throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: August 30, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00955
`Case IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`1 We consolidate the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and join with
`IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157, which have also been consolidated.
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`On April 27, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed (1) a
`
`Petition (IPR2016-00955, Paper 2 (“955 Petition” or “Pet. 955”)) to institute
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,225,408 B2 (“the ’408 patent”); and (2) a Petition (IPR2016-00956,
`
`Paper 2 (“956 Petition” or “Pet. 956”)) to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 3–7, 12–16, and 18–21 of the ’408 patent. Concurrent with filing its
`
`Petition in IPR2015-00955, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder of
`
`IPR2016-00955 (IPR2016-00955, Paper 3, “955 Motion” or “Mot. 955”)
`
`with Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Cases IPR2015-02001 and
`
`IPR2016-00157 (“the consolidated PAN IPRs”), which is a consolidated
`
`proceeding instituted on March 29, 2016. On August 1, 2016, Petitioner
`
`filed a Motion for Joinder of IPR2016-00956 (IPR2016-00956, Paper 12,
`
`“956 Motion” or “Mot. 956”) with the consolidated PAN IPRs. The 955
`
`Motion is timely but the 956 Motion is untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Patent Owner filed waivers of its Preliminary Responses in both IPR2016-
`
`00955 (Paper 10) and IPR2016-00956 (Paper 11).
`
`We institute inter partes review in both proceedings, consolidate the
`
`proceedings, and join with the consolidated PAN IPRs. We excuse the
`
`untimeliness of the 956 Motion.
`
`
`
`I. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The 955 Petition asserts the same grounds as those asserted in the
`
`petition filed in IPR2015-02001. See Pet. 955, 4. Upon review of the 955
`
`Petition, we note that it substantially duplicates, almost word-for-word, the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`petition filed in IPR2015-02001. See Mot. 955, 1 (“. . . narrowly tailored to
`
`the grounds of unpatentability that are the subject of IPR2015-02001, . . .
`
`including the same analysis of the prior art and expert testimony”).
`
`Similarly, the 956 Petition asserts the same grounds as those asserted in the
`
`petition filed in IPR2016-00157 in substantially duplicative fashion. See
`
`Pet. 956, 4, Mot. 956, 1. The cited art is (Exhibits 1003–1005 are the same
`
`in both proceedings):
`
`Chandnani
`Kolawa
`Walls
`Huang
`
`US 7,636,945 B2
`US 5,860,011
`US 7,284,274 B1
`US 6,968,539 B1
`
`Dec. 22, 2009
`Jan. 12, 1999
`Oct. 16, 2007
`Nov. 22, 2005
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1062 of
`IPR2016-00956
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s challenges of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 in
`
`IPR2016-00955, and challenges of dependent claims 3–7, 12–16, and 18–21
`
`in IPR2016-00956, as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are summarized in
`
`the following table. Pet. 955, 4; Pet. 956, 4.
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`References
`1, 3–5, 9, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, and 35
`Chandnani and Kolawa
`1, 3–5, 9, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, and 35
`Chandnani, Kolawa, and Walls
`6, 7, 20, and 21
`Chandnani, Kolawa, and Huang
`Chandnani, Kolawa, Walls, and Huang 6, 7, 20, and 21
`
`
`In view of the identity of the challenges between the instant Petitions
`
`and those considered in the consolidated PAN IPRs, and in light of Patent
`
`Owner’s waiver of its Preliminary Responses, we institute inter partes
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`reviews in these proceedings on the same grounds instituted in the
`
`consolidated PAN IPRs, and consolidate the proceedings under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(d). In subsequent briefing (subject to the limits described below), the
`
`parties shall file consolidated briefs that collectively address the issues in
`
`both proceedings, subject to the usual page limits.
`
`
`
`II. MOTIONS FOR JOINDER
`
`Joinder in inter partes review is subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c):
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`
`As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled
`
`to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should:
`
`(1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds
`
`of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if
`
`any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See
`
`Frequently Asked Question H5, http://www.uspto.gov/patentsapplication-
`
`process/appealing-patentdecisions/trials/patent-reviewprocessing-system-
`
`prps-0.
