Paper No. 27
`Date: August 17, 2020
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 17, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 17, 2020
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 17, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DANIEL S. BLOCK, ESQ.
`MICHAEL SPECHT, ESQ.
`TIM TANG, ESQ.
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Ave, NW Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 772-8735 (Block)
`dblock@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`STEPHEN T. SCHREINER, ESQ.
`JAMES T. CARMICHAEL, ESQ.
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 13th Floor
`Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
`(703) 646-9254 (Schreiner)
`schreiner@carmichaelip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, July 17,
`2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT, via Video Teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`9:30 a.m.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Good morning, this is the oral hearing for
`Apple, Inc., versus MPH Technologies Oy. Case IPR 2019-00821.
`I'm Judge Hamann, also on the panel today are Judges Medley and
`Jivani. I would like to begin with introductions of the parties.
`Petitioner, please identify who is on the call on its behalf, please.
`MR. BLOCK: Good morning Your Honors.
`This is Daniel Block from the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
`and Fox, on behalf of Petitioner Apple. With me today is Michael Specht,
`who is lead counsel on this case, and Tim Tang. I will be doing the
`arguing.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
`And if Patent Owner can please identify who is on the call on his
`behalf, please.
`MR. SCHREINER: Certainly.
`Good morning Your Honors. My name is Stephen Schreiner. I'm
`from Carmichael IP. I'll be arguing this case on behalf of Patent Owner
`and I'm joined by my colleague and lead counsel in the case, James
`Carmichael.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
`Well, good morning to everyone. I would also like to note that
`there is a public access line, so members of the public may be listening in to
`this hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`With that, I also would like to provide some reminders since we are
`doing this all via video conferencing. That we endeavor when we are not
`speaking to mute our microphone, as well as other indications of who is
`speaking. When you begin speaking, if you could endeavor to state your
`name again and when going through demonstratives, take extra care to make
`sure to identify the demonstrative by the particular slide number so that we
`can follow along more readily.
`Also, while I'm thinking of it, I would like to ask the Parties at the
`end of the -- end of the hearing -- to stay on the line to interact with the court
`reporter if they could just to make sure that she has all the spellings or
`whatnot that she may need.
`With that, per the oral hearing order, each side will have 45 minutes
`to present their arguments, including rebuttal or sur-rebuttal time. I would
`like to -- Patent -- I'm sorry, Petitioner has the burden here on patentability.
`We will being with Petitioner and I would like to ask for what time, if any,
`Petitioner would like to reserve for rebuttal and I will ask Patent Owner at
`the beginning of its presentation for sur-rebuttal.
`So, Mr. Block, how much time would you like, sir?
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, 15 minutes, Your Honor, is what we would
`like to reserve.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`And we will endeavor to give you a warning before the end of that
`15 minutes, but it might be helpful to also try to track your time yourself.
`MR. BLOCK: Thank you Your Honor. I will try to do that.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`Whenever you're ready, Mr. Block.
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: Thank you.
`May it please the Board, my name is Daniel Block, Counsel for
`Petitioner, Apple Incorporated.
`The Board should find unpatentable all of the claims of the '302
`Patent. At bottom, the '302 Patent claims the idea of simply pre-creating
`multiple connections and then activating them as needed. But those
`techniques have been used in the art long before the alleged invention of the
`'302 Patent. And indeed, the references set forth by Apple, Ahonen and
`Ishiyama demonstrate just that.
`The disputes between the parties are relatively narrow here, in fact,
`there is one dispute that takes the primary amount of the briefing, which is
`whether or not Ahonen discloses establishing the second secure connection.
`But as I will detail for you today, MPH's argument here really splitting hairs
`in a non-issue, because even under their own interpretation of Ahonen,
`Ahonen still discloses the claims establishing a second secure connection
`and MPH's remaining arguments fail for similar reasons.
`So, what I would like to do is turn to demonstrative --to Petitioner's
`demonstrative Slide 3, where I have a brief agenda of what we'll -- what I'll
`be talking about today.
