- SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,874,831 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00332 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 14–25, 28, and 30 are unpatentable based on the instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Petitioner’s argument is persuasive. Patent Owner has not met its burden of explaining why Exhibits 1064 and 1065 must be excluded as hearsay. The statements are offered to show that skilled artisans believed the RFC 2401 document and other RFC documents were available at the time of publication. Patent Owner does not challenge the publication dates of the magazines as hearsay. As noted above, Patent Owner does not state what aspects of the documents are hearsay. See Paper 20, 7–10; Paper 24, 4 n.1 (Patent Owner “disagrees” with Petitioner about the documents status as hearsay). In any event, Petitioner shows that the documents also satisfy the residual hearsay exception. They have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness as written prior to litigation by disinterested parties in periodical trade magazines that almost qualify as ancient documents. Both magazine articles bear specific volumes and issue numbers along with the publication dates. See Ex. 1064 (Aug. 16, 1999, vol. 21, iss. 33); Ex. 1065 (March 15, 1999, vol. 16, no. 11); Paper 23, 3–8; Fed. Rule Evid. 803 (16) (ancient authentic documents of 20 years old are not hearsay). In addition,” slip op. at 84
Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentableNonecites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,504,696 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00331 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11, 14–25, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Beser and RFC 2401.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why the notion of “performing an additional evaluation” constitutes an implicit part of the claimed intercept clause. Addressing similar arguments by Patent Owner, a Board panel made a similar determination in the ’237 FWD relied upon by Petitioner. ’237 FWD 11 (“the record show[s] that the additional functionality urged by Patent Owner should not be imported into the intercepting phrase”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under this standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, only the claim terms or clauses below need express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We find Dr. Tamassia’s testimony as to public accessibility of RFCs in general to be credible, especially given the independent support of RFC 2026 (Ex. 1036), the contents of which Patent Owner does not challenge.7 As part of routine discovery, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tamassia, but does not point us to any discussion of this issue. Moreover, RFC 2401’s contents are consistent with the publication process described by RFC 2026 and Dr. Tamassia, including the inclusion of a date “November 1998” on the top right corner of the first page of the document. Ex. 1008, 1. In addition, this document—a request for suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, 7 As addressed below, Patent Owner objects and moves to dismiss a number of Exhibits based on hearsay and relevancy. See Paper 20 (Motion to Exclude). having no indication of being a mere draft or internal paper—is precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure, including on the Internet. Both of the magazine articles, Exhibits 1064 and 1065, further corroborate the indicia of availability on the face of RFC 2401, although they are not necessary to our finding of public accessibility. We do not rely on the testimony of Sandy Ginoza, Exhibits 1060 and 1063, which Patent Owner seeks to exclude as discussed further below.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not articulate a persuasive reason for giving Dr. Tamassia’s declaration, as a whole, little or no weight in our analysis. We agree with Petitioner that experts are not required to opine on every relevant factual and legal issue in order to be accorded substantial weight. The cases upon which Patent Owner relies do not show otherwise. For example, Patent Owner cites Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002), for the proposition that “[expert] testimony . . . ‘must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference.’” PO Resp. 52–53. Patent Owner’s quotation, however, mischaracterizes Schumer by omitting introductory words necessary to the meaning of the quoted sentence. In its entirety, the quoted portion of Schumer states the following: Typically, testimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference. The testimony is insufficient if it is merely conclusory. Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315–16. The Federal Circuit then adds that it is not the task of the courts to “attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out” and “if the testimony relates to prior invention and is from an interested party, as here, it must be corroborated.” Id. at 1316. So, instead of laying out a specific, required format for the content of all testimony regarding invalidity, as asserted by Patent Owner, this portion of Schumer confirms the unremarkable proposition that conclusory, overly general, confusing, and self-interested testimony should not be relied upon. Id.; see also Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“General and conclusory testimony, such as that provided by Dr. Kazmer in this case, does not suffice as substantial evidence of invalidity.”). Patent Owner does not show that the whole of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony suffers from any of these failings. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the preponderance of the evidence standard governs in determining whether Petitioner establishes unpatentability. We exercise discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord the evidence presented, including expert opinions, based on the underlying facts supporting the opinion. We accord relevant portions of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony the appropriate weight based on that particular testimony and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,504,696 - Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00693 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi under § 102.