1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
` CASE NO. 8:16-cv-01790-JVS-AGR
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`Plaintiff,
`CONTENTIONS
`Judge: Hon. James V. Selna
`
`
`v.
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
`CORPORATION, KINGSTON
`DIGITAL, INC., KINGSTON
`TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`IMATION CORPORATION,
`DATALOCKER INC., DATA
`LOCKER INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-01799-JVS-AGR
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`Judge: Hon. James V. Selna
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-01800-JVS-AGR
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`Judge: Hon. James V. Selna
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`WESTERN DIGITAL
`CORPORATION, WESTERN
`DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`HGST, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA, INC., AND TOSHIBA
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SPEX Technologies, Inc.
`IPR2018-00082 Ex. 2001
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`APRICORN,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 8:16-CV-07349-JVS-AGR
`DEFENDANT’S JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`Judge: Hon. James V. Selna
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, and the Rules and Orders of this
`Court, Defendants Toshiba America Electronic Components Inc., Toshiba America
`Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Western Digital Corporation, Western
`Digital Technologies, Inc., HGST, Inc., Imation Corporation, Kingston Technology
`Corporation, Kingston Digital Inc., Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Apricorn,
`Datalocker, Inc. and Data Locker International, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”)
`hereby serve their Joint Invalidity Contentions (“Invalidity Contentions”) on Plaintiff
`SPEX Technologies, Inc. (“SPEX”) in support of their allegation of invalidity of
`United States Patent Nos. 6,003,135 (“’135 Patent”) and 6,088,802 (“‘802 Patent”)
`(collectively, “Asserted Patents”). While all of the claims collectively asserted against
`the Defendants are addressed below, each Defendant hereby addresses only the claims
`asserted against it.1
`I. INTRODUCTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on information currently available to
`Defendants. Defendants’ investigation and analysis of prior art is ongoing, and they
`reserve the right to supplement or modify these Invalidity Contentions in a manner
`consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules.
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not constitute an admission that any
`current, past, or future version of the accused products infringe the Asserted Patents
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Unless otherwise stated, and in the
`absence of a claim construction order in this action, Defendants have relied on the
`broad claim constructions of the asserted claims that SPEX has implicitly adopted in
`its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (“Infringement
`Contentions”), to the extent any construction can be inferred from SPEX’s
`Infringement Contentions. Such reliance should not be taken to mean that Defendants
`
`1 SPEX’s Infringement Contentions do not assert the same claims against each
`Defendant. Each Defendant adopts these invalidity contentions only as to those claims
`and patents asserted against that Defendant.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`understand, or are adopting or agreeing with, SPEX’s apparent constructions.
`Defendants expressly do not do so, and reserve their right to contest them.
`Defendants’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are made in the alternative, and
`should not be interpreted to reply upon, or in any way affect, the non-infringement
`arguments Defendants intend to assert in this case.
`Although citations are made to exemplary passages in the prior art, Defendants
`reserve the right to rely upon additional passages that also may be applicable, or that
`may become applicable in light of any judicially ordered claim construction, changes
`in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and/or information obtained during remaining
`discovery. In a similar vein, the obviousness combinations of prior art provided below
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are merely exemplary and are not intended to be exhaustive.
`Numerous additional obviousness combinations of the prior art identified below are
`possible, and Defendants reserve the right to use any such combination in this
`litigation. Where Defendants cite and rely on a U.S. patent, Defendants necessarily
`cite, rely upon and incorporate by reference as additional prior art each and every
`foreign priority patent (and the applications for those foreign priority patents) cited in
`the identified U.S. patent.
