vhc cc brief v apple
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
1/30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
VIRNETX INC. and
SCIENCE APPLICATIONSINTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
APPLE INC.
Defendant.
Civil Action Nos. 6:11-cv-5636:12-cv-855
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VIRNETXS OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 3304
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
2/30
-i-
Table of ContentsI. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
II.
LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................... 2
III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 2
A. Disputes Involving Previously Construed Claim Terms ....................................... 2
1. virtual private network [included in asserted claims of the 135 patent] .......2
2. generating from the client computer . . . [included inclaim 1 of the 135 patent] ................................................................................ 7
3. an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing asecure communication link [included in asserted claims of the 504
patent] ............................................................................................................... 8
4. indicate in response to the query whether the domain name service systemsupports establishing a secure communication link [included in assertedclaims of the211 patent] .................................................................................. 9
B. Disputes Involving New Claim Terms ................................................................ 12
5. intercept and intercepting [included in asserted claims of the 697 patent] ............................................................................................................. 12
6. [intercept / intercepting] . . . a request to look up an internet protocol(IP) address [included in claims of the 697 patent] ..................................... 12
7. wherein the secure communication service uses the securecommunication link to communicate at least one of video dataand audio data between the first network device and the second networkdevice [included in asserted claims of the 697 patent] ................................ 14
8. [determine/determining] . . . is available for a secure communicationsservice [included in asserted claims of the 697 patent] ............................... 15
9. domain name lookup [included in claims 14 and 28 of the 697 patent] ..... 15
10.secure name service [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent] ........ 16
11. secure name [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent] ................... 18
12. unsecured name [included in claims 1, 26, and 27 of the 181 patent] ...... 19
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 3305
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
3/30
-ii-
13. securely communicate [included in claims 1, 24, 26, and 29of the 181 patent] ........................................................................................... 20
14. sending a message securely [included in claims 24-26 and 29
of the 181 patent] ........................................................................................... 20
15. non-secure communication link [included in claim 7 of the 181 patent] ............................................................................................................. 21
16. requesting and obtaining registration of a secure/unsecured name[included in claims 24-27 of the 181 patent] ................................................. 22
17. message [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent] .......................... 23
IV.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 23
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 3306
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
4/30
-iii-
Table of Authorities
Cases
CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp. ,504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 14
Edwards Lifesciences, LLC v. Cook Inc. ,582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 18
Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp ,653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 29, 2011) .................................................................................... 18
Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. ,362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 13
i4i Ltd. Pship v. Microsoft Corp. ,598 F.3d 831(Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................................................... 20
Level 3 Commcns, LLC v. Limelight Networks ,630 F.Supp.2d 654 (E.D.Va.2008) ........................................................................................... 14
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc. ,358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................... 18
Neev v. Abbott Med. Optics, Inc. ,2012 WL 1066797 (D.Del. Mar. 26, 2012) .............................................................................. 14
Phillips v. AWH Corp. ,415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 6, 12
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters. ,211 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D.N.C. 2002) ....................................................................................... 7
Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. ,726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................. 15
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp. ,299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................... 6
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entmt Am. LLC ,669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 6, 22
VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. ,2009 WL 2370727 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2009) ........................................................................ 5, 8
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 3307
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
5/30
-iv-
Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ,452 Fed.Appx. 966 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 17, 18, 19
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 3308
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
6/30
-1-
I. INTRODUCTION
There are six patents at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (the 135
patent), 7,418,504 (the 504 patent), 7,490,151 (the 151 patent), and 7,921,211 (the 211
patent), 8,051,181 (the 181 patent) and 8,504,697 (the 697 patent). The patents are
attached in Exhibits 1-6. The Court has previously construed terms for all asserted patents
except the 181 and 697 patents. The Courts prior claim construction opinions are attached as
exhibits A-C. The new patents belong to the same family of patent applications. 1 As such, the
technology at issue in the new patents will be familiar to the Court.
The Court has conducted three Markman proceedings for patents in VirnetXs portfolio
and has presided over three VirnetX trials. In acknowledgement of the Courts expertise in
VirnetXs patents and out of respect for the Courts time, the parties have agreed to rely on prior
briefing for previously construed claims as much as possible. Specifically, the parties have
agreed to submit prior briefing on the majority of previously construed claim terms in lieu of
repeating those arguments in the body of the briefs for this proceeding, and that this preserves
the parties right to appeal alleged error in the previously construed terms (barring subsequent
waiver). Accordingly, VirnetX incorporates by reference exhibits D-P, which are claim
construction arguments and materials in support thereof from the previous cases. The claim
terms for which this agreement applies are the terms highlighted in green in the parties Joint
Claim Construction Statement. Dkt. No. 113-2.
1 Specifically, the 181 patent is a continuation of the patent application that became U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180, which the Court has construed. The 697 patent is a continuation of acontinuation of the patent application that became the 211 patent.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 3309
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
7/30
-2-
II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
As with the prior litigations, VirnetX proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have a Masters degree in computer science or computer engineering as well as two years
of experience in computer networking with some accompanying exposure to network security.
