`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. & PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00337
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRE-
`LIMINARY RESPONSE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF DISCRETION-
`ARY DENIAL UNDER § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1
`
`THE FINTIV FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DISCRETIONARY
`DENIAL OF INSTITUTION UNDER § 314(a) ............................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1: The Juniper and PAN Litigations Are Likely To Be
`Stayed If The Petitions Are Instituted ................................................... 4
`
`Fintiv Factor 2: The PAN and Juniper Litigation Trial Dates May Be
`Pushed Back Due to Unresolved COVID-19 Related Delays .............. 5
`
`Fintiv Factor 3: Considerable Work Remains in the Juniper and PAN
`Litigations, and Past Investment Must Be Balanced Against Resolving
`Issues for Future Litigants ..................................................................... 7
`
`Fintiv Factors 4 And 5: The IPR May Resolve Claims That Will Not
`Be Tried In the Juniper and PAN Litigations ....................................... 7
`
`E.
`
`Fintiv Factor 6: The Merits of The Petitions Favor Institution ............. 8
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (“the ’099 Patent”)
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (“the ’725 Patent”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (“the ’646 Patent”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (“the ’751 Patent”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (“the ’789 Patent”)
`
`1006 Declaration of Dr. Jon B. Weissman
`
`1007
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Weissman
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 (“Riddle”)
`
`1009
`
`PCT Publication WO 92/19054 (“Ferdinand”)
`
`1010
`
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC1945”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,150 (“Yu”)
`
`1012
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/112,859 (“the ’859 Provi-
`sional”)
`
`1013
`
`PCT Publication WO 97/23076 (“Baker”)
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,740,175 (“Wakeman”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,808 (“Hasani”)
`
`1016
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903 (“the ’903 Provi-
`sional”)
`
`1017
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`1018
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725
`
`1019
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004, Re-
`sponse to Office Action
`
`Exhibit
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751
`
`1022
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni 26/16
`(EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864 (“the ’864 Provi-
`sional”)
`
`Redline showing a comparison of Riddle to Provisional Patent Appli-
`cation No. 60/066,864
`
`Claim Chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the specifica-
`tion of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864
`
`1027 U.S. Patent Application 08/977,642 (“Packer Application”)
`
`1028 U.S. Patent Application 09/198,051 (“the ’051 Application”)
`
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,802,106
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,038,216
`
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,046,980 (“Packer”)
`
`1032
`
`PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, The Wall
`Street Journal (April 15, 1996)
`
`1033 Gillin, Paul. Editorial, Computer World (May 13, 1996)
`
`1034
`
`Sneider, Daniel. Redefining News in the Era of Internet By Blending
`Print and Television, Silicon Valley Start-up Shakes up Traditional
`View of News, The Christian Science Monitor (June 26, 1996)
`
`1035
`
`PointCast Inc. 1998 SEC Filings
`
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,558
`
`1037
`
`RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC765”)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1038
`
`RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC791”)
`
`1039
`
`RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC793”)
`
`1040
`
`RFC 1543 – Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC1543”)
`
`1041
`
`RFC 2026 – The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3
`(“RFC2026”)
`
`1042
`
`RFC 2616 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1 (“RFC2616”)
`
`1043
`
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 – Information Processing Sys-
`tems – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model –
`Part 4: Management Framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`
`1044
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC1945
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1889 – RTP: A Transport Proto-
`col for Real-Time Applications (“RFC1889”)
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 2326 – Real Time Streaming Pro-
`tocol (RTSP) (“RFC2326”)
`
`Chart comparing Yu to Provisional Patent Application No.
`60/112,859
`
`Claim Chart comparing Yu’s claim 1 to the Provisional Patent Appli-
`cation No. 60/112,859
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 10 (Opposition to Request for Rehearing) (September 15,
`2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (June 5, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Pa-
`per No. 9 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Decision) (August 31, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Notice of Abandonment) (Dec. 1, 2017)
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 9 (Adverse Judgment) (Dec. 20, 2017)
`
`Nokia Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2019-01289,
`EX1006 (Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 55-21 (Packet Intelligence
`Technology Tutorial) (January 20, 2017)
`
`v
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 66 (Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order) (March 14, 2017)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 244 (Transcript of Pro-
`ceedings held Oct. 10, 2017 AM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 250 (Transcript of Pro-
`ceedings held Oct. 12, 2017 PM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314 (NetScout’s JMOL of
`No Infringement) (October 5, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-1 (Declaration of Mi-
`chael Lyons) (October 5, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-4 (Excerpts of Russell
`Dietz’s Demonstrative Slides) (October 5, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-1 (Declaration of Ste-
`ven Udick) (October 26, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-2 (Excerpts from Dr.
