International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

I'll research this case carefully. One important caveat up front: IPR2014-00587 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action — so I need to check whether there's a companion district court case and correct the framing accordingly. Let me search.

Good — the core facts are coming into focus. Now let me verify the broader litigation context, the parallel IPRs, the appeal, and the patent's ownership/expiry.

A threshold correction

The caption you've given me — IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00587, "United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board" — is an inter partes review, not a district court infringement action. There is no accused product, no district/division, and no Article III judge in this docket; the decisionmakers are three Administrative Patent Judges. The "litigation" this IPR sits inside is a separate, parallel campaign: Intellectual Ventures II's 2013 wave of infringement suits against banks, in which the § 694 patent was one of the asserted patents. I'll give you both layers.

1. The parties

IBM is the classic operating company: the Armonk, N.Y. computing/IT-services giant and, for ~25 consecutive years, the top recipient of U.S. patents. It filed the petition on April 7, 2014 (corrected petition Apr. 16, 2014) naming only itself as real party-in-interest. IBM was not among the banks IV sued over the '694 patent, and the sources I reviewed do not document IBM's specific motivation for attacking this patent — I'd flag any "IBM was indemnifying bank customers" or "IBM–IV global dispute" theory as unsourced unless you have the petition's background section or the parties' joint filings.

Intellectual Ventures II LLC is a holding subsidiary of Intellectual Ventures (Bellevue, Wash.), the patent-holding and invention-finance firm founded in 2000 by Nathan Myhrvold, Peter Detkin, Edward Jung and Greg Gorder. IV II is one of dozens of IV acquisition vehicles; IV's enforcement entities are routinely classified as NPEs/PAEs in the literature. IV's own counsel of record confirm the in-house link: Donald J. Coulman of Intellectual Ventures appeared as back-up counsel alongside outside counsel.

2. The patent and the underlying accused technology

The case involves a single patent, U.S. 6,826,694 ("High Resolution Access Control"), and a single claim — claim 1, the patent's only claim. Inventors Partha Dutta, Mahesh Kumar and Micah Lerner; application 09/422,952; issued Nov. 30, 2004; pre-AIA; Tech Center 2100. The inventors developed the subject matter at AT&T as part of the GeoPlex project, and the patent ended up in IV's portfolio (the acquisition chain isn't documented in the material I found).

Technical sketch: a method of filtering packets at a firewall that goes beyond conventional header-based filtering — (a) receive a packet with a header and payload; (b) select an access rule based on the payload of that packet; (c) implement the rule, where the rule is selected based on a combination of the contents of that packet and the contents of at least one other packet. In plain terms: multi-packet, deep-packet-inspection/stateful filtering — the ability to spot a threat "strategically fragmented and hidden in multiple packets" (IV's characterization, quoted by Judge Hellerstein).

Accused technology in the district court cases: the seven 2013 suits (filed May–June 2013) targeted banks' network-security/access-control infrastructure. The defendants: JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y. 1:13-cv-03777), BBVA Compass (N.D. Ala. 2:13-cv-01106), First National Bank of Omaha (D. Neb. 8:13-cv-00167), Commerce Bancshares (W.D. Mo. 2:13-cv-04160), SunTrust (N.D. Ga. 1:13-cv-02454), U.S. Bancorp (D. Minn. 0:13-cv-02071), and Huntington Bancshares (S.D. Ohio 2:13-cv-00785). Note that these seven suits were not IBM v. IV — they are IV v. the banks, and the § 694 patent was asserted alongside other network-security patents (e.g., 6,314,409; 6,715,084; 5,745,574; 7,634,666).