See Jones Decl. at 3.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Disputes Involving Previously Construed Claim Terms
1. virtual private network [included in asserted claims of the 135 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
a network of computers which privately anddirectly communicate with each other byencrypting traffic on insecure communication
paths between the computers
a network of computers which privately anddirectly communicate with each other byencrypting traffic on insecurecommunication paths between the computerswhere the communication is both secure andanonymous.
VirnetX urges the Court to reconsider its construction of this term to prevent what
VirnetX believes was injustice in the Cisco 2 trial from reoccurring, in which the Courts
construction for VPN was miscast and abused by Ciscos counsel and witnesses. The Cisco
trial highlights two fundamental claim construction disputes between VirnetX and Apple: (1)
Does a VPN, in its ordinary meaning, require anonymity? And if so, (2) what is the appropriate
scope of anonymity?
The Cisco Trial. During claim construction, Cisco did not argue that the term virtual
private network (or VPN) requires anonymity because of disclaimer or lexicography in the
specification or the prosecution history of the 135 patent. Rather, Cisco told the Court that a
VPN, in its ordinary meaning, achieves anonymity through tunneling. See Cisco Claim
2 VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al. (6:10-cv-417) (hereinafter the Cisco case or simplyCisco )
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 3310
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
8/30
-3-
Construction Hing Tr. (Ex. K) at 28:10-22 (This is an excerpt from Your Honors order. You
start out early on with The Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary that defines
a virtual private network. . . . So privacy here in the extrinsic evidence is both encryption and
tunneling protocols. Tunneling protocols is how you ensure anonymity. ) (emphasis added).
But at trial, Cisco about-faced and told the jury that the Courts construction did not cover
tunneling. See Cisco , 03/11/13 TT a.m. at 81:19-25 (Question: Dr. Clark, do you disagree with
Ciscos lawyers statement that tunneling protocols ensure anonymity? Answer: I disagree
that tunneling protocols ensure anonymity. ).3 Remarkably, Cisco falsely denied making
these arguments to the jury. See Cisco , 6/17/13 Post-Trial Hing Tr. at 52:13-17 (The Court:Let me ask you this, Mr. Desmarais: Did you misrepresent to the jury that the Courts claim
construction forbid IP tunneling as a VPN? Mr. Desmarais: Absolutely not, Your Honor.
Absolutely not.). 4
Anonymity Revisited. VirnetX is not suggesting that the Court or its construction of
VPN is somehow to blame for Ciscos misrepresentations and misconduct. Conceivably any
construction can be twisted and distorted. But VirnetX is still reeling from Ciscos ill-gotten
3 This is not the only way that Cisco miscast and abused the Courts construction for VPN.Cisco also: (1) told the jury that the Courts construction was limited to a very special type ofVPN; (ii) told the jury that the anonymity requirement could only be met by the anonymityachieved by the preferred embodiments; and (iii) told the jury that prior art VPNs cannot meetthe Courts construction. Ciscos repeated misconduct is documented, cited, and quoted inVirnetXs Motion for a New Trial. See Cisco , Dkt. No. 798 at 5-9.
4 In making this misrepresentation to the Court, counsel for Cisco argued that he simply told the
jury that tunneling was the prior art way of achieving anonymity. But Cisco repeatedly toldthe jury that prior art VPNs could not meet the Courts construction for VPN. See , e.g. , Cisco ,3/07/13 p.m. TT at 82:5-11 (Q. So if we put up Claim 1 of the 759 patent, would CiscosEasyVPN and AnyConnect productsdo theywith regards to the anonymity component of thevirtual private network, do they all work the same way? A. They all work the same way and donot provide an anonymous VPN. They just provide a VPN, which was prior art.). Moreover,Cisco told the jury that only the tunneling of the IP-hopping embodiment of the patent couldachieve anonymity. See Cisco , 3/07/13 p.m. TT at 60:18-61:23.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 3311
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
9/30
-4-
verdicta verdict that Cisco won by incessantly telling the jury that the Courts construction of
VPN is so far removed from the ordinary meaning of the term that it does not cover
archetypical, industry-standard VPNs such as IPsec. See Jones Decl. at 4-7.
The Court did not include anonymity in its construction of VPN by way of any
disclaimer or lexicography in the intrinsic record of the patents. Indeed, no defendantnot
Microsoft, not Apple, not Ciscohas ever argued that the term is so limited by disclaimer or
lexicography. The disputes between the parties and the claim construction opinions of the Court
have all exclusively focused on the ordinary meaning of the term.
So is anonymity part of the ordinary meaning of VPN? No, and VirnetX has alwaysopposed this. In a private network, computers communicate with each other securely. A virtual
private network enables a computer outside of the private network to communicate as if it were
physically within the private network. A VPN achieves this by securing the (otherwise) insecure
communication path between the remote computer and the private network (through encryption)
and by enabling the remote and private computers to communicate directly with each other ( e.g. ,
through tunneling). Tunneling is one way of enabling computers to directly communicate with
each other. Using tunneling, a remote computer can directly communicate with computers on
the private network via the private IP address space of the private network. Specifically, the
packets with private IP addresses are encapsulated by packets with public IP addresses. The
public IP addresses of the outer packet enable the packet to traverse the Internet (which only
uses public IP addresses) such that it is routed to a public-facing computer at the private network.