`What I am first going to talk about is just briefly what the '302 Patent
`claims, what its alleged invention is, then what we will do is talk about the
`combination that Apple set forth in this case, of Ahonen and Ishiyama; and
`then we will go through the three disputed issues in this case.
`So, starting first with what the '302 Patent claims, or what it alleges
`its invention is, if we turn to Slide 4. Here what we have is on the right-
`hand side, we have the claims broken down on an element-by-element basis.
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`On the left-hand side what we have is a plain language summary of what
`each of these steps talk about.
`And in the first step on the right, which isn't so much a step as much
`as just making a statement in 1.1, what that says is basically that there's two
`terminals and that they are communicating with each other.
`What happens next is a first secure connection is established between
`a first address of the first computer and another address. Then, after that,
`another -- a second secure connection is established between a different
`address of the first computer, what it calls the second address. Then the
`computer moves between the first address and the second address. And at
`Step 4, what the mobile computer --what the computer is going to do is it is
`going to check to see whether there is already a second secure connection,
`which of course there is because that was created in Step 2. And in Step 5,
`if there is in fact a second secure connection, which there would be in the
`case of how these claims are written, it will activate that connection without
`having to reestablish it.
`So that really is what the '302 Patent is, in a nutshell.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Block, I just want to make sure I
`understand what you just stated.
`So, you are suggesting that the checking step is redundant?
`MR. BLOCK: I'm not suggesting that it is redundant, I'm just
`really simply pointing out that in this case -- in other words it is a step of the
`claims. There needs to be the checking.
`My point is that it is always going to satisfy the check in order of
`these claims here because there always will be the second secure connection
`since that is created in that second step.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Well, certainly -- let me ask this as a better
`way. You know, if the secure connection, I believe the Parties have
`focused on security associations, SAs -- correct?
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, that's correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: And can't SAs expire?
`MR. BLOCK: They can expire. At least the way that Ahonen --
`at least the way that Ahonen describes it.
`So, the primary reference in our case, Ahonen, does talk about SAs
`expiring. I don't believe the '302 Patent talks about the SAs expiring, but
`yes, Your Honor, you are correct. There are certainly cases where they can
`expire and I think -- that is correct, in those cases then, perhaps the second
`secure connection wouldn't exist.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Mr. Block, it is Judge Jivani.
`I'm trying to square your opening statement with the summary of the
`claim you just gave us --
`MR. BLOCK: Mm-hmm.
`JUDGE JIVANI: -- and I am having a hard time doing that. So,
`my recollection of your opening is you told us that at bottom, the '302 Patent
`discusses pre-establishing or pre-connecting? Remind me specifically what
`you said, please.
`MR. BLOCK: Pre-creating -- pre-creating multiple connections
`and then activating them.
`JUDGE JIVANI: Pre-creating, right. And I don't see in your
`summary of the claim language, or in the claim language itself, this notion of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`pre-creating. Rather, I see the affirmative step of establishing a first and
`then establishing a second. Tell me how establishing equals pre-creating?
`MR. BLOCK: So, I -- the answer to that is when I was talking
`about pre-creating I meant with respect to Step 4, right? Which is, by the
`time it is doing this checking it's -- there are two connections that are
`created. But yes, it -- how establishing equals pre-creating is you would
`establish, that is creating, then you would establish another connection, that
`is creating, and then by the time you get to the Steps 4 and 5, those
`connections were already created, which is what I was referring to by the
`fact that they are pre-creating.
`And I do think that the concept that is embodied in the '302 Patent is
`this idea that you have these two connections and then you can just -- when
`you are at a network that corresponds to one of those connections you can
`activate it. That is really what I was referring to when I was referring to
`this idea that the '302 Patent is about these two connections that are created
`and then activated later.
`JUDGE JIVANI: I think what give me pause is the use of pre,
`right? Because that suggests that those are steps that occur before the
`method, and yet the method affirmatively recites establishing those first two.
`But I take from your explanation a moment ago that you don't mean to
`exclude those steps from the method, rather, you are telling me they are the
`first two affirmative steps.
