Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Gregory F. Corbett, pending admission pro hac vice
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01406
`Patent No. 7,748,005
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... xvi
`A. Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................... xvi
`B. Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................ xvi
`1. United States Patent & Trademark Office ........................................ xvi
`2. United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board ................................... xvi
`3. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ...................... xvi
`C. Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ................ xvii
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING ................................................................. 3
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................. 3
`A. References ................................................................................................... 4
`B. Grounds ....................................................................................................... 4
`IV. THE ’005 PATENT ........................................................................................... 5
`A. Embodiments ............................................................................................... 5
`B. Challenged Claims ....................................................................................... 6
`C. Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 8
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 8
`V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ........................................................................... 9
`VI. GROUND 1: MCCARTHY+GIEN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-
`20 ........................................................................................................................ 9
`VII. GROUND 1A: MCCARTHY+GIEN RENDERS OBVIOUS ALL VM
`CLAIMS .......................................................................................................... 10
`A. The earliest effective filing date for the VM Claims is September
`10, 2004 ..................................................................................................... 10
`1. VM Claims .......................................................................................... 12
`a. “virtual machines” ....................................................................... 12
`b. ’594 application ........................................................................... 13
`i.
`partitions are not VMs ........................................................ 14
`ii. partitions running software are not VMs ............................ 15
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`iii. VM functionality is not described ...................................... 16
`c. ’753 application ........................................................................... 18
`i.
`partitions are not VMs ........................................................ 18
`ii.
`reference to “applications” does not describe VMs ........... 18
`2. VSL Claims ......................................................................................... 19
`a. ’594 application ........................................................................... 19
`b. ’753 application ........................................................................... 21
`3. Host OS Claims ................................................................................... 22
`a. ’594 application ........................................................................... 22
`b. ’753 application ........................................................................... 23
`B. References and motivation to combine ..................................................... 24
`1. McCarthy ............................................................................................. 24
`2. Gien ..................................................................................................... 24
`3. McCarthy+Gien ................................................................................... 29
`a. Reasons to combine .................................................................... 29
`i.
`Solve resizing costs in McCarthy ....................................... 30
`ii.
`Improve scalability ............................................................. 31
`iii. Savings from server consolidation ..................................... 31
`iv. Support portability .............................................................. 32
`v. Applying Known Technique to a Known Device
`Ready for Improvement ...................................................... 32
`b. Resulting Combination and
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ............................................ 32
`C. Claim-by-Claim Analysis .......................................................................... 35
`1. Method Claims 9-14 ............................................................................ 36
`a. Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 36
`i.
`[8.p]: A method, comprising ............................................... 36
`ii.
`[8.a]: creating a plurality of computing domains; .............. 37
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`v.
`
`iii. [8.b]: allocating a plurality of resources between
`said plurality of computing domains by a first
`manager process; ................................................................. 38
`iv. [8.c]: executing at least one application, a second
`manager process, and a performance monitor
`process in each of said plurality of computing
`domains, .............................................................................. 38
`[8.d]: wherein said second manager process
`maintains a list comprising a plurality of
`application priority levels for said at least one
`application and an indication of a quantity of said
`plurality of resources needed to meet said at least
`one level of said application priority levels and ................. 39
`(1) McCarthy Meets [8.d] ................................................ 39
`(2) McCarthy+Gien Meets [8.d] ...................................... 40
`vi. [8.e]: wherein said performance monitor process
`generates performance data related to said at least
`one application and ............................................................. 41
`vii. [8.f]: said second manager process requests
`additional resources from the first manager process
`in response to analysis of said performance data in
`view of at least one service level parameter; and ............... 41
`viii. [8.g]: dynamically reallocating said plurality of
`resources between said plurality of computing
`domains by the first manager process in response to
`received requests for additional resources
`according to service level parameters. ................................ 43
`ix. 9: The method of claim 8 wherein said creating a
`plurality of computing domains comprises: creating
`multiple virtual machines from a single server
`platform using a virtualization software layer. ................... 45
`b. Claim 10: The method of claim 9 wherein said
`virtualization software layer is implemented within a
`host operating system of said single server platform. ................. 45
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`c. Claim 11: The method of claim 10 wherein said
`dynamically reallocating is performed by a process
`executing on top of said host operating system. ......................... 46
`d. Claim 12: The method of claim 10 further
`comprising: executing a respective guest operating
`system on top of said host operating system for each
`of said multiple virtual machines. ............................................... 46
`e. Claim 13: The method of claim 10 wherein said
`dynamically reallocating comprises: performing
`system calls to said host operating system to reassign
`virtual resources. ......................................................................... 47
`f. Claim 14: The method of claim 10 wherein said
`performing system calls reassigns time slices
`associated with at least one processor. ........................................ 48
`2. System Claims 2-5............................................................................... 49
`a. Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 49
`i.