The public facing computer then removes the outer IP address and routes the inner packet to the
appropriate computer within the private network using the private addresses.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 3312
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
10/30
-5-
To be sure, the combination of tunneling and encryption provides some degree of
anonymity because the private IP addresses of the inner packet are encrypted and therefore not
visible to an intercepting party. But it does not follow that anonymity is not the sine qua non of
a virtual private network. Indeed, the Court has ruled that virtual private networks are not
limited to IP tunneling. See VirnetX, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 2009 WL 2370727, at *5 (E.D.
Tex. July 30, 2009) (Accordingly, virtual private network is not limited to IP tunneling, and
the Court construes virtual private network as a network of computers which privately
communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between the
computers.) (Ex. A). Again, a VPN allows a computer outside of the physical private networkto communicate as part of the private network. A VPN achieves this: (1) by enabling the
computers to communicate directly with each other as if they were physically on the same
private network; (2) by encrypting the communications on insecure communication paths to
mimic the privacy of a private network; and (3) with or without some consequential degree of
anonymity.
Apples Arguments. Apple does not argue that anonymity is part of the ordinary
meaning of the term VPN. Instead, Apple argues that anonymity is party of the ordinary
meaning of the term in light of the specification. Apples arguments and proposed construction
should be rejected for three reasons. First , there is nothing in the specification that describes all
VPNs as having or requiring anonymity. Second , the specification does not deviate from the
ordinary meaning of VPN. While the patent discloses a novel IP-hopping VPN that
provides anonymity that helps foil traffic analysis, it does not follow that non-IP-hopping VPNs
necessarily have some non-zero degree of anonymity. Indeed, the specification implies that,
without IP-hopping, there is no anonymity. See 135 at 38:2-6 (The VPN is preferably
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 3313
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
11/30
-6-
implemented using the IP address hopping features of the basic invention described above,
such that the true identity of the two nodes cannot be determined even if packets during the
communication are intercepted.).
Third , Apple cannot identify any difference between importing anonymity into the term
VPN via discerning the ordinary meaning of the term in light of the specification and
importing anonymity via disclaimer to the preferred embodiments. In other words, Apples
argument is nothing more than disclaimer in disguise. While claims must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part, Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (internal quotations omitted), this is not an open invitation to import limitations from the preferred embodiments. Nor is it a way to circumvent the Federal Circuits stringent test for
disclaimer. 5 Indeed, the Federal Circuit in Phillips warned against importing limitations from
the specification under the guise of using the specification to interpret the meaning of the claim.
See Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1323 ([W]e recognize that the distinction between using the
specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification
into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice. However, the line between construing
terms and importing limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if
the courts focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claim terms.) (internal citation removed). Accordingly, VirnetX requests that
the Court modify its construction of VPN by removing the requirement of anonymity.
Claim Scope Disputes Post- Cisco . If the Court is inclined to construe virtual private
network to require anonymity, the Cisco trial highlights several disputes of claim scope that
5 See , e.g. , Thorner v. Sony Computer Entmt Am. LLC , 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(requiring expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal ofclaim scope for a finding of disclaimer) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp. , 299 F.3d1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 3314
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
12/30
-7-
should be resolved by the Courtand not duked out before the jury. Specifically, Apple and
VirnetX dispute the legal scope anonymity. If the Court includes anonymity in the construction
of VPN, VirnetX requests (and Apple opposes) a ruling that anonymity is met by at least by
tunneling and encryption, that anonymity is not limited to the anonymity achieved by the IP-
hopping embodiments of the patent, and that anonymity is achieved by VPNs known to persons
of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. These clarifications are imminently appropriate
based on the history of the construction of VPN. Namely, the doctrine of judicial estoppel
should preclude Apple from arguing that tunneling and encryption does not achieve anonymity,
as that is exactly what Apple represented to the Court at oral argument in the Cisco case. Seesupra at 2; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters. , 211 F. Supp. 2d 725, 764 (W.D.N.C. 2002)
(finding that Gemstars position [which is different from what it argued during claim
construction] is precluded by the doctrine of judicial estoppel which is designed to prevent
litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts.). Next, Apple should be precluded from
arguing that anonymity is limited to preferred embodiments of the patent as Apple is not arguing
that there is disclaimer to those embodiments. And finally, Apple should be precluded from
arguing that VPNs known to persons of ordinary skill at the time of the invention do not achieve
anonymity because the opposite would eviscerate any notion that Apples proposed construction
of VPN is the ordinary meaning of the term.
2. generating from the client computer . . . [included in claim 1 of the 135 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] generating and transmitting from the clientcomputer a DNS request
The first step of claim 1 of the 135 patent begins: generating from . . . . Apple attempts
to rewrite the claim language with its proposed construction: generating and transmitting from .