`Because Defendants’ investigation regarding the invalidity of the asserted
`patents is not yet complete, certain defenses, including, for example, knowledge or use
`by others under § 102(a), public use or on-sale bar under § 102(b), derivation or prior
`inventorship under §§ 102(f)/(g), inequitable conduct, laches, and estoppel, may only
`become apparent as additional information becomes available. For example,
`Defendants continue to investigate technological systems such as the Fortezza Crypto
`Card and Telequip Crypta-Plus Card, among others. More generally, some of the prior
`art items identified in these Invalidity Contentions relate to systems. Defendants are
`investigating these prior art systems, and their associated product literature and web
`pages, and reserve the right to modify, amend and/or supplement these contentions as
`information becomes available during discovery.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In particular, and without limitation, Defendants reserve the right to identify
`other art or to supplement their disclosures or contentions for at least the following
`reasons:
`(i) Defendants’ position on the invalidity of particular claims will depend on
`how the Court construes those claims, any findings as to the priority date of the
`asserted claims, any findings as to the level of skill attributable to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, and/or positions that SPEX or expert witness(es) may take concerning
`claim construction, infringement, and/or invalidity. Since claim construction has not
`yet occurred in this action, Defendants cannot take a final position on the bases for
`invalidity of the claims. Furthermore, SPEX has asserted contradictory positions as to
`the meanings of key claim terms and claim coverage. While SPEX appears to rely on a
`broad interpretation of the claim to support its infringement allegations, it argued for a
`narrower interpretation in motion practice before this Court. For example, it argued
`that its claims are directed to “specific machines,” that “many non-accused products”
`have security “implemented in software rather than hardware” and hence “would not
`meet the security means limitation,” and that devices “without mediating means, such
`as those in the prior art, would not practice a number of the claims.” SPEX’s vague
`and contradictory assertions as to the meaning of the claims and claim terms hinders
`Defendants’ ability to finalize invalidity contentions.
`(ii) Defendants’ search for prior art is ongoing, and they may discover and/or
`analyze additional art, and additional materials relating to the art cited herein.
`(iii) Defendants have not yet completed discovery from Plaintiff. Depositions
`of the persons involved in the drafting and prosecution of the asserted patents, and of
`the named inventors, for instance, will likely reveal information that affects the
`disclosures and contentions herein.
`(iv) Defendants have not yet completed discovery from third parties who have
`information concerning the prior art cited herein, and possibly additional art. Such
`discovery may also reveal information that affects the disclosures and contentions
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`herein.
`If SPEX modifies any assertion or contention in its Infringement
`(v)
`Contentions, or presents any new assertion or contention relevant to these Invalidity
`Contentions, Defendants reserve the right to supplement or otherwise amend these
`Invalidity Contentions.
`Defendants’ claim charts cite to particular teachings and disclosures of the prior
`art as applied to features of the asserted claims. However, persons having ordinary skill
`in the art generally view an item of prior art in the context of other publications,
`literature, products, and their own experience and understanding. As such, the cited
`portions in Defendants’ claim charts are exemplary only. Where Defendants cite to a
`particular figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the
`caption and description of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Similarly,
`where Defendants cite to particular text referring to a figure, the citation should be
`understood to include the figure and caption as well. Furthermore, Defendants reserve
`the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications
`and expert testimony as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`providing context thereto, as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim
`limitation or the invention as a whole, as evidence of the state of the art at a particular
`time, and/or as evidence of the obviousness factor of contemporaneous development
`by others. Defendants further reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior
`art references, other publications, and testimony, including expert testimony, to
`establish bases for combination of prior art references that render the asserted claims
`obvious.
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the
`asserted claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show
`the state of the art in the relevant time frame. Obviousness combinations are provided
`in the alternative to Defendants’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to
`suggest that any reference included in any combination is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Prior art patents or publications included in these Contentions may be related
`(e.g., as a divisional, continuation, continuation-in-part, parent, child, or other relation
`or claim of priority) to earlier or later filed patents or publications, may have
`counterparts filed in other jurisdictions, or may incorporate (or be incorporated by)
`other patents or publications by reference. The listed patents or publications are
`intended to be representative of these other patents or publications, to the extent they
`exist. On information and belief, each listed publication or invention became prior art
`at least as early as the dates given.
`Moreover, as certain prior art systems and inventions are described in multiple
`related patents or publications with similar or identical specifications or disclosures, to
`the extent Defendants have identified a citation in one reference, Defendants reserve
`the right to rely on parallel or similar citations in related patents or publications.
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art would read a prior art reference and understand
`prior art inventions as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and
`technologies. Therefore, to understand and interpret any specific statement or
`disclosure of a potential prior art reference or invention, such persons would rely on
`other information within the reference or invention, along with other publications and
`their general scientific knowledge.