`[1.p]: A computing system, comprising: ............................ 49
`ii.
`[1.a]: a plurality of resources; ............................................. 50
`iii. [1.b]: a computer readable storage medium having
`instructions stored therein for executing a first
`manager process for allocating said plurality of
`resources to a plurality of computing domains on a
`dynamic basis according to service level
`parameters; and ................................................................... 50
`iv. [1.c]: at least one application, a respective second
`manager process, and a respective performance
`monitor process are executed within each
`computing domain, ............................................................. 51
`[1.d]: wherein said respective second manager
`process maintains a list comprising a plurality of
`application priority levels for said at least one
`application and an indication of a quantity of said
`plurality of resources needed to meet said at least
`one level of said plurality of application priority
`levels and ............................................................................ 51
`
`v.
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`vi. [1.e]: wherein said performance monitor generates
`performance data related to the execution of said at
`least one application and ..................................................... 51
`vii. [1.f]: said second manager process requests
`additional resources from said first manager
`process in response to analysis of performance data
`in view of at least one service level parameter. .................. 51
`viii. Claim 2: The computing system of claim 1 wherein
`said plurality of computing domains are virtual
`machines. ............................................................................ 52
`b. Claim 3: The computing system of claim 2 wherein
`said first manager process operates on a host
`operating system of said computing system. .............................. 52
`c. Claim 4: The computing system of claim 3 wherein a
`respective operating system executes on top of said
`host operating system for each of said plurality of
`computing domains. .................................................................... 53
`d. Claim 5: The computing system of claim 3 wherein
`said first manager process allocates said plurality of
`resources between said plurality of computing
`domains by assigning virtual resources to said
`plurality of computing domains through system calls
`to a kernel of said host operating system. ................................... 53
`3. CRM claims 16-18 .............................................................................. 54
`a. Claim 15 ...................................................................................... 54
`i.
`[15.p]: A computer readable storage medium
`having computer readable code stored thereon
`when executed by a processor perform a method
`comprising: ......................................................................... 54
`[15.a]: creating a plurality of computing domains; ............ 54
`ii.
`iii. [15.b]: allocating, by a first manager process, a
`plurality of resources between said plurality of
`computing domains; ............................................................ 54
`iv. [15.c]: generating, by a performance monitor
`process, performance data related to respective
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`v.
