IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-1843-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AVI NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S INITIAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,148,493 AND 8,631,120
`
`Pursuant to paragraph 8(d) of the Court’s Scheduling Order entered August 27, 2018,
`
`Defendant Avi Networks, Inc. (“Avi”) serves its Initial Invalidity Contentions (“Contentions”)
`
`concerning claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,148,493 (“the ’493 patent”) and
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,631,120 (“the ’120 patent”) (collectively, “the
`
`Claims”).
`
`In these Contentions, with respect to each Claim, Avi: (i) identifies each currently known
`
`item of prior art that either anticipates or enders obvious each Claim; (ii) submits charts for
`
`illustrative prior art references identifying where each limitation of each Claim is disclosed or
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art; (iii) identifies the grounds for invalidating Claims based on
`
`indefiniteness, and/or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112; and (iv) identifies any
`
`ineligibility of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent eligible subject
`
`matter.1
`
`The prior art referenced in these Contentions is being produced herewith.
`
`1 Unless specified noted, all references to Title 35 of the United States Code refer to code pre-
`America Invents Act. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102 (2011).
`
`1
`
`CITRIX 2003
`Avi Networks v. Citrix Systems
`IPR2019-00844
`IPR2019-00845
`
`

`

`I.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Avi’s discovery and investigation in connection with this lawsuit are ongoing, and these
`
`Contentions are based on Avi’s current knowledge and understanding of the ’493 and ’120
`
`patents, Plaintiff Citrix Systems, Inc.’s (“Citrix”) Initial Infringement Contentions, the prior art,
`
`and other facts and information available at this date in the present actions. These Contentions
`
`are necessarily preliminary and are provided without prejudice to Avi’s rights. Avi expressly
`
`reserves the right to amend, modify, or supplement these Contentions based on further
`
`investigation, developments during fact or expert discovery, evaluation of the scope and content
`
`of the prior art or additional prior art that may be discovered, admissions, amendment of Citrix’s
`
`Initial Infringement Contentions, positions taken by Citrix during claim construction, the Court’s
`
`claim construction, any other reasonable basis, and as permitted by the Court’s Scheduling
`
`Order, the Local Rules of the District of Delaware, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`In particular, fact discovery has only just begun and expert discovery has not begun. Avi
`
`intends to seek discovery from Citrix, the inventors, the prosecuting attorneys, and other third
`
`parties regarding public use and/or the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), additional prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, improper inventorship and/or derivation under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(f), earlier invention by other parties under 35 U.S.C. §102(g) and/or applicant’s failure to
`
`comply with 35 U.S.C. §§101 and 112. Based on discovery, Avi may uncover additional prior
`
`art and invalidity arguments.
`
`Moreover, the Court has not yet construed any disputed claim terms of the ’493 and ’120
`
`patents, and additional bases for invalidity may become relevant based on the Court’s
`
`construction of such claim terms. Accordingly, Avi reserves the right to revise and/or
`
`supplement these Contentions as discovery proceeds and after the Court construes the Claims. In
`
`addition, none of these Contentions constitutes an admission concerning the proper construction
`
`2
`
`

`

`of the claims. Avi expressly reserves all rights to propose alternative constructions and to rebut
`
`Citrix’s actual claim construction positions once known. Moreover, Avi reserves the right to
`
`supplement and/or amend these Contentions based on any findings as to the priority date of the
`
`Claims, and/or positions that Citrix or its expert witnesses may take concerning claim
`
`interpretation, infringement, and/or invalidity issues.
`
`Prior art not included in this disclosure, whether known or unknown to Avi, may become
`
`relevant. In particular, Avi is currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which Citrix will contend
`
`that limitations of the Claims are not disclosed in the prior art that Avi identifies, or will contend
`
`that any of the identified references do not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The
`
`identification of any patents as prior art shall be deemed to refer to the application that was
`
`submitted for the same and to include identification of any foreign counterpart patents. To the
`
`extent that such an issue arises, Avi reserves the right to identify additional teachings in the same
`
`references or in other references that anticipate or would have rendered the addition of the
`
`allegedly missing limitation to the device or method obvious.
`
`Avi’s claim charts submitted as part of these Contentions cite to particular, exemplary
`
`teachings and disclosures of the prior art as applied to features of the Claims. Persons having
`
`ordinary skill in the art may, however, view an item of prior art generally in the context of its
`
`entirety, including other relevant publications, literature, products, and understanding.
`
`Accordingly, the cited portions are only examples, and Avi reserves the right to rely on uncited
`
`portions of the prior art references and on other relevant publications and expert testimony as
`
`aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as providing context thereto, and as
`
`additional evidence that a claim limitation is known or disclosed. Where Avi cites to a particular
`
`figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption and description
`
`3
`
`

