IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Filed: September 26, 2008
`
`Issued: April 10, 2012
`
`Inventor(s): John F. Austermann, III
`and Marshall B. Cummings
`
`Assignee: ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: System and Method for Adapting
`a Piece of Terminal Equipment
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................... 1
`III.
`FEES (42.103) ................................................................................................. 7
`IV. STANDING (42.104(A)) ................................................................................. 7
`V.
`FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF INSTITUTION
`UNDER §§314 AND 325 ................................................................................ 9
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ............... 11
`A.
`42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................ 11
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ................................... 12
`C.
`42.104(b)(4): Unpatentability .............................................................. 15
`D.
`42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ..................................................... 15
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... 15
`A.
`The ’012 Patent and the Well-Known Art of Phantom Powering ...... 15
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 17
`C.
`Ground 1: Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based On Hunter In
`View Of Bulan ..................................................................................... 17
`D. Ground 2: Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based On Bloch In
`View Of IEEE 802.3 ........................................................................... 53
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 75
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt.,
`IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) ............................................ 8
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc.,
`2:15-cv-10290, Dkt. 24 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2018) ............................................ 8
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc.,
`2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 35 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2018) ............................................ 8
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00724, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015) .................................... 55
`Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC,
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) .............................................. 8
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) .................................. 54
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 24
`QSC Audio Prods., LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00129, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015) .................................. 55
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 18, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C § 325(d) ................................................................................................ 9, 11
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §1.68 ........................................................................................................ 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 11, 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) ........................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Description
`Declaration of George Zimmerman Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,155,012
`Curriculum Vitae of George Zimmerman
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper
`No. 69 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01391, Paper
`No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01397 Paper
`No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01399 Paper
`No. 73 (P.T.A.B. April 26, 2018)
`Oral hearing transcript, August 31, 2017, Juniper Networks, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, 1391, 1397, 1399.
`Opinion, ChriMar Holding Company, LLC, ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`dba CMA Technologies, Inc. v. ALE USA Inc., fka Alcatel-Lucent
`Enterprise USA, Inc., 17-1848, Dkt. No. 55 (May 8, 2018)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, ChriMar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`Alcatel-Lucent S.A. et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas, Dkt. No. 122, March 28, 2016
`Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Jury Demand and
`Counterclaim to First Amended Complaint, Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 22 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16,
`2018)
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Exhibit No.
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`Description
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`IEEE 802.3-1985
`IEEE 802.3i-1990
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993
`IEEE Standards Association News & Events: Press Releases “IEEE
`802.3 Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of Innovation and
`Global Market Growth”
`Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 to Fisher
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 to De Nicolo
`U.S. Patent No. 6,140,911 to Fisher
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,865,152 to Luhmann
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5 to Peguiron, Certified Copy of an
`English Translation Version of CH 643 095 A5, and Declaration of
`John E. Dawson
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`September 18, 2017
`Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action for U.S. Patent No.
`8,155,012, June 14, 2017
`Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwidth: A Serious Guide to High-
`Speed Networking”, Que Corporation (1997)
`Michael Nootbar, “Why Power Over Signal Pairs?” (March 2000)
`Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-Based
`Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`v
`
`

`

`Description
`Robert Muir, “DTE power over MDI - DTE Discovery Process
`Proposal” (November 1999)
`Definitions of “10Base-T” and “100Base-T”, Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, Microsoft Press 5th ed. 2002
`Standard Microsystems Corp. Data Catalog (1982)
`http://www.bitsavers.org/components/standardMicrosystems/_dataB
`ooks/1982_StandardMicrosystems.pdf
`UART Datasheet (2008)
`https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/SCC2691.pdf
`What is a DC-DC converter?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-converters/what-is-
`dc-dc-converter
`What is the Difference Between Linear and Switching Regulators?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-converters/linear-
`vs-switching-regulators
`Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Exhibit No.
`1040
`
`
`
`Listing of Challenged Claims
`• 1[a]: A method for adapting a piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment, the
`piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment having an Ethernet connector
`• 1[b]: selecting contacts of the Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of
`contacts, the selected contacts comprising at least one of the plurality of
`contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the plurality of
`contacts of the Ethernet connector; coupling at least one path across the selected
`contacts of the Ethernet connector;
`• 1[c]: associating distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data
`terminal equipment to impedance within the at least one path.
`• 5: The method according to claim 1 wherein the impedance within the at least
`one path is part of a detection protocol.
`• 6: The method according to claim 1 wherein the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment is a piece of BaseT Ethernet data terminal equipment.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`• 10: The method according to claim 1 wherein the coupling at least one path
`across the selected contacts comprises coupling at least one path having at least
`one resistor.