. . . The Court adopted this construction in the prior litigation because the parties agreed to this
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 3315
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
13/30
-8-
construction. See Ex. B at 27. This agreement, however, was based on representation from
Apples counsel that it would not attempt to use the transmitting language to circumvent the
Courts prior ruling in the Microsoft case that the client computer can perform the second step
(i.e., the determining step). See Microsoft Claim Construction Opinion (Ex. A) at 20 (finding
that [t]he client computer can perform the determining step based on the claim language and
the doctrine of claim differentiation). Apple represented that it would not circumvent this ruling
at the claim construction hearing:
MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, we are okay with generating andtransmitting, but I still didnt get an answer to my question,
which is are they trying to circumvent Your Honors constructionthat said the client computer can do the determining step by eithertransmitting from a function to a function, from a piece of softwareto a piece of software, from other functions on the client? Im stillnot hearing that answer. That is really the problem here.
THE COURT: Can you answer that more definitively?
MR. WILLIAMS: The first thing I said when I stood up hereawhile ago was, no, sir, we are not trying to circumvent anything.
See Cisco Claim Construction Hing Tr. (Ex. K) at 117:19-118:5. Apple did not make good on
this commitment. Namely, Apples expert argued that Apple did not infringe because a client
computer cannot examine a DNS request to perform the determination step because the
Courts construction requires the DNS request to be transmitted from the device. Accordingly,
VirnetX asks that the Court not adopt Apples proposed construction and leave the claim
language as-is.
3. an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a securecommunication link[included in asserted claims of the 504 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary]
alternatively: an indication that the domain nameservice system has authorized and supportsestablishing a secure communication link
an affirmative signal beyond the merereturning of an IP address, public key, digitalsignature, or certificate that the domain nameservice system supports establishing a securecommunication link
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 3316
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
14/30
-9-
4. indicate in response to the query whether the domain name service system supportsestablishing a secure communication link [included in asserted claims of the211 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary]
alternatively: indicate in response to the querywhether the domain name service system hasauthorized and supports establishing a securecommunication link
in response to the query for a networkaddress, affirmatively signaling beyond themere returning of an IP address, public key,digital signature, or certificate that thedomain name service system supportsestablishing a secure communication link
As the Court has previously observed, these terms are readily understandable and do not
require construction. See Cisco and Mitel Opinions (Ex. B at 27-28; Ex. C at 10-11).
If the Court is inclined to construe these terms, it should adopt VirnetXs proposed
constructions, which clarifies that the claimed indication is that the domain name service
system has authorized and supports establishing a secure communication link. This is in accord
with the specification and the prosecution history. The 504 and 211 patents describe a
preferred embodiment in columns 49 through 53 that illustrates why VirnetXs alternative,
proposed construction is appropriate. Particularly, the specification teaches SDNS 3313 that
supports establishing 6 a VPN by accessing VPN gatekeeper 3314, which provisions computer
3301 and secure web server computer 3320, or a secure edge router for server computer 3320,
thereby creating the VPN. See 504 at 51:34-40. Notably, the specification teaches that a VPN
gatekeeper only provisions authorized users. See id . at 40:57-63 (recognizing that a gatekeeper
computer determines whether a user is authorized); see also id . at 41: 33-38 (Scenario #2:
Client does not have permission to access target computer. In this scenario, the clients DNS
6 To remove any doubt that SDNS 3133 in combination with VPN gatekeeper 3314 is the preferred embodiment with respect to the disputed indication terms, VirnetX notes that SDNS3133 embodies the other two limitations of the independent claims of the 504 and 211 patent,namely: (1) storing domain names and corresponding network addresses, see 504 at 51:11-12(SDNS 3313 contains a cross-reference database of secure domain names and correspondingsecure network addresses); and (2) receiving a query for a network address, see id . at 51:29-30(When a user queries SDNS 3313 for the secure computer network address . . .).
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 3317
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
15/30
-10-
request would be received by the DNS proxy server 2610, which would forward the request to
gatekeeper 2603. The gatekeeper would reject the request, informing DNS proxy server 2610
that it was unable to find the target computer.).
Further, VirnetXs alternative, proposed construction accounts for how the specification
explains the claimed inventions by disparaging conventional DNS. Particularly, the specification
teaches that [c]onventional Domain Name Servers (DNSs) provide a look-up function that
returns the IP address of a requested computer or host. . . . One conventional scheme that
provides secure virtual private networks over the Internet provides the DNS server with the
public keys of the machines that the DNS server has the addresses for. See 504 at 39:7-9 and36:34-37. The specification then criticizes conventional DNS for not differentiating between
authorized and unauthorized users. Compare 504 at 39:43-45 (The conventional scheme
suffers from certain drawbacks. For example, any user can perform a DNS request. Moreover,
DNS requests resolve to the same value for all users.) with id . at 40:25-34 (describing the
benefits of the invention: If the user had requested lookup of a secure web site but lacked
credentials to create such a connection, DNS proxy 2610 would return a host unknown error to
the user. In this manner, different users requesting access to the same DNS name could be
provided with different look-up results.). Accordingly, VirnetXs alternative, proposed
construction is appropriate because it acknowledges that the claimed domain name service
system indicates that it supports establishing a secure communication link for authorized
requests/users.
