`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`Issued: January 12, 2010
`
`Named Inventors:
`Yigal Mordechai Edery, Nimrod Itzhak Vered, David R. Kroll,
`and Shlomo Touboul
`
`Title: Malicious Mobile Code Run-time Monitoring System and Methods
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,647,633
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page(s)
`STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .................... 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)) ................................................................................. 2
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .............................. 3
`
`Certification of Word Count ........................................................ 3
`
`Fees ............................................................................................... 3
`
`G. Grounds for Standing ................................................................... 3
`
`H.
`
`Identification of Challenge ........................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ON THE ‘633 PATENT ............... 5
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 6
`
`IV. PRIORITY .............................................................................................. 7
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`“Executable Code” (All Challenged Claims) .............................. 8
`
`B. Mobile Protection Code (All Challenged Claims) ....................... 9
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“Downloadable-information” (All Challenged Claims) ............ 10
`
`“Determining…” (Claims 1 and 8) ............................................ 11
`
`“A Computer Program Product … The Method
`Comprising” (Claims 14 and 19) ............................................... 11
`
`F.
`
`“Information Re-communicator” (Claims 14 and 19) ............... 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`“Information Monitor” (Claim 8) .............................................. 13
`
`G.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Jensen ......................................................................................... 13
`
`Sonnenberg ................................................................................. 14
`
`Hanson ........................................................................................ 15
`
`Lemay ......................................................................................... 16
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 8, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER SONENBERG IN VIEW OF JENSEN .................................... 17
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Preamble: “A computer processor-based method,
`comprising:” ............................................................................... 18
`
`Element 1(a): receiving, by a computer, downloadable-
`information; ................................................................................ 19
`
`Element 1(b): determining, by the computer, whether the
`downloadable-information includes executable code; and ........ 20
`
`Element 1(c): based upon the determination, transmitting
`from the computer mobile protection code to at least one
`information-destination of the downloadable-
`information, if the downloadable-information is
`determined to include executable code. ..................................... 25
`
`a. Mobile Protection Code ............................................................. 25
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`transmitting from the computer … to at least one
`information-destination of the downloadable-information ........ 28
`
`If the downloadable-information is determined to include
`executable code .......................................................................... 29
`
`Based upon the Determination ................................................... 30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`D.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................... 32
`
`Preamble: A computer processor-based system for
`computer security, the system comprising ................................. 32
`
`8(a): an information monitor for receiving downloadable-
`information by a computer; ........................................................ 32
`
`8(b): a content inspection engine communicatively
`coupled to the information monitor for determining, by
`the computer, whether the downloadable-information
`includes executable code; and .................................................... 33
`
`8(c): a protection agent engine communicatively coupled
`to the content inspection engine for causing mobile
`protection code (“MPC”) to be communicated by the
`computer to at least one information-destination of the
`downloadable-information, if the downloadable-
`information is determined to include executable code. ............. 34
`
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 35
`
`Preamble: A computer program product, comprising a
`computer usable medium having a computer readable
`program code therein, the computer readable program
`code adapted to be executed for computer security, the
`method comprising: .................................................................... 35
`
`14(a): providing a system, wherein the system comprises
`distinct software modules, and wherein the distinct
`software modules comprise an information re-
`communicator and a mobile code executor; .............................. 35
`
`14(b): receiving, at the information re-communicator,
`downloadable-information including executable code;
`and .............................................................................................. 37
`
`14(c): causing mobile protection code to be executed by
`the mobile code executor at a downloadable-information
`destination such that one or more operations of the
`executable code at the destination, if attempted, will be
`processed by the mobile protection code. .................................. 37
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................... 37
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................... 38
`
`The Combination Yields Predictable Results ............................ 43
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 AND 8 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`HANSON IN VIEW OF LEMAY ....................................................... 45
`
`A. Overview of the Combination .................................................... 45
`
`B.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`C.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`D.
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 46
`
`Preamble ..................................................................................... 46
`
`Element 1(a) ............................................................................... 47
`
`Element 1(b) ............................................................................... 49
`
`Element 1(c) ............................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................... 55
`
`Preamble ..................................................................................... 55
`
`Element 8(a) ............................................................................... 55
`
`Element 8(b) ............................................................................... 56
`
`Element 8(c) ............................................................................... 56
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................... 56
`
`IX. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 8, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER HANSON .................................................................................. 60
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 1 and 8 ............................................................................ 60
`
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 61
`
`Preamble ..................................................................................... 61
`
`Element 14(a) ............................................................................. 61
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Element 14(b) ............................................................................. 63
`
`Element 14(c) ............................................................................. 63
`
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................... 63
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`C.
