throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case No. IPR2019-00032
`Patent No. 8,155,012
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................... 1
`III.
`FEES (42.103) ................................................................................................. 9
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (42.104(A)) .................................................... 9
`A.
`35 U.S.C. §315(b).................................................................................. 9
`B.
`35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) ............................................................................. 9
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DISCRETIONARILY DENY
`INSTITUTION .............................................................................................. 11
`A.
`Section 314 .......................................................................................... 11
`B.
`Section 325(d) ..................................................................................... 13
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ............... 13
`A.
`§ 42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................... 13
`B.
`§ 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................................... 14
`C.
`§ 42.104(b)(4): Unpatentability........................................................... 17
`D.
`§ 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................................. 17
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... 17
`A.
`The ’012 Patent and the Well-Known Art of Phantom Powering ...... 17
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 19
`C.
`Ground 1: Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based On Hunter In
`View Of Bulan ..................................................................................... 20
`1.
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan .................................... 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`D.
`
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan ................................. 35
`2.
`Ground 2: Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based On Bloch In
`View Of IEEE 802.3 ........................................................................... 54
`1.
`Overview of Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 ............................. 55
`2.
`Application of Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 .......................... 65
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) .......................................... 12
`Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt.,
`IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) .......................................... 10
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01511 (Aug. 3, 2018) ........................................................................ 2, 3
`Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1242, 2018 WL 3893119 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) ................ 1, 10, 11
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00724, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015) ........................................... 55
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sipco, LLC,
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) ............................................ 10
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) ......................................... 55
`Graves v. Principi,
`294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 11
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 26
`QSC Audio Prods., LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00129, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015) ......................................... 55
`Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01714, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017) ......................................... 10
`Tristar Prods., Inc. v. Choon’s Design, LLC,
`IPR2015-01883, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016) ............................................. 10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC,
`IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018)............................................. 11
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 20, 21, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 14
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .............................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`35 U.S.C § 325 ................................................................................................... 11, 13
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §1.68 ........................................................................................................ 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`iv
`
`

`

`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
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Exhibit No.
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`
`Description
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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.
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 to Fisher
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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)
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-Based
`Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Exhibit No.
`1044
`1045
`1046
`
`Description
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake
`
`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.
`• 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.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`• 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.
`• 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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`• 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.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) 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, and 147 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 8,155,012 (“’012
`
`patent”) (Ex.1003).
`
`This petition sets forth identical grounds, including the same prior-art
`
`combinations, invalidity arguments, and evidence, as in the petition Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Cisco”) filed on August 3, 2018, in IPR2018-01508.1 If the Board institutes
`
`an IPR in IPR2018-01508, Petitioner will promptly seek consolidation of this
`
`proceeding with IPR2018-01508 to help conserve the Board’s and parties’ resources.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B)
`42.8(b)(1): HPE is the real party-in-interest. However, in the recent RPX
`
`decision,2 a Federal Circuit panel interpreted the term “real party-in-interest” in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b), and that decision is subject to a pending petition for en banc review.3
`
`Out of an abundance of caution and solely to satisfy the procedural requirement set
`
`1 The only material differences between this petition and Cisco’s petition pertain
`to procedural matters, including changes to the real party-in-interest section. See
`infra Section IV. These changes account for factual differences between HPE
`and Cisco regarding the real party-in-interest requirement, as well as the Federal
`Circuit’s recently issued Click-to-Call decision.
`2 Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`3 Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`Corp., Nos. 2017-1698, -1699, -1701 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) for this proceeding, Petitioner identifies HP Inc. and
`
`Aruba Networks, Inc. as real parties-in-interest. Petitioner reserves its right to
`
`change its real party-in-interest identification subject to further proceedings in the
`
`RPX appeal and in the present IPR.
`
`42.8(b)(2): The ’012 patent is the subject of Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys.,
`
`Inc., IPR2018-01508, filed on August 3, 2018 and pending institution.
`
`The ’012 patent is also 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 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 was held on August 1, 2018). The Board has
`
`discretion to stay any concurrent proceeding involving the same patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(a).
`
`2
`
`

`

`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 IPR2016-013894, 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 prior-art combination as in Ground 1 of this Petition), and
`
`alternatively, over Bloch, IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995 (the same prior-
`
`art combination as in 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. 18-
`
`1499), which consolidated the appeal with three other FWDs for related patents (lead
`
`case Dkt. 18-1389).
`
`Cisco also filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent
`
`8,902,760, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 09/370,430, in Cisco
`
`Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01511 (Aug. 3, 2018).
`
`Below is a list of proceedings involving the ’012 patent. Ex.1015.
`
`Case Name
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar
`Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Ruckus
`Wireless Inc.
`Re-examination of ’012
`Patent
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Fanvil
`Tech. Co., Ltd.
`
`Case Number
`IPR2018-01508
`
`Jurisdiction
`PTAB
`
`18-1984
`
`90/013,740
`
`6-18-cv-00093
`
`CAFC
`
`PTAB
`
`TXED
`
`Filed
`August 3,
`2018
`May 17,
`2018
`May 18,
`2016
`March 1,
`2018
`
`4 IPR2017-00790 was joined with IPR2016-01389.
`
`3
`
`