`

`of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Similarly, where Avi cites to particular text
`
`referring to a figure, the citation should be understood to include the figure and caption as well.
`
`Avi further reserves the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references, other
`
`publications, and testimony to establish bases for combinations of certain cited references that
`
`render the Claims obvious. Further, for any combination, Avi reserves the right to rely
`
`additionally on information generally known to those skilled in the art and/or common sense.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the Claims
`
`explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show the state of the art in the
`
`relevant time frame.
`
`Furthermore, nothing stated herein shall be treated as an admission or suggestion that Avi’s
`
`accused technologies meet any limitation of any Claim. Avi denies that they infringe any claim
`
`of the ’493 and ’120 patents.
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’493 AND ’120 PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`The ’493 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Priority Date of the ’493 Patent
`
`Citrix has not identified the alleged priority date to which the ’493 patent is purportedly
`
`entitled. See Citrix’s Answers and Objections to Avi’s First Set of Interrogatories dated October
`
`15, 2011, at 9-10. For the purposes of these invalidity contentions, Avi will use the earliest
`
`priority date on the face of the patent—October 18, 2000. Avi specifically reserves the right to
`
`amend these contentions to the extent Citrix identifies a different alleged priority date for the
`
`’493 patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`
`As set forth in the claim charts attached as Exhibits A-1 to A-6, the following prior art
`
`references anticipate and/or render obvious alone or in combination the asserted claims of the
`
`’493 patent.
`
`Reference
`
`Prior Art System Squid Cache version 2.0 (“Squid”)2
`
`WO 00/28433 to Susai et al. (“Susai 1”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,007,092 to Peiffer (“Peiffer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,062,570 to Hong et al. (“Hong”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,820,133 to Grove et al. (“Grove”)
`
`Source Code for Squid Cache version 2.0 (“Squid Source Code”)
`
`Exhibit No. of
`
`Claim Chart
`
`Exhibit A-1
`
`Exhibit A-2
`
`Exhibit A-3
`
`Exhibit A-4
`
`Exhibit A-5
`
`Exhibit A-6
`
`In these exemplary charts, the identified sections of the references are provided both to
`
`demonstrate anticipation and to show how the identified disclosure would render the claim
`
`obvious alone or in combination, for example, with any of the other cited references. To the
`
`extent that Citrix argues, or the Court finds, that any reference identified in the accompanying
`
`claim charts does not explicitly disclose every aspect of an element, the reference still anticipates
`
`or renders obvious the Claim(s) because any such aspect of an element is inherently disclosed or
`
`2 To show the functionality of Squid as a prior art system, Avi will rely upon, inter alia, all applicable source
`code, documentation, user guides, user newsgroup posts describing functionality, declarations from developers
`and users, and other sources of evidence that Avi identifies through further discovery.
`
`5
`
`