`• 13: The method according to claim 1 wherein the coupling at least one path
`across the selected contacts comprises coupling at least one path having a
`controller across the selected contacts.
`• 16: The method according to claim 1 wherein the piece of Ethernet data
`terminal equipment is a piece of BaseT Ethernet data terminal equipment.
`• 22: The method according to claim 1 wherein the impedance within the at least
`one path is a function of voltage across the selected contacts.
`• 25: The method according to claim 1 wherein the selected contacts are the same
`contacts used for normal network communication.
`• 26: The method according to claim 25 wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication.
`• 29: The method according to any one of claims 1 through 24 and claim 27
`wherein the selected contacts are at least some of the same contacts used for
`normal network communication.
`• 30: The method according to claim 29 wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication.
`• 67[a]: A method for adapting a piece of terminal equipment, the piece of
`terminal equipment having an Ethernet connector
`• 67[b]: coupling at least one path across specific contacts of the Ethernet
`connector
`• 67[c]: the at least one path permits use of the specific contacts for Ethernet
`communication
`• 67[d]: the Ethernet connector comprising the contact 1 through contact 8
`• 67[e]: the specific contacts of the Ethernet connector comprising at least one of
`the contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the contacts of
`the Ethernet connector
`• 67[f]: arranging impedance within the at least one path to distinguish the piece
`of terminal equipment.
`• 73: The method according to claim 67 wherein the arranging the impedance
`within the at least one path comprises arranging impedance within the at least
`one path to be part of a detection protocol.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`• 80: The method according to claim 67 wherein the arranging impedance within
`the at least one path comprises arranging impedance within the at least one path
`to be a function of voltage across the specific contacts.
`• 88: The method according to claim 67 wherein the coupling at least one path
`across the specific contacts comprises coupling a controller across the specific
`contacts.
`• 106: The method according to any one of claims 67 through 104 wherein the
`piece of terminal equipment is a piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment.
`• 108[a]: An adapted piece of terminal equipment having an Ethernet connector
`• 108[b]: at least one path coupled across specific contacts of the Ethernet
`connector
`• 108[c]: the at least one path permits use of the specific contacts for Ethernet
`communication
`• 108[d]: the Ethernet connector comprising the contact 1 through contact 8
`• 108[e]: the specific contacts of the Ethernet connector comprising at least one
`of the contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the contacts
`of the Ethernet connector
`• 108[f]: impedance within the at least one path arranged to distinguish the piece
`of terminal equipment.
`• 114: The method according to claim 108 wherein the impedance within the at
`least one path is arranged to be part of a detection protocol.
`• 121: The method according to claim 108 wherein the impedance within the at
`least one path is arranged to be a function of voltage across the specific
`contacts.
`• 129: The method according to claim 108 wherein a controller is coupled across
`the specific contacts.
`• 147: The piece of terminal equipment according to any one of claims 108
`through 145 wherein the piece of terminal equipment is a piece of Ethernet data
`terminal equipment.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”), requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 67, 73, 80, 88, 106, 108, 114, 121, 129, 147
`
`(the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 (“’012 patent”) (Ex.1003).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B)
`42.8(b)(1): Cisco is the real party-in-interest.
`
`42.8(b)(2): The ’012 patent is the subject of two civil actions in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan, Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770-AC-RSW
`
`(E.D. Mich.) and Hewlett-Packard Enter. Co. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2-17-cv-13784-
`
`AC-RSW (E.D. Mich.) (consolidated with 2:17-cv-13770). Both are declaratory
`
`judgment actions alleging non-infringement of the ’012 patent and related ChriMar
`
`patents in the same family.
`
`On June 14, 2017, the USPTO issued an Advisory Action advising ChriMar
`
`that all 148 claims of the ’012 patent stand rejected in an ex parte reexamination
`
`(U.S. Re-examination No. 90/013,740). Ex.1036, p.2 (“Claims 1-148 stand finally
`
`rejected.”). The examiner relied on different prior art than presented in this petition
`
`in rejecting claims 1-148. The claim rejections are on appeal awaiting the Board of
`
`Appeals’ final decision (a hearing has been set for August 1, 2018). The Board has
`
`discretion to stay any concurrent proceeding involving the same patent. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(a).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`On January 23, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a
`
`Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in IPR2016-013891, finding that claims 31, 35, 36,
`
`40, 43, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, and 65 of the ’012 patent were obvious over Hunter and
`
`Bulan (the same ground as Ground 1 of this Petition), and alternatively, over Bloch,
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995 (the same ground as Ground 2 of this
`
`Petition). Ex.1007, pp.68, 106. Patent Owner has appealed the FWD to the U.S.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dkt. No. 18-1499), which consolidated the
`
`appeal with three other FWDs for related patents (lead case Dkt. No. 18-1389).