The Court should reject Apples proposed construction because it misreads arguments
made in re-examination. In re-exam, VirnetX explained how conventional DNS could not meet
the claimed indication for the same reasons given above. See Ex. Q at 6 (The specification
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 3318
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
16/30
-11-
explains that DNS systems that perform no more than these conventional functions have many
shortcomings, and further explains novel DNS-system embodiments that go beyond these
conventional functions by supporting establishing secure communications.). VirnetX also
explained that [n]ever does the specification equate the mere return of requested DNS records,
such as an IP address or key certificate, with supporting secure communications. See id .
Apples proposed construction facially appears to track VirnetXs re-exam argument, but there is
a critical difference between the two. Namely, VirnetX argued in re-exam that a server that does
nothing more than merely returning DNS records (like conventional DNS) does not support
establishing a secure communication link and therefore does not indicate as much by returningthe DNS records. 7 It does not followand VirnetX did not arguethat an IP address, public
key, etc. could not serve as the claimed indication for a domain name server that actually
supports establishing a secure communication link. To the extent that the Court is inclined to
account for VirnetXs arguments made in re-exam, the appropriate construction would require
that the domain name service system actually supports establishing a secure communication link
(which is already required by the claim language) and that it does so for authorized
requests/users.
7 In other words, the IP addresses and public keys in these conventional schemes are not theclaimed indication because everyoneauthorized and unauthorized users alikereceives thesame information. If a server is actually providing the claimed indication, then authorizedusers/requestors will receive an indication that the server supports establishing a securecommunication link (because they are authorized) that is different from what is received byunauthorized users/requestors (for whom the server will not support establishing a securecommunication link).
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 3319
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
17/30
-12-
B. Disputes Involving New Claim Terms
5. intercept and intercepting [included in asserted claims of the 697 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] access/accessing a communication addressed
to another6. [intercept / intercepting] . . . a request to look up an internet protocol (IP) address[included in claims of the 697 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary]
alternatively: receiving a request to look up an IPaddress and performing some evaluation on therequest that is not merely resolving the request
[no construction necessary beyondconstruction of intercept[ing]
No construction is necessary for the terms intercept and intercepting. The
surrounding claim language adequately explains that the phrase refers to receiving a request to
look up an internet protocol address and, apart from resolving it, evaluating the request to
determine whether the second network device is available for a secure communications service.
See Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1314 ([T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
meaning of particular claim terms.). To the extent the Court is inclined to construe either of
these terms, VirnetX requests that the Court adopt its alternative proposed construction.
Apples proposed construction should be rejected for three reasons. First , Apples
proposed construction is inconsistent with the specification of the 697 patent. The 697 patent
discloses DNS proxy 2610 which intercepts all DNS lookup functions from client 2605 and
determines whether access to a secure site has been requested. 697 at 40:31-33. DNS proxy
2610 does not intercept DNS requests by somehow accessing communications that wereaddressed to another computer. To the contrary, the specification teaches that DNS proxy 2610,
itself, receives requests. See 697 at 41:49-50 (the clients DNS request would be received by
the DNS proxy server 2610 ); 41:6-9 (FIG. 27 shows steps that can be executed by DNS
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 3320
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
18/30
-13-
proxy server 2610 to handle requests for DNS look-up for secure hosts. In step 2701, a DNS
look-up request is received for a target host.); see also Fig. 26 Fig. 26 (showing a line from the
IP stack of user computer 2601 to DNS Proxy 2610). 8
Second , even if DNS Proxy 2610 is viewed as intercepting requests from DNS Server
2609, it still does not follow that the requests were addressed to another computer. To the
contrary, the functions of DNS proxy 2610 and DNS server 2609 can be combined into a single
server for convenience. See 697 at 41:1-3; see also Fig. 26. In this embodiment, requests are
addressed to modified DNS server 2602, which includes both DNS proxy 2610 and DNS server
2609. See 697 at 40:25-27 (A modified DNS server 2602 includes a conventional DNS serverfunction 2609 and a DNS proxy 2610.). Apples proposed construction would impermissibly
exclude this preferred embodiment by requiring the intercepted requests to be address to
something other than modified DNS server 2602 and should therefore be rejected. See
Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. , 362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
([a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is
rarely, if ever, correct.).
