1PR2013-.00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case 1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`FIRST MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case 1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`FIRST MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Statement of Relief Requested and Why the Board Should Deny
`
`theMotion to Amend ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend is Procedurally Deficient ....................... 1
`
`A. Patent Owner has not established that the amended claims are patentable . ...... 1
`
`B. Patent Owner’s Motion does not set forth the support for each proposed
`
`substitute claim required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (b)(1) . ..................................... 3
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s limited statement of support is insufficient . .................... 3
`Substitute claim 31 lacks written description support
`inthe specification.....................................................................................3
`C. Patent Owner’s Claim Amendments Improperly Narrow the Claim Scope.....4
`
`Substitute Claim 31 fails to narrow original claim 1................................
`1.
`Substitute claim 34 improperly fails to narrow original claim 22............
`5
`2.
`III. Substitute Claims 31-34 Are Unpatentable. ................................................................ 6
`
`5
`
`A. Substitute Claim 31 is unpatentable...................................................................7
`
`B. Substitute Claim 32 is Unpatentable. ................................................................. 9
`
`C. Substitute Claim 33 is Unpatentable................................................................13
`
`D. Substitute Claim 34 is Unpatentable. ............................................................... 14
`
`IV. (cid:9) Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases and Decisions
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`
`550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)........................................................................................13
`
`Catalina Ivfktg. Intl, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com , Inc.
`
`289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................
`
`5
`
`Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`
`Case 1PR2012-00027 ..................................................................................... 1,5,6
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`
`Case1PR2012-00005 .............................................................................................3
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)...................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i) ........................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii) .......................................................................................4
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested and Why the Board Should Deny the
`Motion to Amend
`
`Petitioner Veeam Software Corporation ("Veeam") respectfully requests that
`
`the Board deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend because Patent Owner’s motion
`
`is procedurally and substantively defective. First, Patent Owner has not met its
`
`threshold burden of establishing patentability of the substitute claims. Second, the
`
`proposed substitute claims are unpatentable over prior art known to the Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s First Motion to Amend is Procedurally Deficient
`
`A. Patent Owner has not established that the amended claims are
`patentable.
`
`Patent Owner Symantec had the burden to support its motion and establish
`
`the "patentable distinction [of the amended claims] over the prior art of record and
`
`also prior art known to the patent owner."
`
`See Idle Free Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Bergstrom, Inc., Case 1PR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013), p. 7 (emphasis
`
`added); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). If the proposed amendment does not
`
`"respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial," the motion to amend
`
`may be denied. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner’s Motion does not
`
`satisfy this burden.
`
`Patent Owner only addresses patentability of the amended claims over five
`
`of the six references presented in Veeam’s IPR petition. Despite this cursory
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`treatment of patentability, Patent Owner, relying on its expert, Dr. Green, states
`
`that "[n]o combination of the prior art references cited in the Petition, nor any other
`
`prior art references of which Patent Owner is aware, disclose, teach, or suggest
`
`each and every limitation as recited in the substitute claims." (Motion to Amend,
`
`p. 6 (Paper No. 27).) This conclusory statement is inaccurate, in this case, where
`
`Patent Owner has received a significant amount of highly relevant prior art in the
`
`two co-pending district court litigations involving the ’086 patent and during its
`
`prosecution of a continuation application of the ’086 patent.
`
`Nevertheless, Dr. Green’s declaration inexplicably does not reference any
`
`prior art beyond the prior art cited in this proceeding. At deposition, Dr. Green
`
`testified that he did not review or consider any of the other prior art clearly known
`
`to the Patent Owner:
`
`(cid:149) the references applied against similar claims in the continuation of the
`
`’086 patent. (See Green Tr.’, 290:7-291:6.)
`
`(cid:149) the references cited in the invalidity contentions served by Veeam on
`
`Patent Owner in the co-pending district court litigation between the
`
`parties (See Green Tr., 294:2-10.)
`
`(cid:149) the references cited in the invalidity contentions for the ’086 patent
`
`served by Acronis in Symantec Corp. v. Acronis, Case No: 1 1-cv-053 10
`
`Provided at VEEAM 1026.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`(N.D. Cal.). (See Green Tr., 292:11-18.)
`
`Because Patent Owner ignored all of this relevant prior art, Patent Owner cannot
`
`demonstrate that the substitute claims are patentable over all of the prior art of
`
`record known to the Patent Owner, the Motion to Amend should be denied.
`
`B. Patent Owner’s Motion does not set forth the support for each
`proposed substitute claim required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1).
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s limited statement of support is insufficient.
