IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Filed: September 14, 2012
`
`Issued: December 2, 2014
`
`Inventor(s): John F. Austermann, III
`and Marshall B. Cummings
`
`Assignee: ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`
`Title: Network System and Optional
`Tethers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................. 1
`A.
`42.8(b)(1): .............................................................................................. 1
`B.
`42.8(b)(2): .............................................................................................. 1
`C.
`42.8(b)(3)–(4): Counsel and Service Information ................................. 6
`FEES (42.103) ................................................................................................. 6
`III.
`IV. STANDING (42.104(A)) ................................................................................. 6
`V.
`Factors Do Not Support the Board Denying Institution Under §§ 314
`and 325 ............................................................................................................. 8
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (42.104(B)) .................................... 10
`A.
`42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................ 10
`B.
`42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ....................................................... 11
`C.
`42.104(b)(4): Unpatentability .............................................................. 13
`D.
`42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ..................................................... 14
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... 14
`A. Description of the ’760 Patent and the Well-Known Art of
`Phantom Powering .............................................................................. 14
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 15
`Ground 1: Claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 Are Obvious
`Based On Hunter In View Of Bulan ................................................... 16
`1.
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan .................................... 16
`2.
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan ................................. 29
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`E.
`
`D. Ground 2: Claim 146 is rendered obvious by Hunter in
`combination with Bulan, further in combination with Nelson. .......... 47
`1.
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan and Nelson ................. 47
`2.
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan and Nelson .............. 50
`Ground 3: Claim 146 is rendered obvious by Bloch in
`Combination With IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron ..................................... 54
`1.
`Overview of Bloch ................................................................... 55
`2.
`Overview of IEEE 802.3.......................................................... 59
`3.
`Overview of Peguiron .............................................................. 60
`4.
`Combined System of Bloch, IEEE 802.3, and Peguiron ......... 60
`5.
`Motivation to Combine Bloch, IEEE 802.3, and Peguiron ..... 61
`6.
`Application of Bloch in view of IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron .... 65
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt.,
`IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. February 12, 2013) .................................... 7
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc.,
`2:15-cv-10817, Dkt. 16 (E.D. Mich. February 17, 2018) ..................................... 7
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc.,
`2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 35 (E.D. Mich. April 6, 2018) ............................................. 7
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00724, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015) .................................... 55
`Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC,
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) .............................................. 7
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) .................................. 54
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 21
`QSC Audio Prods., LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00129, Paper No. 41 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015) .................................. 55
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................ 13
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................... 16, 47, 48, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 13
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ...................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................... 8, 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2143 ......................................................... 21
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Description
`Declaration of George Zimmerman Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,902,760
`Curriculum Vitae of George Zimmerman
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389,
`Paper No. 69 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01391,
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01397
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01399
`Paper No. 73 (P.T.A.B. April 26, 2018)
`Oral hearing transcript, August 31, 2017, Juniper Networks, Inc.
`v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, 1391, 1397, 1399.
`Opinion, ChriMar Holding Company, LLC, ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. dba CMA Technologies, Inc v. ALE USA Inc., fka Alcatel-
`Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc., 17-1848, Dkt. No. 55 (May 8, 2018)
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`Alcatel-Lucent S.A. et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas, Dkt. No. 122, March 28, 2016
`Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Jury Demand and
`Counterclaim to First Amended Complaint, Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 22 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16,
`2018)
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`Description
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`IEEE 802.3-1985
`IEEE 802.3i-1990
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993
`IEEE Standards Association News & Events: Press Releases
`“IEEE 802.3 Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of Innovation
`and Global Market Growth”
`Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 to Fisher
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 to De Nicolo
`U.S. Patent No. 6,140,911 to Fisher
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,865,152 to Luhmann
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5 to Peguiron, Certified Copy of
`an English Translation Version of CH 643 095 A5, and
`Declaration of John E. Dawson
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No.
`8,902,760, September 18, 2017
`Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action for U.S. Patent No.