`
`X.
`
`THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-
`OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................... 63
`
`XI.
`
`§ 325(d) DOES NOT APPLY .............................................................. 66
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`This petition includes new prior art and arguments. .................. 68
`
`This petition does not involve substantially the same
`prior art or arguments. ................................................................ 69
`
`Juniper is a new petitioner relying largely on non-
`cumulative art. ............................................................................ 72
`
`XII. § 314(a) DOES NOT APPLY .............................................................. 73
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`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) ........................................................73
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01587, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ...................................................66, 72
`
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357 et al., Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................73
`
`Unified Patent Inc. v. John L. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) .......................................................72
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................................4, 33, 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................................73
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................................66, 72
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (‘633 Patent)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`File History for the ‘633 Patent
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Seth Nielson
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Seth Nielson (“Nielson Dec.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,076,650 (“Sonnenberg”)
`
`Christian Jensen & Daniel Hagimot, “Protection Wrappers: A Simple
`and Portable Sandbox for Un-trusted Applications,” Proceedings on the
`8th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop on Support for Composing
`Distributed Applications (“Jensen”)
`
`Authenticating Declaration for Jensen (Ex. 1006)
`
`International Application No. PCT/US/01117 (“Hanson”)
`
`Laura Lemay et al., Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days, Sams.net
`Publishing (1996) (“Lemay”)
`
`Select Exerts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,016
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 176,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 187,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018)
`
`Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic in Support of Finjan’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 142-1, Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`Case No. 4:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015)
`
`Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic in Support of Finjan’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 65-1, No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.
`June 16, 2014)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`1015
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 142,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D.
`Cal. May 1, 2015)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 145,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D.
`Cal. May 22, 2015)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. No. 67,
`Finjan, Inc. v Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF
`(N.D. Cal. July 7, 2014)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,275
`
`1020 Martin Salois & Robert Charpentier, “Dynamic Detection of Malicious
`Code in COTS Software,” Defence Research Establishment Valcartier
`(April 2000)
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Dmitry Gryaznov, “Scanners of The Year 2000: Heuristics,” Virus
`Bulletin Conference, pp.225-234 (Sept. 1995), including authenticating
`declaration of Martijn Grooten
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,974,549 (“Golan”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,119,165
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims And
`Infringement Contentions And Document Production Pursuant to Patent
`Local Rules 3-1 And 3-2, Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case
`No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2018)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher in Support of Plaintiff Finjan,
`Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s Motion for
`Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 129-1, Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks,
`Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)
`
`1026
`
`Order On Discovery Dispute, Dkt. No. 207, Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper
`Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2018)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`1027
`Jeffrey O. Kephart et al., “An immune System for Cyberspace,” IEEE
`International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Oct. 12-
`15, 1997)
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Finjan Press Release, available at:
`https://www.finjan.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/652/finjan-
`announces-license-and-settlement-agreement-with
`
`Select Exerts from Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,652
`
`Alan Freedman, The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (1999)
`
`Bryan Pfaffenberger, Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer
`Terms, 8th ed. (2000)
`
`RFC #822, Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages,
`IEEE (1982), available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,065,118
`
`Tony Bartoletti et al., Secure Software Distribution System, Lawrence
`Livermore National Laboratory (1997), available at:
`https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/publications/conference-
`paper/1997/10/10/proceedings-of-the-20th-nissc-
`1997/documents/191.pdf
`
`Verdict Form, Dkt. No. 438, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015)
`
`Stefan Norberg, Building a Windows NT Bastion Host in Practice,
`Hewlett Packard (1999)
`
`1037 Marco Pistoia et al., Java 2 Network Security, IBM International
`Technical Support Organization (1999)
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) is a public company with no
`
`parent corporation and is the sole real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ‘633 Patent was previously the subject of IPR2016-01974, which was
`
`joined by IPR2016-00480 and IPR2016-00966. The lead IPR was terminated after
`
`Final Written Decision without appeal. The ‘633 Patent is also currently the
`
`subject of pending IPR2018-00391.
`
`The ‘633 Patent was also previously the subject of ex parte reexaminations
`
`90/013,016 and 90/013,652, both of which are now complete.