3. Procedural posture and why the forum mattered

The § 694 patent generated a rare three-front validity fight, which is why the IBM docket is interesting:

• PTAB — IPR2014-00587 (IBM): instituted Sept. 24, 2014 on the § 103 ground of Hughes (5,842,040) + Abraham (5,983,270); IBM's other asserted grounds (Coss + RFCs 1123/959; Rubin + RFC 793) were not carried to decision. FWD Paper 54, Sept. 23, 2015 (panel: Moore, Petravick (author), Wood) — claim 1 NOT shown unpatentable, because IV successfully antedated Hughes and Abraham. Rehearing denied, Paper 57 (Nov. 6, 2015); record preserved pending appeal, Paper 59; sealed material expunged, Paper 63 (Mar. 7, 2016).
• PTAB — IPR2014-00786 (Compass Bank, Commerce Bank, First National Bank of Omaha, et al.): same panel, same patent, FWD issued the same day, Sept. 23, 2015 — but claim 1 held anticipated by Rubin (i.e., unpatentable).
• PTAB — IPR2014-01465 (IBM's second petition): filed 2014; disposition not confirmed in my sources.
• *S.D.N.Y. — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-cv-3777 (AKH):* Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein's Apr. 28, 2015 Order & Opinion (ECF 381) granted partial summary judgment under § 101/Alice, holding the '694 claim (plus the '409 and '084 claims) patent-ineligible — the '694 claim was "a mental process" because the patent "does not describe the nature of the rule, what in the header or payload determines the rule to be selected, how the rule determines who may access the packet and to what degree." A Markman order issued Mar. 18, 2014 (ECF 82).

Why the forum mattered: the AIA IPR is a lower-cost, expert, fast-track validity forum with (then) the broadest reasonable interpretation claim-construction standard and no presumption of validity. Both the BRI standard and the forum choice were outcome-relevant here — but so was the statutory category of the prior art, which is the real story (below). Meanwhile, the parallel district court § 101 kill and the PTAB proceeding created the classic NPE-era race: defendants moved to stay pending IPR (see the stay briefing in IV v. Huntington Bancshares, S.D. Ohio).

4. Why this case is notable

(a) Twin, same-day, opposite results on the same claim — a textbook illustration of the 102(a)/(e) vs. 102(b) distinction. In IBM's IPR, the Board credited IV's evidence of actual reduction to practice by June 11, 1996 in the AT&T GeoPlex project, disqualifying Hughes and Abraham as 102(a)/(e) art. In the Compass IPR, the Board found Rubin was 102(b) prior art — a reference a patentee cannot "swear behind" — so IV's antedate evidence simply did not matter, and claim 1 fell as anticipated. IBM made exactly this point in its reply ("Rubin is 102(b) Prior Art"). Same patent, same claim, same panel, same day, opposite outcomes.

(b) A rare, successful antedate/"swear behind" defense in an IPR. The Board applied the Dynamic Drinkware burden framework (petitioner bears ultimate burden of persuasion; patent owner bears a burden of production), found the AT&T documents alone insufficient to corroborate inventor Dutta — but credited non-inventor Dr. Dalibor Vrsalovic's testimony as sufficient independent corroboration under the "rule of reason," and rejected IBM's attack based on co-inventor Kumar's 1997 AT&T hire date as insufficient.

(c) NPE assertion pattern and IPR linkage. This is a data point in the 2013–2015 bank-patent wave and in the "operating company files IPRs offensively/defensively against an NPE" pattern — a large corporate patent holder (IBM, itself a top patentee) using the PTAB against an IV entity that was monetizing a single-claim, AT&T-origin patent against financial institutions. It also illustrates the era's multi-front attack stacking: IPR + CBM (CBM2014-00157 on the related '409 patent) + district court § 101 motions.

(d) A fragility lesson: a patent whose entire value rests on one claim was simultaneously (i) declared patent-eligible-defeating abstract in district court, (ii) canceled as anticipated in one IPR, and (iii) upheld as not-proven-unpatentable in another IPR. Litigation value analysis on a single-claim patent is essentially binary.

What I could not verify (please treat as open)

• The Federal Circuit appeal. Your metadata says the case terminated Feb. 12, 2018 with an IPR certificate issued, and the parties jointly asked the Board to preserve the record "pending the outcome of any appeals" (Oct. 2015) — which implies an appeal was filed. I could not confirm the appellate posture or disposition (whether IBM appealed the 00587 FWD, whether IV appealed the 00786 FWD, whether they were consolidated, or how the two conflicting certificates were reconciled). This is the single most important gap and worth pulling from PACER/CM-ECF or the Federal Circuit docket.
• Outcome of IPR2014-01465 (IBM's second petition).
• IBM's motive for targeting the '694 patent, and whether IBM had any indemnity/customer exposure.
• The specific accused products/services in the bank suits; the sources describe the technology category (network security/access control), not instrumentalities.
• I could not reach Law360/RPX/Unified Patents source material (paywalled); the above is grounded in the PTAB Final Written Decisions, the S.D.N.Y. opinion, docket aggregators, and firm/client alerts (National Law Review/Drinker Biddle, Lexology/NY Patent Law Blog, Finnegan, PTAB Trial Blog, Docket Alarm, Justia).