`8,155,012, June 14, 2017
`Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwidth: A Serious Guide to
`High-Speed Networking”, Que Corporation (1997)
`Michael Nootbar, “Why Power Over Signal Pairs?” (March 2000)
`Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-Based
`Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`Description
`Robert Muir, “DTE power over MDI - DTE Discovery Process
`Proposal” (November 1999)
`Definitions of “10Base-T” and “100Base-T”, Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press 5th ed. 2002
`Standard Microsystems Corp. Data Catalog (1982)
`http://www.bitsavers.org/components/standardMicrosystems/_dat
`aBooks/1982_StandardMicrosystems.pdf
`UART Datasheet (2008)
`https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/SCC2691.pdf
`What is a DC-DC converter?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-converters/what-
`is-dc-dc-converter
`What is the Difference Between Linear and Switching
`Regulators? https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-
`converters/linear-vs-switching-regulators
`Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake
`
`
`
`Listing of Challenged Claims
`• 73[a]: A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`• 73[b]: Ethernet cabling having at least first and second individual pairs of
`conductors used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals, the at least
`first and second individual pairs of conductors physically connect between a
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and a piece of central network
`equipment
`• 73[c]: the piece of central network equipment is a BaseT Ethernet hub
`• 73[d]: the piece of central network equipment having at least one DC supply,
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from the at least one DC supply through a
`loop formed over at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one
`of the conductors of the second pair
`• 73[e]: the piece of central network equipment to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`• 106: The BaseT Ethernet system of claim 73 wherein the BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least one path.
`• 112: The BaseT Ethernet system of claim 73 wherein one or more magnitudes
`of the current flow through the loop represent information about the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`• 134: The BaseT Ethernet system of claim 73 wherein at least one of the
`different magnitudes of current flow through the loop is part of a detection
`protocol
`• 142: The BaseT Ethernet system of claim 73 wherein the piece of central BaseT
`Ethernet equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment from at least one other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`• 145: The BaseT Ethernet system according to any one of claim 73, 82-91, 94-
`100, 100-107, 108-121, 127-132, 134-139, or 140-144 wherein the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of BaseT Ethernet
`equipment
`• 146[a]: A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`• 146[b]: Ethernet cabling having at least first and second individual pairs of
`conductors used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals, the at least
`first and second individual pairs of conductors physically connect [sic] between
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and a piece of central network
`equipment
`• 146[c]: the piece of central network equipment is a BaseT Ethernet hub
`• 146[d]: the piece of central network equipment having at least one DC supply to
`provide at least one DC condition across at least one of the conductors of the
`first pair of conductors and at least one of the conductors of the second pairs of
`conductors,
`• 146[e]: the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment having at least one path
`to change impedance within a loop formed over the at least one of the
`conductors of the first pair of conductors and the at least one of the conductors
`of the second pair of conductors by changing impedance within the at least one
`path in response to the at least one DC condition across the at least one path.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims
`
`73, 106, 112, 134, 142, 145, and 146 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,902,760 (“’760 patent”) (Ex.1004).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Mandatory notices identified in 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b) are provided below.
`
`A.
`42.8(b)(1):
`Cisco is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`42.8(b)(2):
`The ’760 patent is the subject of two civil actions filed in the Eastern District
`
`of Michigan: Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770-AC-RSW (E.D.
`
`Mich.) and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13784-
`
`AC-RSW (E.D. Mich.) (consolidated with 2:17-cv-13770). Both are declaratory
`
`judgment actions allege non-infringement of the ’012 patent and related ChriMar
`
`patents in the same family.
`
`On April 26, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final
`
`Written Decision (“FWD”) in IPR2016-013991, which resulted in invalidity of
`
`claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent.
`
`ChriMar has appealed the FWD to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`1 IPR2017-00719 was joined with IPR2016-01399 and was terminated.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`(Dkt. 18-1984) which consolidated the appeal with other three FWDs for related
`
`patents (lead case Dkt. 18-1499). ChriMar’s consolidated brief is due August 27,
`
`2018. Petitioner’s is due October 8, 2018.
`
`The ’760 was also subject to Re-Exam No. 90/013,802 in which claims 73,
`
`145, 146 and 219 were amended. A Certificate issued on Sept. 18, 2017.
`
`Cisco is also requests for IPR of three other ChriMar patents, U.S. 8,155,012
`
`(“’012 patent”), 9,049,019 (“’019 patent”), and 9,812,825 (“’825 patent”). The ’760,
`
`’019, and ’825 patents are continuations of the ’012 patent (U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/370,430), sharing a common specification.
