United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`AMX, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`________________________________________________
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
`Introduction and Summary of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2
`A. Status of Related Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`B. Chrimar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
`3
`C. The ’838 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`5
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`Arguments and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`A. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
` 10
`B. Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`1. Prior Claim Constructions from the District
`Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`C. Petitioner has not shown that Katzenberg is prior
`art to the ’838 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`1. Legal Standard: A provisional application must
`demonstrate that the patentee possessed the
`invention when the application was filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`2. The ’279 Provisional fully discloses the
`inventions claimed by the ’838 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`D. The Petition should be denied because Petitioner
`has not made a prima facie case that the ’838
`Patent’s claims are obvious in view of the De
`Nicolo references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`1. Obviousness Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`2. The De Nicolo References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`a. The ’666 Patent discloses a method and
`apparatus for allocating power among
`processor cards in a closed, modular system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`15
`
`13
`
`– ii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`b. The ’468 Patent discloses a system for
`powering Ethernet-based telephones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`3. Petitioner does not assert that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to combine the De Nicolo references
`to achieve the apparatus claimed by the ’838
`Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`4. Petitioner offers only a conclusory statement
`that a person of ordinary skill would have
`known how to combine the De Nicolo
`references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`5. Petitioner does not contend that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
`45
`Certificate of Compliance with Word Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`47
`
`
`
`39
`
`35
`
`– iii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
` Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`14, 17
`
`14, 17
`
`Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F. 3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26, 27, 39
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`— F.3d —, 2016 WL 2620512 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 44
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., Inc.,
`228 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`Princeton Biochems., Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`17, 19
`
` 26
`
`16
`
`– iv –
`
`

`
`15
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2015-00155, Paper No. 30 (Apr. 7, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`Tietex Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-01248, Paper No. 39 (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Utter v. Hiraga,
`845 F.2d 993 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 (Apr. 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 39
`Zoltek Corp. v. U.S.,
`815 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`
`Rules
`12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
` 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`12
`
`13
`1, 11
`
`– v –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`
`Transcript of Telephone Proceedings, April 13, 2016,
`IPR2016-00569, IPR2016-00574, IPR2016-00572,
`IPR2016-00573
`Chrimar’s Proposed Discovery Requests
`Hewlett-Packard Co. and Aruba Networks, Inc.’s
`Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Dkt. No. 1,
`filed in Hewlett-Packard Co., et al. v. Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-12569,
`Eastern District of Michigan
`Notice of Appearance of David H. Dolkas, Dkt. No.
`104, filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-1300,
`Northern District of California
`AMX’s Initial Disclosures, served in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, Civil Action No. 6:15-
`cv-163, Eastern District of Texas
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc.’s 2015 Annual Report on Form
`10-K, Page 72
`Notice of Appearance of Matthew Yungwirth, Dkt.
`No. 15, filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`Civil Action No. 13-cv-881, Eastern District of Texas
`Order Granting Application for Admission of
`Attorney Pro Hac Vice as to Matthew Yungwirth,
`Dkt. No. 49, filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v.
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Northern District of California
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`4/20/2016
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`– vi –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 96, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 105, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6.13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 108, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 122, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 123, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,650,622
`U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250
`
`– vii –
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`6/9/2016
`6/9/2016
`
`6/9/2016
`
`6/9/2016
`
`6/9/2016
`
`6/9/2016
`
`6/9/2016
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`6/9/2016
`6/9/2016
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`2028
`2029
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`6/9/2016
`6/9/2016
`
`– viii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`Introduction and Summary of Arguments
`
`Petitioner wrongly contends that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`(Ex. 1005; the “’838 Patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (Ex.