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner are currently involved in pending litigation that
`
`includes the assertion of the ‘633 Patent challenged herein. See Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal.). The ‘633
`
`Patent is currently asserted in the following other ongoing litigations:
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-04908-PJH (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLD (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies Inc., No. 5:18-cv-02621-
`
`WHO (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-06946 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`The ‘633 Patent was previously asserted in the following completed litigations:
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-03133-SBA (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-05805-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
`
`• Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`consolidated with 5:14-cv-01353-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`The ‘633 Patent purports to be a continuation or continuation-in-part of a
`
`number of other patents (see ‘633 Patent at 1:7-25), many of which have been
`
`subject to litigation or other post-grant proceedings. This statement is provided in
`
`the interest of full disclosure, although Juniper does not believe that any such other
`
`litigation or post-grant proceedings would affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`To the best of Petitioner’s knowledge, there are no other judicial or
`
`administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Backup Counsel: Joshua Glucoft, Reg. No. 67,696
`
`Backup Counsel: Rebecca Carson (Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming)
`
`Contact information for Lead and Backup Counsel is as follows:
`
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to email service at: Juniper-FinjanIPRs@irell.com.
`
`E. Certification of Word Count
`
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this petition is 13,931 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program used to generate this petition, where such
`
`word count excludes the title page, table of contents, table of authorities, exhibit
`
`list, mandatory notices under § 42.8, certificate of service, and this word count.
`
`F.
`
`Fees
`
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`fees required.
`
`G. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘633 Patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the ‘633 Patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`H.
`Identification of Challenge
`• Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 14, and 19 are obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,076,650 (“Sonnenberg”) in view of Christian Jensen & Daniel
`
`Hagimot, “Protection Wrappers: A Simple and Portable Sandbox for
`
`Un-trusted Applications,” Proceedings on the 8th ACM SIGOPS
`
`European Workshop on Support for Composing Distributed
`
`Applications (“Jensen”). Sonnenberg and Jensen are prior art at least
`
`under pre-AIA § 102(e) and (b), respectively.
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 1 and 8 are obvious over International Application
`
`No. PCT/US/01117 (“Hanson”) in view of “Teach Yourself Java in 21
`
`Days,” by Laura Lemay et al. (“Lemay”). Hanson and Lemay are
`
`prior art at least under pre-AIA § 102(b).
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 1, 8, 14, and 19 are obvious over Hanson.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ON THE ‘633 PATENT
`The process of the ‘633 Patent begins when a node on the network, such as a
`
`proxy server, receives information on its way to its destination. “[R]eceived
`
`information [is] referred to as a ‘potential-Downloadable’, and received
`
`information found to include executable code [is] referred to as a ‘Downloadable’
`
`or equivalently as a ‘detected-Downloadable’….” Id. at 9:18-22. When the
`
`intermediate node receives downloadable-information, the node “analyzes the
`
`potential-Downloadable and determines whether the potential-Downloadable
`
`includes executable code. If not, [the proxy server] enables the not executable
`
`potential-Downloadable [] to be delivered to its destination in an unaffected
`
`manner. In conjunction with determining that the potential-Downloadable is a
`
`detected-Downloadable, [the proxy server] also causes mobile protection code or
`
`‘MPC’ [] to be communicated to the Downloadable-destination of the
`
`Downloadable, more suitably in conjunction with the detected-Downloadable….”
`
`Id. at 9:52-62.
`
`This process is illustrated in the following cropped portions of Figure 3,
`
`where a Protection Engine residing on a server determines whether the received
`
`information (indicated by the arrow inbound to the Server) includes executable
`
`code; if not, then the file is sent to its destination by itself, but if the file does
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`include executable code, then the file is sent to its destination along with Mobile
`
`Protection Code (“MPC”) as part of a “sandbox package” (Element 340):
`
`
`“The sandboxed package includes mobile protection code (‘MPC’) for causing one
`
`or more predetermined malicious operations or operation combinations of a
`
`Downloadable to be monitored or otherwise intercepted.” ‘633 Patent at 3:7-11. If
`
`the underlying file does not even have executable code in it, then there is no need
`
`to send a sandboxed package, which is why the intermediate node on the network
`
`would determine whether the underlying file has executable code.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘633 Patent would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science or related field and two years of industry
`
`experience or an advanced degree in computer science or related field. See Nielson
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Dec. ¶ 24; see also IPR2015-01974, Ex. 2019 ¶ 25 and IPR2015-01974, Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 29 (experts opining regarding similar level of skill).