`

`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. By mapping the claim language
`
`of the ’493 Patent to the references, Avi does not imply or admit that the claim language satisfies
`
`Section 112 of the Patent Act or that the claim language has patentable weight. For all of the
`
`reasons stated above and herein, Avi reserves the right to supplement the charts, and the table
`
`above, as appropriate.
`
`Citations from the listed references are not a ratification or acceptance of the manner in
`
`which Citrix applies particular claim elements to the features and functions of the accused
`
`instrumentalities. The citations are instead intended to demonstrate that, if certain claim
`
`elements are applied against the prior art in the same manner as Citrix applies them in its
`
`Infringement Contentions, then certain prior art discloses those claim elements to the same
`
`extent. The prior art may also disclose these same claim elements if the claim elements are
`
`applied differently than in Citrix’s Infringement Contentions. Nothing in these Contentions is in
`
`any way an admission that Citrix’s Infringement Contentions correctly describe the scope of the
`
`’493 Patent or that Avi infringes any claim of the ’493 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Identification of Prior Art Systems Under Investigation
`
`Avi’s investigation in this case is ongoing and Avi expressly reserves the right to
`
`supplement its invalidity contentions, including, but not limited to, identify any of the following
`
`the prior art systems currently under investigation:
`
`• Aratech-2000 (ARA Network Technologies)
`
`• CinTel-iCache (CinTel)
`
`• Compaq-b17 (Compaq)
`
`• Compaq-C2500 (Compaq)
`
`• Dell-100 (Dell)
`
`6
`
`

`

`• Dell-200x4 (Dell)
`
`• F5-EDGE-FX (F5)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`IBM-220-1 (IBM)
`
`IBM-220-2 (IBM)
`
`IBM-230 (IBM)
`
`IBM-330 (IBM)
`
`iMimic-1300 (iMimic)
`
`iMimic-2400 (iMimic)
`
`iMimic-2600 (iMimic)
`
`iMimic-Alpha (iMimic)
`
`• Lucent-50 (Lucent)
`
`• Lucent-100 (Lucent)
`
`• Lucent-100z (Lucent)
`
`• Microbits-C (Microbits)
`
`• Microbits-P (Microbits)
`
`• Microsoft-1 (Microsoft)
`
`• Microsoft-2 (Microsoft)
`
`• NAIST-1 (Nara Institute of Science and Technology)
`
`• NAIST-2 (Nara Institute of Science and Technology)
`
`• NetApp-C1105 (Network Appliance)
`
`• NetApp-C6100 (Network Appliance)
`
`• Stratacache-D (Stratacache)
`
`• Stratacache-E (Stratacache)
`
`7
`
`

`

`• Stratacache-F (Stratacache)
`
`• Swell-1450 (Sell Technology)
`
`Specifically, Avi has reason to believe that one or more of the above-identified systems
`
`provided network caching functionality that anticipates or renders obvious the Claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. Avi expects to uncover more information about each of these systems
`
`through the discovery process, and will supplement these Contentions as more information is
`
`discovered.
`
`4.
`
`Additional Prior Art and Grounds for Invalidity
`
`Avi incorporates in full, and may rely on, all prior art references cited in the ’493 Patent
`
`(as well as any related patents and applications), and its prosecution history, whether the related
`
`patents and applications were filed in the United States or in a foreign country. Avi further
`
`incorporates, and may rely on, the following prior art references and the disclosures therein:
`
`• The Case for Persistent-Connection HTTP by Mogul (“Mogul”)
`
`• Request for Comments No. 2068, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,
`
`January 1997 (“RFC 2068”)
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,336,147 to Brownell et al. ("Brownell")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,402 to Jacobson et al. ("Jacobson")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,411,986 to Susai et al. ("Susai 2")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,453,354 to Jiang et al. ("Jiang")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,338,089 to Quinlan ("Quinlan 1")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,397,253 to Quinlan et al. ("Quinlan 2")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,631,417 to Balabine ("Balabine")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,633,923 to Kukura et al. ("Kukura")
`
`8
`
`