`
`ChriMar’s consolidated brief is due August 27, 2018. Petitioner’s brief is due
`
`October 8, 2018.
`
`Petitioner is also filing requests for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,902,760, 9,049,019 and 9,812,825 which are all continuations of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/370,430.
`
`Below is a list of prior proceedings involving the ’012 patent. Ex.1015.
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Ruckus
`Wireless Inc.
`Re-examination of ’012
`Patent
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Fanvil
`Tech. Co., Ltd.
`
`Case Number
`18-1984
`
`Jurisdiction
`CAFC
`
`90/013,740
`
`6-18-cv-00093
`
`PTAB
`
`TXED
`
`Filed
`May 17,
`2018
`May 18,
`2016
`March 1,
`2018
`
`
`1 IPR2017-00790 has been joined with IPR2016-01389.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Case Name
`Hewlett-Packard Enter. Co.
`v. ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar
`Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Watchnet Inc.
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`D-Link Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar
`Sys., Inc.
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Dell Inc. v. ChriMar Sys.,
`Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Fortinet, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`NETGEAR
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Juniper
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Ruckus
`Wireless Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc v. TP-Link
`USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Transition Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Huawei
`Techs. USA Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`TRENDware Int’l, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`StarTech.com USA, LLP
`
`Case Number
`2-17-cv-13784
`
`Jurisdiction
`MIED
`
`MIED
`
`TXED
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`PTAB
`
`CAND
`
`CAND
`
`CAND
`
`CAND
`
`MIED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`2-17-cv-13770
`
`6-17-cv-00657
`
`IPR2017-00790
`
`IPR2016-01425
`
`IPR2016-01389
`
`IPR2016-00983
`
`3-16-cv-00897
`
`3-16-cv-00624
`
`3-16-cv-00558
`
`3-16-cv-00186
`
`2-15-cv-12569
`
`6-15-cv-00641
`
`6-15-cv-00642
`
`6-15-cv-00643
`
`6-15-cv-00644
`
`6-15-cv-00645
`
`3
`
`Filed
`November
`21, 2017
`November
`20, 2017
`November
`17, 2017
`January 27.
`2017
`July 13,
`2016
`July 8,
`2016
`April 29,
`2016
`February
`25, 2016
`February 5,
`2016
`February 2,
`2016
`January 12.
`2016
`July 20,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Tycon
`Sys. Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. VP
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`WatchGuard Techs., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Belden
`Inc. et al
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Belkin
`Int’l, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Fortinet, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Allied
`Telesis, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. D-Link
`Sys.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Accton
`Technology Corporation USA
`et al
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ADTRAN, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Advantech Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Allworx
`Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Alpha
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Black
`Box Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ASUSTek Comput. Int’l, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. ASUS
`Comput. Int’l
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Buffalo
`Americas, Inc.
`
`Case Number
`6-15-cv-00646
`
`Jurisdiction
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`6-15-cv-00647
`
`6-15-cv-00648
`
`6-15-cv-00649
`
`6-15-cv-00650
`
`6-15-cv-00651
`
`6-15-cv-00652
`
`6-15-cv-00653
`
`6-15-cv-00616
`
`6-15-cv-00618
`
`6-15-cv-00619
`
`6-15-cv-00620
`
`6-15-cv-00621
`
`6-15-cv-00622
`
`6-15-cv-00623
`
`6-15-cv-00624
`
`6-15-cv-00625
`
`4
`
`Filed
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 2,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Costar
`Techs., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Eagle
`Eye Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Edimax
`Comput. Co.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Juniper
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Korenix
`USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Leviton
`Mfg. Co., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Moxa
`Americas Inc.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al v.
`NETGEAR, Inc.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. et al v.
`NetMedia Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Phihong
`USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Rockwell Automation, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Ruckus
`Wireless Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Dell
`Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`EnGenius Techs, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Advanced Network Devices,
`Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Biamp
`Sys. Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ArrowSpan, Inc.