`
`IV. PRIORITY
`The priority date of the challenged claims is no earlier than May 17, 2000,
`
`the filing date of the provisional application to which the ‘633 Patent claims
`
`priority. As background, the ‘633 Patent is a continuation and continuation-in-part
`
`of a number of different patents. But during ex parte reexamination 90/013,016,
`
`the Examiner already found that “The disclosures of the 6,167,520 and 6,092,194
`
`patents [to which the ‘633 Patent claims priority] appear to be completely silent on
`
`teaching or suggesting the transmission of mobile protection code from a server
`
`computer to a client computer when it is determined that downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code.” Ex. 1010 at 6. As a result, the Examiner
`
`held that claim 1 of the ‘633 Patent had an effective filing date of May 17, 2000.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 7. Claim 8 has an effectively verbatim limitation, so it too has an
`
`effective filing date no earlier than May 17, 2000—as found by the Examiner in ex
`
`parte reexamination 90/013,652. Ex. 1029 at 10. Finjan has already had a full
`
`chance to be heard on this issue that was finally decided and is therefore estopped
`
`from arguing otherwise.
`
`Although Claim 14 and, by dependency, Claim 19 do not expressly include
`
`the “determining” limitation, they too are not entitled to priority earlier than May
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`17, 2000 because the ‘520 and ‘194 patents do not teach anything at all about
`
`Mobile Protection Code. Neither of those patents ever use that term, nor do they
`
`ever discuss or use the term “sandbox.” Nor do they ever teach how one would
`
`“cause mobile protection code to be executed … at a downloadable-information
`
`destination” as required by Claims 14 and 19. As such, a POSITA would not have
`
`recognized that the inventors possessed the invention of Claims 14 and 19 as of the
`
`filing of the ‘520 or ‘194 patents, and therefore those claims are not entitled to a
`
`priority date earlier than May 17, 2000. See Nielson Dec. ¶ 27.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The ‘633 Patent has not yet expired, so broadest reasonable interpretation is
`
`the appropriate standard for claim construction in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`“Executable Code” (All Challenged Claims)
`
`The Board previously construed the term “executable code” in IPR2015-
`
`01974, Paper 49 at 10 as “includ[ing] programs or computer instructions that are
`
`executed by a computer.” The Board further “determine[d] that the ‘executable
`
`code’ at the destination is not modified.” Id. at 18. In IPR2018-00391, Paper 7 at
`
`9, the Board readopted this understanding that “the executable code whose
`
`operations are processed by the mobile protection code at the destination is the
`
`same as the executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no modification.” Juniper
`
`adopts the Board’s prior construction for this petition.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Mobile Protection Code (All Challenged Claims)
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “Mobile Protection Code”
`
`(“MPC”) is “code for causing one or more predetermined malicious operations or
`
`operation combinations of a Downloadable to be monitored or otherwise
`
`intercepted.” This construction comes directly from what Finjan represented was
`
`the definition of the term as provided at 3:7-11 of the ‘633 Patent:
`
`The sandboxed package includes mobile protection code
`(“MPC”) for causing one or more predetermined
`malicious operations or operation combinations of a
`Downloadable to be monitored or otherwise intercepted.
`
`Ex. 1015 at 6 (“This straightforward definition from the intrinsic record should be
`
`used for construction….”)1; see also Ex. 1016 at 1-2 and Ex. 1017 at 1-2 (two
`
`additional instances where Finjan refers to the above as a “definition”).
`
`In application, this construction means that the MPC may work in
`
`conjunction with other software, including the operating system, in order to effect
`
`monitoring or intercepting. Finjan itself explained this application:
`
`Neither the claims nor the specification require that MPC
`“itself,” without interaction with other code, to monitor or
`intercept potentially malicious code. … The ‘633 Patent
`specifically describes how monitoring and intercepting is
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`performed by the MPC in conjunction with other
`resident programs (like the operating system). See, e.g.,
`‘633 Patent at Col. 18, ll. 1-24 (describing how the
`operating system initializes the MPC).
`Ex. 1012 at 2-3; see also id. at Ex. 1011 at 6 (substantially similar argument by
`
`Finjan).
`
`C.
