Court Opinion

ID: 9892055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 14:00:43.221805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:03.466638
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2234   Document: 36     Page: 1    Filed: 10/20/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                    VIRNETX INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-2234
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,851.
                   ______________________

                Decided: October 20, 2023
                 ______________________

     STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV,
 DANIEL ZEILBERGER.

    ADAM LLOYD ERICKSON, Haynes and Boone, LLP,
 Plano, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 THEODORE M. FOSTER, Denver, CO; DEBRA JANECE
 MCCOMAS, DAVID L. MCCOMBS, Dallas, TX.
                ______________________
Case: 22-2234     Document: 36     Page: 2    Filed: 10/20/2023

 2                         VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

     Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      This patent appeal relates to an inter partes reexami-
 nation of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 (’504 patent) owned by
 VirnetX Inc. (VirnetX). In VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
 Inc., we vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
 (Board) initial decision affirming an Examiner’s rejection
 of dependent claims 5, 12, and 13 and remanded to the
 Board with instructions to “consider whether the Lenden-
 mann reference 1 discloses the use of its [remote procedure
 call (RPC)] mode of communication for communications be-
 tween a user and the [Cell Directory Service (CDS)] as
 found by the Examiner.” 776 F. App’x 698, 704 (Fed. Cir.
 2019) (footnote added) (VirnetX I). On remand, the Board
 rejected claims 5, 12, and 13 again and denied rehearing.
 Cisco Sys. Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Reexamination
 No. 95/001,851, Appeal No. 2017-010954, 2022 WL 909849,
 at *4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022) (Board Decision); Cisco Sys.
 Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Reexamination No. 95/001,851, Appeal
 No. 2017-010954, 2022 WL 2866398, at *3–4 (P.T.A.B.
 July 19, 2022) (Decision on Rehearing). VirnetX appeals.
 Because the Board supported its reasoning with substan-
 tial evidence, adequately explained its reasoning, and ade-
 quately responded to VirnetX’s arguments, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      As we discussed at length in VirnetX I, 2 the ’504 patent
 is directed to a domain name service system that facilitates

     1   Rolf Lendenmann, Understanding OSF DCE 1.1
 for AIX and OS/2, IBM International Technical Support
 Organization, pp. 1–245 (Oct. 1995), J.A. 4428–703.
     2   We assume familiarity with the prior procedural
 history of this case, including our opinion in VirnetX I, and
 discuss only the facts relevant to resolving the disputes
 raised in this latest appeal.
Case: 22-2234     Document: 36      Page: 3    Filed: 10/20/2023

 VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.                           3

 secure communication links between devices in a computer
 network. 776 F. App’x at 700. In VirnetX I, we vacated the
 Board’s affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of depend-
 ent claims 5, 12, and 13, the only claims at issue in the pre-
 sent appeal. Id. at 704. We could not affirm that Board
 decision because the Board had failed to make a key factual
 finding regarding “whether the Lendenmann reference dis-
 closes the use of its RPC mode of communication for com-
 munications between a user and the CDS” even though this
 fact was disputed by VirnetX and critical to the Examiner’s
 rejection. Id.
     On remand, the Board determined that “the Exam-
 iner’s finding that Lendenmann uses the RPC mode of com-
 munication between a user and the CDS is supported by a
 preponderance of the evidence.” Board Decision, 2022 WL
 909849, at *2. The Board rejected VirnetX’s arguments
 that Lendenmann’s CDS does not use RPC. Id. Citing and
 quoting several passages in Lendenmann in support of its
 position, the Board reasoned:
     Lendenmann discloses “[i]n OSF [open software
     foundation] DCE [distributed computer environ-
     ment], data sharing is built upon RPC [remote pro-
     cedure call], which is used as the means of
     transferring data . . . . [T]he directory service . . .
     [is] based upon the data sharing model.” Lenden-
     mann discloses the RPC application includes RPC
     runtime, which “performs such tasks as controlling
     communications between clients and servers or
     finding servers for clients on request.” Lenden-
     mann discloses “[t]he RPC runtime can be used to
     store and search for the location of servers (binding
     information) in the directory service.” Thus, the Ex-
     aminer’s finding that Lendenmann uses the RPC
     mode of communication between a user and the
     CDS is supported by a preponderance of the evi-
     dence.
Case: 22-2234    Document: 36     Page: 4    Filed: 10/20/2023