`
`Below is a full list of all prior and pending proceedings involving the ’760
`
`patent. Ex.1016.
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Juniper Networks Inc.
`Re-examination of ’760
`Patent
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Ruckus Wireless Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`NETGEAR
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Fortinet, Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`
`Case Number
`18-1984
`
`Jurisdiction
`CAFC
`
`Filed
`May 16, 2018
`
`90/013,802
`
`USPTO
`
`3:16-cv-00186 N.D. Cal.
`
`3:16-cv-00558 N.D. Cal.
`
`3:16-cv-00624 N.D. Cal.
`
`3:16-cv-00897 N.D. Cal.
`
`2:15-cv-10814 E.D. Mich.
`
`August 29,
`2016
`January 12,
`2016
`February 2,
`2016
`February 5,
`2016
`February 25,
`2016
`March 5, 2015
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Case Name
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`AMX, LLC v. ChriMar
`Sys., Inc.
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Aerohive Networks, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`Rukus Wireless, Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Alactel-Lucent S.A.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`AMX, LLC
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Accton Tech. Corp. USA
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ADTRAN, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Advantech Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Allworx Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. Alpha
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Black Box Corp.
`
`Jurisdiction
`Case Number
`2:15-cv-10817 E.D. Mich.
`
`Filed
`March 5, 2015
`
`2:15-cv-12569 E.D. Mich.
`
`July 20, 2015
`
`2:17-cv-13770 E.D. Mich.
`
`2:17-cv-13784 E.D. Mich.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`IPR2016-
`00574
`IPR2016-
`01399
`IPR2016-
`01759
`IPR2017-
`00719
`6:15-cv-00163 E.D. Tex.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`November 20,
`2017
`November 21,
`2017
`February 29,
`2016
`July 8, 2016
`
`September 8,
`2016
`January 18,
`2017
`March 6, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00614 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00615 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00616 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00618 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00619 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00620 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00621 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00622 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ASUSTek Computer
`International, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ASUS Computer
`International
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Buffalo Americas, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Costar Techs., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Eagle Eye Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Edimax Computer Co.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Korenix USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Leviton Manufacturing
`Co.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Moxa America Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`NETGEAR, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`NetMedia Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Phihong USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Rockwell Automation, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Ruckus Wireless Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Dell
`Inc.
`
`Jurisdiction
`Case Number
`6:15-cv-00623 E.D. Tex.
`
`Filed
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00624 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00625 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00626 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00627 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00628 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00630 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00631 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00632 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00633 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00634 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00635 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00636 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00637 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00638 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00639 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`EnGenius Techs., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. TP-
`Link USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Transition Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Huawei Techs. USA Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`TRENDware
`International, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`StarTech.com USA, LLP
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Tycon Sys. Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. VP
`Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`WatchGuard Techs., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Belden Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Belkin International, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Fotinet, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Allied Telesis, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. D-
`Link Sys., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Panasonic Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Johnson Controls, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Avigilon Corp.
`
`Jurisdiction
`Case Number
`6:15-cv-00640 E.D. Tex.
`
`Filed
`July 1, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00641 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00642 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00643 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00644 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00645 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00646 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00647 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00648 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00649 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00650 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00651 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00652 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:15-cv-00653 E.D. Tex.
`
`July 2, 2015
`
`6:17-cv-00637 E.D. Tex.
`
`6:17-cv-00654 E.D. Tex.
`
`6:17-cv-00682 E.D. Tex.
`
`November 9,
`2017
`November 17,
`2017
`December 8,
`2017
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`C.
`
`42.8(b)(3)–(4): Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`James E. Marina (Reg. No. 41,969)
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax:
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Robert Kang (Reg. No. 59,609)
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Fax: (415) 439-1500
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`
`A Power of Attorney is attached. (42.10(b).) Cisco consents to service by
`
`email at: Cisco-ChriMar-IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. FEES (42.103)
`Cisco authorizes the Office to charge the fee for this Petition, and any
`
`additional fees due, to Deposit Account No. 506092. Cisco requests review of eleven
`
`claims.
`
`IV. STANDING (42.104(A))
`Cisco certifies that the ’760 patent is available for IPR and that Cisco is not
`
`barred/estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`presented here. Cisco certifies:
`
`(1) Cisco is not the owner of the ’760 patent.
