UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`Case No. IPR2019-00033
`Patent No. 8,902,760
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES — 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) AND (B) .................... 1
`III.
`FEES (42.103) ................................................................................................. 8
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (42.104(A)) .................................................... 8
`A.
`35 U.S.C. §315(b).................................................................................. 8
`B.
`35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) ............................................................................. 8
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DISCRETIONARILY DENY
`INSTITUTION .............................................................................................. 10
`A.
`Section 314 .......................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Section 325(d) ..................................................................................... 12
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ............... 13
`A.
`§ 42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2) ......................................................... 13
`B.
`§ 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .................................................... 13
`C.
`§ 42.104(b)(4): Unpatentability........................................................... 15
`D.
`§ 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence .................................................. 16
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... 16
`A.
`Description of the ’760 Patent and the Well-Known Art of
`Phantom Powering .............................................................................. 16
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 17
`Ground 1: Claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 Are Obvious
`Based On Hunter In View Of Bulan ................................................... 18
`1.
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan .................................... 18
`2.
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan ................................. 31
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`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 .............. 51
`Ground 3: Claim 146 is rendered obvious by Bloch in
`Combination With IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron ..................................... 54
`1.
`Overview of Bloch ................................................................... 56
`2.
`Overview of IEEE 802.3 ......................................................... 59
`3.
`Overview of Peguiron .............................................................. 60
`4.
`Combined System of Bloch, IEEE 802.3, and Peguiron ......... 61
`5.
`Motivation to Combine Bloch, IEEE 802.3, and Peguiron ..... 62
`6.
`Application of Bloch in view of IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron .... 65
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) .......................................... 11
`Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis Innovation Lmt.,
`IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) ............................................ 9
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2018-01508 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018) ............................................. 3
`Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1242, 2018 WL 3893119 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en
`banc n.3) ...................................................................................................... 1, 9, 10
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00724, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2015) ........................................... 55
`Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sipco, LLC,
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) .............................................. 9
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) ......................................... 55
`Graves v. Principi,
`294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 10
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 23
`QSC Audio Prods., LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00129, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2015) ......................................... 55
`Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd.,
`IPR2016-01714, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017) ........................................... 9
`Tristar Prods., Inc. v. Choon’s Design, LLC,
`IPR2015-01883, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016) ............................................... 9
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLC,
`IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018)............................................. 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 13
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................ 8, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 318 ........................................................................................................ 12
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ........................................................................................................ 12
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 1
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 2143 ......................................................... 23
`
`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
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`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
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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)
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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)
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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)
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Exhibit No.
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`Description
`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
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`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
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwidth: A Serious Guide to
`High-Speed Networking”, Que Corporation (1997)
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-Based
`Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`Exhibit intentionally omitted
`What is a DC-DC converter?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-converters/what-
`is-dc-dc-converter
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Exhibit No.
`1045
`
`1046
`
`Description
`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.
`• 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
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`• 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
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, 145, and 146 (“Challenged Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent 8,902,760 (“’760 patent”) (Ex.1004).
`
`This petition sets forth identical grounds, including the same prior-art
`
`combinations, invalidity arguments, and evidence, as in the petition Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Cisco”) filed on August 3, 2018, in IPR2018-01511.1 If the Board institutes
`
`an IPR in IPR2018-01511, Petitioner will promptly seek consolidation of this
`
`proceeding with IPR2018-01511 to help conserve the Board’s and parties’ resources.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Mandatory notices identified in 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b) are provided below.
`
`42.8(b)(1): HPE is the real party-in-interest. However, in the recent RPX
`
`decision,2 a Federal Circuit panel interpreted the term “real party-in-interest” in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b), and that decision is subject to a pending petition for en banc
`
`review.3 Out of an abundance of caution and solely to satisfy the procedural
`
`1 The only material differences between this petition and Cisco’s petition pertain
`to procedural matters, including changes to the real party-in-interest section. See
`infra Section IV. These changes account for factual differences between HPE
`and Cisco regarding the real party-in-interest requirement, as well as the Federal
`Circuit’s recently issued Click-to-Call decision.
`2 Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`3 Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`Corp., Nos. 2017-1698, -1699, -1701 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`requirement set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) for this proceeding, Petitioner
`
`identifies HP Inc. and Aruba Networks, Inc. as real parties-in-interest. Petitioner
`
`reserves its right to change its real party-in-interest identification subject to further
`
`proceedings in the RPX appeal and in the present IPR.
`
`42.8(b)(2): The ’760 patent is the subject of Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChriMar Sys.,
`
`Inc., IPR2018-01511, filed on August 3, 2018 and pending institution.
`
`The ’760 patent is also 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 alleging non-infringement of the ’760 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 IPR2016-013994, 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
`
`(Dkt. 18-1984), which consolidated the appeal with other three FWDs for related
`
`patents (lead case Dkt. 18-1499).