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor. That is correct,
`Your Honor.
`I think -- I'm not suggesting they are not part of the method. I think
`what I was suggesting is what the alleged novelty of the invention is. This
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`idea that the connections already exist and then you are going to activate
`them. I am certainly not suggesting they are not steps of the claim.
`JUDGE JIVANI: I understand. Thank you.
`MR. BLOCK: So, turning to the primary combination that Apple
`set forth here, Ahonen and Ishiyama. If we turn it to Slide 6, here we have
`a portion of Ahonen, from page 8 of Ahonen, and what this part talks about,
`is again, what I was just really referring to, this idea that multiple security
`associations are created and they are pre-created and then later activated.
`And, then again, that is really just like what the '302 Patent is describing.
`And if we turn to Slide 7, here what we have is a figure from Ahonen
`that we've annotated and it describes -- and I'm going to walk through how
`Ahonen operates, because I do think there is some confusion between the
`Parties as to how Ahonen operates, and I want to make clear what Apple's
`contentions are with respect to what Ahonen -- how Ahonen works.
`And so, to just quickly walk through what is on this diagram.
`There is a mobile host with a solid line around it and a mobile host with a
`dashed line around it. The mobile host on the left is going to ultimately
`move to the location on the right. That is what this diagram is showing.
`And the mobile host is in communication with the correspondent host
`through the firewall. And there is also these two secure connections. And
`what -- the way that Ahonen operates is that it first initializes these security
`associations, or secure connections, as Your Honors have mentioned, and
`there is no dispute in this case that a security association is, in fact, a secure
`connection. MPH concedes as much in their sur-reply. And so it is going
`to initialize the security associations, and then what is going to happen is the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`mobile host can move to the first location, which is that access network on
`the left.
`And what is going to happen in Ahonen is if it is going to identify a
`security association that it wants to communicate with to the correspondent
`host, and if that security association does not have the current IP address of
`the mobile host, it is going to modify that security association so that it does.
`And then it is going to activate it. That is what happens if there isn't a
`security association that currently has the address.
`Now, this figure is showing the mobile host moving to the second
`location on the internet. So, if the mobile host moves to the second
`location that is on the internet, and again, if there isn't a security association
`that doesn't have its IP address it is going to modify the security association
`and then activate it.
`But here is the important part, and the part that Apple is focused on
`with what Ahonen discloses. The mobile host can then move back to the
`first access network, and in that case, if it did move back to the first access
`network there would already be a security association that has the mobile
`host's IP address, and in that case, that security association already exists, it
`has been established and it has the mobile host's IP address in it and it just
`activates it. That is the first point.
`Now, the mobile host can then move back again to the internet. If it
`moves back again to the internet, then the same situation occurs. Now we
`have a security association that has the mobile host -- a different address of
`the mobile host, and it just activates it without having to modify it and that
`security association was established prior to the mobile host activating.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`JUDGE HAMANN: Mr. Block, you just said, was established, and
`I think, you know, what meaning if any, should be ascribed to the word
`establishing, I think as it is used in the claim, seems to be a, you know,
`certainly in dispute. And, I mean, I think some of the Parties have framed
`it different ways whether it is -- the construction of that term is in dispute, or
`its application is in dispute.
`What is Petitioner's position as to, you know, first off, whether there
`is a dispute as to the construction of establishing. And, you know, what
`does Petitioner contend, you know, plain, ordinary meaning of that term
`means or how should that term be construed otherwise?
`MR. BLOCK: That is a good question, Your Honor, and if we
`could turn to Slide 14, we have set forth the construction that Apple has set
`forth in this preceding for what establishing a secure connection is, which is
`forming or creating a new secure connection. And again, secure
`connections include SAs. Now, whether or not it is disputed is actually an
`interesting point, because I would have told you as of our reply that it wasn't
`disputed, because this construction that is set forth as establishing a secure
`connection is the construction that MPH set forth in their Patent Owner
`response.