`
`1037; “Katzenberg”) and rendered obvious by the De Nicolo references— U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,115,468 (Ex. 1019, the ’468 Patent) and 6,134,666 (Ex. 1020, the ’666
`
`Patent).1
`
`The Board should dismiss the Petition and decline to institute a trial in this
`
`case. Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that one or
`
`more challenged claims of the ’838 Patent will be found unpatentable, as required
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Specifically, with respect to
`
`Ground 1, Katzenberg is not prior art to the ’838 Patent. The ’838 Patent claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279 (Ex. 2029), which predates
`
`Katzenberg and fully discloses the inventions claimed by the’838 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner cannot show that Katzenberg anticipates the ’838 Patent.
`
`With respect to Ground 2, the De Nicolo references, Petitioner points to no
`
`evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the problems discussed in
`
`
`1 In each case, the claims at issue are: independent claim 1 and its dependent
`
`claims 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 40, 47, 55, 69.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`the ’838 Patent, would have been motivated to combine them to achieve the
`
`inventions claimed by the ’838 Patent. Further, Petitioner offers only conclusory
`
`argument, unsupported by fact, that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood how to combine the references. Further still, Petitioner fails to argue,
`
`much less point to evidence, that a person of ordinary skill would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that combining the references would have resulted in the
`
`inventions claimed by the patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has not made a prima
`
`facie case that any claim of the ’838 Patent is obvious in light of the De Nicolo
`
`references. The Board should reject Ground 2 of the Petition.
`
`This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is being
`
`filed within three months of the Notice dated March 10, 2016, granting the Petition
`
`a filing date of March 3, 2016. While Patent Owner here addresses some limited
`
`aspects of the Petition, if instituted, Patent Owner expects to address these and
`
`other aspects of the petition in greater detail.
`
` Background
`
`A. Status of Related Litigation
`The ’838 Patent is currently one of four related patents2 asserted in litigation
`
`2 The four related patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (Ex. 2028);
`
`9,049,019 (Ex. 1007); 8,942,107 (Ex. 1003) and 9,019,838 (Ex. 1005).
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`pending in the Eastern District of Texas against Petitioner: Chrimar Systems, Inc. et
`
`al. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-163. The Court construed certain
`
`terms of the ’838 Patent and denied AMX’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`invalidity on March 28, 2016.3 Trial is scheduled for October of 2016 against AMX.
`
`B. Chrimar
`Chrimar was founded in 1993 by Chris Young and Marshall Cummings.4 After
`
`learning about a number of thefts of networked equipment at the University of
`
`Michigan, where Mr. Cummings worked, the two began developing security
`
`solutions for networked equipment. While many in the industry focused on locking
`
`computers to desks and installing video surveillance systems, Messrs. Cummings
`
`and Young began focusing on an easily overlooked fact—these devices were already
`
`individually wired to the network by their own network cabling.
`
`In 1992, Messrs. Cummings and Young filed a patent application, which
`
`issued in 1995 as U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 entitled “Network Security System for
`
`Detecting Removal of Electronic Equipment.”5 The ’260 Patent claimed
`
`
`3 See Exs. 2020 and 2021.
`
`4 Chrimar is a combination of “Chri” from Chris and “Mar” from Marshall.
`
`5 Ex. 1016, the “’260 Patent.”
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`inventions related to monitoring the physical connectivity of a piece of equipment
`
`(e.g., a computer) to a network using existing network wiring—even when the
`
`piece of equipment was powered off. Realizing the uniqueness and potentially
`
`broad appeal of this idea, Messrs. Cummings and Young founded Chrimar in 1993
`
`and began working on a commercial product they called EtherLock.
`
`In response to customer demand, Chrimar expanded and John Austermann
`
`joined the company in 1997 to oversee its general management and direct its sales
`
`and marketing efforts. He and Mr. Cummings began contemplating ideas to expand
`
`the company’s product offerings. They soon conceived of inventions related to
`
`managing, tracking, and controlling assets that physically connect to a network,
`
`which led to the ’838 Patent and six other granted patents—all of which claim
`
`priority to Chrimar’s provisional patent application dated April 10, 1998.6
`
`
`6 Those patents are U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,650,622 (Ex. 2026); 7,457,250 (Ex.