`

`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,202,096 to Williams et al. ("Williams")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,062,570 to Hong et al. ("Hong
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,272 to Susai et al. ("Susai 3")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,242 to Russell et al. ("Russell")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 7,171,473 to Eftis et al. ('Eftis")
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,175 to Harsch ("Harsch")
`
`• Managing TCP Connections Under Persistent HTTP, by Cohen, et al. ("Cohen")
`
`• Switches help share the load, by Harbaugh ("Harbaugh 1")
`
`• Flash: An Efficient and Portable Web Server, by Pai et al. ("Pai")
`
`• OLTP on the Web, by Patrizio ("Patrizio")
`
`• OpenWebServer: An Adaptive Web Server Using Software Patterns, by Suzuki et
`
`al. ("Suzuki")
`
`• Traffic Cops for Web Farms, by Mier et al. ("Mier")
`
`• Untangling the Web, by King ("King")
`
`• Network Infrastructure - Get the Load Down, by Harbaugh ("Harbaugh")
`
`•
`
`InfiniBand Scales as a Network Switch, by Davis ("Davis")
`
`• Before you drop big bucks for a bigger web server, try tweaking, by McCarthy
`
`("McCarthy")
`
`• Connection Pooling Saves Licenses and Boosts Performance, by Wonnacott
`
`("Wonnacott")
`
`• Sun's WebServer 1.0 is solid, but not there yet ("WebServer")
`
`• Collaborative Applications and the Java shared data toolkit, by Fox ("Fox
`
`• Cookie Cutting Keeps Traffic Moving, by Schroeder ("Schroeder")
`
`9
`
`

`

`• Gathering the fold, by Welkingkar ("Welingkar")
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,253,230 to Couland et al. (“Couland”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,438,597 to Mosberger et a. (“Mosberger”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,959,318 to Tso (“Tso”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,380,007 to Bu et al. (“Bu”)
`
`• Connection Cachine by Cohen et al. (“Cohen 2”)
`
`• Using the SAP DCOM Connector by Benson (“Benson”)
`
`• Client-Server Computing in Mobile Environments by Jing et al. (“Jing”)
`
`• Proxy Caches – Proxy Caches: Speeding up the web by Rousskov (“Rousskov”)
`
`In addition, Avi further incorporates by reference any expert reports, invalidity
`
`contentions, identified prior art, invalidity claim charts or defense disclosed at any date by any
`
`party to any other litigation or U.S. Patent & Trademark Office proceeding involving the ’493
`
`Patent or any related patent.
`
`5.
`
`Obviousness
`
`Avi contends that each prior art reference discussed in the accompanying claim charts,
`
`either alone or in combination with other prior art references, renders the Claims invalid as
`
`obvious. In addition, each reference identified in the accompanying claim charts may be
`
`combined with (1) information known to persons skilled in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, and/or (2) any other reference identified in the accompanying claim charts to render
`
`the Claims invalid as obvious.
`
`To the extent Citrix argues that the claimed subject matter was not anticipated, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inventions would have combined or modified
`
`the prior art references set forth in the accompanying claim charts based on common knowledge
`
`10
`
`

`

`(and information in the cited prior art) that existed well before the priority date. To the extent it
`
`would have been necessary to combine prior art references, and to the extent the motivation to
`
`combine those references is necessary, it would have been found in the knowledge of one skilled
`
`in the art, as well as the nature of the problem to be solved. The motivation to combine
`
`references can also be found in the fields of computer networking, network caching, network
`
`routers, network switches, computer firewalls, and other similar fields, including in the prior art
`
`identified above and as a matter of common sense and routine engineering.
`
`As explained in more detail below and in the accompanying claim charts, the
`
`combination of these elements and all the subject matter of the Claims were well known in the
`
`relevant industry long before the earliest priority date of the ’493 and ’120 patents. Therefore,
`
`the Claims are invalid.
`
`The Claims recite nothing more than the “combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods” that achieves “no more than predictable results.” KSR International Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Particularly, the Claims do not recite any novel or
`
`unpredictable combinations of features. Rather the Claims merely aggregate known features of
`
`the prior art in a single claim. Accordingly, one or ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine any of the known features disclosed in any of the cited references to obtain the
`
`predictable results recited in the claims.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art also would have been motivated to combine the prior
`
`art references set forth in the accompanying claim charts because, in addition to the reasons
`
`identified above, each of those references discloses methods and systems in the same field, or
`
`similar fields of endeavor, as the ’493 Patent. In particular each of these references is analogous
`
`art to the ’493 patent because each is directed, either explicitly or inherently, to connection
`
`11
`
`