`Now from reading their sur-reply, I guess I would put an asterisk
`next to the undisputed because, again, this is the construction they have set
`forth in their POR, but when you read their sur-reply it now appears, for the
`first time, they are suggesting establishing means something different, right?
`That establishing means that it has to -- that it does -- it is only a key
`exchange, is the way I understand their construction, and so, that was
`proposed for the first time in the sur-reply, we think that is improper, of
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`course, because it is a claim construction that has been set forth in a sur-
`reply that we haven't had the opportunity to respond to.
`And I also think it is wrong and I can certainly address that if Your
`Honor -- if Your Honor would like to hear why it is wrong.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Yes, I certainly would like to focus on the
`construction of this term.
` But let me ask, and make sure I understand. You know, we are
`looking at Slide 14 and it has secure connection. I don't believe there is
`any dispute between the parties as to inclusive of one or more SAs. Is that
`part correct? For secure connection?
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, that is correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`So then focusing on establishing, I understand that both Parties', I
`believe, plain ordinary meaning of that is forming or creating a new secure
`connection. Is that correct?
`MR. BLOCK: Well, so, that is what Apple believes. And I
`thought that was what MPH believed as of their POR. I'm only pointing
`out that now it is unclear to me if they think the --
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`MR. BLOCK: -- the plain and ordinary meaning applies.
`JUDGE HAMANN: But Apple believes plain and ordinary
`meaning applies, correct?
`MR. BLOCK: That is correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: And Apple believes that establishing the plain
`and ordinary meaning is forming or creating a new secure connection? Is
`that correct?
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`MR. BLOCK: That is correct, Your Honor. That's correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`Seems to me the dispute -- we are sort of getting into construing the
`construction and I'm trying to understand Petitioner's position as to really
`what a new secure connection means when you talk about forming or
`creating a new secure connection. It seems like the dispute may be
`between how the Parties are construing new in this context, so what is
`Petitioner's position as to how that should be interpreted?
`MR. BLOCK: Yes, I think there's two responses on how to
`interpret this term.
`I think the easiest way to think about the establishing term is simply
`this; I believe there is no -- there at least cannot be no dispute that there is a
`point in time within Ahonen where there is a second secure connection that
`has the second address of the mobile host. I don't think there can be a
`serious dispute about that because Ahonen explicitly disclosed that. And
`so I think our point at its broadest is simply this, if we all can agree that
`there is a point in time where there is a second secure connection that has
`that second address, then necessarily it had to have been established to get to
`that point -- it had to have been established with that second secure -- with
`that second address for it to exist.
`So, that's sort of the broadest way to think about it, but specifically
`with respect to what does it mean to be new, if we turn to Slide 20 we asked
`Dr. Rouskas during deposition. We asked Dr. Rouskas, what is the security
`association? And he talked about how a security association is the
`definition of a secure connection. And our point with respect to new, Your
`Honor, is that if a security association is in fact the definition of a connection
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`and you modify a definition, if you modify the definition of something you
`have something new.
`So, in other words, when you modify the address of the security
`association, you get a new security association because it is a new definition.
`JUDGE HAMANN: So, Petitioner's position is, if you have an
`existing SA and then you change an address of that SA, whether it is an
`update or however you want to refer to it, to create a new secure connection
`between the two new points, that would be a new secure connection. Is
`that correct?
`MR. BLOCK: That is right, Your Honor, but again, I do think that
`it is worth noting that if you think about this from its broadest perspective,
`that has to be the right answer, because again, it exists, right? There is no -
`- there is really no question that there is a point in time where there is a
`second secure connection that has all these attributes. And so, everything
`that is happening up to the point where it gets those attributes counts as the
`establishment.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
`MR. BLOCK: So, getting back to the combination of Ahonen and
`Ishiyama, I think we spent quite a bit of time on Slide 7 and what I would
`like to do -- and also this idea of the two addresses --so, the last part I would
`really like to address is, if we turn to Slide 9, with respect to the registering
`the second secure connection as being active.