`Defendants also incorporate, in full, all prior art references cited in the Asserted
`Patents, all references incorporated by reference into those references, and the Asserted
`Patents’ prosecution history.
`In addition to the prior art identified below and in the accompanying invalidity
`claim charts, Defendants incorporate by reference any additional invalidity
`contentions, identified prior art, or invalidity claim charts disclosed at any date by any
`party to any litigation or U.S. Patent & Trademark Office proceeding involving the
`asserted patent or any related patent, including, without limitation, any parties’
`invalidity contentions (including all amendments/supplementations), and expert reports
`(including all amendments/supplementations), and any references identified in any
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`reexamination request or proceeding relating to any of the Asserted Patents. Such
`contentions include, but are not limited to, the invalidity allegations and associated
`materials provided as part of Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2017-00430, IPR2017-
`00825, IPR2017-00824, and IPR2017-01021, and any invalidity allegations and
`associated materials that Integral Memory, PC may provide.
`II. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3, and subject to Defendants’ reservation of rights,
`Defendants identify at least the following prior art now known to Defendants to
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’135 and ’802 Patents. As
`explained in their reservation of rights, Defendants have, in certain instances, applied
`the prior art in accordance with SPEX’s improper assertions of infringement and
`improper application of the asserted claims. Defendants do not agree with SPEX’s
`application, however, and deny infringement.
`The below-identified references presently known to Defendants anticipate
`and/or render obvious one or more of the asserted claims of the ’135 and ’802 Patents.
`The numerical designations associated with the references listed below will be referred
`to in subsequent sections of these Invalidity Contentions as, e.g., “Reference 1.”
`
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`Mar. 8, 1994
`Apr. 30, 1996
`Jul. 2, 1996
`Mar. 25, 1997
`Apr. 22, 1997
`May 5, 1998
`Mar 23, 1999
`Sep. 7, 1999
`Dec. 21, 1999
`Jun. 22, 1999
`Mar. 6, 2001
`Apr. 11, 1995
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,293,424 (“Holtey”)
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,513,262 (“van Rumpt”)
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,533,125 (“Bensimon”)
`4. U.S. Patent No. 5,615,262 (“Guy”)
`5. U.S. Patent No. 5,623,637 (“Jones”)
`6. U.S. Patent No. 5,748,744 (“Levy”)
`7. U.S. Patent No. 5,887,145 (“Harari”)
`8. U.S. Patent No. 5,949,876 (“Ginter”)
`9. U.S. Patent No. 6,006,297 (“Le Roux”)
`10. U.S. Patent No. 5,915,025 (“Taguchi”)
`11. U.S. Patent No. 6,199,163 (“Dumas”)
`12. U.S. Patent No. 5,406,624 (“Tulpan”)
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13. U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730 (“Jones 730”)
`14. U.S. Patent No. 5,594,600 (“Bruner”)
`15. U.S. Patent No. 5,568,552 (“Davis”)
`16. U.S. Patent No. 6,115,816 (“Davis II”)
`17. U.S. Patent No. 5,237,609 (“Kimura”)
`18. U.S. Patent No. 5,675,645 (“Schwartz”)
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`19. WO 95/16238 (“Jones”)
`20. WO 97/00398 (“Sigbjornsen”)
`21. Fortezza Application Implementors Guide for the PCMCIA
`based Fortezza Cryptologic Card ("Fortezza Spyrus")
`22. Fortezza Application Implementors Guide, Revision 1.52
`("Fortezza NSA")
`23. M.F. Jones, Securing the World Wide Web: Smart Tokens
`and Their Implementations, World Wide Web Journal:
`Fourth Int’l World Wide Web Conference (December 11-14,
`1995), pp. 397-409 (“Crypta Plus”)
`24. Steve R. White, et. al, Introduction to the Citadel
`Architecture: Security in Physically Exposed Environments,
`May 30, 1991 (“IBM Citadel”)
`25. Bennet Yee, Using Secure Coprocessors, May 1994 (“IBM
`Citadel”)
`26. PC System Architecture Series, Mindshare, Inc., Don
`Anderson, PCMCIA System Architecture 16-Bit PC Cards,
`2nd ed.
