ex. 1025 (RFC 1459). RFC 1459 was authored by Jarkko
`
`Oikarinen and Darren Reed. Id.
`
`43. RFC 1459 was published in May of 1993 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1025 (RFC 1459). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`44. RFC 1459 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1459. I am personally familiar with RFC 1459
`
`based on my research and experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can
`
`confirm that it was widely publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`45. RFC 1459 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1459 is
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 13
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfe-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1459.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1459 ifit
`
`waspublished by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above.
`
`I downloaded RFC 1459 from this URL and comparedit to
`
`Exhibit 1025. They are the same document.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`46.
`
`Ido hereby declare andstate, that all statements made herein of my
`
`own knowledgeare true andthat all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and furtherthat these statements were made withthe
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: October 18, 2017
`
`By:
`Printed Name: David H. Crocker
`
`VvemtMeNoles—
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 14
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