`
`4 IPR2017-00719 was joined with IPR2016-01399 and was terminated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`The ’760 was also subject to Re-Exam 90/013,802 in which claims 73, 145,
`
`146 and 219 were amended. A Certificate issued on September 18, 2017.
`
`Cisco also filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. 8,155,012,
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application 09/370,430, in Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc., Case No. IPR2018-01508 (Aug. 3, 2018).
`
`Below is a full list of proceedings involving the ’760 patent. Ex.1016.
`
`Case Name
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`Chrimar Sys., Inc.
`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.
`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.
`
`Case Number
`IPR2018-
`01511
`18-1984
`
`Jurisdiction
`PTAB
`
`Filed
`August 3, 2018
`
`CAFC
`
`May 16, 2018
`
`90/013,802
`
`USPTO
`
`August 29, 2016
`
`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.
`
`January 12,
`2016
`February 2,
`2016
`February 5,
`2016
`February 25,
`2016
`March 5, 2015
`
`2:15-cv-10817 E.D. Mich.
`
`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.
`
`November 20,
`2017
`November 21,
`2017
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Jurisdiction
`P.T.A.B.
`
`Case Number
`IPR2016-
`00574
`IPR2016-
`01399
`IPR2016-
`01759
`IPR2017-
`00719
`6:15-cv-00163 E.D. Tex.
`
`Case Name
`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.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ASUSTek Comput. Int’l,
`Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`ASUS Comput. Int’l
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Buffalo Ams., Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Costar Techs., Inc.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`P.T.A.B.
`
`Filed
`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
`
`6:15-cv-00623 E.D. Tex.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case Name
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Eagle Eye Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Edimax Comput. Co.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Korenix USA Corp.
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v.
`Leviton Mfg. 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.
`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.
`
`Jurisdiction
`Case Number
`6:15-cv-00627 E.D. Tex.
`
`Filed
`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
`
`6:15-cv-00640 E.D. Tex.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Case Name
`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 Int’l, 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-00644 E.D. Tex.
`
`Filed
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`42.8(b)(3)–(4): Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Hersh H. Mehta
`Reg. No. 62,336
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brent A. Hawkins
`Reg. No. 44,146
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`hersh.mehta@morganlewis.com
`HPE-Chrimar-IPR@morganlewis.com
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`T: 415.442.1000
`F: 415.442.1001
`brent.hawkins@morganlewis.com
`
`Maria E. Doukas
`Reg. No. 67,084
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: 312.324.1000
`F: 312.324.1001
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`Karon N. Fowler
`(pro hac vice application to be
`submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`T: 650.843.4000
`F: 650.843.4001
`karon.fowler@morganlewis.com
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondences to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner consents to e-mail service
`
`to the e-mail addresses identified in the table above.
`
`III. FEES (42.103)
`HPE authorizes the Office to charge the fee for this Petition, and any
`
`additional fees due, to Deposit Account 50-0310.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (42.104(A))
`HPE certifies that: (i) the ’760 patent is available for IPR; and (ii) HPE is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(b)
`A.
`HPE files this petition within one year of March 16, 2018, the date HPE was
`
`served with a counterclaim asserting infringement of the ’760 patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1)
`B.
`In March 2015, Hewlett-Packard Co. (“HPCo”)5 filed a declaratory judgment
`
`(“DJ”) action against ChriMar including, among other counts, a count of invalidity
`
`of the ’760 patent’s claims. In July 2015, HPCo and Aruba Networks, Inc. (“Aruba”)
`
`filed a separate DJ action against ChriMar including, among other counts, a count of
`
`invalidity of the ’760 patent’s claims. On February 17, 2018, both DJ actions were
`
`5 On November 1, 2015, pursuant to a separation agreement, HPCo changed its
`name to HP Inc. and spun-off HPE as a separate company.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Neither action bars the Board from
`
`instituting an IPR under §315(a)(1) or otherwise.6
`
`The Board has consistently and correctly held that §315(a)(1) is not triggered
`
`when a DJ action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the IPR petition
`
`is filed. E.g., Resmed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01714,
`
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017); Tristar Prods., Inc. v. Choon’s Design, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01883, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sipco, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01579, Paper 7 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2016) (“[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”). Because the DJ actions here were
`
`voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, §315(a)(1) has not been triggered.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call does not require a contrary
`
`result. See Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2015-1242, 2018 WL
`
`6 In 2017, HPE, HP Inc., and Aruba filed a separate DJ action against ChriMar.