`27. Microsoft Corporation, Hardware Design Guide for
`Microsoft Windows 95: A Practical Guide for Developing
`Plug and Play PCs and Peripherals (1994)
`28. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA), PCMCIA Standards: PC Card Standard 2.01
`(Nov. 1992)
`29. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA), PCMCIA Standards: Card Services Specification
`2.0 (Nov. 1992)
`30. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA), PCMCIA Standards: Socket Services
`Specifications 2.0 (Nov. 1992)
`
`May 2, 1995
`Jan. 14, 1997
`Oct. 22, 1996
`Sep. 5, 2000
`Aug. 17, 1993
`Oct. 7, 1997
`
`Date of
`Publication
`Jun. 15, 1995
`Jan. 30, 1997
`April 6, 1995
`
`March 5, 1996
`
`Dec. 11, 1995
`
`May 30, 1991
`
`May 1994
`
`1995
`
`1994
`
`Nov. 1992
`
`Nov. 1992
`
`Nov. 1992
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`31. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA) and Japan Electronic Industries Development
`Association (JEIDA), PC Card ATA Specification, PC Card
`Standard Vol. 8,
`32. American National Standard for Information Systems –
`Small Computer System Interface-2 ANSI INCITS 131-1994
`33. Lamers, Lawrence J. ed, Information technology – AT
`Attachment Interface for Disk Drives, ASC X3T10 791D
`Rev. 4c (1994)
`34. Digital Video Broadcasting Project Office, Common
`Interface specification for Conditional Access and Other
`Digital Video Broadcasting Decoder Applications, DVB
`Doc. A017
`
`Prior Art Systems or Offers for Sale
`
`Using or Offering
`Party
`Spyrus
`
`Feb. 1995
`
`1994
`
`1994
`
`May 31, 1996
`
`Date of Use or
`Offer for Sale
`By 1995
`
`Rainbow Techs/.
`Mykotronx, Inc.
`Telequip
`
`By 1995
`
`By Jan. 1995
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`35. Fortezza Cryptologic Card (“Fortezza
`Spyrus”)
`36. Fortezza Crypto Card, KOV-8 (“KOV-
`8”)
`37. Telequip Crypta Plus Card (“Crypta
`Plus”)
`In addition to the above prior art references, Defendants identify the following
`patents, printed publications, product literature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`invalidity of the asserted claims. Defendants may rely on these references as
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`reserve all rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a manner consistent with
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`38. U.S. Patent No. 4,555,591 (“Nash”)
`39. U.S. Patent No. 4,575,621 (“Dreifus”)
`40. U.S. Patent No. 4,593,384 (“Kleijne”)
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`10
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`Nov. 26, 1985
`Mar. 11, 1986
`Jun. 3, 1986
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`41. U.S. Patent No. 4,672,182 (“Hirokawa”)
`42. U.S. Patent No. 4,849,613 (“Eisele”)
`43. U.S. Patent No. 4,918,631 (“Hara”)
`44. U.S. Patent No. 4,993,068 (“Piosenka”)
`45. U.S. Patent No. 5,036,461 (“Elliott”)
`46. U.S. Patent No. 5,148,481 (“Abraham”)
`47. U.S. Patent No. 5,239,166 (“Graves”)
`48. U.S. Patent No. 5,302,947 (“Fuller”)
`49. U.S. Patent No. 5,317,693 (“Cuenod”)
`50. U.S. Patent No. 5,375,243 (“Parzych”)
`51. U.S. Patent No. 5,442,708 (“Adams, Jr.”)