`
`The 955 Motion was filed less than one month after institution of the
`
`consolidated PAN IPRs, but the 956 Motion was filed outside that time
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`window, making the 956 Motion untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Nevertheless, within the one-month window, Petitioner indicated its
`
`intention to file the 956 Motion concurrently with the 956 Petition.
`
`Pet. 956, 2 (“Petitioner has filed herewith a motion to join the Consolidated
`
`PAN IPRs”); see Mot. 956, 1 (assertion that “[t]his Motion for Joinder . . . is
`
`submitted within one month of the date on which the Consolidate PAN IPRs
`
`were instituted” suggests original intention to file with the 956 Petition).
`
`Patent Owner does not oppose joinder in either proceeding and
`
`acknowledges that Petitioner’s failure to file timely the 956 Motion “appears
`
`to be a clerical error.” IPR2016-00956, Paper 11, 1. Under the
`
`circumstances, and although Petitioner has not filed a motion to have the
`
`untimely filing accepted, we excuse the delay in filing the 956 Motion. See
`
`42.5(c)(1) (authorizing the Board to modify default times by order, subject
`
`to statutory restrictions).
`
`Petitioner shows sufficiently that joinder is appropriate. The Petitions
`
`are substantially identical and rely on the same evidence, including the same
`
`declaration testimony by Dr. Aviel D. Rubin. Ex. 1002 (both proceedings).
`
`Petitioner further shows that the trial schedule will not be affected by
`
`joinder. Mot. 955, 6–7; Mot. 956, 6–7. No changes in the schedule are
`
`anticipated or necessary, and Petitioner’s limited participation, if at all, will
`
`not impact the timeline of the ongoing trial. We limit Petitioner’s
`
`participation in the joined proceeding such that Petitioner shall require prior
`
`authorization from the Board before filing any further paper. This
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`arrangement promotes the just and efficient administration of the ongoing
`
`trial and the interests of Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that IPR2016-00955 and IPR2016-00956 are
`
`consolidated;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted with
`
`respect to the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`(1) claims 1, 3–5, 9, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, and 35 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chandnani and Kolawa;
`
`
`
`(2) claims 1, 3–5, 9, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, and 35 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chandnani, Kolawa, and Walls;
`
`
`
`(3) claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Chandnani, Kolawa, and Huang; and
`
`
`
`(4) claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Chandnani, Kolawa, Walls, and Huang;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Joinder are
`
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which trial was instituted
`
`in consolidated IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157 are unchanged, and no
`
`other grounds are included in the joined proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`
`IPR2015-02001 (Paper 8) and IPR2016-00157 (Paper 11) shall govern the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`schedule of the joined proceeding, subject to permissible stipulated schedule
`
`changes by the parties;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout the joined proceeding, no
`
`filing by Petitioner Blue Coat Systems, Inc. alone is permitted without prior
`
`authorization by the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`
`the record of IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2016-00955 and IPR2016-00956 are
`
`terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and all further filings in the joined
`
`prcoeeding be made in consolidated IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in consolidated
`
`IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157 be changed to reflect joinder in
`
`accordance with the attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00955, IPR2016-00956
`Patent 8,225,408 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Michael T. Rosato (Lead Counsel)
`Andrew S. Brown (Back-up counsel)
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`PETITIONER in consolidated PAN IPRs:
`Matthew I. Kreeger (Lead Counsel)
`Jonathan Bockman
`FinjanPANMofoTeam@mofo.com
`
`Orion Armon (Lead Counsel)
`Max Colice (Back-up Counsel)
`Jennifer Volk (Back-up Counsel)
`Brian Eutermoser (Back-up Counsel)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`mcolice@cooley.com
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`beutermoser@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`James Hannah (Lead Counsel)
`Michael Lee (Back-up Counsel)
`Jeffrey H. Price (Back-up Counsel)
`Michael Kim (Back-up Counsel)
`Shannon Hedvat (Back-up Counsel)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`mkim@finjan.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper XX
`Entered: XX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-02001
`Case IPR2016-00157
`Patent 7,647,633 B21
`_______________
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157 are consolidated. Cases
`IPR2016-00955 and IPR2016-00956 have been consolidated and joined with
`this consolidated proceeding.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket