IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`VMware, Inc.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01075-ADA
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`EX2002
`VMware v. IV
`IPR2020-00470
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ............................ 1
`A.
`The Asserted Claims ............................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Ongoing Discovery and Supplementation .............................................................. 3
`D.
`Prior Art Identification and Citations Thereto ........................................................ 4
`E.
`No Patentable Weight ............................................................................................. 5
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS ........................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Identification of Prior Art ....................................................................................... 5
`1.
`Identification of Prior Art Patents ............................................................... 6
`2.
`Identification of Prior Art Publications ..................................................... 11
`3.
`Identification of Prior Art Sales/Public Uses ............................................ 21
`4.
`Identification of Prior Invention ............................................................... 23
`Anticipation and Obviousness .............................................................................. 23
`Claim Charts ......................................................................................................... 26
`Obviousness and Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 27
`1.
`Background and State of the Art ............................................................... 29
`2.
`Obviousness Combinations ....................................................................... 51
`3.
`Secondary Considerations ......................................................................... 61
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................... 62
`1.
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 ...................................................... 62
`2.
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ...................................................... 65
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................... 69
`F.
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 251 ......................................................................... 70
`G.
`ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ....................................................... 73
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE i
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to the Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. No. 44), Defendant VMware, Inc.
`(“VMware” or “Defendant”) hereby provides its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions with respect
`to the claims identified by Plaintiffs Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC (“IV” or “Plaintiffs”) in their November 5, 2019, Disclosure of Infringement Contentions
`served in the above captioned matter (“Infringement Contentions”).
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`I.
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`According to the Infringement Contentions, Plaintiffs assert the following patents,
`claims, and priority dates.
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Asserted Priority Date
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 44,686
`(“the ’686 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 42,726
`(“the ’726 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752
` (“the ’752 patent”)
`
`5-7
`
`1-12
`
`1-4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 22-26
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE: 43,051
`(“the ’051 patent”)
`
`1, 3-6
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE: 44,818
`(“the ’818 patent”)
`
`1, 17, 30, 32-33, 37-42
`
`May 11, 2000
`
`
`May 11, 2000
`
`
`October 23, 1998
`
`
`March 15, 2000
`
`
`December 7, 2007
`
`
`
`
`The ’686 patent, the ’726 patent, the ’752 patent, the ’051 patent, and the ’818 patent are
`collectively referred to as the “Asserted Patents” and the claims listed in the table above are
`collectively referred to as the “Asserted Claims.” Any reference to an “asserted priority date” in
`these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions refers to the “Asserted Priority Dates” identified in the
`table above.
`Defendant contends that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid under at least one or more
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 251. Pursuant to the Order Governing Proceedings,
`Defendant does not provide any contentions regarding claims not asserted by Plaintiffs. To the
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 1
`
`

`

`
`
`extent that the Court permits Plaintiffs to assert additional claims against Defendant in the future,
`Defendant reserves all rights to amend or supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions or
`to otherwise disclose new or supplemental invalidity contentions regarding such claims.
`Furthermore, because discovery is ongoing, Defendant reserves the right to revise, amend, and/or
`supplement the information provided herein, including identifying, charting, and relying on
`additional references, should discovery yield additional information or references. Defendant
`reserves the right to amend these contentions in response to any claim construction rulings, as
`permitted by the Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. No. 44) or with permission of the Court.
`The Infringement Contentions are deficient in multiple respects and do not provide
`Defendant with sufficient information to understand the specific accused features and
`components and the alleged factual and evidentiary bases for Plaintiffs’ infringement allegations.
`Among other things, the Infringement Contentions lack the specificity required to understand the
`scope of the claims, fail to properly identify accused instrumentalities, and fail to explain
`adequately Plaintiffs’ infringement theories for numerous limitations. Plaintiffs have prejudiced
`Defendant’s ability to understand, for purposes of preparing these Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions, what Plaintiffs allege to be the scope of the Asserted Claims. If Plaintiffs modify
`any assertion or contention in its Infringement Contentions, or present any new assertion or
`contention relevant to these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions to the extent allowed by the
`Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. No. 44) or the Court, Defendant reserves the right to
`supplement or otherwise amend these initial Invalidity Contentions.
`Claim Construction
`B.
`
`Because the Court has not yet construed any terms of the Asserted Claims, Defendant’s
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are based on (1) Defendant’s present understanding of the
`Asserted Claims, and (2) the claim constructions Plaintiffs appear to be proposing based on the
`Infringement Contentions. Defendant reserves the right to supplement or otherwise amend these
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in response to any proposed claim constructions or alleged
`supporting evidence offered by Plaintiffs, any report from any expert witness for Plaintiffs
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 2
`
`

`

`
`
`regarding claim construction issues, any claim construction briefing filed by Plaintiffs, and any
`position taken by Plaintiffs concerning claim construction, infringement, or invalidity.
`Defendant takes no position on any matter of claim construction in these Preliminary
`Invalidity Contentions. If Defendant’s apparent claim constructions herein are consistent with
`any explicit, apparent, or implied claim constructions in the Infringement Contentions, no
`inference is intended and no inference should be drawn that Defendant agrees with any of
`Plaintiffs’ claim constructions. Any statement herein describing or tending to describe any claim
`element is provided solely for the purpose of understanding and/or applying the cited prior art.
`Defendant expressly reserves the right (1) to propose any claim construction Defendant considers
`appropriate, (2) to contest any claim construction proposed by Plaintiffs that Defendant considers
`inappropriate or inaccurate, and/or (3) to take positions with respect to claim construction issues
`that are inconsistent with, or even contradictory to, claim construction positions expressed or
`implied in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`Prior art not included in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, whether now known to
`Defendant or not, might become relevant depending on the claim constructions proposed by
`Plaintiffs, Defendant and/or the Court’s claim construction rulings. Defendant reserves all rights
`to supplement or modify the positions and information in these Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions, including without limitation the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein,
`after the Court has construed the asserted claims.
`Ongoing Discovery and Supplementation
`C.
`
`Defendant’s investigation, including its investigation of prior art and grounds for
`invalidity, is ongoing. Furthermore, Defendant’s invalidity positions will be the subject of expert
`testimony. Defendant bases these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on its current knowledge
`and understanding of the Asserted Claims, Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions, the prior art,
`systems, and other facts and information available as of the date of these contentions. Defendant
`reserves the right to supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, including, without
`limitation, by adding additional prior art and grounds of invalidity in accordance with the Federal
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. No. 44), any Order issued by
`this Court, or otherwise.
`Prior Art Identification and Citations Thereto
`D.
`
`In these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Defendant identifies specific portions of
`prior art references that disclose the elements of the Asserted Claims. While Defendant has
`identified exemplary prior art references for each element, Defendant does not necessarily
`identify every disclosure of the same element in each prior art reference. A person of ordinary
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would read a prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other
`publications, literature, and general knowledge in the field and would rely upon other
`information including other publications and general scientific or engineering knowledge.
`Defendant therefore reserves the right to rely upon other unidentified portions of the prior art
`references and on other publications and prior art products and expert testimony to provide
`context and to aid understanding and interpretation of the identified portions of the prior art.
`Defendant also reserves the right to rely upon (1) other portions of the cited prior art
`references, other publications, prior art products, and the testimony of experts to establish that
`the alleged inventions would have been obvious to a POSITA, including on the basis of
`modifying or combining certain cited references; (2) admissions relating to prior art in the
`Asserted Patents or related patents, the prosecution history of the Asserted Patents or related
`patents, or other admissions obtained during discovery; and (3) foreign counterparts of any U.S.
`patents identified in Defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`Where Defendant identifies a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification
`should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure as well as any text
`relating to the figure in the remainder of the prior art reference (e.g., if a patent reference, in the
`specification and prosecution history). Similarly, where an identified portion of text refers to a
`figure or other material, the identification of the text should be understood to include the
`referenced figure or other material.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 4
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`No Patentable Weight
`
`Defendant reserves the right to argue that various portions of the Asserted Claims, such
`as an intended use or result, non-functional descriptive material, and certain preamble language,
`are entitled to no patentable weight. Mapping of a portion of an Asserted Claim to a prior art
`reference does not represent that such portion of the claim is entitled to patentable weight when
`comparing the claimed subject matter to the prior art.