Third , dependent claims 10 and 29 of the 697 patent recite that intercepting the request
consists of receiving the request to determine whether the second network device is available for
the secure communications service (emphasis added)thereby limiting intercepting to this
8 To be sure, the specification also uses the term intercepting to mean illicitly receiving a
request. See 697 at 29:62-63 (using the word intercepting in a nefarious sense whendescribing interlopers intercept[ing] . . . messages and trying to interfere with communication);id . at 39:49-51 (nefarious listeners on the Internet . . . intercept[ing] . . . packets and thuslearn[ing] what IP addresses the user was contacting). But the specification uses interceptingin a different sense when describing the embodiments. When describing the embodiments, thespecification describes intercepting a request by receiving it and performing some evaluationon it ( e.g. , determining whether access to a secure site has been requested) that is not merelyresolving the request.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 3321
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
19/30
-14-
language. See CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp. , 504 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (It is
equally well understood in patent usage that consisting of is closed-ended and conveys
limitation and exclusion.). Apples construction, however, includes limitations beyond the
language of the dependent claims would therefore render these claims impossible to practice and
effectively void. In sum, Apples proposed construction should be rejected. See Level 3
Commcns, LLC v. Limelight Networks , 630 F.Supp.2d 654, 662 (E.D.Va.2008) (stating that
adopting construction which renders claim practically impossible [to practice] would make little
sense); Neev v. Abbott Med. Optics, Inc. , 2012 WL 1066797, at *12 (D.Del. Mar. 26, 2012)
(rejecting construction that would make practicing patent claim impossible).7. wherein the secure communication service uses the secure communication link tocommunicate at least one of video data and audio data between the first network device and thesecond network device [included in asserted claims of the 697 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] wherein the secure communications serviceuses the secure communication link tocommunicate at least one of video data andaudio data extending from the first networkdevice to the second network device
Apples proposed construction replaces between [A] and [B] with extending from [A]
to [B]. This dispute is not different from the dispute of between in the Cisco litigation, which
the parties have agreed not to re-brief. Accordingly, VirnetX opposes Apples construction for
the same reasons given in VirnetXs prior briefing.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 3322
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
20/30
-15-
8. [determine/determining] . . . is available for a secure communications service[included in asserted claims of the 697 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] determine/determining whether a device isavailable to establish a securecommunication link
Apples proposed construction attempts to change the claim language from available for
a secure communications service to available to establish a secure communication link. This
is improper. Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the
patentee. Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 726 F.3d 1306, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Moreover, the 697 patent teaches that the secure communications service uses a secure
communication link. See 697 at Abstract (the secure communications service uses the secure
communication link). This is reflected in the claim, itself. See claim 1 of the 697 patent
(wherein the secure communications service uses the secure communication link . . .)
(emphasis added); claim 16 (same). In sum, Apples attempt to replace secure communications
service with secure communication link is misplaced and should be rejected.
9. domain name lookup [included in claims 14 and 28 of the 697 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] a lookup service that return an IP address fora requested domain name to the requester
No construction is necessary for this term. The language of claims 14 and 28 (as well as
the language of the independent claims on which claims 14 and 28 depend) make clear that
domain name lookup refers to looking up a domain name. Particularly, claim 16 requires
servers configured to determine. . . whether the second network device is available for a secure
communications service. Claim 28, which depends on claim 16, further requires that the
determination that the second network device is available for the secure communications service
is a function of the result of a domain name lookup (emphasis added).
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 3323
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
21/30
-16-
Apples proposed construction should be rejected because it erroneously equates domain
name lookup with the term Domain Name Service (DNS). 9 In claims 14 and 28 of the 697
patent, domain name lookup merely specifies that the claimed determination is the result, at
least in part, of looking up a domain name. The claims do not require that the domain name
lookup also return an IP addressmuch less to an unspecified requester. Indeed, the preferred
embodiment describes automatically initiating a VPN instead of returning an IP address for the
requested domain name. See 697 at 40:5-9 (if the request is from a special type of user (e.g.,
one for which secure communication services are defined), the server does not return the true IP
address of the target node, but instead automatically sets up a virtual private network between thetarget node and the user.). In sum, the term domain name lookup as used by the claims of the
697 is meaningfully different from the 135 patents use of Domain Name Service, and
Apples construction should be rejected.
10. secure name service [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
a lookup service that returns a network address
for a requested secure name and facilitatesestablishing a secure communication link basedon a secure name
Indefinite
VirnetXs proposed construction of secure name service is derived from the
specification and claim language of the 181 patent. The specification teaches a Secure Domain
Name Service (SDNS) 3313 as the preferred embodiment of a secure name service. For this
embodiment, the specification teaches: (i) that SDNS 3313 is a lookup service that returns
network addresses for a requested secure name, see 181 at 50:60-67 (SDNS 3313 contains a
cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. .
9 Apples proposed construction for domain name lookup is identical to the Courts previousconstruction of Domain Name Service (DNS). See Ex. B at 15.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 3324
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
22/30
-17-
. . so that a user who desires a secure communication link to the website of the entity can
automatically obtain the secure computer network address for the secure website); and (ii) that
SDNS 3313 facilitates establishing a secure communication link based on a secure name, see
181:51:16-18 (SDNS 3313 accesses VPN gatekeeper 3314 for establishing a VPN
communication link between software module 3309 and secure server 3320). 10
VirnetXs proposed construction is appropriate because it accounts for the fact that SDNS
3313 is a preferredbut not limitingembodiment. First , VirnetXs proposed construction
recognizes that the claimed secure name service facilitates establishing a secure
communication linkand not necessarily a VPN. This, too, is warranted by the claim languageof the 181, which pertain to establishing secure communication links, not VPNs. See , e.g. ,
claim 2 of the 181 patent.