`That DJ action includes no counts of invalidity and, thus, does not implicate
`§315(a)(1). The DJ plaintiffs raised invalidity of the Challenged Claims as an
`affirmative defense to ChriMar’s counterclaim of infringement, but this
`affirmative defense does not trigger estoppel. See Ariosa Diagnostic v. Isis
`Innovation Lmt., IPR2012-00022, Paper 20 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013) (raising
`the affirmative defense of invalidity cannot be considered a filing of a civil action
`under §315(a)(1)).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`3893119, at *4 n.3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc n.3). In Click-to-Call, the
`
`Federal Circuit addressed the meaning of the language “served with a complaint” in
`
`§315(b) and its statutory purpose of providing notice, and held that service of a
`
`complaint cannot be nullified. Id. at *5-*10. Unlike §315(b), which is predicated
`
`on being “served with a complaint,” §315(a) at issue here is predicated on “fil[ing]
`
`a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.” The Board has
`
`repeatedly and correctly recognized—consistent with well-established Federal
`
`Circuit law—that “[t]he dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties
`
`as though the action had never been brought.” Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); see Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2367, 559
`
`(3d ed. 2008) (identifying that all nine Circuits addressing this issue reached the
`
`same conclusion). Thus, Click-to-Call does not apply to §315(a)(1), and as a result,
`
`the voluntarily dismissed DJ actions do not bar this petition’s institution.
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD NOT DISCRETIONARILY DENY
`INSTITUTION
`A.
`Section 314
`The Board should not discretionarily deny this petition under §314. As
`
`discussed below, the General Plastic factors weigh heavily against denial.
`
`Factor 1: Factor 1 weighs heavily against denial because this is the only
`
`petition HPE has filed against the ’760 patent. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Certified
`
`Measurement, LLC, IPR2018-00548, Paper 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2018) (“The
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`fact that a different petitioner is involved in this proceeding weighs especially
`
`heavily against a discretionary denial.”).
`
`Factors 2-5: Factors 2-5 are irrelevant here because HPE did not file a prior
`
`petition against the ’760 patent. See Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`
`IPR2017-02146, Paper 12 at 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018) (“Once resolution of factor
`
`1 indicates that Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the same patent,
`
`factors 2-5 bear little relevance unless there is evidence in the record of extenuating
`
`circumstances”). No extenuating circumstances exist here.
`
`Factor 6: Factor 6 weighs against denial. This petition accounts for the
`
`Board’s resources in light of the Juniper IPR on the ’760 patent. In the Juniper IPR,
`
`the Board applied the same prior-art combinations asserted in this petition to 12 of
`
`the ’760 patent’s 219 total claims. Thus, by applying the same prior art to 11
`
`different claims here, HPE’s petition helps conserve the Board’s resources.
`
`This petition further accounts for the Board’s resources in light of Cisco’s
`
`recent petition (IPR2018-01511). Both petitions present the same grounds and
`
`evidence and challenges the same claims. As a result, the Board can adjudicate the
`
`common grounds in the two petitions without expending significantly more
`
`resources. As discussed above, HPE will promptly seek consolidation with the Cisco
`
`proceeding should the Board institute an IPR in that proceeding.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Additionally, this petition accounts for the Board’s resources in light of the
`
`Reexamination Certificate issued for amended claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and
`
`145 of the ’760 patent in 90/013,802. Under 35 U.S.C. §318(a), the Juniper IPR’s
`
`Board declined to consider arguments regarding the invalidity of the claims amended
`
`during reexamination. Because the Board could not consider the amended claims as
`
`part of the Juniper IPR, HPE’s petition now provides the Board an opportunity to
`
`review invalidating prior art not present in the reexamination.
`
`Factor 7: Factor 7 also weighs against denial. In the Cisco proceeding, the
`
`Patent Owner has not filed a preliminary response, nor has an institution decision
`
`issued. This petition’s timing should not impact the Board’s ability to issue final
`
`written decisions here or in the Cisco proceeding within the one-year mark.
`
`Section 325(d)
`B.
`The Board should also decline to deny this petition under §325. The Patent
`
`Office has not previously considered the grounds presented here. During the ’760
`
`patent’s prosecution, the examiner applied no prior art rejections. The ex parte
`
`reexamination involves completely different grounds and prior art than those
`
`presented in this petition. In the Juniper IPRs, the Board applied the prior art and
`
`arguments at issue here to different claims than those challenged here. Thus, rather
`
`than seeking reconsideration of rejected prior art or arguments, this petition asks the
`
`Board to apply accepted prior art and arguments to newly-challenged claims.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`§§42.104(b)(1) and 42.104(b)(2)
`HPE requests IPR and cancellation of the Challenged Claims in view of the
`
`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 5,089,927 (“Bulan”, Ex.1027) under §103.
`Claim 146 is obvious in view of the combination of Hunter,
`Bulan, and U.S. Patent 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.
`§ 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`B.
`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, HPE addresses applies the Phillips construction for