CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Case: 16-1930 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 09/23/2016

2016-1930, -1931

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant, v.

ORACLE CORPORATION and NETAPP INC.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Nos. IPR2014-01207 and IPR2014-01209

CORRECTED APPELLEES' RESPONSE BRIEF

September 23, 2016

Jared Bobrow Principal Attorney

Derek C. Walter Amanda Branch WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 802-3000

Counsel for Appellees Oracle Corporation and NetApp, Inc.

Case: 16-1930 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 09/23/2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .....................................................................1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED................................................................5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................5

I. Overview Of The '147 Patent ...............................................................5

A. Technical Summary Of The '147 Patent ....................................5

B. The Prior Construction Of The "Mapping" And "Access Control" Claim Elements............................................................9

II. The Inter Partes Review Proceedings.................................................11

A. Petitioners' Invalidity Case.......................................................11

B. Crossroads' Response To Petitioners' Invalidity Case.............19

III. The Board's Final Written Decision ...................................................22

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................25

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................28

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................29

I. The Board's Obviousness Determination Based on The CRD5500 Manual and Smith Cannot Be Reversed ....................................29

A. The Board's Obviousness Determination Turns Not On Claim Construction, But On Factual Findings Regarding The Scope And Content Of The Art .........................................29

B. The Board's Obviousness Decision Was Supported By Substantial Evidence .................................................................33

C. The Board Did Not Commit Legal Error In Claim Construction ..............................................................................39 i

Case: 16-1930 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 09/23/2016

D. Even If The Court Adopts Crossroads' Narrowed Construction Of "Mapping," The CRD-5500 Manual And Smith Still Teach The Claimed Mapping .........................46

II. The Board's Obviousness Determination Based on Kikuchi and Bergsten Cannot be Reversed .............................................................48 A. Kikuchi Is Prior Art To The '147 Patent ..................................48 B. The Combination Of Kikuchi And Bergsten Renders The Claims Obvious.........................................................................63

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................71

ii

Case: 16-1930 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 09/23/2016

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................53

Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................43

Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)............................................................................................28

Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................51

Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-148 (W.D. Tex. filed Feb. 18, 2014)................................................1

Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-149 (W.D. Tex. filed Feb. 18, 2014)................................................1

Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 1:13-cv-895 (W.D. Tex. filed Oct. 7, 2013) ..................................................1

Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Quantum Corp., No. 1:14-cv-150 (W.D. Tex. filed Feb. 18, 2014)................................................1

Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................33

Epistar Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................44

Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................62

Gillette Co. v.Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................23

Griffith v. Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................49

iii

Case: 16-1930 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 09/23/2016

Gunn v. Bosch, 181 USPQ 758 (B.P.A.I. 1973) ..........................................................................51

In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..........................................................................28

In re Mulder, 716 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..........................................................................63

In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..........................................................................29

K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC, 751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................................................................28

Leo Pharm. Products, Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................28

Naber v. Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ............................................................... 51, 57, 58

Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................28

Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos, 705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................29

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................33

Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 58, 59

Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009)............................................................................................29

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..........................................................................43

Thompson v. Dunn, 166 F.2d 443 (C.C.P.A. 1948) ............................................................................58

iv

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download