I'll research this case thoroughly. Note upfront: the metadata describes a PTAB inter partes review (IPR2014-00587), not a district court suit — so I'll identify the parallel district court litigation on U.S. Patent 6,826,694 and treat the IPR as the "parallel PTAB proceeding" item.

This is a PTAB IPR, so the "litigation" framing maps onto the district court campaign over the '694 patent. Let me pull the key parallel case — IV v. JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y.), which had the Markman order and the §101 ruling — plus the appeal and the other IPRs.

Good — now let me pin down the IPR docket's own post-FWD history (rehearing, appeal, certificate) and the related IPRs, plus the district court case details.

Framing note (important)

Your case metadata is not a district court suit — IPR2014-00587 is an inter partes review at the PTAB, and the "patent infringement litigation" you're asking about is the district court campaign that provoked it. So I've split this into (A) the IPR docket itself, (B) the underlying infringement litigation over U.S. 6,826,694, and (C) the other parallel PTAB proceedings. Where I could not confirm a fact from retrievable sources, I say so rather than fill the gap.

A structural point that drives everything: the '694 patent has one claim (claim 1) — a method for filtering a packet at a firewall where the access rule is selected from a combination of contents of the received packet and at least one other packet. A one-claim patent asserted against seven banks at once.

---

A. The PTAB proceeding: IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00587

What actually decided the case — and it wasn't the prior art. IBM lost on priority (antedating), not on the technical merits. The Board:

• Construed "contents of the packet" under the broadest reasonable interpretation as "the header and/or payload of the packet" — siding with IBM and rejecting IV's narrower reading (which would have collapsed step (c)'s "contents" into step (b)'s "payload"). The Board held step (c) adds a requirement on top of step (b), "consistent with the Specification's disclosure of an embodiment in which the contents of several packets are analyzed."
• Then accepted IV's §102(b) antedating defense: IV proved actual reduction to practice of claim 1 "at least as early as early 1996 but no later than June 11, 1996," predating Hughes (effective 1996-06-18) and Abraham (1997-03-11). IV relied on inventor Partha Dutta's testimony plus corroboration from non-inventor Dr. Dalibor Vrsalovic (who reviewed the GeoPlex prototype source code and attended a design review) and "AT&T documents" from the AT&T GeoPlex project. The Board found the AT&T documents alone insufficient corroboration but credited Vrsalovic.
• Rejected IBM's attack that co-inventor Mahesh Kumar did not join AT&T until ~July 1997, holding the discrepancy "may be the result of an error in ascribing inventorship, and is not persuasive evidence that the claimed subject matter could not have been reduced to practice in 1996."

The rehearing denial (2015-11-06) is the most legally interesting paper: the Board held IBM bore the ultimate burden of persuasion that Hughes/Abraham were prior art, while IV bore only a burden of production to show an earlier invention date — so "if the fact trier of the issue is left uncertain, the party with the burden loses" (Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). That framing is what killed IBM's rehearing.

Motions practice in the IPR: both sides filed motions to exclude. The Board dismissed IV's motion (Exs. 1032, 1034, 1035, 1038) as moot because it did not rely on them, and addressed IBM's motion against Ex. 2012/2013 (a battle over inventor Dutta's testimony and Kumar's deposition testimony, which IBM sought to admit under FRE 804(b)(1)/807). A 2014 conference call also shows the Board denying IBM authorization to file a motion limiting the scope of cross-examination of Dr. Steven Bellovin as unripe.

Post-FWD → certificate. The Board granted the parties' joint request to keep the sealed record intact pending a possible appeal (2015-11-20). I could not independently confirm from the sources I retrieved whether IBM actually noticed a Federal Circuit appeal, the appeal number, or its disposition. The ~2.3-year gap between the rehearing denial (Nov. 2015) and the certificate (2018-02-12) is consistent with an appeal having been taken and concluded, but I decline to assert that without a source; treat the appeal as an open question.

---

B. The underlying infringement litigation — IV's bank campaign on the '694 patent

Filing & initial pleadings. IV asserted the '694 (along with U.S. 5,745,574; 6,314,409; 6,715,084; 7,634,666 — five network-security patents per complaint) against seven banking institutions in seven districts in mid-2013, none naming IBM:

Caveat: I do not have docket-level citations for the individual answers, affirmative defenses (invalidity/non-infringement) and counterclaims in each case. What is documented is that the defendants mounted a coordinated §101 + IPR/CBM defense rather than a conventional merits defense.

Markman — the JPMC case (lead MDL-style case). S.D.N.Y., Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, claim construction order 2014-03-18, ECF No. 82. Key '694 constructions:

• "packet" = "discrete unit of information being routed through a computer network, often to a designated addressee"
• "payload" = "data conveyed by the packet outside the header segment"
• "access rule" = "a rule for filtering information traveling between a source and a destination"

IV also briefed "a combination of the contents of the packet received in step a and the contents of at least one other packet" — the same phrase later fought over in the IPR.

Stay motion — denied, and the denial spawned a precedential Federal Circuit appeal. JPMC moved to stay pending CBM review. The district court denied the stay on 2014-08-11, reasoning (i) it would not stay the whole case over PTAB review of only two of five patents; (ii) it expected trial in under a year; and (iii) PTAB relief was speculative and outweighed by IV's right to a speedy trial. JPMC took an interlocutory appeal under AIA §18(b)(2). On 2015-04-01 the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (O'Malley, J., joined by Bryson; Hughes, J., dissenting). Holding: §18(b)(2) jurisdiction attaches only after the PTAB institutes a CBM "proceeding," not while petitions are merely pending. This is the well-known jurisdictional limit on AIA stay appeals.

Dispositive motion — §101 invalidity. 2015-04-28: Judge Hellerstein granted JPMC's motion for partial summary judgment under §101, invalidating the '694, '409 and '084 patents as directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo (Opinion, Dkt. No. 381, 13-cv-3777; reported at 2015 WL 1941331). As to the '694 specifically, the court held the claims were not tied "to a specific way of doing something with a computer, or a specific computer for doing something," and rejected IV's In re Alappat "new machine" argument; encryption and access rules were "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Critically, this landed five months before the PTAB upheld claim 1 — so the '694 was commercially dead in the district courts even as IV won the IPR.

Follow-on estoppel / fee rulings:

• Intellectual Ventures I LLC & II LLC v. Capital One, D. Md. No. 14-111: Special Master Lupo recommended the '409 be invalidated under §101 on 2015-06-11.
• Fed. Cir. 2017-03-07 (No. 16-1077): affirmed that the JPMC partial summary judgment order had collateral-estoppel effect notwithstanding that it was not a final judgment — precluding IV's '084 claims. This is a notable finality holding (applying Fourth Circuit law; contrasting Miller Brewing).
• Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, W.D. Mo. 2:13-cv-04160: the court denied Commerce's §285 attorney-fee motion (rejecting "exceptional case" on inconsistent-claim-construction and pre-suit-investigation theories, given the "evolving landscape" of §101), while noting invalidation of the '574, '084, '694 and '409. (Date not confirmed from my sources; it post-dates the June 2015 Capital One ruling.)

Appeals and final disposition. Four of the five patents having been invalidated, the S.D.N.Y. cases (13-cv-3777 JPMC; 14-cv-4638 Citigroup) proceeded to judgment and appeal. 2018-12-17: the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Nos. 2017-2429 and 2018-1024 (per curiam: Newman, Plager, Moore). IV was represented by Matthew D. Powers (Tensegrity Law Group); appellees by Brent P. Ray (Kirkland & Ellis). That affirmance is the effective final disposition of the '694 infringement litigation: the claim is invalid.