`Kevin Almeroth’s Direct Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October
`26, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-1 (Declaration of Sa-
`daf R. Abdullah) (October 26, 2018)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-2 (Dr. Kevin Alme-
`roth’s Rebuttal Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October 26, 2018)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:18-CV-00381-JRG, Docket Item 74 (Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement) (June 7, 2019)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Cisco Systems, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:14-CV-252-JRG, Docket Item 89 (Packet Intelligence LLC’s Open-
`ing Claims Construction Brief) (January 26, 2015)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing State-
`ment (December 17, 2019)
`
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`(November 2019)
`
`Chart of third-parties’ previously-proposed terms subject to §112(6)
`and corresponding structure
`
`Exhibit
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`
`1083 Declaration of Joseph Edell
`
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, August 20, 2019 Case Management Conference
`Transcript
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 35 (Pretrial Order) (September 3,
`2019)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Packet Intelligence LLC’s Disclosure Of As-
`serted Claims And Infringement Contentions To Palo Alto Networks,
`Inc. (September 24, 2019)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Packet Intelligence LLC’s Disclosure Of As-
`serted Claims And Infringement Contentions To Juniper Networks,
`Inc. (January 23, 2020)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1088
`
`1089
`
`1090
`
`1091
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 49 (Joint Subsequent Case Manage-
`ment Statement) (December 31, 2019)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 50 (Civil Minutes) (January 7, 2020)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, January 8, 2020 Docket Entry
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Docket Item 38 (Civil Minutes) (January 7, 2020)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Docket Item 48 (Stipulated First Amended
`Scheduling Order) (March 29, 2020)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 62 (Order Granting Palo Alto Net-
`works’ Proposed Modification to the Scheduling Order) (May 15,
`2020)
`
`1094
`
`Packet Intelligence Letter to Palo Alto Networks (January 18, 2019)
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`1098
`
`1099
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 18 (Defendant and Counterclaimant
`Packet Intelligence LLC’s Answer and Counterclaims) (July 2, 2019)
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 27 (Joint Case Management State-
`ment) (August 13, 2019)
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Complaint (August 13, 2019)
`
`J&K IP Assets, LLC v. Armaspec, Inc., No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt.
`No. 45 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019)
`
`J&K IP Assets, LLC v. Armaspec, Inc., No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt.
`No. 61 (N.D. Cal. September 12, 2019)
`
`viii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Description
`
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 1 (Packet Intelligence LLC’s Complaint For
`Patent Infringement) (February 17, 2016)
`
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 39 (Verdict Form) (November 9, 2017)
`
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 66 (Final Judgment) (February 9, 2018)
`
`Exhibit
`
`1100
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`ix
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`Contrary to Patentee’s mischaracterization, the judge presiding over the par-
`
`allel district court cases involving the challenged patent has expressed his inclina-
`
`tion to stay them if the Board institutes this IPR. And both cases remain in their
`
`early stages. Depositions have yet to commence, expert discovery will not begin
`
`for over six months, and the court will likely not have issued any substantive or-
`
`ders relating to the patent prior to institution. The remaining Fintiv factors support
`
`institution rather than discretionary denial under § 314(a). Petitioner thus respect-
`
`fully asks the Board to institute.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`In the PAN case, Judge William H. Orrick held an initial case management
`
`conference (“CMC”) on August 20, 2019. Ex. 1084, 1. In their CMC statement,
`
`PAN and Patentee advised the court that Nokia, a defendant in a different jurisdic-
`
`tion, had recently filed IPR petitions against the five patents Patentee has asserted
`
`against Petitioner. Ex. 1096, 7. Less than a week before the CMC, Patentee filed its
`
`complaint against Juniper. Ex. 1097.
`
`Because of the recently filed Juniper case, Judge Orrick began the CMC be-
`
`tween Patentee and PAN by stating he may need to adjust the schedule proposed
`
`by Patentee and PAN “depending on what we do with Juniper.” Ex. 1084, 4, 6-7.