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“configured to “comprise an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so). For example, the “domain name service system” is recited in claim 1 as “establishing a secure communication link,” and comprising “an indication that the . . . system” may support the recited function of “establishing a secure communication link.” We do not observe, nor does Patent Owner point out in a meaningful way, any conflicts between a recited system comprising an “indication” that the system supports a recited function by performing the function that it supports and a recitation that the system is designed to perform that function.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“(“New Issue #1” and “New Issue #2”) in Petitioner’s Reply Brief. PO Identification 1–5. After careful consideration of Patent Owner’s arguments and for reasons set forth below, we determine that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged New Issue #1 are moot because we do not rely upon Petitioner’s arguments regarding that issue in this opinion. We also determine that alleged New Issue #2 was responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,418,504 unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,418,504 - Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00957 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 23, 27, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47, 51, and 60 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi under § 102.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Given that Patent Owner raises this issue (that the claim terms “indicating” and “establishing” are separate and distinct) for the first time in Patent Owner’s Response, even assuming that Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner argues in the Reply Brief “that ‘the ‘indicate’/’indicating’ claim elements and the alleged ‘establishing’ claim elements are not separate claim elements’” (PO Identification 4 (citing Pet. Reply 14, 17)), such an argument by Petitioner would merely be responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response and, therefore, would not “go beyond properly responding to VirnetX’s Patent Owner Response,” as Patent Owner alleges. PO Identification 1.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so).” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so).” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 7,921,211 unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,921,211 - The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi; the Board also addressed obviousness grounds but did not need to rely on the additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 1 recites a DNS request. The DNS request is “sent by a client,” potentially “corresponds to a secure server,” and may result in any one of a return of an IP address of a nonsecure computer or the initiation of an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server. Claim 1 does not appear to recite any other specific features of the DNS request.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We are cautioned by the Federal Circuit that, with respect to secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner in response to a prima facie showing of obviousness, “the obviousness inquiry centers on whether ‘the claimed invention as a whole’ would have been obvious.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., Appeal Nos. 2015-1038, 2015-1044, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir., July 19, 2016). Looking at the “claimed invention as a whole,” we note that claim 1, for example, recites a data processing device that determines whether an intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server, forwards the DNS request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure computer (when the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure server), and automatically initiating an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server. As previously discussed in the record, Kiuchi discloses these features, either taken separately or as a “whole.” Patent Owner does not indicate a portion of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi supposedly does not disclose. Not having identified sufficiently a part of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi does not disclose, we conclude that Kiuchi discloses the “whole” of the claimed invention. Therefore, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its evidence of secondary considerations. While Patent Owner argues that DARPA-sponsored entities were supposedly unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent,” Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively and with credible evidence that Kiuchi, for example, was also unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent.” As previously discussed, Kiuchi appears to have succeeded in providing such solutions.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“preponderance of the evidence that RFC 1034 or [Rescorla] qualifies as a ‘printed publication.’” PO Resp. 40. The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On its face, RFC 1034 is a dated “Request for Comments” from the “Network Working Group,” discussing generally known methods for responding to a query from a client. Ex. 1005, 4. On its face, Rescorla is a dated “Internet-Draft” from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and described as a “draft document[] valid for . . . six months.” Ex. 1004, 1. Moreover, RFC 1034 explicitly states that “[d]istribution of this memo is unlimited.” Ex. 1005, 1. These indicia suggest that it is more likely than not that both documents were made available to the public (over the Internet). To bolster its showing, Petitioner provides evidence suggesting that RFC 1034 and Rescorla would have been accessible to the interested public. For example, Petitioner provides testimony of Dr. Roch Guerin who explains that “Request for Comment” documents or “RFCs’ or ‘Internet- Drafts’ are “publications [that] are prepared and distributed” and “can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using . . . document-retrieval systems.” Ex. 1003, 46. Dr. Guerin also testifies that such documents are “published and widely distributed” for “a period for others to provide comments on the document” and that the “publication date of each RFC is contained in the RFC, . . . in the top right corner of the first page of the document [which is] the date it was released for public distribution on the Internet.” Ex. 1003, 44. Ex. 1003 47–48.