`
`“Downloadable-information” (All Challenged Claims)
`
`The BRI of “downloadable-information” is “information transmitted over a
`
`network.” See Nielson ¶ 34. The ‘633 Patent describes downloadable-information
`
`very broadly to include effectively any type of information that can be transmitted
`
`over a network:
`
`including web pages, streaming media,
`resources
`transaction-facilitating information, program updates or
`other downloadable information…. Such information can
`also include more traditionally viewed “Downloadables”
`or “mobile code” (i.e. distributable components), as well
`as downloadable application programs or other further
`Downloadables, such as those that are discussed herein. (It
`will be appreciated that interconnected networks can also
`provide various other resources as well.)
`‘633 Patent at 6:2-11. This construction is also consistent with the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of what it means to “download” information. See, e.g., Ex. 1030
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`at 5 (defining “download: To receive a file transmitted over a network”); see also
`
`Ex. 1031 at 5 (substantially similar definition).
`
`D.
`
`“Determining…” (Claims 1 and 8)
`
`In IPR2018-00391, Paper 7 at 9, the Board readopted a construction set forth
`
`by the Board in ex parte re-examination Control No. 90/013,016. Specifically, the
`
`Board readopted the construction of “distinguishing between two alternative
`
`possibilities: executable code is included in the downloadable-information, and
`
`executable code is not included in the downloadable-information.” Juniper adopts
`
`the Board’s prior construction for this petition.
`
`In the parallel District Court litigation, Finjan has proposed a broader
`
`construction of the term as “detecting content that is likely to be of an executable
`
`type that can carry executable content.” Ex. 1011 at 9-10. This petition also
`
`address this broader construction should the Board adopt Finjan’s construction as
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`E.
`
`“A Computer Program Product … The Method Comprising”
`(Claims 14 and 19)
`
`Finjan has admitted that the preamble of Claim 14 improperly recites both a
`
`“product” and a “method” but maintains the issue is simply a “typographical error”
`
`such that “Finjan asks that the claim be corrected so that the words ‘the method’
`
`are removed.” Ex. 1011 at 6-7. Juniper does not agree that the Board (or a District
`
`Court) has the authority to overlook this admitted error in the absence of a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`certificate of correction because the correction is subject to reasonable dispute, and
`
`therefore the claim is indefinite at least under IPXL. However, for purposes of this
`
`petition only, Juniper adopts Finjan’s proposed correction of striking “the method”
`
`and converting the preamble into a Beauregard preamble. See Ex. 1011 at 7.
`
`F.
`
`“Information Re-communicator” (Claims 14 and 19)
`
`The BRI of an “information re-communicator” is its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “a component capable of receiving downloadable-information and re-
`
`communicating that information.” See Nielson ¶ 36. Claim 14 recites “receiving,
`
`at the information re-communicator, downloadable-information,” so the
`
`component must be capable of receiving downloadable-information. And as its
`
`name implies, it must be able to re-communicate that information to another node.
`
`This construction is reasonable per the plain language of the claims, as nothing
`
`requires that the claimed re-communicator be located at any specific point in a
`
`network nor that it receive/re-communicate information from/to any specific
`
`node(s) on a network(s). Indeed, nothing in the specification requires that the
`
`construction be limited any further, as the ‘633 Patent at 2:58-62 describes re-
`
`communicators broadly as simply a network-connectable device akin to a server:
`
`“one or more network servers, firewalls or other network connectable information
`
`re-communicating devices (as are referred to herein summarily one or more
`
`‘servers’ or ‘re-communicators’).”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`“Information Monitor” (Claim 8)2
`
`G.
`
`The BRI of an “information monitor” is its plain and ordinary meaning of “a
`
`component capable of receiving and monitoring downloadable-information.” See
`
`Nielson ¶ 37. Claim 8 recites “an information monitor for receiving
`
`downloadable-information,” so the component must be capable of receiving
`
`downloadable-information. And as its name implies, it must be capable of
`
`monitoring that information. The ‘633 Patent at 2:58-66 teaches that the
`
`information monitor is included within a “protection engine” that is in turn
`
`operable within an information-re-communicator; therefore, since an information
`
`re-communicator could be located anywhere in a network and receive/re-
`
`communicate information from/to any node(s) on a network(s), the BRI of
`
`“information monitor” is similarly broad. Nothing in the claim language or the
`
`specification suggests that this construction is unreasonably broad.
`