`
`On pages 4 through 6 of its Motion, Patent Owner asserts that isolated
`
`elements of proposed substitute claims 31-34 are supported in the original
`
`disclosure. This conclusory statement is insufficient because a Patent Owner must
`
`show where the claim as a whole is supported in the original disclosure. See Nichia
`
`Corp. v. Emcore Corp., Case 1PR2012-00005, Paper 27 (June 3, 2013), p. 4. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Substitute claim 31 lacks written description support in the
`specification.
`
`Patent Owner further cannot meet its burden to establish support for
`
`substitute claim 31 because such written description support simply does not exist.
`
`In substitute claim 31, Patent Owner merely seeks to amend the preamble of claim
`
`1 as follows:
`
`A computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions
`
`comprising instructions for a backup program which, when
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`executed, interfaces with a separately executing virtual machine
`kernel to: (Motion to Amend, p. 1.)
`The proposed amendment, which is not proper for reasons to be discussed later,
`
`requires the backup program to perform the recited actions of (i) capturing the state
`
`of the virtual machine and (ii) copying at least a portion of the state to a
`
`destination. However, the ’086 patent does not support this amendment because
`
`nowhere does the patent describe that the backup program performs the action of
`
`"captur[ing] a state of a first virtual machine executing on a first virtual system."
`
`Instead, the ’086 patent consistently describes that the capturing of the state is
`
`performed by the VM Kernel.
`
`(See e.g., ’086 patent2, 4:18-22, 6:45-49, 11:32-37,
`
`11:41-44, 11:58-66, 12:12-18, 12:25-26, 12:61-64, 13:26-29, 13-41-43.) For at
`
`least this further reason, the Board should deny the Motion to Amend.
`
`C. Patent Owner’s Claim Amendments Improperly Narrow the
`Claim Scope.
`
`A motion to amend may further be denied where the amendment seeks to
`
`enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend substitute claims 31 and 34 should be denied
`
`because each fails to narrow the claim that it replaces, in violation of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.121 (a)(2)(ii).
`
` at VEEAM 1001
`’ Provided
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`1.
`
`Substitute Claim 31 fails to narrow original claim 1.
`
`Because substitute claim 31 does not narrow the scope of original claim 1, it
`
`cannot be a substitute for that claim. See Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom,
`
`Inc., Case 1PR2012-00027, Paper 26 (June 11, 2013), p.
`
`5. ("A proper substitute
`
`claim under 37 C.F.R. §42.121(a)(i) must only narrow the scope of the challenged
`
`claim it replaces.")
`
`As discussed above, substitute claim 31 amends the preamble of original
`
`independent claim 1. In Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not
`
`claim that the preamble, as amended, is limiting. Nor could it because such an
`
`argument would be wrong the preamble of substitute claim 31 does not act as a
`
`limitation of the claims. Nothing in the explicit language of the amended preamble
`
`gives life, meaning and vitality to the claim; nor do any limitations in the body of
`
`the claim rely upon and find antecedents in the preamble.
`
`See Catalina Mktg. Intl,
`
`Inc. v. Coolsavings.com , Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed.Cir.2002).
`
`Because the amended preamble does not act as a claim limitation, substitute
`
`claim 31 has the same scope as original independent claim 1. For this reason, the
`
`Board should deny substitute claim 31.
`
`2.
`
`Substitute claim 34 improperly narrows original claim 22.
`
`Patent Owner’s substitute claim 34 violates the rule that a "substitute claim
`
`may not enlarge the scope of the challenged claim it replaces by eliminating any
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`feature." Idle Free Systems, at p. 5. The substitute claim improperly enlarges claim
`
`scope by eliminating the limitation "such that the first virtual machine can continue
`
`executing during (ii). Original claim 22 recited "creating a memory area to capture
`
`writes to a memory of the first virtual machine, such that the first virtual machine
`
`can continue executing during (ii)." (’086 patent, claim 22 (emphasis added).)
`
`Patent Owner justifies its elimination of the limitation by arguing that the
`
`same language "struck from substitute claim 34 ... was added to substitute claim
`
`33 (from which claim 34 depends)." (Motion to Amend, p. 6 (emphasis added).)
`
`Patent Owner statement is incorrect. The same language was not added to
`
`substitute claim 33. Substitute claim 33 critically does not require that the creation
`
`of the memory area permits the execution to occur.
`
`When the language "such that the first virtual machine can continue
`
`executing during (ii)" is removed, substitute claim 34 only requires "creating a
`
`memory COW area. . . during execution of the first virtual machine," but does not
`
`require that the creation of the COW area is what permits such execution to occur.