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner Black Swamp was improperly joined to the 01047 proceeding” because “[e]xpert testimony was required in this case given the complexity of the technology at issue” and Black Swamp supposedly failed to file this allegedly “required” expert testimony. This argument was previously raised by Patent Owner and previously addressed. IPR2016-00167 Prelim. Resp. 7–10; IPR2016-00167 Dec. Inst. 4–5; Paper 38, 3–4; Paper 42, 2–3. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s re-iterated arguments for at least the reasons previously provided. In response to the question of whether Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution, Patent Owner now states that “the Federal Circuit” has held that “Petitioner has both the ‘initial burden of production’ and ‘the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner, however, does not explain the relevance of this statement, even if assumed to be true, to whether or not a Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,490,151 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,490,151 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00481 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10, 12–15, 17, 26, 28–31, and 33 are unpatentable as anticipated by Provino; claims 4, 6, 20, 22, 35, and 37 are unpatentable as obvious over Provino and Guillen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“It does not recite “recogniz[ing] that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citations omitted). Based on the context of the claim, the Specification, and the prosecution history, claim 1 does not require “recogniz[ing]” as argued by Patent Owner. As explained in the Background section supra, the Specification describes an “SDNS 3313” that “contains a cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. That is, for each secure domain name, SDNS 3313 stores a computer network address corresponding to the secure domain name.” Ex. 1001, 52:4–8. This disclosure comes closest to aligning with the claim term by explaining how a “secure domain name service” (i.e., an SDNS as set forth in the disclosure) operates. Patent Owner does not point the panel to a disclosure in the Specification that clearly supports the requirement of an SDNS to “recognize that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“6. Access Request Message As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 23.” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“that under the claim construction of a “secure domain name” as “a name that corresponds to a secure computer network address,” “Patent Owner . . . concedes Provino discloses this limitation.” Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003, 13:31–40, 10:45–67; Resp. 26; Ex. 2024 ¶ 28; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 29–33; Inst. Dec. 8). Petitioner’s argument and showing is persuasive. The claim element does not require any verification that the name is secure.7 Patent Owner also argues that Provino does not teach “receiving a secure domain name” because Provino uses “standard” domain names. PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner points to its Specification that allegedly discusses “an exemplary ‘standard’ domain name ending in ‘.com’ and an exemplary ‘non-standard’ domain name ending in ‘scom.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:16–17; Ex. 2024 ¶ 31). These exemplary embodiments do not alter the broadest reasonable claim construction of a “secure domain name.” See supra Section I.E.3., I.E.4. (Claim Construction). As also noted above (id.), Patent Owner made the opposite argument to a district court, and argued that a “non-standard” distinction “is not supported by the specification or the prosecution history.” Ex. 1018, 18.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s argument as follows: [I]n Provino, before this path between device 12(M) and server 31(s) can exist, nameserver 32 must provide server 31(s)’s secure address. . . . If, in the same response message, a modified nameserver 32 provides QoS parameters, that would necessarily be before the relevant path is established, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:56–11:45; Ex. 1011 ¶ 39; Ex. 1089, 58:17–59:16; Ex. 2019, 51:21–55:6). Similarly, according to the Petition, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the VPN name server 32 of Provino to store, in part, topology dependent QoS parameters, as described by Guillen,” and “[s]uch a modified VPN name server 32 would . . . respond to requests by device 12(m) to resolve the human-readable network addresses of servers 31(S) with both the integer Internet address of the servers 31(S) and the QoS parameters for the servers 31(S).” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 43, Ex. 1005, 82, § 2.3). Petitioner adds that “one of skill would combine Guillen and Provino based on the parallel uses of DNS servers.” Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1011 ¶ 42). At the cited paragraph, Dr. Guerin reasons that “Provino relies upon DNS servers to perform address resolution in the context of VPNs in the same manner as Guillen describes their use in the context of ATM communications.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 42 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:45–67). Dr. Guerin also relies on Guillen’s disclosure of using DNS directory servers for address resolution and storing values of QoS parameters to suggest providing indications of feasible QoS levels during address resolution. Ex. 1011 ¶ 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 82, § 2.3). Dr. Guerin also cites Guillen as teaching that QoS parameters relate to guarantees such as bandwidth, and other service requirements, required for multimedia applications, so that “the multimedia application can properly function.” Id. ¶ 40 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 80–82, §§ 2.1, 2.3, 2.4). As outlined above, the parties agree that if the modification would have been obvious, it would apply during address resolution to set up Provino’s tunnel. The parties do not disagree materially, if at all, about what Guillen teaches. On balance, Guillen supports Petitioner’s rationale. See Ex. 1005, 80–82. However, according to Patent Owner, the proposed modification of Provino’s’ nameserver could not work, because “by the time Provino’s device 12(m) accesses nameserver 32, device 12(m) and firewall 30 have already cooperated to establish the tunnel.” PO Resp. 50. Patent Owner’s argument about “access[]” confounds the claim terms” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,188,180 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00403 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable: Provino anticipated claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17; combinations with Kosiur and Xu rendered claims 2–5 …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“proceeding somehow limits the claims here that Patent Owner otherwise could have moved to amend under a broadest reasonable construction, Patent Owner’s arguments were not “unambiguous,” and do not “call for the application of prosecution history disclaimer.” See PO Resp. 17–18. There was no “express disclaimer,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, or “unambiguous disavowal[],” Grober, 686 F.3d at 1341.