`
`He then addressed Nokia’s filed IPR petitions, asking “are we going to need to stay
`
`this case as a result of what’s going on with the PTAB, or are they independent or
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`what’s the story?” Id., 7. During the dialogue that followed, Judge Orrick ex-
`
`plained his inclination to stay the case if IPRs are instituted:
`
`THE COURT: Okay. But if [the Nokia IPRs] are instituted, then it
`
`sounds like they will relate. This will cause a stay in the proceedings.
`
`PATENTEE COUNSEL: I understand that’s what courts typically do,
`
`but I would like to look at the circumstances at the time, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Of course. Me too. Id., 7-8.
`
`Judge Orrick set a claim construction hearing for March 9, 2020 and trial for
`
`March 29, 2021. Ex. 1085, 1. He also scheduled a joint CMC for the PAN and Ju-
`
`niper cases for January 7, 2020. About a month after the August CMC, Patentee
`
`and Nokia settled their case and requested that the Board dismiss the pending IPRs,
`
`which the Board granted prior to institution. IPR2019-01290, Paper 9.
`
`On September 24—a month after the August CMC—Patentee disclosed for
`
`the first time the 33 claims it is asserting against PAN in the district court. Ex.
`
`1086, 2. Then on January 23, 2020, Patentee disclosed that it is asserting the same
`
`33 claims plus four additional claims against Juniper. Ex. 1087, 2. The Petition was
`
`filed shortly afterward, on February 4, 2020.
`
`Two weeks before Patentee served its disclosure on Juniper, Judge Orrick
`
`held the joint CMC in the PAN and Juniper cases. In its CMC statement, PAN
`
`stated that it expected to file IPR petitions against the five asserted patents. Ex.
`
`1088, 2. At the joint CMC, the court and the parties discussed resetting dates due
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`to the Juniper case, including trial, and having another CMC after the claim con-
`
`struction hearing “just to talk about anything that’s going on.” Ex. 2005, 4, 10.
`
`As with the prior CMC, the court asked about the potential for IPRs. PAN
`
`indicated that it intended to file IPRs soon and discussed timing issues with the
`
`court. Id., 3-4. At the end, PAN asked whether the court would be open to a pre-
`
`institution stay motion based on the filing of the IPR petitions:
`
`PAN COUNSEL: Your Honor, for Palo Alto Networks, I will say that
`
`if Your Honor would be open to it, we would file a stay motion based
`
`on the filing of the IPRs not waiting until the petitions are ruled on. This
`
`would be -- it sort of would be within your discretion to grant it. It
`
`would be a two-for-one deal perhaps, if you would, and it would obviate
`
`a claim construction hearing and all the processes associated with that.
`
`Id., 10-11.
`
`At that time, claim construction was tentatively set for June. Id., 10. In response to
`
`PAN’s question, Judge Orrick advised PAN to “save your money” on a pre-institu-
`
`tion stay motion and wait to file the motion until after institution decisions. Id., 11.
`
`After the joint CMC, the Court confirmed a joint claim construction hearing
`
`for June 19, 2020, to be followed by a joint CMC. Ex. 1089. The court also reset
`
`the PAN trial to May 31, 2021 (revised to June 1) and set the Juniper trial for Sep-
`
`tember 13, 2021. Id.; Ex. 1090-1091. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, the
`
`parties requested to amend the schedules of the Juniper and PAN cases, which the
`
`court granted. Ex. 1092; Ex. 1093. This resulted in the joint claim construction
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`hearing being rescheduled for August 14, 2020, “or as the Court determines.” The
`
`PAN trial was reset again to August 30, 2021, “or as determined by the Court.”
`
`II. THE FINTIV FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DISCRETIONARY DE-
`NIAL OF INSTITUTION UNDER § 314(a)
`
`A. Fintiv Factor 1: The Juniper and PAN Litigations Are Likely To
`Be Stayed If The Petitions Are Instituted
`
`Judge Orrick’s statements at the initial CMC in the PAN case regarding the
`
`then-pending Nokia IPRs show that he will likely stay the cases in the event that
`
`IPRs are instituted. Indeed, he stated that an institution of those IPRs would “cause
`
`a stay in the proceedings.” Ex. 1084, 7-8.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patentee mischaracterizes the exchange be-
`
`tween the court and PAN at the January 7, 2020 CMC and did not discuss or sub-
`
`mit the transcript from the prior CMC.1 The January 7 exchange was not a discus-
`
`sion regarding staying the case post-institution. PAN explicitly and specifically
`
`asked about “fil[ing] a stay motion based on the filing of the IPRs not waiting until
`
`the petitions are ruled on.” Ex. 2005, 10-11. Judge Orrick responded that he used
`
`to grant such pre-institution stays, but no longer does so. Id. This exchange pro-
`
`ceeded in this manner because Judge Orrick had already stated in the prior CMC
`
`that institution of relevant IPRs would result in a stay. Ex. 1084, 7-8.