`

`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
`
`4
`
`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
`Tech. Corp. 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
`
`5
`
`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 Sys., Inc. et al v.
`NETGEAR, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., 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
`
`6
`
`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 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
`
`Case Number
`6-15-cv-00580
`
`Jurisdiction
`TXED
`
`6-15-cv-00582
`
`6-15-cv-00583
`
`6-15-cv-00163
`
`6-15-cv-00164
`
`2-14-cv-10290
`
`2-14-cv-10292
`
`6-13-cv-00879
`
`6-13-cv-00880
`
`6-13-cv-00881
`
`6-13-cv-00882
`
`6-13-cv-00883
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`42.8(b)(3)-(4): Counsel/Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Hersh H. Mehta
`Reg. No. 62,336
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brent A. Hawkins
`Reg. No. 44,146
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`hersh.mehta@morganlewis.com
`HPE-Chrimar-IPR@morganlewis.com
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`T: 415.442.1000
`F: 415.442.1001
`brent.hawkins@morganlewis.com
`
`Maria E. Doukas
`Reg. No. 67,084
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`Karon N. Fowler
`(pro hac vice application to be
`submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: 650.843.4000
`F: 650.843.4001
`karon.fowler@morganlewis.com
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondences to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner consents to e-mail service
`
`to the e-mail addresses identified in the table above.
`
`III. FEES (42.103)
`HPE authorizes the Office to charge the fee for this Petition, and any
`
`additional fees due, to Deposit Account 50-0310.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (42.104(A))
`HPE certifies that: (i) the ’012 patent is available for IPR; and (ii) HPE is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(b)
`A.
`HPE files this petition within one year of March 16, 2018, the date HPE was
`
`served with a counterclaim asserting infringement of the ’012 patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1)
`B.
`In January 2014, Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HPCo”) 5 filed a declaratory
`
`judgment (“DJ”) action against ChriMar including, among other counts, a count of
`
`invalidity of the ’012 patent’s claims. In July 2015, HPCo and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`(“Aruba”) filed a separate DJ action against ChriMar including, among other counts,
`
`a count of invalidity of the ’012 patent’s claims. On February 17, 2018, both DJ
`
`5 On November 1, 2015, pursuant to a separation agreement, HPCo changed its
`name to HP Inc. and spun-off HPE as a separate company.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Neither action bars the Board
`
`from instituting an IPR under § 315(a)(1) or otherwise.6
`
`The Board has consistently and correctly held that §315(a)(1) is not triggered
`
`when a DJ action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the IPR petition
`
`is filed. E.g., Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01714,
`
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017); Tristar Prods., Inc. v. Choon’s Design, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01883, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sipco, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) (“[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”). Because the DJ actions here were
`
`voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, § 315(a)(1) has not been triggered.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call does not require a contrary
`
`result. See Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2015-1242, 2018 WL
`
`6 In 2017, HPE, HP Inc., and Aruba filed a separate DJ action against ChriMar.
`That DJ action includes no counts of invalidity and, thus, does not implicate
`§315(a)(1). The DJ plaintiffs raised invalidity of the Challenged Claims as an
`affirmative defense to ChriMar’s counterclaim of infringement, but this
`affirmative defense does not trigger estoppel. See Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis
`Innovation Lmt., IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) (raising
`the affirmative defense of invalidity cannot be considered a filing of a civil action
`under §315(a)(1)).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`3893119, at *4 n.3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc n.3). In Click-to-Call, the
`
`Federal Circuit addressed the meaning of the language “served with a complaint” in
`
`§315(b) and its statutory purpose of providing notice, and held that service of a
`
`complaint cannot be nullified. Id. at *5-*10. Unlike §315(b), which is predicated
`
`on being “served with a complaint,” §315(a) at issue here is predicated on “fil[ing]
`
`a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” The Board has
`
`repeatedly and correctly recognized—consistent with well-established Federal
`
`Circuit law—that “[t]he dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties
`
`as though the action had never been brought.” Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); see Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2367, 559
`
`(3d ed. 2008) (identifying that all nine Circuits addressing this issue reached the
`
`same conclusion). Thus, Click-to-Call does not apply to §315(a)(1), and as a result,
`
`the voluntarily dismissed DJ actions do not bar this petition’s institution.
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DISCRETIONARILY DENY
`INSTITUTION
`A.
`Section 314
`The Board should not discretionarily deny this petition under §314. As
`
`discussed below, the General Plastic factors weigh heavily against denial.
`
`Factor 1: Factor 1 weighs heavily against denial because this is the only
`
`petition HPE has filed against the ’012 patent. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified
`
`Measurement, LLC, IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018) (“The
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`fact that a different petitioner is involved in this proceeding weighs especially
`
`heavily against a discretionary denial.”).
`
`Factors 2-5: Factors 2-5 are irrelevant here because HPE did not file a prior
`
`petition against the ’012 patent. See Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 at 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) (“Once resolution of factor
`
`1 indicates that Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the same patent,
`
`factors 2-5 bear little relevance unless there is evidence in the record of extenuating
`
`circumstances”). No extenuating circumstances exist here.
`
`Factor 6: Factor 6 weighs against denial. This petition accounts for the
`
`Board’s resources in light of the Juniper IPR on the ’012 patent. In the Juniper IPR,
`
`the Board applied the same prior-art combinations asserted in this petition to 11 of
`
`the ’012 patent’s 148 total claims. Thus, by applying the same prior art to 21
`
`different claims here, HPE’s petition helps conserve the Board’s resources.
`
`This petition further accounts for the Board’s resources in light of Cisco’s
`
`recent petition (IPR2018-01508). Both petitions present the same grounds and
`
`evidence and challenge the same claims. As a result, the Board can adjudicate the
`
`common grounds in the two petitions without expending significantly more
`
`resources. As discussed above, HPE will promptly seek consolidation with the Cisco
`
`proceeding should the Board institute an IPR in that proceeding.
`
`Additionally, this petition accounts for the Board’s resources in light of the ex
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`parte reexamination of the ’012 patent (90/013,740). In that reexaminatio

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket