UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,818
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2022-00096
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-3,
`6-7, 17-19, 30, 32-34, 37-38, AND 40 OF U.S. PATENT
`RE44,818 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iv 
`CLAIMS LISTING ............................................................................................... viii 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) .......................... 1 
`Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1 
`A. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1 
`B. 
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and
`C. 
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................ 1 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.15 ......................................... 2 
`III. 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d) ....... 3 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................ 3 
`V. 
`VI.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED ................................... 3 
`The Fintiv factors (35 U.S.C. §314(a)) ................................................ 3 
`A. 
`The General Plastic/Valve factors (§314(a)) ....................................... 6 
`B. 
`The Advanced framework/Becton factors (35 U.S.C. §325(d)) ......... 10 
`C. 
`VII.  THE ’818 PATENT ...................................................................................... 12 
`Priority Date ....................................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`General Overview ............................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 12 
`C. 
`The ’789 FH ............................................................................. 12 
` 
`The ’818 FH ............................................................................. 13 
`Prior IPRs ................................................................................. 13 
` 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 15 
`D. 
`VIII.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) .................. 15 
`IX.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15 
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 16 
`X. 
`Srinivasa (Ex-1006) ............................................................................ 16 
`A. 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`XI. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`Edsall (Ex-1007) ................................................................................. 18 
`B. 
`C.  Wu (Ex-1008) ..................................................................................... 21 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................................... 22 
`GROUND 1: Srinivasa anticipates the Challenged Claims ............... 22 
`A. 
`Srinivasa qualifies as prior art .................................................. 22 
` 
`Challenged Claims ................................................................... 23 
` 
`GROUND 2: Edsall in view of Wu renders obvious the
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 47 
`Scope, content, and rationale for combining the prior art ....... 47 
` 
`Challenged Claims ................................................................... 51 
` 
`XII.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 73 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 73 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 75 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,818 (“’818 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. RE44,818 (“’818 FH”)
`
`Declaration of Aaron D. Striegel, Ph.D. (“Striegel Decl.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,789 (“’789 patent”)
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 7,711,789 (“’789 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,782,869 to Srinivasa (“Srinivasa”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0172149 to Edsall
`(“Edsall”)
`Wu, J. et al., Hierarchical Disk Sharing for Multimedia
`Systems, NOSSDAV ’05, Jun. 13-14, 2005, Stevenson,
`Washington (2005) (“Wu”)
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions Exhibit D
`Regarding the ’818 patent in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Case No. 621-cv-00226-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.) (“ICs”)
`Claim Construction Order in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`VMware, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`Dec. 04, 2020)
`
`Patent Owner’s Disclosure of Proposed Constructions in
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`Co., Case No. 6:21-cv-00226-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15,
`2021)
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Claim Constructions in Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00226-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2021)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`VMware, Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims
`1, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 of U.S. Patent No.
`RE44,818, IPR2020-00859, Paper 2 (May 2, 2020) (“859-
`Petition”)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR2020-00859,
`Paper 8 (August 11, 2020) (“859-POPR”)
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`IPR2020-00859, Paper 13 (November 5, 2020) (“859-ID”)
`
`Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial,
`IPR2020-00859, Paper 23 (Feb. 2, 2021)
`
`VMware, Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claim
`17 of U.S. Patent No. RE44,818, IPR2020-01081, Paper 2
`(June 24, 2020) (“1081-Petition”)
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR2020-01081,
`Paper 10 (Oct. 27, 2020) (“1081-POPR”)
`
`Decision Regarding Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial,
`IPR2020-01081, Paper 18 (Jan. 26, 2021)
`
`Petitioner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`Co., Case No. 621-cv-00226-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`Co., Case No. 621-cv-00226-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Executed Summons in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Case No. 621-cv-00226-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,757,033 to Mehrotra (“Mehrotra”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`Valenzuela, J. et al., A Hierarchical Token Bucket
`Algorithm to Enhance QoS in IEEE 802.11: Proposal,
`Implementation and Evaluation, Dept. of Signal Theory and
`Communications—Polytechnic University of Catalonia
`(2004)
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`Brown, M., Traffic Control HOWTO
`
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`November 4, 2021 letter to Patentee’s counsel stipulating to
`non-use of IPR grounds prior art in District Court
`
`Lex Machina docket report for District Judge Alan D
`Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
`of Texas showing 14 docket entries for December 7, 2022
`
`Dufresne, A. et al., How reliable are trial dates relied on by
`the PTAB in the Fintiv analysis?
`https://www.1600ptab.com/2021/10/how-reliable-are-trial-
`dates-relied-on-by-the-ptab-in-the-fintiv-analysis/# (dated
`October 29, 2021; accessed November 3, 2021)
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00686, Paper 7 (July 23, 2020) ............................................................... 6
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) ......................................................... 3
`Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc,
`914 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 24
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) .........................................................7, 9
`In re Land,
`368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966) .................................................................................. 24
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 16
`Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (Oct. 16, 2019) ........................................................... 12
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Inter Modal Grp. – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ............................................................ 6
`Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent Inc.,
`827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 52
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 78
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00062 et al., Paper 11 (Apr. 2, 2019) ..................................................... 7
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 16
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2014-01556, Paper 57 (Jan. 22, 2016) ........................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`CLAIMS LISTING
`[Claim 1, 1-PRE] A method, comprising
`
`[1.1] maintaining a connection, over a network fabric, to a virtual storage network
`
`interface layer of an application server, wherein the virtual storage network
`
`interface layer is associated with a virtual storage node identifier;
`
`[1.2] presenting, at a physical storage network interface, the virtual storage node
`
`identifier to a storage area network;
`
`[1.3] enforcing a hierarchical token bucket resource allocation of bandwidth across
`
`the physical storage network interface;
`
`[1.4] receiving, over the connection, a storage command from the virtual storage
`
`network interface layer of the application server, wherein the storage command
`
`is a command to read data from, or write data to, a target connected to the
`
`storage area network;
`
`[1.5] classifying the storage command relative to the hierarchical token bucket
`
`resource allocation to determine a current amount of tokens available;
`
`[1.6] comparing a data transfer size of the storage command to the current amount
`
`of tokens available;
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`[1.7] forwarding the data associated with the storage command to the data’s
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`destination, if the current amount of tokens available are sufficient; and
`
`[1.8] buffering the storage command, if the current amount of tokens available are
`
`insufficient.
`
`[Claim 2] The method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the storage
`
`command, if the current amount of tokens available are sufficient, wherein
`
`processing the storage command includes storing the data associated with said
`
`storage command after it has been executed.
`
`[Claim 3] The method of claim 1, further comprising;
`
`determining a data transfer size associated with the storage command; and
`
`deducting the data transfer size associated with said storage command from the
`
`hierarchical token bucket, if the current amount of tokens available are
`
`sufficient.
`
`[Claim 6] The method of claim 1, wherein receiving, over the connection, a storage
`
`command from the virtual storage network interface layer of the application
`
`server includes buffering said storage command in a buffer.
`
`[Claim 7] The method of claim 6, wherein buffering said storage command in a
`
`buffer includes aggregating storage commands received from one or more
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`connections from the virtual storage network interface layer of one or more
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`application servers.
`
`[Claim 17, 17-PRE] An apparatus comprising
`
`[17.1.1] an input/output fabric interface;
`
`[17.1.2] a storage network interface;
`
`[17.1.3] one or more processors;
`
`[17.1.4] a memory;
`
`[17.1.5] one or more input/output virtualization modules comprising computer-
`
`readable instructions operative to cause the one or more processors to:
`
`[17.2] maintain a connection, over a network fabric, to a virtual storage network
`
`interface layer of an application server, wherein the virtual storage network
`
`interface layer is associated with a virtual storage node identifier;
`
`[17.3] present, at a physical storage network interface, the virtual storage node
`
`identifier to a storage area network;
`
`[17.4] enforce a hierarchical token bucket resource allocation of bandwidth across
`
`the physical storage network interface;
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`[17.5] receive, over the connection, a storage command from the virtual storage
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`network interface layer of the application server, wherein the storage command
`
`is a command to read data from, or write data to, a target connected to the
`
`storage area network;
`
`[17.6] determine a data transfer size associated with the storage command;
`
`[17.7] classify the storage command relative to the hierarchical token bucket
`
`resource allocation to determine a current amount of tokens available;
`
`[17.8] compare the data transfer size of the storage command to the current amount
`
`of tokens available;
`
`[17.9] process the storage command, if the current amount of tokens available is
`
`sufficient;
`
`[17.10] forward the data associated with the storage command to the data's
`
`destination; and
`
`[17.11] buffer the storage command in the memory, if the current amount of tokens
`
`available is insufficient.
`
`[Claim 18] The apparatus of claim 17, further comprising a computation module to
`
`deduct the data transfer size associated with said storage command from the
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`hierarchical token bucket, if the current amount of tokens available is
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`sufficient.
`
`[Claim 19] The apparatus of claim 17, further comprising a transportation module
`
`to transfer stored data associated with said storage command to their
`
`destination.
`
`[Claim 30, 30-PRE] A non-transitory data storage medium encoded with computer
`
`executable instructions, the computer executable instructions when executed
`
`operable to cause a processor to:
`
`[30.1] maintain a connection, over a network fabric, to a virtual storage network
`
`interface layer of an application server, wherein the virtual storage network
`
`interface layer is associated with a virtual storage node identifier;
`
`[30.2] present, at a physical storage network interface, the virtual storage node
`
`identifier to a storage area network;
`
`[30.3] enforce a hierarchical token bucket resource allocation of bandwidth across
`
`the physical storage network interface;
`
`[30.4] receive, over the connection, a storage command from the virtual storage
`
`network interface layer of the application server, wherein the storage command
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`is a command to read data from, or write data to, a target connected to the
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`storage area network;
`
`[30.5] determine a data transfer size associated with the storage command;
`
`[30.6] classify the storage command relative to the hierarchical token bucket
`
`resource allocation to determine a current amount of tokens available;
`
`[30.7] compare the data transfer size of the storage command to the current amount
`
`of tokens available;
`
`[30.8] process the storage command, if the current amount of tokens available is
`
`sufficient;
`
`[30.9] forward the data associated with the storage command to the data's
`
`destination; and
`
`[30.10] buffer the storage command in a memory, if the current amount of tokens
`
`available is insufficient.
`
`[Claim 32, 32-PRE] A method of facilitating management of input/output
`
`subsystems in a virtual input/output server, the method comprising:
`
`[32.1] maintaining a connection, over a network fabric, to a virtual interface layer of
`
`an application server, to receive input/output communications to an
`
`input/output subsystem;
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`[32.2] presenting, at a physical interface, a virtual node identifier to the input/output
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`subsystem;
`
`[32.3] enforcing a hierarchical token bucket resource allocation of bandwidth across
`
`the physical interface;
`
`[32.4] receiving, over the connection, an input/output communication to a target on
`
`the input/output subsystem, thereby resulting in received input/output
`
`communication;
`
`[32.5] classifying the received input/output communication relative to the
`
`hierarchical token bucket resource allocation to determine a current amount of
`
`tokens available;
`
`[32.6] comparing a size of the received input/output communication to the current
`
`amount of tokens available;
`
`[32.7] forwarding the received input/output communication across the physical
`
`interface to the input/output subsystem, if the current amount of tokens
`
`available are sufficient; and
`
`[32.8] buffering the received input/output communication, if the current amount of
`
`tokens available are insufficient.
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`[Claim 33] The method of claim 32, further comprising: processing the received
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`input/output communication, if the current amount of tokens available are
`
`sufficient.
`
`[Claim 34] The method of claim 32, further comprising:
`
`determining a data transfer size associated with the received input/output
`
`communication; and
`
`deducting the data transfer size associated with received input/output
`
`communication from the hierarchical token bucket, if the current amount of
`
`tokens available are sufficient.
`
`[Claim 37] The method of claim 32, wherein receiving, over the connection, an
`
`input/output communication for a target on the input/output subsystem
`
`includes buffering the input/output communication in a buffer.
`
`[Claim 38] The method of claim 37, wherein buffering the input/output
`
`communication in a buffer, includes aggregating input/output communications
`
`received for one or more targets on the input/output subsystem from the virtual
`
`interface layer of one or more application servers.
`
`xv
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`[Claim 40] The method of claim 32, wherein the virtual interface layer is a virtual
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`storage network interface layer, and wherein the input/output subsystem is a
`
`storage area network.
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Petitioner”) hereby seeks inter partes
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`review of claims 1-3, 6-7, 17-19, 30, 32-34, 37-38, and 40 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. RE44,818. (Ex-1001 (“’818 patent”).)
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)
`The real party-in-interest in this petition is Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company, 11445 Compaq Center Drive West, Houston, Texas 77070.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`The following pending federal district court litigation may affect or be
`
`affected by the decision in this proceeding: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Case No. 6:21-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(“WDTX Proceeding”). Petitioner was served with the complaint in the WDTX
`
`Proceeding on March 10, 2021. (Ex-1022.)
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-7418
`Facsimile: 720-904-6118
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Elana B. Araj (Reg. No. 75,804)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Ave.
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 801-6473
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`ArajE@gtlaw.com
`
`1
`
`

`

`(pro hac vice
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Stephen M. Ullmer (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-6579
`Facsimile: 303-572-6540
`UllmerS@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Rose Cordero Prey
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Ave
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 801-6473
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`PreyR@gtlaw.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Leif Olson (Reg. No. 79,428)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-7401
`Facsimile: 303-572-6540
`OlsonL@gtlaw.com
`
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg Traurig,
`
`LLP, 1144 15th St., Suite 3300, Denver, CO 80202. Petitioner also consents to and
`
`prefers electronic service by emailing HPE-IV-IPR@gtlaw.com and counsel of
`
`record (shown above).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.15
`Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d)
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 13,959 words, as
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word for Office 365) used to
`
`generate this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table
`
`of authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and
`
`this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`Petitioner certifies that the ’818 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred/estopped from requesting cancellation of the Challenged Claims
`
`identified below.
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`1-3, 6-7, 17-19, 30,
`32-34, 37-38, 40
`
`Anticipated by Srinivasa (Ex-1006)
`
`Rendered obvious by Edsall (Ex-
`1007) in view of Wu (Ex-1008)
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED
`A.
`The Fintiv factors (35 U.S.C. §314(a))
`Fintiv identifies six factors relating “to whether efficiency, fairness, and the
`
`merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (March 20, 2020). “[T]he Board takes a holistic
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`instituting review.” (Id. at 6.)
`
`The Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. In particular, factor 6 (“other
`
`circumstances…including the merits”) strongly favors Petitioner. The Board
`
`previously instituted IPR2020-00859 against the ’818 patent, but Patentee settled
`
`shortly after institution. (Ex-1015-16.) This Petition includes two grounds,
`
`including the anticipation ground that previously led the Board to institute. (Ex-
`
`1015-ID at 16-17.)1 Thus, this factor should be dispositive—the Board has
`
`previously agreed that Ground 1 likely invalidates many of the Challenged Claims.
`
`(Ex-1015-ID at 17.)
`
`Factors 3 (investment in the parallel proceeding) and 4 (overlap of issues) also
`
`weigh in favor of institution. For factor 3, the WDTX Proceeding is at an early stage
`
`with virtually no investment by the court and little by the parties: a Markman hearing
`
`is scheduled for December 8, 2021, fact discovery has not yet begun,2 and expert
`
`discovery will not close until August 31, 2022. The court has yet to rule on pending
`
`
`1 The prior ID begins on page 914 of the file history (Ex-1002). For ease of
`
`reference, Petitioner cites to a standalone exhibit (Ex-1015).
`
`2 According to Judge Albright’s Order Governing Proceedings–Patent Cases, fact
`
`discovery opens one business day after the Markman hearing.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`motions to dismiss and transfer. This Petition was also filed four months before the
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`§315(b) deadline and within 10 days of receiving Patentee’s claim construction
`
`briefing. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of institution. The prior ID found this
`
`factor weighed slightly in favor of discretionary denial. (Ex-1015-ID at 13-14.)
`
`However, the VMware case had advanced further than it has here: fact discovery
`
`had completed and expert discovery had begun in the prior case, where neither has
`
`started here. (See id. at 14.)
`
`Regarding factor 4, there is no risk of duplicating efforts: Petitioner stipulates
`
`not to assert the art relied on for its unpatentability grounds herein. (Ex-1027.) Thus,
`
`as in the Board’s prior ID, this factor weighs strongly in favor of institution. (Ex-
`
`1015-ID at 15-16.)
`
`Factors 1, 2, and 5 are neutral. Regarding factor 1 (grant/denial of a stay),
`
`Petitioner has not yet requested a stay in view of IPR and no evidence in this case
`
`suggests how the court will rule on a request to stay once filed. Thus, as the Board
`
`previously decided on similar facts, this factor is neutral. (Ex-1015-ID at 12.)
`
`Regarding factor 2 (trial date), the court set a trial date for December 7, 2022,
`
`but that is speculative because the court set the same trial date in 14 other cases.
`
`(Ex-1028.) The court cannot simultaneously try each case. As a recent analysis
`
`found, the Board’s Fintiv denials also relied on incorrect future trial dates in the vast
`
`majority of cases. (Ex-1029.) See Apple Inc. v Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`00686, Paper 7 at 2-3 (July 23, 2020) (citing Lex Machina statistics); Sand
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Revolution II LLC v. Continental Inter Modal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 8-10 (June 16, 2020). Thus, as the Board previously determined
`
`regarding the ’818 patent, this factor is neutral or “weighs marginally in favor of not
`
`exercising discretion.” (Ex-1015-ID at 12-13.) Sand, IPR2020-01393, Paper 24 at
`
`8-10.