`Again, the Ahonen discloses its remote control function, which
`explicitly activates a connection and it would do that as I talked about
`earlier, when it is at that second location, it can activate the second secure
`connection. With respect to the element of the mobile computer checking
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`whether the second secure connection exists, in that case, what Ahonen talks
`about in this remote -- in the remote control function, is that what Ahonen
`will do is it is going to send the identity of the security association to the
`firewall and to the correspondent host. And the way it does that is it takes
`the parameters from the security association and sends those to the firewall
`and the correspondent host. And Apple's point from the very beginning
`here is that if the mobile host is going to send parameters from the security
`association, then necessarily that security association had to exist and the
`mobile host needed to know that it existed, otherwise it wouldn't have been
`able to get those parameters.
`But if we turn --
`JUDGE HAMANN: And this is from Ahonen, you are saying?
`MR. BLOCK: Yes. And what I would like --
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`MR. BLOCK: -- I'm sorry Your Honor.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Yes, this is Judge Hamann speaking. I
`apologize, Mr. Block, to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that I
`understand.
`Isn't this, you know, whether or not Ahonen discloses a checking
`step, something that Patent Owner alleges is something contrary? I think
`the long and short of it -- I think that Patent Owner alleges that the Petitioner
`says Ahonen is silent as to this and that Petitioner changed position during
`the reply. Is that a -- you know, how would you respond to that?
`MR. BLOCK: So, I don't think that is a fair characterization of
`Apple's position. Apple has said from the beginning that Ahonen -- that
`Ahonen implicitly has this checking step, but what we have also said is that
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`it doesn't describe how it specifically does the checking. And that is where
`Ishiyama -- that's were Ishiyama fits in.
`So, we are relying on the combination. And I'm glad Your Honor
`brought that up because I do think that is where MPH goes wrong in their
`arguments in this checking, on this -- at least one area where they go wrong
`on this checking argument. Because they're attacking the references
`individually, instead of the combination.
`And if we turn to Slide 11, what Ishiyama describes is how one
`would go about checking for that -- finding a security association, and then
`getting access to the contents. And so, if you combine that with Ahonen,
`right? So remember, Ahonen has to send the contents of the security
`association, and so the question is, how does it know what security
`association to choose? And that is what Ishiyama describes. Ishiyama
`describes surfing through the security policy database and the way it does
`that, is it knows that it wants to send a packet to a particular location and it is
`going to use either one of, or both, the source and destination of that packet
`and then it is going to use that to search the database to figure out which
`security association to apply and then, as you can see at the end there, then it
`would get access to the contents of that security association.
`So, that is how -- that is the combination of Ishiyama and Ahonen
`and how Apple is relying on it.
`JUDGE HAMANN: And what -- I notice you have a passage here,
`it looks like Column 10, lines 1 through 14 on Slide 11.
`And this is obviously Ishiyama's disclosure, correct?
`MR. BLOCK: That is correct.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`I'm trying to understand the import and it may have been discussed
`more in the context of Claim 2, but at the bottom, this last sentence of the
`passage shown here, when there is no security association, the exchange of
`the security association is carried out using an appropriate key exchange
`protocol.
`What is the import of that sentence, if any?
`MR. BLOCK: So, I think with respect to the combination that
`Apple is relying on with Ishiyama -- with Ahonen and Ishiyama, that doesn't
`have -- that really doesn't affect the combination. Because, again, we are
`relying on the security policy database, the searching of that to be able to
`find the certificate.
`Ahonen explains what can happen when there may or may not be
`certificates -- when they expire, and we would be relying on Ahonen's
`teachings for that. This is really about, if you are going to implement
`Ahonen and you need to know what security association you are going to tell
`the other host to use, this would tell you how to do that. And that is really
`what we are relying on this passage for.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Okay.
`About five minutes in your initial time Mr. Block, maybe six.
`MR. BLOCK: Okay.
`What I would like to do is quickly mention -- if we could turn to
`Slide -- give me one moment -- if we could turn to Slide 17.