`
`2027); 8,155,012 (Ex. 2028); 9,049,019 (Ex. 1007); 8,902,760 (Ex. 1001); and
`
`8,942,107 (Ex. 1003), each of which claims priority to provisional application no.
`
`60/081,279 (Ex. 2029). U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,250 was subjected to a reexam, and all
`
`reexamined claims were confirmed as patentable.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`In early 1998, Chrimar began developing a new generation of products based
`
`on the inventions disclosed and claimed in those patents. And in the fall of 1998,
`
`Chrimar began selling new products that enabled physical control, tracking,
`
`management, and security of computer assets and network ports.
`
`C. The ’838 Patent
`
`The ’838 Patent is directed to methods and systems for managing devices
`
`connected in a wired network. The claims “relate[] generally to computer networks
`
`and, more particularly, to a network management and security system for
`
`managing, tracking, and identifying remotely located electronic equipment on a
`
`network.”7 The “invention is particularly adapted to be used with an existing
`
`Ethernet communications link or equivalents thereof.”8
`
`More specifically, the patent discloses identifying an “asset,” such as a
`
`computer, “by attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`
`communicating with that device using existing network wiring or cabling.”9 The
`
`
`7 ’838 Patent at 1:227–30 (Ex. 1005); see also Declaration of Dr. Vijay K.
`
`Madisetti ¶ 17 (Ex. 2015, “Madisetti Dec.”).
`
`8 ’838 Patent at 3:41–43 (Ex. 1005).
`
`9 ’838 Patent at 2:4–6 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1005).
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`remote device is referred to as a “remote module.”10 An asset can be managed,
`
`tracked, or identified by using the remote module to communicate information
`
`about the asset to network monitoring equipment, referred to as a “central
`
`module.”11
`
`The basic configuration of an embodiment of the system claimed by the patent
`
`is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below with highlights and annotations.
`
`
`
`
`High-frequency data in an Ethernet network propagates between a hub (1) and
`
`a PC (3a) over two pairs of conductive lines—a pair of transmit lines, highlighted in
`
`green (conductors 1 & 2), and a pair of receive lines, highlighted in red (conductors
`
`3 and 6). A central module (15a) and a remote module (16a) are placed between the
`
`
`10 ’838 Patent at 3:27–30 (Ex. 1005).
`
`11 ’838 Patent at 3:27–32; 6:7–12; 8:64–9:5 (Ex. 1005); see also Madisetti Dec.
`
`¶ 18 (Ex. 2015).
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`hub and the PC, with the high-frequency data propagating through them. What’s
`
`novel about the system is that the remote module can convey information about the
`
`PC to the central module wherein the information is carried by different
`
`magnitudes of DC current flowing through the same conductive lines as the high-
`
`frequency data without adversely affecting the high-frequency data. This is
`
`generally represented in the figure above by the black arrows between the central
`
`and remote modules. The different magnitudes of DC current convey information
`
`about the PC, and this can happen even when the PC is powered off.12
`
` The central module has a direct connection to the remote module via a
`
`conventional Ethernet cable. More importantly, the central module can be
`
`connected to multiple remote modules. The diagram below shows an exemplary
`
`configuration consisting of a central module connected to four remote modules.
`
`
`
`
`12 See, e.g., Madisetti Dec. ¶¶ 20 and 22–30 (Ex. 2015).
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`This arrangement is commonly referred to as being part of a “star” or “hub
`
`and spoke” configuration, in which the central module has a direct electrical
`
`connection to the remote modules, allowing it to identify, communicate with, and
`
`manage each of the assets—as opposed to a “bus” configuration where
`
`communication lines (and thus the electrical connection) are shared among several
`
`devices.
`
`This system allowed the patentees to solve a number of problems associated
`
`with prior-art asset-management systems. As the patent explains:
`
`[The prior art was] generally incapable of detecting the electrical
`
`connection status of equipment[;] it cannot detect the physical
`
`location of equipment, the identifying name of equipment is not
`
`permanent, and the monitored assets must be powered-up.