`
`
`1 Patentee objected to submitting the prior CMC transcript to the Board. Ex. 3002.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`Judge Orrick’s recent decisions confirm that he will stay cases upon institu-
`
`tion, while denying pre-institution motions to stay as premature. For example, in
`
`J&K IP Assets, LLC v. Armaspec, Inc., decided last year, Judge Orrick denied Ar-
`
`maspec’s pre-institution motion to stay as premature “without prejudice to renew[]
`
`if the PTAB institutes an IPR.”2 After institution, he granted the stay.3 Further, in
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Judge Orrick issued a post-institution stay
`
`pending IPRs, finding that case was still in its early stages even though there had
`
`already been multiple fact depositions and expert discovery.4 In the PAN and Juni-
`
`per cases, there have been no depositions or expert discovery.
`
`Accordingly, Fintiv factor 1 weighs strongly against discretionary denial.
`
`B.
`
`Fintiv Factor 2: The PAN and Juniper Litigation Trial Dates May
`Be Pushed Back Due to Unresolved COVID-19 Related Delays
`
`As Patentee indicated, both the PAN and Juniper trials are scheduled to oc-
`
`cur around the time the Board would issue its final written decisions. The Juniper
`
`trial is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2021—after the Board would issue its
`
`final written decision in this IPR. The PAN trial is scheduled for August 30, 2021.
`
`But both trial dates are tentative due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Patentee’s
`
`
`2 No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt. No. 45 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) (Ex. 1098).
`
`3 No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt. No. 61 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) (Ex. 1099).
`
`4 2018 WL 6574188, *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`stated preference for a three-month gap between the PAN and Juniper trials (dis-
`
`cussed below). The court has twice pushed back the PAN trial date at the request
`
`of the parties, including due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the current date sub-
`
`ject to the caveat “or as determined by the Court.” Exs. 1092-1093. And in view of
`
`the pandemic, it remains uncertain when the requisite preceding hearings, deposi-
`
`tions, and conferences will occur before both the Juniper and PAN trials.
`
`At the January 7 CMC, Patentee expressed a preference to space out the two
`
`trials by at least three months. Ex. 2005, 4, 8. When the court tentatively set the
`
`PAN trial for May 31, 2021, Patentee requested moving back the Juniper trial from
`
`the August 23 date it had proposed to provide a three-month separation between
`
`trials. Ex. 2005, 4, 8. Now that the current schedules provide only two weeks be-
`
`tween the PAN and Juniper trial dates, the Juniper trial likely will be pushed back
`
`again to maintain Patentee’s requested three-month separation.
`
`With the fluid trial dates, the Juniper trial scheduled to begin after the IPR
`
`final written decisions, and the near-term availability of in-person proceedings in
`
`continued doubt due to COVID-19, Fintiv factor 2 weighs slightly against denial.5
`
`
`5 See, e.g., Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`
`LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 8-10 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) (finding uncer-
`
`tainty of district court trial schedule due to ongoing pandemic favors not exercising
`
`discretionary denial).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`C. Fintiv Factor 3: Considerable Work Remains in the Juniper and
`PAN Litigations, and Past Investment Must Be Balanced Against
`Resolving Issues for Future Litigants
`
`While the parties have exchanged initial contentions and claim construction
`
`briefing has begun, discovery relating to prior art and invalidity is far from com-
`
`plete. No fact witnesses or experts have been deposed. There has been no expert
`
`discovery.6 Moreover, the court’s likely stay of the litigation upon institution will
`
`put a hold on future investment in the parallel cases. And any past investment must
`
`be balanced against the benefit to other companies of the Board’s resolution of im-
`
`portant invalidity issues. See § II.D below.
`
`As for claim construction, even if the August hearing proceeds as scheduled,
`
`the Court will likely not have ruled before the Board decides institution.7 This fac-
`
`tor weighs against discretionary denial, as well.
`
`D. Fintiv Factors 4 And 5: The IPR May Resolve Claims That Will
`Not Be Tried In the Juniper and PAN Litigations
`
`Petitioner challenges all asserted claims, and, as noted by Patentee, Peti-
`
`
`6 Patentee’s contention that “the parties have been engaged in extensive discovery
`
`and code review” is incorrect. POPR, 30-31. While there has been a modicum of
`
`invalidity-related document production, it has been principally limited to prior art
`
`and prosecution histories. And there has been no review of Juniper’s source code.