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`II.
`
`As explained herein and in Exhibits A-1–E-9 and Appendices A–E, Defendant contends
`that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 and/or 251.
`Identification of Prior Art
`A.
`
`Pursuant to the Order Governing Proceedings, and subject to Defendant’s reservation of
`rights as stated herein, Defendant identifies the prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the
`Asserted Claims in the tables set forth below.1 On information and belief, each listed reference
`qualifies as prior art to the Asserted Patents.2
`To the extent that any of the following are prior art, Defendant reserves the right to rely
`upon foreign counterparts of the U.S. patents identified herein; U.S. counterparts of foreign
`patents and foreign patent applications identified herein; and U.S. and foreign patents and patent
`applications corresponding to articles and publications identified herein. Defendant also reserves
`the right to rely upon parent or provisional patents or ancestor patents or patent applications from
`which any of the patents or patent applications identified herein claim priority to as continuation,
`divisional, or continuation-in-part applications. Identifications of dates of publication are made
`
`
`1 Defendant also hereby identifies any systems or products that embody the technology
`described in any patent or publication identified in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`Defendant reserves the right to rely on any documents or other evidence regarding any such
`systems.
`2 Defendant may also rely on prior art references that are listed in Appendices A-E.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 5
`
`

`

`
`
`based on currently available information and Defendant reserves the right to rely upon an earlier
`date should evidence supporting an earlier date be discovered.
`Identification of Prior Art Patents
`1.
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,010,481 titled: “Main Memory Control Systems for Virtual
`Machine” to Ishida
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,945 titled: “Flexible Dynamic Partitioning of Resources in
`a Cluster Computing Environment” to Fong et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,802,062 titled: “System with Virtual Machine Movable
`Between Virtual Machine Systems and Control Method” to Oyamada et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,986,137 titled: “Method, System and Program Products for
`Managing Logical Processors of a Computing Environment” to King et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,976,258 titled: “Providing Quality of Service Guarantees to
`Virtual Hosts” to Goyal et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,234,650 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus” to Eppstein et al.
`JP 3653159 B2 titled: “The virtual computer migration control method of the
`virtual machine system” to Yamada et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,795,966 titled: “Mechanism for Restoring, Porting,
`Replicating and Checkpointing Computer Systems Using State Extraction” to
`Lim et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,188 titled: “Dynamically Redistributing Shareable
`Resources of a Computing Environment to Manage the Workload of that
`Environment” to Kubala et al.
`European Application No. EP0413490A2 titled: “Resource Allocation Scheme”
`to Waxman.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,317,775 titled: “System for Distributing Load Over Multiple
`Servers at an Internet Site” to Brantley et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,580 titled: “Load Balancing for Replicated Services” to
`Jindal et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,327,622 titled: “Load Balancing in a Network Environment”
`to Jindal et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,552,813 titled: “Directing Print Jobs in a Network Printing
`System” to Yacoub.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,601,084 titled: “Dynamic Load Balancer for Multiple Network
`Servers” to Bhaskaran et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0049741 titled: “Method and System for
`Balancing Load Distribution on a Wide Area Network” to Skene et al.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,963,540 titled: “Router Pooling in a Network Flowswitch” to
`Bhaskaran.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,266,335 titled: “Cross-Platform Server Clustering Using a
`Network Flow Switch” to Bhaskaran.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,546 titled: “Dynamic Management of Computer
`Workloads Through Service Level Optimization” to McCarthy et al.
`JP2001222438 titled: “Method for Offering Guarantee of Service Quality to
`Virtual Host” to Goyal et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,463,648 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus Based on Optional Resource Requirements” to Eppstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,748 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Policy Based Class
`of Service and Adaptive Service Level Management within the Context of an
`Internet and Intranet” to Mangipudi et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,019,870 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus Based on Alternative Resource Requirements” to Eppstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,067,545 titled: “Resource Rebalancing in Networked
`Computer Systems” to Wolff.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,703,102 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus Based on Preemptable Resource Requirements” to Eppstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,032,634 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus Based on Resource Requirements” to Eppstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,179,809 titled: “Approach for Allocating Resources to an
`Apparatus Based on Suspendable Resource Requirements” to Eppstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,370,013 titled: “Approach for Determining an Amount to Bill
`a Customer for the Use of Resources” to Aziz et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,886,035 titled: “Dynamic Load Balance of a Network of
`Client and Server Computer” to Wolff.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,748,005 titled: “System and Method for Allocating a Plurality
`of Resources Between a Plurality of Computing Domains” to Romero et al.