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“5. Access Request Message As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 24. 6. Secure Network Address As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 24.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“dispute that Provino’s SDNS resolves secure domain names into secure network addresses, thereby satisfying the claim construction of a secure domain service, as discussed above and further below. See Pet. Reply 8. Further, Provino’s VPN nameserver 32 resides behind a firewall, which controls access to secure devices 31(s), indicating it is secure for that additional reason.10 Ex. 1003, Fig. 1, 9:6–17. The fact that nameservers 17 and 32 perform similar functions simply demonstrates that they are both nameservers. In addition, Provino’s SDNS 32 “is generally similar to . . . nameserver [17], except that the integer Internet address will be provided by the nameserver 32 in a message packet directed to the firewall 30, and the firewall 30 will thereafter transmit the message packet over the secure tunnel to the device 12(m).” Ex. 1003, 11:20–25. In other words, even under Patent Owner’s narrow claim construction that requires an SDNS to perform an additional function (i.e., in addition to resolving a secure domain name (see PO Resp. 16–18)), unlike conventional nameserver 17, secure nameserver 32 directs a message packet to firewall 30, and thereby performs” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“artisans would have recognized that Provino’s scheme could have been used to transmit videoconferencing. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 42; Ex. 1006, 9, 249, 254; Ex. 1003, 4:35–49, 5:28–35). For example, Petitioner points out that “[a]lthough Provino does not specifically address these [videoconferencing and other claimed applications], it does describe device 12(m) as a system unit having the requisite capabilities, including a video display ‘to display processed data,’ and explains that message packets received ‘contain information such as web pages or the like, . . . to be displayed on the device’s video display unit.’” Id. at 15 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:35–49, 5:28–35). This record indicates that videoconferencing simply constitutes similar packet data traffic to the traffic that Provino’s system implements. Petitioner also points out that “even Patent Owner’s expert admitted that ‘[Provino is] generally saying that you can send data, and one such type of data is video;’ and could not identify any reason why sending video data on the Provino system would present insoluble problems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1090, 46:12–13, 48:2–7). Dr. Monrose’s deposition testimony supports Petitioner’s characterization of it. For example, Dr. Monrose states that “he didn’t opine on whether or not there’s anything in Provino that would explicitly not allow the sending of video data. This is not in my declaration, as far as I recall.” Ex. 1090, 48:2–7. Dr. Monrose also did not “reflect on . . . whether [data packets that represent video] will be processed differently or not, and how that could impact the operations of Provino.” See id. at 46:17–47:3 (responding to a question during cross-examination). Petitioner further points out that Kosiur provides a “‘background on VPN technologies and products,’ Ex. 1006 at 9, and explain[s] that VPNs can support ‘newer applications, such as interactive multimedia and videoconferencing,’ id. at 254, as well as ‘file transfers, Web browsing, and e-mail,’ id. at 249.” Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1006, citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 42). The record suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Provino’s system, which sends packets of data over a VPN, including webpages for viewing on a display, could have been modified in a beneficial and predictable fashion, as Kosiur suggests, to send similar packet data to provide videoconferencing on a similar display. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,987,274 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00404 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 under § 102 and § 103; claim 5 under § 103.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther
“seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On September 15, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 (IPR2014-00484) and joined IPR2014-00484 with IPR2014- 00404 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (IPR2014-00484, Paper 11 – Dec. on Inst.). On April 16, 2015, the present proceeding was terminated with respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“domain service” requesting a secure network address and receiving “a response message from the secure domain name service containing the secure network address.” Claim 1 does not recite “recogniz[ing] that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). At least based on the context of the claim, we cannot agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of a recitation of this alleged requirement. Based on the context of the claim, the Specification, and the prosecution history, claim 1 does not require “recogniz[ing]” as argued by Patent Owner. The Specification describes an “SDNS 313” that “contains a cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. That is, for each secure domain name, SDNS 3313 stores a computer network address corresponding to the secure domain name.” Ex. 1001, 47:15–18. This disclosure comes closest to aligning with the claim term, “secure domain service” (i.e., an SDNS as set forth in the disclosure). Patent Owner does not point the panel to a disclosure in the Specification that clearly supports the requirement of an SDNS to “recognize that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” Hence, further based on the context of the Specification, we cannot agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of such a disclosure in the Specification of this alleged requirement.