`___________
`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