`
`Regarding factor 5 (same parties), Petitioner is filing this IPR after being
`
`accused of infringing the patent at issue, as is the norm, so this factor is neutral. (Ex-
`
`1015-ID at 16.)
`
`Viewed holistically, the Fintiv factors favor institution, with factor 6 weighing
`
`very strongly in favor of institution and factors 3 and 4 also weighing in Petitioner’s
`
`favor. The remaining factors are neutral, such that discretionary denial is
`
`inappropriate.
`
`B.
`The General Plastic/Valve factors (§314(a))
`The Board considers a non-exhaustive list of factors when determining
`
`whether to exercise discretion under §314(a). Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods.,
`
`Inc., IPR2019-00062 et al., Paper 11 at 8 (Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (citing
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper
`
`19 at 15-16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential)). These factors are implicated by two prior
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`petitions filed by VMware (see Exs-1013-1019 & §VII.C.3), and the factors strongly
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`favor institution.
`
`Regarding factor 1 (same petitioner), this factor strongly favors Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner did not previously file a petition and is unaffiliated with VMware.
`
`Moreover, VMware’s WDTX
`
`case
`
`settled
`
`and
`
`its petitions were
`
`terminated/withdrawn before Petitioner was served with a complaint. (See Ex-1020;
`
`Exs-1013-1019; §VII.C.3.)
`
`Regarding factor 2 (whether at the time of filing earlier petitions the petitioner
`
`knew/should have known of the art in the second petition), this factor is either
`
`inapplicable or favors Petitioner. Petitioner did not file the prior petitions and had
`
`no reason to know of prior art at the time those petitions were filed because Petitioner
`
`had not been served with a complaint until after the prior petitions were
`
`terminated/withdrawn. Moreover, in this Petition, Ground 1 asserts the same prior
`
`art (Ex-1006-Srinivasa) because Petitioner has not previously filed any petitions—
`
`Srinivasa was asserted in VMware’s petitions, was the basis for institution, and has
`
`never been overcome by Patentee. (Ex-1015-ID at 16-17.) Ground 2 relies on prior
`
`art that was located by Petitioner months after the WDTX Proceeding was filed
`
`(indeed, after the dates on which Patentee served infringement contentions and
`
`Petitioner served invalidity contentions). Petitioner had no reason to know of this
`
`art at the time the first petition was filed, as noted above.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`Regarding factor 3 (whether a petitioner had received a POPR/ID prior to
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`filing), this factor strongly favors Petitioner. Petitioner did not “receive” a POPR or
`
`ID, though both existed in VMware’s IPRs before Petitioner was served with a
`
`complaint. But this factor is intended to prevent gamesmanship by taking into
`
`account “undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner” and “the potential for
`
`abuse” implicated by strategic serial filings. General Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper
`
`19 at 17. The only potential inequity and prejudice here would result from
`
`discretionary denial. While Petitioner is aware of the prior POPRs/ID, Ground 1
`
`was previously the basis for institution. (Ex-1015-ID at 16-17.) Petitioner did not
`
`use a POPR/ID as a roadmap to fix shortcoming and obtain institution—a prior
`
`petition was previously instituted. The only potential gamesmanship occurred in
`
`relation to Patentee’s role in the termination/withdrawal of the prior proceedings.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s Ground 2 is based on new art that the Board/Office has not
`
`previously discussed/considered. Thus, this factor strongly favors Petitioner.
`
`Regarding factors 4 (delay) and 5 (petitioner’s explanation for any delay),
`
`these factors are neutral. Petitioner has “known” about the Srinivasa reference (Ex-
`
`1006, Ground 1) and the Wu reference (Ex-1008, Ground 2) since Petitioner was
`
`sued, at least because (1) the face of the ’818 patent identifies Wu and (2) Srinivasa
`
`is identified in the file history of the ’818 patent because that reference was used in
`
`the prior IPR. (See Ex-1015.) Petitioner located the Edsall reference (Ex-1007,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. RE44,818
`IPR2022-00096
`Ground 2) after infringement and invalidity contentions were served. In any event,
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges only the claims asserted against it, which do not completely
`
`overlap with the prior petitions. Petitioner learned which claims were asserted
`
`against it on June 23, 2021, and the infringement contentions evidence a claim
`
`construction dispute regarding the meaning of the term “token” that is repeatedly
`
`used throughout the Challenged Claims. Specifically, the infringement contentions
`
`suggest an unconventional meaning of the token limitations that does not require
`
`tokens at all