`
`JP2003520496 titled: “Resource Allocation” to Carver et al.
`
`KR100350197 titled: “System and Method for Integrated Load Distribution and
`Resource Management on Internet Environment” to Lumelsky et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0010592 titled: “Resource Allocation” to
`Carver et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,101,508 titled: “Clustered File Management for Network
`Resources” to Wolff.
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,601 titled: “Dynamic Load Balancing of a Network of
`Client and Server Computers” to Wolff.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,044,367 titled: “Distributed I/O Store” to Wolff.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0046396 titled: “Systems and Methods for
`Managing Resource Utilization in Information Management Environments” to
`Richter et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,680,035 titled: “Adaptive Bandwidth Throttling for Network
`Services” to Krishnan.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,590,739 titled: “Distributed On-Demand Computing System”
`to Swildens et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,756,989 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Dynamically
`Adjusting Resources Assigned to Plurality of Customers, for Meeting Service
`Level Agreements (SLAS) with Minimal Resources, and Allowing Common
`Pools of Resources to be Used Across Plural Customers on a Demand Basis” to
`Goldszmidt et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,881,238 titled: “System for Assignment of Work Requests by
`identifying Servers in A Multisystem Complex Having a Minimum Predefined
`Capacity Utilization at Lowest Importance Level” to Aman et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,938 titled: “Virtual Machine Monitors for Scalable
`Multiprocessors” to Bugnion et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,530,078 titled: “Virtual Machines in OS/390 for Execution of
`Any Guest System” to Shmid et al.
`European Application No. EP0917056A3 titled: “A Multi-Processor Computer
`System and a Method of Operating Thereof” to Noel et al.
`
`WO 99/53415 titled: “Distributed Processing Over a Network” to Wolff.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,976,090 titled: “Differentiated Content and Application
`Delivery Via Internet” to Ben-Shaul et al.
`WO 01/82023 titled: “Differentiated Content and Application Delivery Via
`Internet” to Ben-Shaul et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,199,179 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Failure Recovery
`in a Multi-Processor Computer-System” to Kauffman et al.
`WO 01/35242 titled: “Highly Distributed Computer Server Architecture and
`Operating System” to Barnea.
`JPS642145A titled, “Resource Control System for Virtual Computer System” to
`Kawamura.
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`’686 and
`’726
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,696,809 titled: “Advanced Intelligent Network Based
`Computer Architecture for Concurrent Delivery of Voice and Text Data Using
`Failure Management System” to Voit.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,748 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Policy Based Class
`of Service and Adaptive Service Level Management Within the Context of an
`Internet and Intranet” to Mangipudi et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,779,067 titled: “User Specific Support in Communications
`Systems” to Clemmett Macleod Beck et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,094,647 titled: “System and Method for Providing Requested
`Quality of Service in a Hybrid Network” to Elliott et al.
`WO 00/19677 titled: “Connection Manager for Telecommunications” to
`Snelgrove et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,999,525 titled: “Method for Video Telephony over a Hybrid
`Network” to Krishnaswamy et al.
`European Patent Application No. 99107410.5 titled: “Method, Apparatus &
`Computer Program Product for Dynamic Administration, Management and
`Monitoring of Daemon Processes” to Chintalapati et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,457,063 titled: “Method, Apparatus & Computer Program
`Product for Dynamic Administration, Management and Monitoring of Daemon
`Processes” to Chintalapati et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,932 titled: “System, Method and Computer Program
`Product for Discovery in a Distributed Computing Environment” to McNally et
`al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,708,215 titled: “Method and System for Initiating an
`Outbound Communication from a Service Provider Responsive to a User
`Activity with Respect to a Network Resource” to Hingorani et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,484,317 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Computing within
`a Wide Area Network” to Hickman et al.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0093980 titled: “System and
`Method for Providing Peer-Oriented Control of Telecommunications Services”
`to Herman Trebes Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,403 titled: “System, Method and Computer Program
`Product for Monitoring in a Distributed Computing Environment” to Jarriel et
`al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,175 titled: “Automatic Retrieval of Changed Files by a
`Network Software Agent” to Chow et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,367,635 titled: “Network Management Agent with User
`Created Objects Providing Additional Functionality” to Bauer et al.