 4                         VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

 Id. (all alterations, omissions, and emphases in original)
 (citations omitted) (citing J.A. 4627, 4631, 4639, 4643,
 4660–61). The Board equally applied this reasoning to
 claims 5, 12, and 13 in accordance with our holding in Vir-
 netX I and affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of these
 claims. Id. at *2–4.
     VirnetX requested rehearing, and the Board denied
 this request. Decision on Rehearing, 2022 WL 2866398, at
 *1, *3. According to the Board, the passages of Lenden-
 mann that VirnetX relied on “d[id] not outweigh or limit
 the express disclosures of Lendenmann” that were cited by
 the Board in Board Decision. Id. at *2. The Board further
 explained that:
     [VirnetX], in acknowledging that the CDS is in-
     volved in RPC communication, but arguing that
     RPC is not involved until after the request to the
     CDS has already been made, does not discuss or
     acknowledge the express disclosures in Lenden-
     mann cited in [Board Decision]: 1) the system uses
     RPC to transfer data in the data sharing model
     upon which the CDS is based, and 2) RPC runtime
     performs tasks such as finding servers for clients
     on request and searching for the location of servers
     in the directory service.
 Id. at *3.
    VirnetX appealed. We have jurisdiction under 35
 U.S.C. § 141(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                        DISCUSSION
     VirnetX challenges the Board’s finding that Lenden-
 mann’s CDS uses the RPC mode of communication, a find-
 ing that, as we articulated in VirnetX I, was necessary to
 the Examiner’s rejection of each of claims 5, 12, and 13.
 776 F. App’x at 702–03. On appeal, VirnetX alleges the
 Board failed to (1) support its reasoning with substantial
Case: 22-2234     Document: 36      Page: 5    Filed: 10/20/2023

 VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.                          5

 evidence, (2) adequately explain its determination, and
 (3) adequately consider VirnetX’s arguments. We disagree.
      First, substantial evidence supports the Board’s affir-
 mance of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 12, and 13.
 The Board found Lendenmann expressly teaches (1) using
 RPC to transfer data in the data sharing model upon which
 the CDS is based and (2) using RPC runtime to perform
 tasks such as finding servers for clients on request and
 searching for the location of servers in the directory service
 (which includes the CDS). See Decision on Rehearing, 2022
 WL 2866398, at *3; Board Decision, 2022 WL 909849, at *2
 (citing J.A. 4627, 4631, 4639, 4643, 4660–61). Rather than
 directly contending with the Board’s findings, VirnetX re-
 peatedly points to examples elsewhere in Lendenmann al-
 legedly establishing that the CDS is merely involved in the
 process of making an RPC and that the RPC is executed
 only after the request to the CDS has already been made.
 See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 19, 21, 24; Appellant’s Reply Br. 4,
 7. VirnetX, however, does not reconcile its position with
 the Board’s contrary understanding of Lendenmann or
 meaningfully address the specific portions of Lendenmann
 relied on by the Board. VirnetX does not explain, for ex-
 ample, how the Board’s finding that Lendenmann teaches
 using RPC runtime to search for locations of servers in the
 directory service does not indicate that Lendenmann dis-
 closes using the RPC mode of communication for communi-
 cations between a user and the CDS. VirnetX fails to
 persuade us that the Board’s findings lack substantial evi-
 dence.
     Second, the Board adequately explained its reasoning.
 The Board identified and quoted parts of Lendenmann sup-
 porting its determination that a preponderance of evidence
 supports the Examiner’s finding that Lendenmann teaches
 using the RPC mode of communication for communications
 between a user and the CDS. Board Decision, 2022 WL
 909849, at *2 (citing J.A. 4627, 4631, 4639, 4643, 4660–61).
 The Board explained that Lendenmann’s directory service
Case: 22-2234    Document: 36     Page: 6    Filed: 10/20/2023

 6                         VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

 uses the data sharing model and that the data sharing
 model in turn uses RPC as a means of transferring data.
 Id. at *2. The Board also explained that Lendenmann
 teaches using RPC runtime to search for locations of serv-
 ers in the directory service. Id. From this explanation, we
 find that “the [Board]’s path may reasonably be discerned”
 and thus hold that the Board adequately explained its find-
 ings. Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 966 F.3d 1367, 1370
 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d
 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
     Third, the Board adequately responded to VirnetX’s ar-
 gument that Lendenmann’s CDS does not use RPC. Vir-
 netX’s appeal brief to the Board argued that Lendenmann
 expressly teaches steps for executing an RPC in which first,
 “the client queries a CDS to find a compatible server,” sec-
 ond, “the CDS delivers to the client a partly bound or fully
 bound handle with the address information of the server,”
 and third, “[t]he client then makes an RPC to the server.”
 J.A. 2308 (citing J.A. 4638). Based on these steps, VirnetX
 understood Lendenmann as only teaching that the CDS is
 involved in the process of making an RPC, not that the CDS
 sends or receives an RPC. Id. The Board’s decision on re-
 mand acknowledged VirnetX’s argument but nonetheless
 found the Examiner and Cisco’s positions to be more per-
 suasive in light of other express disclosures in Lenden-
 mann. See Board Decision, 2022 WL 909849, at *2. The
 Board’s decision on rehearing further explained that it did
 not find VirnetX’s arguments sufficient to outweigh the ev-
 idence presented in Board Decision. Decision on Rehear-
 ing, 2022 WL 2866398, at *2. This constitutes “reasoning
 in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review.”
 Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed.
 Cir. 2015). We therefore conclude the Board adequately
 addressed VirnetX’s arguments.
Case: 22-2234     Document: 36     Page: 7   Filed: 10/20/2023

 VIRNETX INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.                       7

                         CONCLUSION
      We accordingly are not persuaded that the Board erred
 in finding that Lendenmann discloses using the RPC mode
 of communication for communications between a user and
 the CDS. We have considered VirnetX’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
 sons, we affirm the Board’s affirmance of the Examiner’s
 rejection of claims 5, 12, and 13.
                         AFFIRMED