`
`(2) Neither Cisco nor any real party-in-interest has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of the Challenged Claims. Cisco previously filed a
`
`declaratory judgment action in March 2015 against ChriMar including a claim of
`
`invalidity of the Challenged Claims of the ’760 patent, but that action does not estop
`
`Cisco from filing this petition, because Cisco voluntarily dismissed the March 2015
`
`action. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:15-cv-10817, Dkt. 16 (E.D. Mich.
`
`February 17, 2018); Emerson Electric No. v. Sipco, LLC, IPR2015-01579, Paper 7,
`
`*2-3 (holding “[f]ederal courts treat a civil action that is dismissed without prejudice
`
`as ‘something that de jure never existed,’ ‘leav[ing] the parties as though the action
`
`had never been brought” and concluding a “previously filed DJ action [including a
`
`claim of invalidity] does not bar Petitioner from filing the Petition”).
`
`Cisco’s later-filed (2017) action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement raises invalidity of the Challenged Claims only as an affirmative
`
`defense to ChriMar’s counterclaim of infringement. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys.
`
`Inc., 2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 35 (E.D. Mich. April 6, 2018), and does not trigger
`
`estoppel. Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt., IPR2012-00022, Paper 20, *6
`
`(P.T.A.B. February 12, 2013) (holding that raising the affirmative defense of
`
`invalidity cannot be considered a filing of a civil action under Section 315(a)(1)).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`(3) Cisco files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with a
`
`counterclaim asserting infringement of the ’760 patent on March 16, 2018.
`
`(4) The estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR.
`
`(5) Cisco files this Petition after the ’760 patent was granted.
`
`V.
`
`FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER §§ 314 AND 325
`This is the first and only petition Cisco has filed for the ’760 patent. The
`
`Challenged Claims have not previously been subject to an IPR. These factors alone
`
`should suffice to alleviate any concern that the PTAB should exercise its discretion
`
`under 314(a) and deny institution to prevent inequities to the ChriMar and to ensure
`
`efficiency of the IPR process. However, the Petitioner addresses the following
`
`additional General Plastics factors for completeness.
`
`In the interests of judicial economy, on February 17, 2018 Cisco moved to
`
`stay its non-infringement action pending completion of ChriMar’s appeal of the
`
`FWD in IPR2016-01399 (“Juniper IPR”).2 On March 16, 2018, ChriMar opposed
`
`Cisco’s motion, and Cisco promptly prepared this petition. Because ChriMar has
`
`not yet identified any allegedly infringed claims of the ’760 patent in the Michigan
`
`action, Cisco brings this petition seeking IPR of the Challenged Claims that were
`
`
`2 IPR2017-0719 was joined with IPR2016-01399.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`not previously the subject of IPRs. These Challenged Claims are related to and bear
`
`strong resemblance to those previously rejected, and are invalid for similar reasons.
`
`In the Juniper IPR, Claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and
`
`145 of the ’760 patent were found invalid under the same prior art asserted in this
`
`petition. During the pendency of the Juniper IPR, a Reexamination Certificate
`
`issued for amended claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent in
`
`90/013,802. The Board in the Juniper IPR directed the parties to submit briefs
`
`regarding the invalidity of the claims amended during reexamination, but the Board
`
`ultimately did not consider the parties’ arguments since the amended claims were
`
`not the subject of the Juniper petition (and did not exist) at the time of filing of the
`
`petition. The Board held that under 35 U.S.C .§318(a), it could not consider claims
`
`that were not identified in the petition. Meanwhile, ChriMar never provided a copy
`
`of the prior art identified from the Juniper IPR, however, to the examiner for
`
`consideration during reexamination. The amended claims allowed during
`
`reexamination are the Challenged Claims of this petition, and thus neither the PTO
`
`nor the PTAB have reviewed the Challenged Claims in view of the prior art
`
`identified in the Juniper IPR.
`
`The instant petition is the first opportunity for Board to review the amended
`
`claims in view of the prior art found to invalidate the un-amended claims of the ’760
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Patent.3 Moreover, the instant petition is an efficient use of the Board’s resources
`
`because the petition asks the Board to apply the same art and similar analyses from
`
`the Juniper IPR to the newly amended claims of the ’760 patent, and because Cisco
`
`is not asking the Board to reconsider its previous analysis, but instead to use the
`
`same analysis to claims that the Board has not considered before.