`
`Therefore, substitute claim 34 is broader than original claim 22, which is
`
`impermissible.
`
`III. Substitute Claims 31-34 Are Unpatentable.
`
`The substitute claims merely add well-known elements to the original claims
`
`to create the illusion of patentability. Veeam will show that these additional
`
`
`
`1PR2013-001 50
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`elements are disclosed or rendered obvious by prior art known to the Patent Owner
`
`in this inter partes review proceeding or in the invalidity contentions served on
`
`Patent Owner by Veeam in the co-pending litigation.
`
`A. (cid:9)
`
`Substitute Claim 31 is unpatentable.
`
`Substitute claim 31 is unpatentable over the art of record and art known to
`
`the Patent Owner. The subject matter added by Patent Owner renders substitute
`
`claim 31 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph because the ’086
`
`patent describes that the backup program performs the action of capturing the state
`
`of the virtual machine. Instead, the ’086 patent consistently discloses that the VM
`
`Kernel performs the capturing of state.
`
`(See e.g., ’086 patent, 4:18-22, ; 6:45-49,
`
`11:32-37, 11:41-44, 11:58-66, 12:12-18, 12:25-26, 12:61-64,13:26-29, 13-41-43.)
`
`Additionally, because the amended preamble does not limit the claim even
`
`after amendment, the scope of substitute claim 31 is the same as original claim 1
`
`and is, thus, unpatentable for at least the same reasons original independent claim 1
`
`is unpatentable: anticipation by Lim, ESX, and GSG and obviousness over Suzaki
`
`in view of Wang. (Institution Decision, p. 24.)
`
`Even if the preamble limits claim 1, which it does not, substitute claim 31 is
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 6,795,966 to Lim (Lim) under
`
`either 35 U.S.C. 102(b) or 35 U.S.0 103(a). As the Board correctly found in its
`
`Institution Decision, Lim discloses each and every element in claim 1. (Institution
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`Decision, p. 8-12.) Proposed substitute claim 31 adds the additional element of a
`
`"backup program" that "interfaces with a . . . virtual machine kernel" to claim 1.
`
`Lim explicitly discloses this limitation.
`
`Lim describes that the virtual machine monitor can be "directed" to create a
`
`checkpoint: "the virtual machine monitor on which he is operating[] is.
`
`. . directed
`
`using known techniques to generate a checkpoint." (Lim, 22:62-65 (emphasis
`
`added).) More specifically, the virtual machine monitor (i.e. virtual machine
`
`kernel) can be directed to create a checkpoint via a separate program having a
`
`graphical user interface: "[w]henever the user selects, for example "clicks" on, the
`
`icon, a checkpoint request signal would then be passed to the virtual machine
`
`monitor, which would then immediately take or "set" a checkpoint." (Lim,
`
`26:45-
`
`49.) Therefore, Lim explicitly discloses a "backup program" that "interfaces with a
`
`virtual machine kernel," as recited in substitute claim 3 1.
`
`In addition, to the extent that the Board finds that Lim does not disclose a
`
`separate backup program, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
`
`obvious to create such a "backup program" given Lim’s explicit teachings of using
`
`"known techniques" to direct the virtual machine monitor to create checkpoints.
`
`(Lim, 22:62-65; see also Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec . 3,J 20-22.)
`
`Provided at VEEAM 1031.
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`B. (cid:9)
`
`Substitute Claim 32 is Unpatentable.
`
`Substitute claim 32 is unpatentable over Lim in view of "Low-Latency,
`
`Concurrent Checkpointing for Parallel Programs" by Li 4 ("Li") under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a). Li was published in August 1994 in the IEEE Transactions on Parallel
`
`and Distributed Systems journal, more than 7 years prior to the filing date of the
`
`’086 patent, and thus qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Li was
`
`provided to Patent Owner as part of Veeam’s invalidity contentions in the co-
`
`pending district court litigation.
`
`The Board correctly recognized in its Institution Decision that Lim explicitly
`
`discloses a "new log of uncommitted updates" and a "memory area." (Institution
`Decision, pp. 11-12.) Substitute claim 32 5 limits the "memory area" to a "memory
`
`Provided at VEEAM 1029
`Substitute claim 32 adds the following limitations to claim 11: wherein (i)
`
`comprises creating a new log of uncommitted updates for each virtual disk in the
`
`first virtual machine and creating a memory COW area to capture writes to a
`
`memory of the first virtual machine,and wherein the instructions, when executed,
`
`write updates subsequent to (i) to each virtual disk in the first virtual machine to
`
`the new log and write updates subsequent to (i) to the memory of the first virtual
`
`machine to the memory COW area durina execution of the first virtual machin
`
`such that the first virtual machine can continue executing during (i) and (ii).