`
`Case Number
`6-15-cv-00626
`
`Jurisdiction
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`6-15-cv-00627
`
`6-15-cv-00628
`
`6-15-cv-00630
`
`6-15-cv-00631
`
`6-15-cv-00632
`
`6-15-cv-00633
`
`6-15-cv-00634
`
`6-15-cv-00635
`
`6-15-cv-00636
`
`6-15-cv-00637
`
`6-15-cv-00638
`
`6-15-cv-00639
`
`6-15-cv-00640
`
`6-15-cv-00577
`
`6-15-cv-00578
`
`6-15-cv-00579
`
`5
`
`Filed
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`July 1,
`2015
`June 22,
`2015
`
`June 22,
`2015
`June 22,
`2015
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`Case Number
`6-15-cv-00580
`
`6-15-cv-00582
`
`6-15-cv-00583
`
`6-15-cv-00163
`
`6-15-cv-00164
`
`2-14-cv-10290
`
`2-14-cv-10292
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Hawk-I
`Sec. Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. IPitomy
`Commc’n, LLC
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`KeyScan, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent S.A. et al
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. AMX,
`LLC
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar
`Sys., Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Aastra
`Techs. Ltd.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. AMX,
`LLC
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Grandstream Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Samsung Elect. Co., Ltd. et al
`42.8(b)(3)-(4): Counsel/Service Information
`
`6-13-cv-00879
`
`6-13-cv-00880
`
`6-13-cv-00881
`
`6-13-cv-00882
`
`6-13-cv-00883
`
`Jurisdiction
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`MIED
`
`MIED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`TXED
`
`Filed
`June 22,
`2015
`June 22,
`2015
`June 22,
`2015
`March 6,
`2015
`March 6,
`2015
`January 22,
`2014
`January 22,
`2014
`November
`8, 2013
`November
`8, 2013
`November
`8, 2013
`November
`8, 2013
`November
`8, 2013
`
`Lead Counsel
`James E. Marina (Reg. No. 41,969)
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Robert Kang (Reg. No. 59,609)
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Fax: (415) 439-1500
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`
`A Power of Attorney is attached. (42.10(b).) Cisco consents to service by
`
`email at: Cisco-ChriMar-IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. FEES (42.103)
`Cisco authorizes the Office to charge the fee for this Petition, and any
`
`additional fees due, to Deposit Account No. 506092. Cisco requests review of of
`
`twenty-one claims.
`
`IV. STANDING (42.104(A))
`Cisco certifies that the ’012 patent is available for IPR and that Cisco is not
`
`barred/estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`presented here. Cisco certifies:
`
`(1) Cisco is not the owner of the ’012 patent.
`
`(2) Neither Cisco nor any real party-in-interest has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of the Challenged Claims. Cisco previously filed a
`
`declaratory judgment action in March 2015 against ChriMar including a claim of
`
`invalidity of the Challenged Claims of the ’012 patent, but that action does not estop
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Cisco from filing this petition, because Cisco voluntarily dismissed the March 2015
`
`action. See Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:15-cv-10290, Dkt. 24 (E.D. Mich.
`
`Feb. 17, 2018); Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC, IPR2015-01579, Paper 7, *2-3
`
`(“[f]ederal courts treat a civil action that is dismissed without prejudice as
`
`‘something that de jure never existed,’ ‘leav[ing] the parties as though the action had
`
`never been brought” and concluding a “previously filed DJ action [including a claim
`
`of invalidity] does not bar Petitioner from filing the Petition”).
`
`Cisco’s later-filed (2017) action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement raises invalidity of the Challenged Claims as an affirmative defense to
`
`ChriMar’s counterclaim of infringement. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-
`
`cv-13770, Dkt. 35, p.21 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2018), and does not trigger estoppel.
`
`Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt., IPR2012-00022, Paper 20, *6 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Feb. 12, 2013) (holding that raising the affirmative defense of invalidity cannot be
`
`considered a filing of a civil action under Section 315(a)(1)).
`
`(3) Cisco files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with a
`
`counterclaim asserting infringement of the ’012 patent on March 16, 2018.
`
`(4) The estoppel provisions (§315(e)(1)) do not prohibit this IPR.
`
`(5) Cisco files this Petition after the ’012 patent was granted.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`V.
`
`FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF INSTITUTION UNDER
`§§314 AND 325
`This is the first and only petition Cisco has filed for the ’012 patent. The
`
`Challenged Claims have not previously been subject to an IPR. These factors
`
`alone should suffice to alleviate any concern that the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution under 314(a) to prevent inequities to ChriMar and
`
`ensure efficiency of the IPR process. However, Petitioner addresses the following
`
`additional General Plastics factors for completeness.
`
`In the interests of judicial economy, on 2/17/18 Cisco moved to stay its non-
`
`infringement action pending completion of ChriMar’s appeal of the FWD in
`
`IPR2016-01398 (“Juniper IPR”). On 3/16/18, ChriMar opposed Cisco’s motion,
`
`and Cisco promptly prepared this petition. Because ChriMar has not yet identified
`
`any allegedly infringed claims of the ’012 patent in the Michigan action, Cisco
`
`brings the instant petition seeking IPR of the Challenged Claims that were not
`
`previously the subject of IPRs. These Challenged Claims bear strong resemblance
`
`to those previously rejected, and are similarly invalid.