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “tunnel packeting” to mean “forming a packet to be transmitted that contains data structured in one protocol format within the format of another protocol.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “tunnel packeting” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. Hence, we decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 1 recites sending a message from a first network device for an address for a second network device and, in response, receiving at the first network device the address for the second network device. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy.” In response to the request from the client-side proxy, the client-side proxy (i.e., “first network device”) receives “the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy.” Ex. 1004, 65. In other words, Kiuchi discloses a first network device (or a client-side proxy) sending a message to the C-HTTP name server (or secure domain service) to request a secure network address (e.g., an “IP address and public key”) for a second network device (i.e., server-side proxy) and then, in response, receiving at the client-side proxy the requested secure network address for the second network device (i.e., “the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy”). Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively a difference between Kiuchi and the claimed invention. Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client-side proxy sends a request for a network address for the “origin server” but not for the server-side proxy. However, Kiuchi discloses that in response to the request to communicate with “the host,” the name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and returns “the IP address . . . of the server-side proxy.” Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, “the host” of Kiuchi corresponds to the “server-side proxy” (or second network device, as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,987,274 - Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00483 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Provino; claims 2–5 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Provino with Kosiur and Xu, respectively.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Apple Incorporated (“Petitioner”) also filed a Petition (Paper 2) seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 in Case IPR2014- 00483 (“’483 IPR”). Noting that Microsoft Corporation’s Petition and Apple Incorporated’s Petition were substantially identical in material aspects, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18, and joined IPR2014-00483 with IPR2014-00403 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). See ’483IPR, Paper 11, 6–9.2 Thereafter, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the present proceeding was terminated with respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“proceeding somehow limits the claims here that Patent Owner otherwise could have moved to amend under a broadest reasonable construction, Patent Owner’s arguments were not “unambiguous,” and do not “call for the application of prosecution history disclaimer.” See PO Resp. 17–18. There was no “express disclaimer,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, or “unambiguous disavowal[],” Grober, 686 F.3d at 1341.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As the latter two sentences show, the ’274 patent Specification describes placing field hopping data (i.e., an address hopping technique, see id. at 46:64–47:11), into a payload portion of a data packet. The Specification does not tie “tunneled” packets into a specific requirement that requires a change in formatting––above and apart from any protocol formatting or structural change that may happen to, or does, occur by placing one type of data field (header) into another type of data field (payload). After discussing the insertion of the field hopping data into the payload portion, the Specification then describes that these “modified message packets preferably conform to the UDP protocol,” or “[a]lternatively . . . can conform to the TCP/IP protocol or the ICPM protocol.” Id. at 50:30–35. In other words, if there is a change in a protocol in these disclosed examples––for example, from one protocol format to a UDP protocol format––any change appears to come in preferred embodiments and after the packets have been modified (i.e., tunneled). Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, we modify our construction as set forth in the Institution Decision, such that “tunnel packeting” means “placing data or information from one field, such as a header, into another packet field, such as a payload, wherein the two fields normally have different structures or formats, or placing data structured in one format within the format of another protocol.”” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In any event, to the extent it is material, the ’274 patent Specification employs the term “user’s computer” in a “conventional scheme . . . shown in FIG 25. A user’s computer 2501 includes a client application 2504 (for example a web browser) . . . .” Ex. 1001, 38:61–63. Although Patent Owner refers to this “conventional” computer as “another embodiment,” the ’274 patent Specification disparages the “conventional architecture” that employs a user’s computer, because it is not secure enough. See Ex. 1001, 39:4–13; PO Resp. 21. In general, the ’274 patent Specification states that “[t]he present invention” involves a “client computer” with a “client application” that “communicates with a server.” See Ex. 1001, 7:40–44. This description of “[t]he present invention” does not mention a “user’s computer.” Therefore, the ’274 patent Specification does not repeatedly treat a “client computer” and a “user’s computer” as the same. The broadest reasonable construction of a client computer is a computer associated with a client.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,987,274
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.