UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ——————— …

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE --------------

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD --------------

ORACLE CORPORATION and DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Petitioners, v.

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner

--------------

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,425,035

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Were Instituted in IPR201401226 ...........................................................................................................................................1 II. Mandatory Notices.............................................................................................................1

A. Real Party-in-Interest .....................................................................................................1 B. Related Matters ...............................................................................................................1 C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ...............................................2 III. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................................3 IV. Relief Requested .............................................................................................................3 V. The Reasons for the Requested Relief............................................................................3 A. Summary of Reasons......................................................................................................3 B. The `035 Patent ...............................................................................................................5

1. Overview ......................................................................................................................5 2. Prosecution History ....................................................................................................9 C. Identification of Challenges ........................................................................................10 1. Challenged Claims.....................................................................................................10 2. Statutory Grounds for Challenges..........................................................................10 3. Claim Construction...................................................................................................11

i. "to map between devices connected to the first transport medium and the storage devices" ............................................................................................................12 ii. "native low level block protocol" .......................................................................14 iii. "remote" .................................................................................................................15 4. Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable ..........................................16 i. Challenge #1: Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are obvious over the CRD-5500 Manual in view of the HP Journal............................................................................................16

(a) Summary of the CRD-5500 Manual 16..........................................................16 (b) Summary of the HP Journal .........................................................................21 (c) Reasons to Combine the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal.........22

(d) Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................26 ii. Challenge #2: Claim 6 is obvious over the CRD-5500 Manual in view of the HP Journal and in further view of the QLogic Data Sheet.............................54

(a) Brief Summary of the QLogic Data Sheet.....................................................54 (b) Reasons to Combine the CRD-5500 Manual, the HP Journal, and the QLogic Data Sheet....................................................................................................54 (c) Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................55 VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................................................59

I. This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Were Instituted in IPR2014-01226 The instant inter partes review petition presents challenges which are identical to

those on which trial was instituted in IPR2014-01226. Paper No. 9. The petition in the instant case copies verbatim the challenges set forth in the petition in IPR2014-01226 (Paper No. 3) and relies upon the same evidence, including the same expert declaration. This petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder. II. Mandatory Notices

A. Real Party-in-Interest The real parties-in-interests are Oracle Corporation and Dot Hill Systems Corporation. B. Related Matters As of the filing date of this petition, U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035 ("the `035 Patent") is subject to inter partes review in case nos. IPR2014-01197, filed July 23, 2014, IPR2015-00777, filed February 19, 2015, and IPR2014-01226, filed July 31, 2014. The `035 Patent has also been asserted against Oracle Corporation in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 1-13-cv-00895 (W.D. Tex. 2013) and against Dot Hill Systems Corporation in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., No. 1-13-cv00800 (W.D. Tex. 2013) . Additional 3rd party judicial matters involving the `035 Patent are: Crossroads Systems v. Quantum Corporation, No. 1-14-cv-00150 (W.D. Tex.);

1

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., No. 1-14-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads

Systems v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 1-14-cv-00148 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v.

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1-13-cv-01025 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc.

v. Dell, Inc., No. 1-13-cv-01023 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Tandberg Data

Corp., Inc., No. 1-13-cv-01026 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Addonics

Technologies, Inc., No. 1-12-cv-01090 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Infotrend

Corp., et al., No. 1-12-cv-0104 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et al.,

No. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D. Tex.); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Postvision, Inc., et al., No. 1-09-

cv-00879 (W.D. Tex.); Symantec Corp v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., No. 1-09-cv-00359

(W.D. Tex.); Symantec Corp v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., No. 4-08-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.);

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. DataDirect Networks, Inc., et al., No. 1-08-cv-00861 (W.D. Tex.);

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Accusys (U.S.A.), Inc., et al., No. 1-08-cv-00394 (W.D. Tex.);

Equallogic, Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc. et al, No. 1-06-cv-11478 (D. Mass.); Crossroads

Systems (Texas) v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., No. 1-03-cv-00754 (W.D. Tex.).

C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. ? 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioners provide the following

designation of counsel:

Greg Gardella (Lead Counsel) Oblon LLP 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314

Orion Armon (Backup counsel) Cooley LLP, ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download