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’752
`
`’051
`
`‘051
`
`‘051
`
`’051
`
`’051
`
`’051
`
`’051
`
`’051
`
`’051
`
`
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent 5,603,031 titled: “System and Method for Distributed Computation
`Based upon the Movement, Execution, and Interaction of Processes in a
`Network” to White et al.
`U.S. Patent 6,256,620 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring
`Information Access” to Jawahar et al.
`U.S. Patent 7,080,127 titled: “Method and Apparatus for Computing within a
`Wide Area Network” to Hickman et al.
`U.S. Patent 6,351,771 titled: “Distributed Service Network System Capable of
`Transparently Converting Data Formats and Selectively Connecting to an
`Appropriate Bridge in Accordance with Clients Characteristics Identified During
`Preliminary Connections” to Craddock et al.
`European Patent Application No. EP0862113 titled: “Autonomous Agent
`Architecture” to Mueller, et al.
`U.S. Patent 6,009,456 titled: “Information Exchange by Intelligent Mobile
`Agents in a Network” to Frew et al.
`U.S. Patent 6,310,889 titled: “Method of Servicing Data Access Requests from
`Users” to Parsons et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,271A title: “Virtual Private Network” to Seid et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,898,830A title: “Firewall Providing Enhanced Network
`Security and User Transparency” to Weisnger, Jr. et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,222,856B1 title: “Adaptive Bandwidth Throttling for
`Individual Virtual Services Supported on a Network Server” to Krishnan et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,057B1 titled: “Network Server Supporting Multiple
`Instance of Services to Operate Concurrently by Having Endpoint Mapping
`Subsystem for Mapping Virtual Network Names to Virtual Endpoint IDS” to
`Barrera.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,475B1 titled: “Method and Device for Tunnel Switching”
`to Calhoun.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037B1 titled: “System and Method for Easing
`Communications Between Devices Connected Respectively to Public Networks
`Such as the Internet and to Private Networks by Facilitating Resolution of
`Human-readable Addresses” to Provino.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,831B2 titled: “Authenticated Firewall Tunneling
`Framework” to Brownell.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,085,238 titled: “Virtual Lan System” to Yuasa et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,865 titled: “Virtual Local Area Network Well-Known
`Port Routing Mechanism for Multi-Emulators in an Open System Environment”
`to Yu.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent/Publication No.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,038,608 titled: “Virtual Lan System” to Katsumata.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,653,054 titled: “Zone Based Quality of Service in a Fibre
`Channel Fabric” to Banerjee et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788 titled: “Virtual Input/Output Server” to Quinn et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,782,869 titled: “Network Traffic Control for Virtual Device
`Interfaces” to Chitlur Srinivasa.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0204723 titled: “System and Method for
`Processing and Forwarding Transmitted Information” to Tonsing.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,826,358 titled: “Hierarchical Virtual Queuing” to Caram.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,694,082 titled: “Computer Program and Method for Managing
`Resources in a Distributed Storage System” to Golding et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,962,563 titled: “System and Metod for Managing Storage
`System Performance as a Resource” to Becker-Szendy et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0044301 titled: “Method and Apparatus for
`Providing Virtual Computing Services” to Vasilevsky et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0083517 titled: “Lockless Processing of
`Command Operations in Multiprocessor System” to Riddle.
`CN1659539A titled: “A Network System Having a Virtual-Service-Module” to
`Roberts et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,161,904 titled: “System and Method for Hierarchical Metering
`in A Virtual Router Based Network Switch” to Hussain et al.
`
`Identification of Prior Art Publications
`
`2.