`
`In sum, to the extent that ChriMar challenges institution under §314(a),
`
`General Plastics factors 1, 5, 6, 7 support allowing Cisco the opportunity to
`
`independently challenge the validity the newly amended claims of the ’760 Patent.
`
`The remaining three factors are irrelevant because Cisco is not filing a second
`
`petition.
`
`With respect to § 325(d), the instant petition requests that the Board extend its
`
`reasoning from the Juniper IPR to find that the newly amended claims are also
`
`invalid, and thus does not present previously rejected prior art or arguments.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (42.104(B))
`A.
`42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2)
`Cisco requests IPR and cancellation of the Challenged Claims in view of the
`
`
`3 The ’760 Patent was also subject to IPR2016-00574 and IPR2016-00719 based
`
`on different prior art than the instant petition and were not directed to the claims
`
`amended in the reexamination.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`prior art references below.
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, 145 are obvious in view of the
`combination of WO 96/23377 (“Hunter,” Ex.1033) and U.S.
`Patent No. 5,089,927 (“Bulan”, Ex.1027) under §103.
`Claim 146 is obvious in view of the combination of Hunter,
`Bulan, and U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 (“Nelson,” Ex.1026) under
`§103.
`Claim 146 is obvious in view of the combination of U.S. Patent
`No. 4,173,714 (“Bloch”, Ex.1025), IEEE International Standard
`ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993 (“IEEE-1993,” Ex.1022), IEEE Standard
`802.3u-1995 (“IEEE-1995,” Ex.1021), and CH 643 095 A5
`(“Peguiron,” Ex.1034) under §103.
`B.
`42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`The ’760 patent’s earliest priority date is April 8, 1998, and its term was not
`
`extended. The ’760 patent is thus set to expire during the pendency of this IPR
`
`proceeding. Consequently, Cisco addresses applies the Phillips construction for its
`
`proposed terms.
`
`“BaseT” (Challenged Claims): The Challenged Claims recite “BaseT
`
`Ethernet” to describe the recited elements such as a system, central equipment,
`
`terminal equipment, and communication signals. “BaseT” should be construed as
`
`“twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the 10Base-T or 100Base-T standards”
`
`The ’760 patent consistently uses the term “BaseT” as part of the larger phrase
`
`“10BASE-T.” Ex.1004, 12:22-26. The ’760 patent references “existing Ethernet
`
`communications” and equivalents thereof, which would include 100BASE-T at the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`time of the purported invention. Ex.1004, 3:41-43; Ex.1021, p.2 (“Type 100BASE-
`
`T”). This is with the same as the Board’s BRI construction. Ex.1010, pp.8-9.
`
`Zimmerman (Ex.1001) ¶54.
`
`“wherein at least one of the different magnitudes of current flow through
`
`the loop is part of a detection protocol” (Claim 134): Under both the BRI and
`
`Phillips standards (under ChriMar’s district court interpretation), this term
`
`“represents an intended use of the different magnitudes of current flow such that
`
`they must be capable of being part of a scheme involving signals, current, and/or
`
`voltage, or similar inputs, for detecting current/impedance or a change in
`
`current/impedance.” This construction is consistent with ChriMar’s interpretation of
`
`this term under the Phillips standard in district court proceedings in Texas. There,
`
`ChriMar’s expert stated “[i]n the context of these claims, ‘detection protocol’ means
`
`that the equipment is configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current
`
`(flow) or the impedance in the path allow it to detect or determine some information
`
`about the equipment at the other end of the path.” Ex.1013 at 9. This construction
`
`is consistent with the Board’s BRI construction of a similar term of the ’012 patent,
`
`in which the Board held the construction of this term is “not limited to a mutually
`
`agreed upon method of communication.” Ex.1007 p.19 (relying on an embodiment
`
`in which the central module monitors the existence of connections with networking
`
`equipment simply by detecting interruptions in the DC current flow between the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`central module and those other pieces of network equipment; Ex.1004, 8:6-25.)
`
`Cisco proposes this construction solely for the purposes of this petition. Zimmerman
`
`¶¶55-58.
`
`“powered off” (Claims 145, 219): The proper construction of this term is
`
`“without operat