`
`7 The Court assumed that it may rule about a month after the hearing. Ex. 2005, 5.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`tioner’s grounds rely on references charted in Petitioner’s contentions in the litiga-
`
`tions. However, expert reports or other evidence have not been presented in the liti-
`
`gations, and Patentee has not responded to the invalidity contentions; it is therefore
`
`premature to compare arguments, evidence, or issues.
`
`Further, in the district court trials, Patentee will almost certainly not assert
`
`all 37 claims challenged in these IPRs. For example, in its case against Sandvine,
`
`Patentee initially asserted the five patents-at-issue in these IPRs but asserted only
`
`claim 10 of the ’725 Patent, claim 19 of the ’789 Patent, and claims 1 and 5 of the
`
`’751 Patent at trial. Exs. 1100-1102. Thus, these IPRs will address the validity of
`
`claims, and likely whole patents, that the district court trials will not address.
`
`Regardless, a related factor weighs against discretionary denial because Pa-
`
`tentee has claimed that the patents-at-issue in the litigations are “ubiquitously used
`
`by network router sellers and manufacturers,” and has sent notice letters to other
`
`companies. Ex. 1094; Ex. 1095, ¶ 6. Patentee has a history of asserting its patents,
`
`and its statements support a likelihood that it will continue to assert them against
`
`others. Institution and a public trial record of the important invalidity grounds in
`
`the Petition will reduce issues for the public.
`
`E.
`
`Fintiv Factor 6: The Merits of The Petitions Favor Institution
`
`Patentee mischaracterizes the current petitions as substantially the same as
`
`those filed in Sandvine’s previous IPRs. But Sandvine’s petitions did not present
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`the same primary references or obviousness grounds. For example, Petitioner relies
`
`on the Riddle, Yu, and RFC1945 references to show that identifying “conversa-
`
`tional flows” was known in the art. None of those references is substantially the
`
`same as the Engel reference on which Sandvine principally relied.
`
`Moreover, Patentee’s assertion that Petitioner’s references do not disclose
`
`conversational flows is incorrect. For example, Riddle teaches “[a] service aggre-
`
`gate … provided for certain applications that use more than one connection in a
`
`particular conversation between a client and a server” (Ex. 1008, 11:11-23); and
`
`Yu describes “[a] flow classification specification … as detailed as defining a spe-
`
`cific pair of hosts running a specific application” and that “a flow may include one
`
`or more streams” (Ex. 1011, 3:34-36, 4:7-8). Such disclosures were not previously
`
`before the Board. Further, the bulk of Patentee’s Preliminary Response emphasizes
`
`limitations not found in its proposed construction of “conversational flow,” e.g., re-
`
`quiring flows to be related “based on specific application activity by a particular
`
`user or client.” POPR, 3. But even under Patentee’s restrictive view of its construc-
`
`tion, each Petition shows that, for example, Riddle teaches relating flows based on
`
`an FTP application using a client IP address, i.e., a specific activity by a particular
`
`user or client. E.g., IPR2020-00335, Paper 3, 44, 48-49, 65-66, 69-71.
`
`Finally, Patentee’s discussion of the General Plastic factors is inapplicable
`
`here. Juniper and PAN are not serial petitioners, as neither Juniper nor PAN has
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`previously challenged the patents-at-issue. And Patentee’s arguments about when
`
`Juniper or PAN may have known of various references or the Sandvine IPRs are
`
`irrelevant. As discussed above, Juniper and PAN filed their petitions promptly after
`
`Patentee identified the claims asserted against them.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The judge presiding over the parallel district court cases has indicated that
`
`he intends to stay them if the Board institutes. Both cases remain in their early
`
`stages. The remaining Fintiv factors support institution rather than discretionary
`
`denial under § 314(a). Thus, Petitioner respectfully asks the Board to institute.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott McKeown/
`Scott A. McKeown
`Reg. No. 42,866
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 314(a)
`
`was served via electronic mail to the following attorneys of record for the Patent
`
`Owner listed below:
`
`R. Allan Bullwinkel – Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 77,630
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-221-2021
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`
`Michael F. Heim – Back-Up Counsel
`Reg. No. 32,702
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-221-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`
`
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