`52. U.S. Patent No. 5,465,338 (“Clay”)
`53. U.S. Patent No. 5,517,569 (“Clark”)
`54. U.S. Patent No. 5,615,268 (“Bisbee”)
`55. U.S. Patent No. 5,721,877 (“Heflinger”)
`56. U.S. Patent No. 5,742,686 (“Finley”)
`57. U.S. Patent No. 5,742,756 (“Dillaway”)
`58. U.S. Patent No. 5,778,071 (“Caputo”)
`59. U.S. Patent No. 5,802,327 (“Hawley”)
`60. U.S. Patent No. 5,815,577 (“Clark”)
`61. U.S. Patent No. 5,938,750 (“Shaberman”)
`62. U.S. Patent No. 5,953,502 (“Helbig”)
`63. U.S. Patent No. 6,035,401 (“Dalvi”)
`64. U.S. Patent No. 6,081,850 (“Garney”)
`65. U.S. Patent No. 6,088,450 (“Davis”)
`66. U.S. Patent No. 9,075,858 (Schwartzman”)
`67. U.S. Patent No. 9,245,260 B2 (“Saito”)
`68. WO 98-36517 (“Helbig”)
`69. U.S. Patent Application No. 08/151,292 (“Harari”)
`70. U.S. Patent Application No. 08/462,642 (“Harari”)
`71. U.S. Patent Application No.08/398,856 (“Harari”)
`72. Blom, Rolf, Jan-Olof Bruer, Viiveke Fak, and S. Ingvar
`Akersten, On Security Measures In Distributed Computer
`Systems, Computers & Security 1 (1982) 113-122
`73. CAPSTONE (MYK-80) Specifications (U), R21 Informal
`Technical Report, R21-TECH-30-95, available at
`http://cryptome.org/capstone.htm, 14 August 1995
`74. Chirayil, Raj, , The PCMCIA DSP Card: An All-in-One
`Communications System, Application Report Texas
`Instruments SPRA 145 (Oct. 1994)
`
`Jun. 9, 1987
`Jul. 18, 1989
`Apr. 17, 1990
`Feb. 12, 1991
`Jul. 30, 1991
`Sep. 15, 1992
`Aug. 24, 1993
`Apr. 12, 1994
`May 31, 1994
`Dec. 20, 1994
`Aug. 15, 1995
`Nov. 7, 1995
`May 14, 1996
`Mar. 25, 1997
`Feb. 24, 1998
`Apr. 21, 1998
`Apr. 21, 1998
`Jul. 7, 1998
`Sep. 1, 1998
`Sep. 29, 1998
`Aug. 17, 1999
`Sep. 14, 1999
`Mar. 7, 2000
`Jun. 27, 2000
`Jul. 11, 2000
`Jun. 13, 2000
`Jan. 26,2016
`Aug. 20, 1998
`Nov. 12, 1993
`Jun. 05, 1995
`Mar. 6, 1995
`1982
`
`Aug. 14, 1995
`
`Oct. 1994
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`75. Claesen, L., J. Daemen, M. Genoe, and G. Peters,
`Subterranean: A 600 Mbit/sec Cryptographic VLSI chip,
`1063-6404-93 IEEE
`76. Clark, Paul Christopher, D.Sc., BITS: A Smartcard
`Protected Operating System (A Dissertation submitted to the
`Faculty of George Washington University School of
`ENGINEERING and Applied Science)
`77. Compaq Computer Corporation, Phoenix Technologies Ltd,
`Intel Corporation, Plug and Play BIOS Specification Ver.
`1.0A (1994)
`78. Compaq, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM PC
`Company, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, Norther Telecom,
`Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 1.0
`79. Plug-In Data Encryption Device for TRS-80’s, The
`Intelligent Machines Journal, 1 (Oct. 3, 1979)
`80. Encryption Device Secures Data in TRS-80, What’s new?
`Miscellaneous, BYTE Publications Inc., p. 249 (Oct. 1979)
`81. Winkel, Brian J. (1980) THERE AND THERE, Cryptologia
`4:1, 54-61, DOI: 10.1080-0161-118091854870, (Jan 1980),
`published online Jun. 04, 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080-
`0161-118091854870
`82. Plug in CRYPTEXT, 80 microcomputing: THE magazine for
`TRS-80 users, (Jan. 1980), 1, 22
`83. Kepner, Terry, Cryptext | Cryptext Corporation | Seattle,
`WA | $500 Basic Package: Unit | Manual Power Cable |
`Demo Software | Extension Cable, 80 microcomputing: THE
`magazine for TRS-80 users, (Jan. 1981) 42-43
`84. Definition of: CLIPPER chip, PC Magazine encyclopedia,
`available at
`
`http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/39818/clipper-chip
`
`85. Fawcett, Bradly K, The Z8000 peripheral family, Journal of
`Microcomputer Applications (1983) 6, 235-255
`86. FORTEZZA CryptoCard, (1996) available at
`https://cryptome.org/jya/fortezza.htm#list
`87. Gibson, Garth A, David F. Nagle, Khalil Amiri, Fay W.