Second , VirnetXs proposed construction recognizes that the claimed secure name
service handles secure namesand not necessarily secure domain names. This is warranted by
the claim language. Namely, the claims of the 181 patent pertain to secure names rather than
secure domain names. See , e.g. , claim 2 of the 181 patent (sending a message to a secure
name service, the message requesting a network address associated with the secure name of the
second device). Further, claim 3 demonstrates, through the doctrine of claim differentiation,
that the claimed secure name service is not limited to secure domain names. See claim 3 of the
181 patent (The method according to claim 2, wherein the secure name of the second device is
a secure domain name.). See , e.g. , Zircon Corp. v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. , 452
10 See also Patent Owners Comments after Action Closing Prosecution (March 18, 2013), FileHistory of the Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (A person of ordinary skill in the artat the time of the invention would have understood that secure names are those names used tocommunicate securely that are resolved by a secure name service (i.e., a service that bothresolves a name into a network address and further supports establishing a secure communicationlink).).
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 3325
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
23/30
-18-
Fed.Appx. 966, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ([T]he presumption arising from claim differentiation is a
strong one when the very limitation one seeks to import into an independent claim appears in a
claim dependent therefrom.) (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc. , 358 F.3d 898, 910
(Fed. Cir. 2004)); but see Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp , 653 F.3d 1314, at *18 (Fed. Cir. Jul.
29, 2011) ([C]laim differentiation is a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import of the
specification) (citing Edwards Lifesciences, LLC v. Cook Inc. , 582 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2009)). Accordingly, VirnetXs proposed construction for the term secure name service
should be adopted.
11.
secure name [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
an authenticated name that can be resolved by asecure name service and can be used forestablishing a secure communication link
Indefinite
VirnetXs proposed construction for secure name follows the reasoning given above
for secure name service, which is a lookup service that returns a network address for a
requested secure name and facilitates establishing a secure communication link based on a secure
name. Additionally, a secure name is an authenticated name because it is securely registered
with the secure name service. The specification of the 181 patent teaches that [a] n entity can
register a secure domain name in SDNS 3313 so that a user who desires a secure communication
link to the website of the entity can automatically obtain the secure computer network address
for the secure website. 181 at 50:64-67 (emphasis added); see also File History of U.S. Patent
No. 8,051,181, Applicant Remarks/Arguments at 9 (Oct. 8, 2010) ([A] secure name is a name
associated with a network address of a first device. The name can be registered such that a
second device can obtain the network address associated with the first device from a secure name
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 3326
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
24/30
-19-
registry and send a message to the first device.) (emphasis added). Accordingly, VirnetXs
proposed construction for the term secure name should be adopted.
12. unsecured name [included in claims 1, 26, and 27 of the 181 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Constructiona name that can be resolved by a conventionalname service
Indefinite
A person of skill in the art would understand that unsecured name refers to a name that
can be resolved by a conventional name service. The specification teaches that non-secure
domain names can be registered with standard DNS for subsequent resolution. See 181 at
52:50-58 (the present invention automatically registers the corresponding equivalent non-secure
domain name with standard DNS 3325 in a well-known manner.).
Notably, a name could serve as both a secure name and an unsecured name if it can be
resolved by a secure name service and a conventional name service. There is nothing in the 181
patent that demands a different result. To be sure, the specification teaches an embodiment
where a secure domain name cannot be resolved by standard DNS. See 181 at 50:19-22
(Because the secure top-level domain name is a non-standard domain name, a query to a
standard domain name service (DNS) will return a message indicating that the universal resource
locator (URL) is unknown.). But the patent does not limit secure names to non-standard
domain names. Indeed, only dependent claim 23 requires a secure name to be a non-standard
domain name (which cannot be resolved by conventional DNS). Accordingly, the doctrine of
claim differentiation creates a strong presumption that secure names and unsecured names are
not mutually exclusive in the other claims. See Zircon Corp. , 452 Fed.Appx. at 974.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 3327
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
25/30
-20-
13. securely communicate [included in claims 1, 24, 26, and 29 of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary]
alternatively: communicate with data security
send a message over a secure communicationlink
14. sending a message securely [included in claims 24-26 and 29 of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary]
alternatively: sending a message with datasecurity
sending a message over a securecommunication link
No construction is necessary for these terms. To the extent that construction is necessary,
the terms should be construed simply to acknowledge that securely refers to data security. The
181 patent teaches that [a] tremendous variety of methods have been proposed and
implemented to provide security and anonymity for communications over the Internet. 181 at
1:28-30. The 181 patent goes on to teach the difference between data security and
anonymity. See 181 at 1:30-57. Apples proposed construction should be rejected for two
reasons. First , to the extent these claims require a secure communication link, it is an express
limitation of the claim. Had the inventors intended this limitation [to mean secure
communication link], they could have drafted claims to expressly include [secure communication
link]. See i4i Ltd. Pship v. Microsoft Corp. , 598 F.3d 831, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Second , Apple
is attempting to import anonymity into these claims by daisy-chaining its proposed constructions
for these terms with its proposed constructions for secure communication link, (which Apple
wants construed to mean VPN), and its proposed construction for VPN, (which Apple wants
construed to include anonymity). The specification, however, distinguishes security and
anonymity. See 181 at 1:28-49 (describing differences and concluding: These two security
issues may be called data security and anonymity, respectively.). Apples attempts to import
secure communication link and anonymity are improper and should be rejected.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 3328
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
26/30
-21-
15. non-secure communication link [included in claim 7 of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
a communication link that is not a securecommunication link
a communication link that transmitsinformation in the clear
The Courts construction for secure communication link is a direct communication
link that provides data security. A non-secure communication link is a communication link
that does not meet this construction. Apples proposed construction incorrectly applies non-
only to the first word secure. If the patentee intended this term to mean unencrypted ( i.e. ,
in the clear), it certainly could have used that term. See , e.g. , 181 at 53:6-9 (According to the
invention, communications are protected by a client-side proxy application program that accepts
unencrypted , unprotected communication packets from a local browser application.) (emphasis
added); but see id . at 21:43-48 (Packets transmitted according to one or more of the inventive
principles will be generally referred to as secure packets or secure communications to
differentiate them from ordinary data packets that are transmitted in the clear using ordinary,
machine-correlated addresses.).