`
`applications associated with a plurality of
`computing domains; ............................................................ 55
`[15.d]: requesting, by a second manager process,
`additional resources for ones of said plurality of
`computing domains from the first manager process,
`in response to analysis of performance data from
`said generating in view of at least one service level
`parameter and an indication of a quantity of
`resources needed to meet said at least one service
`level parameter; and ............................................................ 55
`vi. [15.e]: dynamically allocating, by the first manager
`process, resources between said plurality of
`computing domains in response to said requesting,
`wherein said dynamically allocating determines
`when to reallocate resources using service level
`parameters associated with applications of said
`plurality of computing domains. ......................................... 55
`b. Claim 16: The computer readable storage medium of
`claim 15, wherein said plurality of computing
`domains are virtual machines. ..................................................... 56
`c. Claim 17: The computer readable storage medium of
`claim 16 wherein said code for dynamically allocating
`performs calls to a software virtualization layer to
`reassign resources between said plurality of
`computing domains. .................................................................... 57
`d. Claim 18: The computer readable storage medium of
`claim 16 wherein said code for dynamically allocating
`performs system calls to a host operating system to
`reassign resources between said plurality of
`computing domains. .................................................................... 57
`VIII. GROUND 1B: MCCARTHY+GIEN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1,
`6-8, 15, AND 19-20 ......................................................................................... 58
`A. No Parent Application Provides Written Description Supporting
`the Full Scope of “computing domains” ................................................... 58
`1. The Full Scope of “computing domains” Includes VMs .................... 58
`2. No Parent Application Describes VMs ............................................... 59
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`3. No Parent Application Describes A “computing domains”
`Genus ................................................................................................... 59
`a. ’594 application (now ’020 patent) ............................................. 60
`i. No common structural features ........................................... 60
`ii. No representative number of species .................................. 62
`b. ’753 application (now ’546 patent) ............................................. 65
`B. Method claim 8 .......................................................................................... 65
`C. System claims 1 and 6-7 ............................................................................ 65
`1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 65
`2. Claim 6: The computing system of claim 1 wherein said
`plurality of resources comprise at least one processor. ....................... 65
`3. Claim 7: The computing system of claim 6 wherein said first
`manager allocates time slices of said at least one processor
`between multiple computing domains of said plurality of
`computing domains. ............................................................................ 66
`D. CRM claims 15 and 19-20. ........................................................................ 66
`1. Claim 15. ............................................................................................. 66
`2. Claim 19: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`15 wherein said resources comprise processors. ................................. 66
`3. Claim 20: The computer readable storage medium of claim
`19 wherein said code for dynamically allocating reassigns
`time slices of said processors between said plurality of
`computing domains. ............................................................................ 67
`IX. GROUND 2: MCCARTHY ANTICIPATES OR RENDERS OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 1, 6 AND 8 ....................................................................................... 67
`A. Method claim 8 .......................................................................................... 67
`B. System claims 1 and 6 ............................................................................... 67
`1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 67
`2. Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 68
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED ................................. 68
`A. Discretionary Denial Not Warranted Under Fintiv ................................... 68
`1. Factor 1: Potential for litigation stay. .................................................. 68
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Factor 2: Trial date relative to FWD deadline. ................................... 69
`3. Factor 3: Investment in parallel proceedings. ..................................... 69
`4. Factor 4: Issue Overlap. ...................................................................... 69
`5. Factor 5: Parties. .................................................................................. 70
`6. Factor 6: Other considerations. ........................................................... 70
`B. Discretionary Denial Not Warranted Under Section 314(a) ..................... 70
`C. Discretionary Denial Not Warranted Under Section 325(d) ..................... 71
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,748,005 CLAIM LIST .......................................................... 75
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Amperex Tech. Ltd. v. Maxell Holding, Ltd.,
`IPR2021-01442, Paper 16 (April 12, 2022) ......................................................... 69
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ................................................... 68, 69
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020) .......................................................... 68
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (June 15, 2020) ................................................... 69, 70
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ............................................... 11, 60, 61
`Athrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022) ...................................................... 11, 62