`

`pooling and reusing persistent connections, as set forth in the accompanying claim charts. See,
`
`e.g., ’493 patent at Abstract.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art also would have been motivated to combine the
`
`references disclosed in in the accompanying claim charts in light of the “nature of the problem”
`
`and the solutions presented in each reference. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734. As disclosed in the
`
`specification of the ’493 Patent, the alleged inventors were seeking a way to use connection
`
`pooling in a more efficient manner. E.g., ’493 patent at 2:51-55. This was the same goal as that
`
`of the references disclosed in the accompanying claim charts, so a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings thereof.
`
`Technical references, of course, are not the only factor to be considered in determining
`
`obviousness. "In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or
`
`combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature,
`
`will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary
`
`course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining
`
`previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
`
`419. Here, the recitations of the Claims are no more than obvious combinations of previously
`
`known elements to bring about expected or known results.
`
`Specifically, each of the pieces of prior art identified is related to connection pooling or
`
`persistent connections, and this similarity generally provides motivation to combine. See W.
`
`Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding
`
`obviousness where similar technologies were employed and the transition between one
`
`technology and another was commonplace).
`
`12
`
`

`

`It would have been obvious to combine each of the prior art references charted for the
`
`’493 patent (A-2 through A-5) with Squid or with Squid Source Code at least because each of the
`
`charted prior art references discloses a proxy device and Squid and the Squid Source Code were
`
`publicly available implementations of a proxy. A person of ordinary skill in the art trying to
`
`create a proxy device, such as those disclosed in the prior art references charted, would have
`
`been motivated to look at other proxies, especially those that have already been implemented like
`
`in Squid and Squid Source Code. Furthermore, the charted references already use connection
`
`pooling and persistent connections. A person of ordinary skill would obviously be motivated to
`
`find ways to reuse connections in the pool as soon as possible so additional connections do not
`
`need to be set up. Squid and Squid Source Code disclose just such a way by adding persistent
`
`connections back into the pool based on the content-length parameter. Performing any of the
`
`above combinations would render each of the Claims obvious.
`
`In fact, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the connection
`
`between the proxy and the server is separate from the connection between the proxy and the
`
`client. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the connection
`
`between the proxy and the server could be reused as soon as the server is finished sending its
`
`message, without waiting for the client to close the separate connection. Because Squid and
`
`Squid Source Code disclose a way to reuse the connection without waiting for the client to close
`
`the separate connection, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to combine
`
`Squid or Squid Source Code with any of the charted references.
`
`For similar reasons, it would have been obvious to combine each of the charted prior art
`
`references (A-1 through A-6) with RFC 2068. RFC 2068 is a publication that discloses the
`
`details of different networking protocols and is well-known by all persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`13
`
`