VirnetXs proposed construction is further supported by the use of the term non-VPN
in the specification. When the specification uses the term non-VPN, it does not mean that the
communication link is necessarily not virtual i.e. , applying the non- only to the first word of
virtual private network. Nor does non-VPN necessarily mean that the communication link it
is not encrypted. Otherwise, the description of a communication link as a non-secure , non-
VPN communication link would be redundant. See 181 at 49:28-31 (emphasis added). By
describing a communication link as a non-secure, non-VPN communication link, the
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 3329
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
27/30
-22-
specification is accounting for the fact that a VPN is not merely secure. 11 In the same way, a
secure communication link is not merely secure but also requires direct communication.
Accordingly, the Court should construe non-secure communication link as a communication
link that is not a secure communication link.
16. requesting and obtaining registration of a secure/unsecured name [included in claims24-27 of the 181 patent]
VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
[no construction necessary] requesting and obtaining from a domainname registry service ownership of ansecure/unsecured name
No construction is necessary for this phrase beyond secure name and unsecured name.
Once these terms are construed, the phrase has an ordinary meaning that a jury will understand
without further construction.
Further, Apples proposed construction should be rejected because it rewrites the claim
language absent disclaimer or lexicography. The specification describes a preferred embodiment
secure domain name registry service that registers secure domain names, see 181 at 52:14-
227, but it also describes registration with SDNS 3313 in another embodiment, see 181 at
50:64-67. 12 As such, the specification disproves any disclaimer to obtaining . . . ownership
from a domain name registry service as Apples construction would require. See Thorner , 669
F.3d at 1366-1367 (It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the
embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification
11 A virtual private network is not merely secure under either partys construction. Apples
proposed construction additionally requires anonymity. VirnetXs proposed constructionadditionally requires a VPN to allow private and direct communication, i.e., enabling a computeroutside of a private network to communicate as if it were physically within the private network.
12 Moreover, the specification also teaches a preferred embodiment where non-secure domainnames can be registered with a non-secure domain name server databasenot a domain nameregistry service. See 181 at 52:28-33.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 3330
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
28/30
-23-
into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer,
there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.). Accordingly, Apples proposed
construction should be rejected.
17. message [included in asserted claims of the 181 patent]VirnetXs Proposed Construction Apples Proposed Construction
a unit of information that can be transmittedelectronically
a communication comprising one or morenetwork packets
VirnetXs proposed construction of this term is in accord with the understanding of a
person of ordinary skill in the art in 2000. The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines
message as a unit of information transmitted electronically from one device to another. See
Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 287 (4th ed. 1999). Apples proposed construction is
incorrect because it requires a message to be composed of one or more entire network packets,
when, in fact, a message could be sent as only a portion ( e.g. , the payload) of one or more
network packets. See Jones Decl. at 8.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed
constructions and reject Apples proposed constructions.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 3331
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
29/30
Dated: March 24, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
C ALDWELL C ASSADY & C URRY /s/ Austin CurryBradley W. Caldwell
Texas State Bar No. 24040630Email: [email protected] D. CassadyTexas State Bar No. 24045625Email: [email protected] Austin CurryTexas State Bar No. 24059636Email: [email protected] R. PearsonTexas State Bar No. 24070398Email: [email protected]
Hamad M. HamadTexas State Bar No. 24061268Email: [email protected] S. StewartTexas State Bar No. 24079399Email: [email protected] F. SummersTexas State Bar No. 24079417Email: [email protected] Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1000Dallas, Texas 75201Telephone: (214) 888-4848Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
Robert M. ParkerTexas State Bar No. 15498000Email: [email protected]. Christopher BuntTexas State Bar No. 00787165Email: [email protected] AinsworthTexas State Bar No. 00783521Email: [email protected] ARKER , BUNT & AINSWORTH , P.C.100 East Ferguson, Suite 1114Tyler, Texas 75702Telephone: (903) 531-3535Telecopier: (903) 533-9687ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFVIRNETX INC.
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 3332
-
8/12/2019 VHC Cc Brief v Apple
30/30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on March 24, 2014, the foregoing document was filed
electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all
counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
/s/ Austin CurryJohn Austin Curry
Case 6:12-cv-00855-LED Document 136 Filed 03/24/14 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 3333