`
`Therefore, a method for permanently identifying an asset by
`attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`communicating with that device using existing network
`wiring or cabling is desirable. . . . It would also be desirable to
`communicate with the device without requiring the device or
`the asset to be connected to alternating current (AC) power.
`
`Such a device would allow a company to track its assets, locate
`
`any given asset, and count the total number of identified assets at
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`any given time, thus significantly reducing its [total cost of
`ownership] of identified assets.13
`
`In short, the patentees were looking for a way to identify, communicate with,
`
`and manage distributed assets in a network, over existing network wires, even when
`
`the assets are powered off. The innovative devices, methods, and systems
`
`described and claimed by the ’838 Patent achieve each of these goals. Specifically,
`
`they are able to: (1) convey information about assets—e.g., a company’s
`
`computers—over the same lines already being used to convey high-frequency data
`
`communications to the assets, without substantially interfering with the high-
`
`frequency data communications14; and (2) convey information about the assets
`
`even when the assets are powered off.15
`
`
`13 ’838 Patent at 1:65–2:15 (Ex. 1005); see also Madisetti Dec. ¶ 32 (Ex. 2015).
`
`14 See, e.g., ’838 Patent at 12:3–5 (“The system transmits a signal over pre-
`
`existing network wiring or cables without disturbing network communi-
`
`cations . . . .”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`15 See, e.g., ’838 Patent at 5:4–6 (describing an embodiment of the invention
`
`“capable of identifying the existence and location of network assets without power
`
`being applied to the assets.”); id. at 12:54–56 (“[T]he system provides a means for
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`The Parties appear to agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the ’838 Patent would have, at a minimum, an undergraduate degree or
`
`the equivalent in the field of electrical engineering or a related ancillary field, and
`
`one to three years of experience with data-communications networks, such as
`
`Ethernet networks. Having experience with data-communications networks, such
`
`a person would also be familiar with data-communications protocols and standards.
`
` Arguments and Authorities
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in
`
`the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The petitioner bears the burden of proof to
`
`“demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). At all stages of
`
`the IPR, this burden of proof stays with the petitioner and never shifts to the patent
`
`owner to prove the patentability of the challenged claims. See Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`permanently identifying the location of network assets without applying power to
`
`the assets.”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Tietex
`
`Int’l, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., IPR2014-01248, Paper No. 39 at 11
`
`(2016).
`
` When filing an IPR Petition, the petitioner must include sufficient evidence
`
`and argument to meet its burden of proof. The petition must include “[a] full
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of
`
`the significance of the evidence including material facts, the governing law, rules,
`
`and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (requiring IPR
`
`petitions to meet the requirements of §§ 42.6, 42.8, 42.22, and 42.23).
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review of an unexpired patent, the Board gives the claims the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification . . . .” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). The broadest reasonable construction, however, is still bounded by
`
`what is legally correct and supported by the patent specification. Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`1. Prior Claim Constructions from the District Court Litigation
`
`Certain terms of the ’838 Patent and several of its related patents sharing a
`
`common specification have been construed in district-court litigation and have
`
`faced several motions for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement.
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`None of the claims involved were found invalid as indefinite. The following orders
`
`are included as exhibits and provide claim-construction guidance from the district-
`
`court litigation.
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Description
`Memorandum Opinion and order denying AMX’s motion for
`summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’012 Patent (Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas, ECF No. 96)
`Memorandum Opinion and order construing certain terms of the
`’012 Patent (Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action
`No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas, ECF No. 105)
`Memorandum Opinion and order construing certain terms of the
`’012 Patent and denying AMX’s motion for summary judgment of
`indefiniteness regarding the “distinguishing” terms of the ’012
`Patent (Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No.