`Chang, Eugene Feinberg, Howard Gobioff, Chen lee, Berend
`Ozceri, Erik Riedel, and David Rochberg, A Case for
`Network-Attached Secure Disks, CMU-CS-96-142 (Sep. 26,
`1996)
`88. Intel Corporation and Microsoft Corporation, Plug and Play
`ISA Specification, Ver. 1.0a (1994)
`
`1993
`
`May 8, 1994
`
`May 5, 1994
`
`Jan. 15, 1996
`
`Oct. 3, 1979
`
`Oct 1979
`
`Jan. 1980
`
`Jan. 1980
`
`Jan. 1981
`
`Oct. 15, 2016
`
`1983
`
`Oct. 30, 1996
`
`Sep. 26, 1996
`
`May 5, 1994
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`89. Mueller-Schloer, Christian, and Neal R. Wagner,
`Cryptographic Protection of Personal Data Cards, Advances
`in Cryptology, D. Chaum et al. (eds.), 219-229
`90. Mueller-Schloer, Christian, and Neal R. Wagner, the
`implementation of a cryptography-based secure office
`system, National Computer Conference (1982) 487-492
`91. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA), Update of PCMCIA Standards: PC Card
`Standard Rev. 201 (July 1993), Socket Services Specification
`2.1 (July 1993), Card Services Specification 2.1 (July 1993),
`PC Card – ATA Mass Storage Specification 1.02 (July 1993)
`92. Personal Computer Memory Card International Association
`(PCMCIA), PCMCIA Standards: Recommended Extensions
`1.0 (Nov. 1992)
`93. Racal Data Group, Racal Data Group’s New High-Speed
`Host Security Module Reduces the Cost of Secure electronic
`Commerce (Apr. 29, 1997)
`94. Tanaka, Kiyoto, Hiroyuki Matsumoto, and Ikuro Oyaizu, A
`confidentiality system for ISDN inter-PC high-speed file
`transfer, Computers & Security, Vol. 15, No. 2 141-155
`(1996)
`95. Telequip Corporation, Telequip Corporation Introduces the
`Crypta Plus Card, PR Newswire Assoc. LLC (Jan. 9, 1995)
`96. Wood, Charles C. and Howard M. Zeidler, Security Modules:
`Potent Information Security System Components, Computers
`& Security the International Journal Devoted to the Study of
`Technical and Financial Aspects of Computer Security, Vol.
`5 No. 2 114-121 (Jun. 1986)
`97. Yee, Bennet, Using Secure Coprocessors (A Dissertation
`submitted to the Faculty of Carnegie Mellon University
`School of Computer Science) CMU-CS-94-149
`98. Security Policy for FORTEZZA Crypto Card, Version 1.1a,
`National Semiconductor
`99. Basic Certification Requirements for FORTEZZA™
`Applications, Version 1.0, National Security Agency,
`available at https://cryptome.org/jya/fortcert.htm
`100. Fortezza Crypto Card, NSA-approved PCMCIA card,
`Crypto Museum. available at
`http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/usa/fortezza/
`101. Hicks, Adam, Keeping Private Data Private on the Road,
`PC MAGAZINE, Apr. 12, 1994
`
`1983
`
`1982
`
`July 1993
`
`Nov. 1992
`
`Apr. 29, 1997
`
`1996
`
`Jan 9, 1995
`
`Jun. 1986
`
`May 1994
`
`Jan. 1997
`
`Jan. 1997
`
`
`
`Apr. 1994
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Base Prior Art Reference / Prior Art System
`Holtey (Reference 1)
`van Rumpt (Reference 2)
`Bensimon (Reference 3)
`Guy (Reference 4)
`Jones (References 5 and 13)
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`14
`
`September 30,
`1996
`
`
`
`
`
`102. D. Balenson and J. Cook, Internet Secure Electronic
`Mail: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers for FORTEZZA
`Cryptography
`103. Rainbow Technologies from Wikipedia, available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranbow
`Technologies&oldid=301508620
`104. Mikotronx Fortezza card from Wikipedia, available at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mykokotronx
`Fortezza card.navy.jpg&oldid=613418361
`
`III. STATUTORY BASIS FOR INVALIDITY
`As explained below, and in the referenced claim charts, the asserted claims of
`the ’135 and ’802 Patents are invalid for anticipation and/or obviousness. In some
`instances, Defendants may have treated certain prior art as anticipatory where certain
`elements are expressly, implicitly, or inherently present based on SPEX’s apparent
`claim construction in SPEX’s infringement contentions. Defendants reserve the right to
`contend that each of the anticipatory references renders the claims obvious either in
`view of the reference alone or in combination with other references. The identification
`of any patent or patent application should be deemed an identification of any
`counterpart patent or application; the identification of any article should be deemed a
`disclosure of any substantially similar article if published in some other form; and the
`identification of any patent or article should be deemed an identification of any product
`described therein.