`Chester v. Miller,
`906 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 3
`Coxcom, LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC,
`IPR2015-01760, Paper 25 (Feb. 15, 2017) .................................................... 11, 17
`D Three Enterprises, LLC v. SunModo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 60, 64
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 10
`
`General Plastic v. Canon,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sep. 6, 2017) ....................................................... 70, 71
`Google LLC v. Parus Holdings Inc.,
`IPR2020-00846, Paper 9 (Oct. 20, 2020) ............................................................. 70
`Hulu, LLC v. SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC,
`IPR2021-00158, Paper 34 (Apr. 15, 2022) ................................................... 11, 17
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01309, Paper 29 (December 20, 2019) .......................................... 24, 25
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 63
`
`Idenix Pharm. LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 61
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 24, 25
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 32
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 64
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 17
`Mercedes-Benz v. Carucel,
`IPR2019-01404, Paper 12 (Jan. 22, 2020) ........................................................... 71
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 9
`Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00030, Paper 12 (April 22, 2022) ......................................................... 68
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... passim
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu,
`912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 67
`Reckitt Benckiser v. Ansell Healthcare,
`IPR2017-00066, Paper 35 (Jan. 30, 2018) ............................................................. 3
`Rivera v. International Trade Commission,
`857 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 17, 64
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) .......................................................... 68
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00275, Paper 36 (May 2, 2018)
`affirmed No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022). ................................ 60, 62, 63
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.,
`IPR2022-01399, Paper 2 (Aug. 10, 2022). .................................................... 70, 71
`Valve v. Elec. Scripting,
`IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) ............................................................ 70
`Xilinx v. Arbor Global Strategies,
`IPR2020-01568, Paper 12 (Mar. 5, 2021) ............................................................ 71
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................... 4, 24, 58, 67
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 282 .......................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 71
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.53 ......................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ...................................................................... 9
`Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
`With Parallel District Court Litigation, USPTO (June 21, 2022) ................. 68, 69
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti (“Madisetti”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`U.S. Patent No. 7,140,020
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,546
`E. Bugnion et al., “Disco: Running Commodity Operating Systems
`on Scalable Multiprocessors,” ACM Transactions on Computer
`Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 412-447 (Nov. 1997).
`Robert P. Goldberg, “Survey of Virtual Machine Research,”
`Computer, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 34-45 (1974).
`Declaration of Sandra Ngo In Support Of Google LLC’s Petition
`For Inter Partes Review Of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005
`Redline comparison of written disclosure in U.S. Patent No.
`7,748,005 and U.S. Patent No. 7,140,020
`Pages from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th Ed. 1999)
`Pages from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (16½ Ed. 2000)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0037092 A1
`(“McCarthy”)
`Statutory Declaration of Anthony Corsini with Exhibit A, Michel
`Gien and Lori Grob, “Micro-kernel based operating systems:
`Moving UNIX onto modern system architectures.” Proceedings of
`the UniForum’92 Conference, pp. 45-55 (1992) (“Gien”)1
`
`
`1 The ribbon copy of Ex. 1014 is available for inspection in the offices of
`
`Petitioner’s counsel on request.
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`1027
`
`Pages from IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standard Terms (7th Ed. 2000)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0100250 A1
`(“Chen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,085,705 B2 (“Traut”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,725,317 (“Bouchier”)
`A. Silberschatz and P.B. Galvin, Operating System Concepts (5th
`Ed. 1998).
`B. Herrmann and L. Philippe, “Multicomputers UNIX based on
`CHORUS,” in European Conference on Distributed Memory
`Computing, pp. 440-449, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991.
`U.S. District Court—Judicial Caseload Profile for Northern District
`of Texas in U.S. District Courts-Combined Civil and Criminal
`Federal Court Management Statistics (March 31, 2022), available
`at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-
`management-statistics/2022/03/31-1
`Todd Volz, “Virtualization—divide and multiply your servers,”
`ZDNet (November 14, 2002), available at
`www.zdnet.com/article/virtualization-divide-and-multiply-your-
`servers
`“Twenty-to-One Consolidation on Intel Architecture: New Tools
`for Virtualization and Workload Management,” Intel Solutions
`White Paper: Server Consolidation (2003).
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0221290 A1
`(“Casey”)
`M. Migliardi et al. “Dynamic Reconfiguration and Virtual Machine
`Management in the Harness Metacomputing System” In
`Computing in Object-Oriented Parallel Environments. ISCOPE
`1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1505, pp. 127-134.
`(Caromel, D., Oldehoeft, R.R., Tholburn, M. Eds., Springer, Berlin,
`Heidelberg 1998).
`U.S. Patent No. 3,980,992 (“Levy”)
`Dkt. 51, Scheduling Order, Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google
`LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00066-N (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2022)
`
`- xiii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`Docket printout for Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No.
`3:22-cv-00066-N (N.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of James L. Mullins, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,938 (“Bugnion”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,739 (“Eilert”)
`M. Rozier et al., “CHORUS Distributed Operating Systems,”
`Computing Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 305-370 (1988)
`A. Bricker et al., “Architectural issues in microkernel-based
`operating systems: The CHORUS experience.” Computer
`Communications, vol. 14, no. 6, pp.347-357 (1991).
`V. Uhlig et al. “Towards Scalable Multiprocessor Virtual
`Machines,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Virtual Machine Research
`and Technology Symposium, San Jose, California, pp. 43-56
`(USENIX 2004).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,553,291 (“Tanaka”)
`“VMWare releases ESX 2.0” (July 21, 2003), available at
`www.computerweekly.com/news/2240051816/VMWare-releases-
`ESX-20
`M. Rozier et al. “Overview of the Chorus Distributed Operating
`System.” In Workshop on Micro-Kernels and Other Kernel
`Architectures, pp. 39-69, (1992).
`S. Famorzadeh et al., “BEEHIVE: an adaptive, distributed,
`embedded signal processing environment,” in 1997 IEEE
`International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`Processing, vol. 1, pp. 663-666 (1997).
`HP-UX Workload Manager Toolkits User’s Guide. HP
`Manufacturing Part No. T1302-90012 (June 2003).
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0041858 (“Lewis”)
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`
`- xiv -
`
`

`

`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`
`
`
`
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,2643 (“Colby”)
`Apache HTTP Server Version 1.3 Apache Virtual Host
`Documentation, archived February 10, 1999 at
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990210055837/http://apache.org:80/
`docs/vhosts
`Apache HTTP Server Version 1.3 Apache IP-based Virtual Host
`Support, archived February 18, 1999 at
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990218075923/http://apache.org:80/
`docs/vhosts/ip-based.html
`B. Laurie & P. Laurie, Apache: The Definitive Guide (O’Reilly 2d
`Ed. 1999).
`R. T. Fielding and G. Kaiser, “The Apache HTTP Server Project,”
`in IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 88-90, July-Aug.
`1997.
`
`
`
`- xv -
`
`

`

`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner Google LLC is the Real Party-in-Interest.
`
`B. Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following:
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`The ’005 patent has expired. All related patents have expired for
`
`nonpayment of maintenance fees. There are no related applications pending. There
`
`are no known related proceedings at the Office.
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(i) Unified Patents, LLC v. Valtrus Innovations LTD, Case No. IPR2022-
`
`01399;
`
`(ii) Concurrently with this Petition, Petitioner is filing a second petition,
`
`IPR2022-01408, challenging claims 1-20 of the ’005 patent. Petitioner requests
`
`that these two petitions challenging the ’005 patent be reviewed by the same panel.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
`
`The following pending federal district court litigation may affect or be
`
`affected by the decision in this proceeding: Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google
`
`LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00066-N (N.D. Tex.) (the “Texas case”). The complaint was
`
`filed on January 10, 2022 as Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 4:22-cv-
`
`00020-O (N.D. Tex.). On January 11, 2022, the district court transferred the action
`
`- xvi -
`
`

`

`
`
`to the Dallas division where it was captioned 3:22-cv-00066-N. Petitioner was
`
`served with the complaint in the Texas case on January 12, 2022.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`Information
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Gregory F Corbett, pending admission pro hac vice
`E-mail: GHrycyszyn-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
` AWichman-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`RGiunta-PTAB@WolfGreenfield.com
` Gregory.Corbett@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Telephone: 617-646-8000
`Facsimile: 617-646-8646
`
` power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
` A
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`- xvii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-20 (“Challenged Claims”