`6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas, ECF No. 108)
`Memorandum Opinion and order denying AMX’s motion for
`summary judgment of indefiniteness regarding certain claims of the
`’012, ’107, and ’760 Patents (Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas,
`ECF No. 122)
`Markman order construing certain terms of the ’012, ’107, ’760, and
`’838 Patents (Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action
`No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas, ECF No. 123)
`
`The table below identifies relevant terms of the ’838 Patent together with the
`
`Court’s construction for each term. Patent Owner submits that these are the
`
`proper broadest reasonable interpretations for each term.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`“Ethernet terminal
`equipment”
`
`“current” / “current flow”
`
`“BaseT”
`
`“powered off”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“device at which data transmission can originate or
`terminate and that is capable of Ethernet
`communication”
`Ex. 2021, order construing certain terms of the ’012,
`’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents , at 13.
`
`“a flow of electric charge.”
`Ex. 2021, order construing certain terms of the ’012,
`’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents, at 16.
`
`“twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the
`10BASE-T or 100BASE-T standards.”
`Ex. 2021, order construing certain terms of the ’012,
`’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents, at 18.
`
`“without operating power”
`Ex. 2021, order construing certain terms of the ’012,
`’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents, at 20.
`
`C. Petitioner has not shown that Katzenberg is prior art to the ’838 Patent.
`
`The ’838 Patent claims priority to Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/081,279 (Ex. 2029; the “’279 Provisional”), which was filed on April 10, 1998.
`
`Katzenberg claims priority to Provisional Patent Application No. 60/123,688,
`
`which was filed eleven months later, on March 10, 1999. Nevertheless, Petitioner
`
`contends Katzenberg is prior art because the ’279 Provisional allegedly does not
`
`meet the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. As set forth
`
`below, Petitioner is wrong; the ’279 Provisional meets the written-description
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`requirement because it demonstrates that the applicants possessed the inventions
`
`claimed by the ’838 Patent.
`
`1. Legal Standard: A provisional application must demonstrate that the
`patentee possessed the invention when the application was filed.
`
`“The purpose of the written description requirement is to assure that the
`
`public receives sufficient knowledge of the patented technology, and to
`
`demonstrate that the patentee is in possession of the invention claimed.” Zoltek
`
`Corp. v. U.S., 815 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[W]ritten description is about
`
`whether the skilled reader of the patent disclosure can recognize that what was
`
`claimed corresponds to what was described; it is not about whether the patentee
`
`has proven to the skilled reader that the invention works, or how to make it work,
`
`which is an enablement issue.” Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d
`
`1180, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To meet this standard, “[a]n applicant is not required
`
`to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment
`
`of his invention.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001).16 Likewise, “[a] specification may, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`
`16 See also, e.g., Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003) (“The disclosure as originally filed does not . . . have to provide in haec
`
`verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”).
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`para. 1, contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without
`
`describing all species that [the] claim encompasses.” Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993,
`
`998 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`2. The ’279 Provisional fully discloses the inventions claimed by the ’838
`Patent.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’838 Patent recites:
`
`A central piece of network equipment comprising:
`
`at least one Ethernet connector comprising first and second pairs of
`
`contacts used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals; and
`
`the central piece of network equipment to detect different magnitudes
`
`of DC current flow via at least one of the contacts of the first and
`
`second pairs of contacts and to control application of at least one
`
`electrical condition to at least one of the contacts of the first and
`second pairs of contacts in response to at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow.17
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’279 Provisional does not disclose a portion of the
`
`final limitation of this claim.18 Specifically, Petitioner contends that the ’279
`
`Provisional does not disclose a central piece of network equipment that “can
`
`17 ’838 Patent, claim 1 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1005).
`
`18 Petitioner does not allege that the ’279 Provisional fails to disclose any other
`
`limitations of any of the claims at issue.
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`control application of an electrical condition in response to one magnitude.”19
`
`Petitioner’s argument is based on a flawed assumption; namely, that a provisional
`
`application cannot support patent claims unless the claims are limited to the scope
`
`of the preferred embodiment described in the application.
`
`One preferred embodiment disclosed in the ’279 Provisional includes
`
`Manchester encoding. Petitioner argues that Manchester encoding conveys
`
`information through multiple magnitudes of current or voltage, and b