`A. Invalidity Claim Charts for the ’135 Patent
`The table below correlates exhibit numbers to the prior art items that Defendants
`presently assert anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’135 Patent.
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`A1
`A2
`A3
`A4
`A5
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`A6
`A7
`A8
`A9
`A10
`A11
`A12
`A13
`A14
`A15
`A16
`A17
`A18
`A19
`
`Levy (Reference 6)
`Harari (Reference 7)
`Ginter (Reference 8)
`Le Roux (Reference 9)
`Taguchi (Reference 10)
`Dumas (Reference 11)
`Crypta Plus (Reference 23)
`Fortezza NSA (Reference 22)
`Fortezza Spyrus (Reference 21)
`Sigbjornsen (Reference 20)
`Tulpan (Reference 12)
`Fortezza Crypto Card KOV-8 (system)
`IBM Citadel (Reference 24-25)
`Jones 730 (Reference 13)
`
`
`Defendants assert that the items of prior art identified above in connection with
`Exhibits A1 to A19 anticipate one or more of the asserted claims of the ’135 Patent
`and/or render one or more of such asserted claims obvious in view of their own
`disclosures and the knowledge, skill, and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. Defendants assert that the claims identified below as anticipated are anticipated
`under at least the interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to have adopted to
`support its infringement contentions. Defendants further assert that at least the
`combinations of prior art identified below render obvious one or more of the asserted
`claims of the ’135 Patent. The combinations identified below are directed to a variety
`of different claim interpretations, and depending on claim construction, many of the
`identified combinations may not be required to demonstrate invalidity. Hence, the
`identification of combinations below should not be taken to mean that the
`combinations are necessarily required to prove invalidity. To the contrary, certain
`claims may be anticipated under one claim interpretation and obvious under another.
`Further, if any element should be found to be missing from a particular item of prior
`art, Defendants assert that that item of prior art could be combined with other items of
`prior art that disclose that element.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1. Holtey (A1) anticipates claims 55-58 under at least the interpretation that
`Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its infringement contentions. In addition, as
`further explained in Exhibit A1, the following claims are obvious under one
`or more interpretations in view of Holtey in combination with:
`a. For claims 55-56, 58, the prior art of Exhibits A5, A7, A13, A14
`and/or the additional references identified in Appendix §§ 1, 3-6
`b. For claims 57, the prior art of Exhibits A5, A7, A13, A14 and/or
`the additional references identified in Appendix §§ 1, 2, 3, 5, 7.
`2. van Rumpt (A2) anticipates claims 55-58 under at least the interpretation that
`Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its infringement contentions. In addition, as
`further explained in Exhibit A2, the following claims are obvious under one
`or more interpretations in view of van Rumpt in combination with:
`a. For claims 55-56, 58, the prior art of Exhibits A5, A7, A13, A14
`and/or the additional references identified in Appendix §§ 1, 3-6.
`b. For claim 57, the prior art of Exhibits A5, A7, A13, A14 and/or the
`additional references identified in Appendix §§ 1, 2, 3, 5, 7.
`3. Bensimon (A3) anticipates claims 55-58 under at least the interpretation that
`Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its infringement contentions. In addition, as
`further explained in Exhibit A3, the following claims are obvious under one
`or more interpretations in view of Bensimon in combination with:
`a. For claims 55-56, 58, the prior art of Exhibits A5, A7, A13, A14
`and/or the additional references identified i