`
`In the Juniper IPR, claims 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60 and 65 were
`
`found to be invalid under the same prior art being asserted in the instant petition.
`
`In an ex parte reexamination (90/013,740), the USPTO issued an Advisory
`
`Action stating all 148 claims of the ’012 patent stand rejected. Ex.1036, p.2. The
`
`claim rejections are on appeal awaiting the Board of Appeals’ final decision (a
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`hearing has been set for August 1, 2018). ChriMar never provided a copy of the prior
`
`art from the Juniper IPR, however, to the examiner during the reexamination.
`
`The instant petition is the first opportunity for the Board to review the
`
`previously unchallenged claims in view of the prior art found to invalidate other
`
`claims of the ’012 patent.2 Moreover, the instant petition is an efficient use of the
`
`Board’s resources as the petition asks the Board to apply the same art and the same
`
`arguments from the Juniper IPR to other claims of the ’012 patent. Petitioner is not
`
`requesting reconsideration of the Board’s previous analysis, but instead applies the
`
`same analysis to claims the Board has not previously considered.
`
`Moreover, under §42.122(a), the Board has the power to stay any concurrent
`
`proceeding involving the same patent. It may be beneficial to stay the current
`
`reexamination appeal pending resolution of the instant petition, to allow the Board
`
`hearing the appeal to have the benefit of the analysis of the prior art and arguments
`
`presented in the instant petition, and to conserve resources and avoid potentially
`
`inconsistent analysis between the two boards.
`
`
`2 The ’012 patent was also subject to IPR2016-00983 and IPR2016-01425 based
`
`on different prior art and claims.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`In sum, General Plastics factors 1, 5, 6, 7 support allowing Cisco the
`
`opportunity to independently challenge the validity of the Challenged Claims. The
`
`remaining three factors are irrelevant because Cisco is not filing a second petition.
`
`With respect to § 325(d), the instant petition requests the Board extend its
`
`reasoning from the Juniper IPR to find that the Challenged Claims are also invalid,
`
`and thus does not present previously rejected prior art or arguments .
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2)
`Cisco requests IPR and cancellation of the Challenged Claims in view of the
`
`prior art references below.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`Proposed Rejection
`Challenged Claims are obvious in view of the combination of
`WO 96/23377 (“Hunter,” Ex.1033) and U.S. Patent No.
`5,089,927 (“Bulan,” Ex.1027) under §103.
`Challenged Claims are obvious in view of the combination of
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (“Bloch,” Ex.1025) and IEEE
`International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993 (“IEEE-1993,”
`Ex.1022), IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 (“IEEE-1995,” Ex.1021)
`under §103.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`B.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`The ’012 patent’s earliest priority date is April 10, 1998, and its term was
`
`extended by 331 days. The ’012 patent may expire during the pendency of this
`
`proceeding (if the Board extends any deadlines). As such Cisco addresses both the
`
`BRI and Phillips construction for its proposed terms.
`
`“wherein the impedance within the at least one path is part of a detection
`
`protocol” (claims 5, 73, 114) Under both the BRI and Phillips standards (under
`
`ChriMar’s district court interpretation), this term “represents an intended use of the
`
`impedance such that it must be capable of being part of a scheme involving signals,
`
`current, and/or voltage, or similar inputs, for detecting the impedance or a change in
`
`impedance.” Under BRI, the proper construction of this term is not limited to a
`
`mutually agreed upon method of communication, as specification describes an
`
`embodiment in which the central module monitors the existence of connections with
`
`networking equipment simply by detecting interruptions in the DC current flow
`
`between the central module and those other pieces of network equipment. Ex.1003,
`
`8:6-25. In fact, ChriMar stated that even measuring the resistance of a passive device
`
`(which cannot “mutually agree” on a method of communication) satisfies this term.
`
`Ex.1011, 94:4-10. This construction is consistent with ChriMar’s apparent
`
`interpretation of the term under the Phillips standard. Ex.1007, pp.22, 12-23; Ex.
`
`1013, p. 9; Zimmerman (Ex.1001) ¶¶45-46.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`
`“impedance within the at least one path arranged to distinguish the piece
`
`of terminal equipment” (claim 108): Both the BRI and Phillips construction
`
`(under ChriMar’s district court interpretation) of this term is “impedance connected
`
`to, or within, the at least one path capable of distinguishing the piece of terminal
`
`equipm