`We touched on this earlier, Your Honor, and this is a very important
`point, which is, what MPH is saying now is that look, the way that Ahonen
`operates, is it doesn't create new connections when an address change
`happens, it reuses old, already-created connections.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`And what I think is important to know is in a different IPR
`proceeding -- IPR 2019-00819, which was the one that we had just a few
`weeks ago, the oral hearing on -- the same disclosure from Ahonen was used
`there. And when MPH was talking about Ahonen in that context, here is
`what MPH said. It said, Ahonen doesn't use already existing secure
`connections. Instead, when Ahonen has an address change, when the
`mobile host is moving addresses, it uses a new secure connection. And,
`Your Honors, I would submit that is exactly the opposite of what they are
`telling you on how Ahonen operates in this proceeding.
`And so what -- so MPH is really speaking out of both sides of their
`mouth in terms of how Ahonen operates.
`JUDGE HAMANN: Just -- I want to correct something, Mr.
`Block. I made a mistake. You actually have, at this point, just shy of ten
`minutes in your initial time.
`MR. BLOCK: Oh, alright. A little bit more time.
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE HAMANN: I apologize for that.
`MR. BLOCK: Oh, no worries, no worries.
`I'm sorry -- oh, okay. So, just getting -- just a few more points on
`the new -- on the second secure connection point. If we turn to Slide 18, if
`-- this is from the Institution Decision, and the Board already recognized,
`again, that there is this point in time, in Ahonen, that would suggest that
`there is a second secure connection that exists and if that second secure --
`and when that exists, it has a second IP address that is different from the first
`IP address.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`
`And as I told you earlier, I think that is really important. Because,
`if we can all agree that there is a point in time where there is a second secure
`connection that exists, that exists at Ahonen, that has a second address, then
`necessarily it could only have gotten to that point if it was established.
`It could only have gotten to the point of having that second IP
`address if it was established with that second IP address. And that, at
`bottom, is really what our point is on this establishing element.
`Since I have only a few minutes left, Your Honor, unless you have
`any questions about the second secure connection, or any members from the
`Board have a question about the second secure connection, I would like to
`move on to the other arguments that MPH is arguing about in this case.
`So --
`JUDGE HAMANN: Please.
`MR. BLOCK: -- next, yes. Slide 21, I wanted to talk about the
`next argument that MPH raises, which is whether or not --whether or not
`Ahonen and Ishiyama disclose establishing a first secure connection as an
`active connection. And if we turn to Slide 22, we have the claim language
`up here, which says that you need to establish a first secure connection as
`being an active connection.
`Now first, at eye level, I think this argument is very similar and fails
`for very similar reasons that -- as the second secure connection. Because as
`I told you earlier, Ahonen, on page 16, explicitly discloses that it can
`activate these pre-existing secure connections. And it can do it at any time.
`It can do it immediately after the preparations function. It can do it later on
`after the preparations function. But here is the bottom line, there is a point
`in time where there will be a first secure connection in Ahonen that is
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00821
`Patent 8,037,302 B2
`
`activated and is, in fact, the active connection. And so, for the same reason
`as the second secure connection this fails, because if we can all agree there is
`a point in time where there is an active first secure connection, then
`necessarily, the only way it got to that point is being established as such.
`But there is another reason why -- there is another reason why that is
`the case as well, if we turn to Slide 23. Now this is the language from the
`'302 Patent that MPH focuses on. They talk about how when the new
`secure connection is formed, it is registered for immediate and/or later use,
`and it appears as though MPH is really focused on that immediate
`functionality.
`But, what is important to know is it is impossible for -- for the
`connection to be registered while it is being established. And I'm not sure -
`- I don't think any party is suggesting that is the case. I think that what
`each party is suggesting is that it would be established and then registered
`afterwards. And if you look at the way the '302 Patent talks about the
`registering a connection for immediate use, it is exactly the same way as
`Ahonen. It explains at Column 7, lines 59 through 63 that there is a
`messaging exchange. That
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