`
`mom
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`COW area" and further adds that "writ[ing] updates subsequent to (i) [capture step]
`
`to each virtual disk in the first virtual machine to the new log" and "writ[ing]
`
`updates subsequent to (i) [capture step] to the memory of the first virtual machine
`
`to the memory COW area during execution of the first virtual machine." Lim also
`
`discloses these limitations.
`
`Lim describes using copy-on-write techniques to record updates to its virtual
`
`disk that occur after a checkpoint has been initiated. (Lirn 6, 23:52:55; see also
`
`Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶J 17-18.) These updates are stored in a "log of
`
`changes" (i.e. a log of uncommitted updates.) (Lim, 11:67-12:3; see also Shenoy
`
`Motion to Amend Dec., ¶ 17.) Further, Lim describes using the same copy-on-
`
`write techniques for tracking updates to memory in a special memory partition (i.e.
`
`a memory COW.) (Lim, 19:51-55; see also Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶J 18-
`
`19.) Thus, Lim discloses "a memory COW area" and "wherein the instructions,
`
`when executed, write updates subsequent to (i) to each virtual disk in the first
`
`virtual machine to the new log and write updates subsequent to (i) to the memory
`
`of the first virtual machine to the memory COW area during execution of the first
`
`virtual machine," as recited in substitute claim 32.
`
`Further, in its Institution Decision, the Board also concluded that Lim’s
`
`virtual machine can execute during the copying step (i.e step ii.). (Institution
`
`6 Provided at VEEAM 1004.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`Decision, pp. 11-12.) Substitute claim 32 recites an additional limitation that the
`
`virtual machine can continue to execute during the capturing step. Although Lim
`
`does not explicitly disclose this limitation, as Dr. Shenoy explains, it is not
`
`possible for a virtual machine to have the ability to execute during the entirety of
`
`the capture step described in the ’086 patent. (Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec.,
`
`¶J10-14.) Therefore, this limitation should not be construed so narrowly as to
`
`require continued, uninterrupted execution during the capture step. Because the
`
`virtual machine in Li does execute during portions of the capturing step, Li teaches
`
`this limitation.
`
`Li describes an improved checkpointing algorithm that minimizes the
`
`interruption of a target program while it is being checkpointed. (Shenoy Motion to
`
`Amend Dec., ¶ 24.) Li explains that any interruption to the target program "are for
`
`small, fixed periods of time (under 0.1s in [Li ’s] implementation) . . . ." (Li, p.
`
`874). However, Li describes that the target program can execute during the rest of
`
`the state capture process.
`
`Specifically, Li describes using a copy-on-write (COW) checkpointing
`
`algorithm. The copy-on write checkpointing algorithm of Li creates a separate
`
`address space in main memory to hold updates while the capturing process ensues.
`
`(Li, p. 875.) After creating the new address space, the algorithm then "unfreezes
`
`the processors and starts a separate copier thread that copies pages to the new
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`address space." (Id. (emphasis omitted).) If the target program tries to write to a
`
`page during the copying process the write is redirected to the new address space,
`
`thus permitting the original memory space to remain static. After the contents of
`
`the main memory are completely copied to the new address space, the main
`
`memory checkpoint is complete and is copied to disk. (Li, pp. 874-875). Thus, Li
`
`describes freezing the processor temporarily to complete a portion of the capturing
`
`process, but then unfreezes to complete the rest of capturing process. After the
`
`capturing is complete, Li’s checkpoint is copied to disk. (See Li, p. 875; see also
`
`Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶ 25.)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`Lim and Li because each reference describes checkpointing processes. (Shenoy
`
`Motion to Amend Dec., ¶27.) Because Lim’s checkpointing process requires
`
`"interruption" of a virtual machine during the capturing phase, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would immediately recognize the benefit of minimizing this
`
`interruption by using a technique taught by Li. (Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶
`
`27.)
`
`Li describes a low-latency algorithm for checkpointing executing processes.
`
`(Li , pp. 874-875). It would have been obvious to apply Li’s known teachings of
`
`low-latency checkpointing to Lim’s known checkpointing process to improve
`
`Lim’s ability to minimize the downtime of its virtual machine’s during its
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`checkpointing. (Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶ 27.) Applying Li’s low-latency
`
`checkpointing to Lim’s checkpointing would have been "the mere application of a
`
`known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement." KSR Int’l Co.