`
`Title, Author(s), and Publisher
`
`Govil, K., Teodosiu, D., Huang, Y., Rosenblum, M. (1999) Cellular Disco:
`Resource Management Using Virtual Clusters on Shared-Memory
`Multiprocessors. Kiawah Island, SC. ACM 1997.
`
`Asserted
`Patent(s)
`’051
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`’818
`
`Asserted
`Patent
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Milojicic, D., Douglis, F., Paindaveine, Y., Wheeler, R., Zhou, S. (1999)
`Process Migration. HP Laboratories Palo Alto, HPL-1999-21, February, 1999.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Asserted
`Patent
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`
`
`Title, Author(s), and Publisher
`
`Overeinder, B.J., Sloot, P.M.A., Heederik, R.N., Hertzberger, L.O. (1996) A
`dynamic load balancing system for parallel cluster computing. Future
`Generation Computer Systems 12 (1996) 101-115. Elsevier Science B.V.,
`1996.
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Khalidi, Y.A., Bernabeu, J.M., Matena, V., Shirriff, K., Thadani, M. (1996)
`Solaris MC: A Multi Computer OS. Sun Microsystems Laboratories.
`USENIX 1996 Annual Technical Conference, San Diego, CA, January 1996.
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Friedman, R., Biham, E., Itzkovitz, A., Schuster, A. (1998) Symphony:
`Managing Virtual Servers in the Global Village (White Paper – Preliminary
`Version). Technion – Computer Science Department – Technical Report
`CS0939 – 1998. Israel, June 25, 1998.
`http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/users/wwwb/cgi-bin/tr-
`get.cgi/1998/CS/CS0939.pdf
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Lakshman & Yavatkar, Aqua: An Adaptive End-System Quality of Service
`Architecture, High-Speed Networking for Multimedia Applications, 155-177
`(1996)
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Moghe & Rubin, Enhanced Call: A Paradigm for Applications With Dynamic
`Client-Membership and Client-Level Binding in ATM Networks, IEEE/ACM
`Trans. On Networking, vol. 4, no. 4 (Aug. 1996)
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Campbell & Coulson, QoS adaptive transports: delivering scalable media to
`the desktop, IEEE Network, vol. 11, no. 2, (Mar. 1997)
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Ferrari et al., Client-Network Interactions in Quality of Service
`Communication Environments, Proc. 4th IFIP Conference on High
`Performance Networking (1992)
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Lindholm, T., Yellin, F., The Java Virtual Machine Specification, Addison-
`Wesley (1997)
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`VMware Virtual Platform White Paper published on May 8, 1999 (available
`at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990508224230/http://www.vmware.com/produ
`cts/virtualplatform.html).
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
` PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Asserted
`Patent
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`
`
`Title, Author(s), and Publisher
`
`VMware Virtual Platform – Create, Configure and Operate Virtual Machines
`published on May 8, 1999 (available at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/19990508010547/http://www.vmware.com:80/sup
`port/create.html).
`
`Edouard Bugnion, Scott Devine, Kinshuk Govil, and Mendel Rosenblum.
`1997. Disco: running commodity operating systems on scalable
`multiprocessors. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 15, 4 (November 1997), 412–
`447. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/265924.265930
`
`Barak, A., La’adan, O. Performance of the MOSIX Parallel System for a
`Cluster of PC’s. Institute of Computer Science. The Hebrew University of
`Jerusalem, Israel. http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~orenl/papers/hpcn97-
`mosix.pdf
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Aman, J., Eilert, C.K., Emmes, D., Yocorm, P., Dillenberger, D. (1997)
`Adaptive Algorithms for Managing a Distributed Data Processing Workload.
`IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1997.
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Guedes, L.A., Oliveira, P.C., Faina, L.F., Cardozo, E. (1998) An Agent-Based
`Approach for Supporting Quality of Service in Distributed Multimedia
`Systems. Computer Communications 21, pp. 1269-1278, Elsevier Science
`B.V., 1998.
`
`’686 and
`’726
`
`Nakajima, T., Tadiou Kone, M. Aizu, H. System Support for Migratory
`Continuous Media Applications in Distributed Real-Time Environ