`

`relevant art. As such, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`RFC 2068 about how a protocol works whenever he or she is working on a network proxy that
`
`deals with those protocols. Because a person of ordinary skill would know that the connection
`
`between the proxy and the server is separate from the connection between the proxy and the
`
`client, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to know when the connection between the
`
`server and the proxy is finished so that it can be reused in the connection pool. RFC 2068
`
`discloses multiple ways to determine when a message sent over an HTTP connection is done,
`
`including by checking the content-length parameter or chunk-size parameter. See RFC at §§ 4.4,
`
`14.14, 3.6. As explained earlier, moreover, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`
`to search for ways to reuse persistent connections in a connection pool as soon as possible and
`
`RFC 2068 discloses how to determine when a message is finished so it can be reused. The
`
`combination of RFC 2068 with any of the charted references (A-1 through A-6) would have
`
`rendered obvious each of the Claims.
`
`For the same reasons, it would have been obvious to combine each of the charted prior art
`
`references (A-1 through A-6) with Mogul because Mogul, like RFC 2068, discloses that a
`
`persistent HTTP connection may be reused as soon as the server is finished sending the request,
`
`which can be determined by the content length parameter. See Mogul at Section 4. Thus, the
`
`combination of Mogul with any of the charted references (A-1 through A-6) would have
`
`rendered each of the Claims obvious.
`
`6.
`
` Secondary Considerations of Obviousness
`
`Citrix has not identified any secondary consideration or other objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness other than citing the Patents-in-Suit, notwithstanding that Avi specifically
`
`sought that specific information in Avi’s Interrogatory No. 5. See Citrix’s Answers and
`
`Objections to Avi’s First Set of Interrogatories dated October 15, 2011, at 11. Avi reserves the
`
`14
`
`

`

`right to submit contentions and evidence to rebut any secondary consideration or other objective
`
`evidence that Citrix may later identify.
`
`7.
`
`Invalidity Contentions Based on 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`Avi provides below an identification of Claims that are—at least as apparently construed
`
`by Citrix as the basis for its Infringement Contentions—invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
`
`lacking a sufficient written description, or indefinite. A more detailed basis for Avi’s written
`
`description and/or indefiniteness defenses will be set forth in Avi’s claim construction briefs or
`
`expert reports on invalidity, to be served in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order. Avi
`
`has not yet taken any depositions related to these issues.
`
`Avi specifically reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these Invalidity
`
`Contentions based on a failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Avi contends that the Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 because the patent
`
`lacks adequate written description and/or enablement of the following recitations of the Claims:
`
`•
`
`“determining . . . that the second transport layer connection is available for
`
`forwarding a second request of a second client via a third transport layer
`
`connection between the second client and the device to the server based on the
`
`server completing communicating a response to the first request of the first client
`
`via the second transport layer connection”;
`
`•
`
`“maintaining by the device, the pool of one or more transport layer connections
`
`with the server”;
`
`•
`
`“while maintaining the pool of one or more transport layer connections with the
`
`server open”; and
`
`15
`
`

`

`•
`
`“configured to maintain the pool of one or more transport layer connection with
`
`the server open.”
`
`Additionally, Avi contends that the Claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“the transport layer connection”;
`
`“prior to receiving a close command from the first client”;
`
`“maintaining by the device, the pool of one or more transport layer connections
`
`with the server”;
`
`•
`
`“while maintaining the pool of one or more transport layer connections with the
`
`server open”; and
`
`•
`
`“configured to maintain the pool of one or more transport layer connection with
`
`the server open.”
`
`Therefore, the Claims of the ’493 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`8.
`
`Ineligibility Contentions Based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The asserted claims of the ’493 patent are ineligible for patent protection under § 101.3
`
`Claims of issued patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 when they are directed to an
`
`“abstract idea,” and where there is no “inventive concept” in the claims that transforms that
`
`abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct.
`
`2347, 2355 (2014). The Claims of the ’493 patent are directed entirely to the abstract idea of
`
`reusing a connection when it is no longer needed for a current message.
`
`3 Pursuant to the Court’s August 24th Scheduling Order (Dkt. 43), Avi is required to set forth
`only its “initial invalidity contentions,” whereas section 101 addresses whether the claims are
`ineligible for patent protection. As such, Avi reserves the right to address the ineligibility of
`the claims of the ’493 patent at the appropriate time pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling order.
`Avi includes this abbreviated disclosure to provide an abundance of notice, while it is not
`required by the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`
`16
`
`