`
`v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
`
`C. (cid:9)
`
`Substitute Claim 33 is Unpatentable.
`
`Substitute claim 33 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Lim in view of Li. Substitute claim 33 adds the following limitations to claim 12:
`
`(ii) copy at least a portion of the state to a destination separate from
`
`a storage device to which the first virtual machine is suspendable,
`
`wherein suspending the first virtual machine is performed responsive to
`
`a suspend command, wherein the first virtual machine can continue
`
`executing during (i) and (ii);
`
`(iii) determine whether additional virtual machines that have not
`
`been backed up are present on the first computer system; and
`
`(iv) repeat (i) and (ii) for said additional virtual machines.
`
`As explained above for substitute claim 32, Lim in view of Li renders
`
`obvious the limitation of "the first virtual machine can continue executing during
`
`(i) and (ii)." It was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the ’086 invention that virtual machine monitors, as described in Lim, could
`
`execute multiple virtual machines at once. (Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶ 23.)
`
`Because it was well known to person having ordinary skill in the art that virtual
`
`machine monitors could execute multiple virtual machines, it would have been
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`obvious that these multiple virtual machines would have needed to be
`
`checkpointed as described in Lim and Li. (Shenoy Motion to Amend Dec., ¶ 23.)
`
`Therefore, claim 33 is rendered obvious over Lim in view of Li. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lim with Li for the
`
`reasons described above.
`
`D. (cid:9)
`
`Substitute Claim 34 is Unpatentable.
`
`Substitute claim 34 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Lim in view of Li. Substitute claim 34 adds the following limitations to claim 22:
`
`wherein (i) comprises creating a new log of uncommitted updates
`
`for each virtual disk in the first virtual machine and creating a
`memory cow area to capture writes to a memory of the first virtual
`machine, and wherein, subsequent to (i), the first computer system is
`
`configured to write updates to each virtual disk in the first virtual
`
`machine to the new log and write updates to the memory of the first
`
`virtual machine to the memory COW area during execution of the
`
`first virtual machine such that the first virtual machine can continue
`
`The limitations in substitute claim 34 are substantially similar to those
`
`proposed in claim 32. Thus, for at least the same reasons explained above with
`
`respect to claim 32, claim 34 is unpatentable over Lim and Li.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner’s Motions to Amend should
`
`be denied.
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`A. Gordon
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`Date:1 (cid:9)
`
`’
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Veeam Software
`Corporation
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1PR2013-001 50
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`iois
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,093,086
`Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Prashant Shenoy
`U.S. Patent No. 6,795,966 to Lim
`VMware ESX Server: User Manual
`Getting Started Guide: VMware 2.0 for Linux
`"Checkpoint for Network Transferable Computer" by Suzuki
`English Translation of "Checkpoint for Network Transferable
`Computer" by Suzaki
`Certification that the English Translation of "Checkpoint for
`Network Transferable Computer" by Suzaki is true and
`accurate
`"Integrating Checkpointing with Transaction Processing" by
`Wang
`U.S. Patent No. 6,917,963 to Hipp ("Hipp")
`WebArchive Capture from VMware website dated June 23,
`2001
`Symantec’s Infringement Contentions, Exhibit C.
`PO’s Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence
`Email and CoS for Supplemental Evidence
`PO’s Objection to Supplemental Evidence
`Service Email and Replacement Block Declaration
`Exhibit A to Block Declaration
`Exhibit B to Block Declaration
`Directory of Exhibit F to Block Declaration
`Butler Affidavit of August 26, 2013
`Butler Affidavit of July 15, 2013
`VMware Products Webpage
`VMware Desktop Products Webpage
`VMware Server Products Webpage
`
`
`
`Veeam Software
`Corporation
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Green
`Symantec’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Symantec’s Substitute Exhibit C to Green Dec.
`Concurrent (cid:9) Checkpointing (cid:9)
`"Low-Latency, (cid:9)
`Programs" by Li et al.
`Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy in Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply
`Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy in Support of Petitioner’s
`Opposition to the Motion to Amend
`
`Parallel
`
`for (cid:9)
`
`
`
`1PR2013-00150
`Patent 7,093,086
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of February, 2014,
`
`"Veeam’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend" was served
`
`electronically via e-mail upon the following counsel for Patent Owner, Symantec,
`
`Inc.:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No.
`47,024
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Daniel Crowe, Reg. No. 39,644
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`One Metropolitan Square
`211 North Broadway, Suite
`3600
`St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
`dacrowe@bryancave.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 50,633
`
`Date: February 24, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