`

`The concept of reusing a connection when it is no longer needed for a current messageis a
`
`basic and abstract idea that is not patentable. Indeed, people use this abstract idea in everyday
`
`life when waiting for something to be available. For example, soldiers in the army
`
`communicating over the radio indicate that they are done talking by saying “over” at the end of
`
`their message so that the next person can send a message over the same channel. As another
`
`example, a blinking light over a cashier at a store may indicate that she is ready to service the
`
`next customer in line.
`
`Furthermore, there is no inventive concept in the claims that would render the claims
`
`patent eligible under step 2 of the Supreme Court’s Alice inquiry. As such, the asserted claims
`
`are ineligible under § 101.
`
`B.
`
`The ’120 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Priority Date of the ’120 Patent
`
`Citrix has not identified the alleged priority date to which the ’120 patent is purportedly
`
`entitled. See Citrix’s Answers and Objections to Avi’s First Set of Interrogatories dated October
`
`15, 2011, at 9-10. For the purposes of these invalidity contentions, Avi will use the earliest
`
`priority date on the face of the patent—October 18, 2000. Avi specifically reserves the right to
`
`amend these contentions to the extent Citrix identifies a different alleged priority date for the
`
`’120 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`
`As set forth in the claim charts attached as Exhibits B-1 to B-6, the following prior art
`
`references anticipate and/or render obvious alone or in combination the asserted claims of the
`
`’120 patent.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Reference
`
`Prior Art System Squid Cache version 2.0 (“Squid”)4
`
`WO 00/28433 to Susai et al. (“Susai 1”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,007,092 to Peiffer (“Peiffer”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,062,570 to Hong et al. (“Hong”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,820,133 to Grove et al. (“Grove”)
`
`Source Code for Squid Cache version 2.0 (“Squid Source Code”)
`
`Exhibit No. of
`
`Claim Chart
`
`Exhibit B-1
`
`Exhibit B-2
`
`Exhibit B-3
`
`Exhibit B-4
`
`Exhibit B-5
`
`Exhibit B-6
`
`In these exemplary charts, the identified sections of the references are provided both to
`
`demonstrate anticipation and to show how the identified disclosure would render the claim
`
`obvious alone or in combination, for example, with any of the other cited references. To the
`
`extent that one might argue that any reference identified in the accompanying claim charts does
`
`not explicitly disclose every aspect of an element, the reference still anticipates or renders
`
`obvious the Claim(s) because any such aspect of an element is inherently disclosed or would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For all of the reasons stated above and
`
`herein, Avi reserves the right to supplement the charts, and the table above, as appropriate.
`
` To the extent that Citrix argues, or the Court finds, that any reference identified in the
`
`accompanying claim charts does not explicitly disclose every aspect of an element, the reference
`
`4 To show the functionality of Squid as a prior art system, Avi will rely upon, inter alia, all applicable source
`code, documentation, user guides, user newsgroup posts describing functionality, declarations from developers
`and users, and other sources of evidence that Avi identifies through further discovery.
`
`18
`
`

`

`still anticipates or renders obvious the Claim(s) because any such aspect of an element is
`
`inherently disclosed or would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. By
`
`mapping the claim language of the ’120 Patent to the references, Avi does not imply or admit
`
`that the claim language satisfies Section 112 of the Patent Act or that the claim language has
`
`patentable weight. For all of the reasons stated above and herein, Avi reserves the right to
`
`supplement the charts, and the table above, as appropriate.
`
`Citations from the listed references are not a ratification or acceptance of the manner in
`
`which Citrix applies particular claim elements to the features and functions of the accused
`
`instrumentalities. The citations are instead intended to demonstrate that, if certain claim
`
`elements are applied against the prior art in the same manner as Citrix applies them in its
`
`Infringement Contentions, then certain prior art discloses those claim elements to the same
`
`extent. The prior art may also disclose these same claim elements if the claim elements are
`
`applied differently than in Citrix’s Infringement Contentions. Nothing in these Contentions is in
`
`any way an admission that Citrix’s Infringement Contentions correctly describe the scope of the
`
`’120 Patent or that Avi infringes any claim of the ’120 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Identification of Prior Art Systems Under Investigation
`
`Avi’s investigation in this case is ongoing and Avi expressly reserves the right to
`
`supplem