---

C. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

1. IPR2014-00786 — Compass Bank (BBVA Compass) v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC ('694). A second petition on the same claim, filed after IBM's. IV's Preliminary Response argued the grounds were duplicative of IBM's IPR2014-00587 and horizontally/vertically redundant, urging institution on only Ground 4. The Board entered the FWD in IPR2014-00786 concurrently with IPR2014-00587 on 2015-09-23. Caveat: I could not confirm whether the Board instituted on all grounds or only Ground 4, but the concurrent FWD and the joint record-preservation order (2015-11-20, covering both cases) indicate the two cases moved in lockstep.
2. IPR2014-01465 — IBM v. IV ('694). IBM's second petition on the same patent, again filed after -00587. (Both follow-ons are identified in the -00587 FWD's Related Proceedings section.)
3. CBM2014-00157 — JPMC v. IV ('409). Instituted 2015-01-14. Petitioner's reply (2015-06-29) leaned heavily on the JPMC and Capital One §101 rulings, and the Board ultimately invalidated the '409 claims under §101 (hearing held 2015-08-28).
4. CBM2014-00160 — JPMC v. IV ('574). Petition denied 2015-01-29 (the '574 was instead invalidated in the Commerce Bancshares action).
5. A CBM petition was also filed against the '694. The Federal Circuit's JPMorgan opinion describes JPMC's stay motion as resting on CBM review of four patents-in-suit including the '694. I could not confirm the institution outcome for the '694 CBM; the Federal Circuit opinion (as of April 2015) notes PTAB action only on the '409 and '574.
6. IBM's broader IPR campaign against IV. IBM filed a §301 prior-art/claim-scope submission and IPRs against several IV patents (e.g., the '409 proceedings, incl. IPR2014-00673 and a later-filed IPR2015-01323), expressly attacking IV's inconsistent claim constructions — broad before the district courts to prove infringement, narrow before the PTAB to preserve validity. This theme was also litigated as an "exceptional case" theory against IV in Commerce Bancshares (and rejected).

Strategic effect of the PTAB track on the litigation. Paradoxically, the PTAB track helped IV procedurally and hurt it substantively. IV's survival of IPR2014-00587 (and the refusal to cancel claim 1) gave it no commercial benefit, because the parallel §101 rulings — affirmed — invalidated the '694 outright. Conversely, JPMC's failed stay motion and failed interlocutory appeal (781 F.3d 1372) meant the district court reached §101 before the PTAB ever ruled, which is precisely why the PTAB win was worthless. The Federal Circuit's jurisdictional holding became the durable precedent from this cluster of cases; the validity outcome did not.

---

Bottom line

• IPR2014-00587 outcome: final written decision 2015-09-23 (Paper 54) holding claim 1 of the '694 patent not unpatentable; rehearing denied 2015-11-06; IPR certificate issued 2018-02-12. IV won on an antedating/reduction-to-practice theory (GeoPlex/AT&T, June 1996), not on the technical merits.
• District court outcome: claim 1 held invalid under §101 on 2015-04-28 (S.D.N.Y., Dkt. 381), and that ruling was summarily affirmed 2018-12-17 (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-2429/2018-1024). Net: the '694 is unenforceable notwithstanding the PTAB decision.
• Precedent generated: Intellectual Ventures II v. JPMorgan Chase, 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (no §18(b)(2) jurisdiction pre-institution) and the 2017-03-07 non-final-order collateral estoppel ruling on the '084.

Unverified items I would not assert: whether IBM appealed IPR2014-00587 (and the appeal number/result); docket-level citations for each bank defendant's answer/counterclaims; and the institution outcome of the '694 CBM petition. If you need those, they'd come from PACER/PTAB docket pulls for 1:13-cv-03777 (S.D.N.Y.) and the CBM docket series, which I could not fully retrieve here.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Let me search trade press and mainstream outlets.

Let me try additional angles — Federal Circuit appeal, IPWatchdog, law firm alerts, and the broader IV bank campaign.

Press coverage of IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2014-00587

Bottom line: this is a thinly covered proceeding. Searching the case caption, the parties, the case number, and the patent number (6,826,694) turned up no coverage at all from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or any mainstream outlet. The coverage that exists is almost entirely law-firm client alerts and docket roundups, plus one law-firm appellate bulletin that mentions the '694 patent in passing as part of IV's bank-litigation campaign. There are no reported damages figures, no settlement terms, and no executive or analyst commentary that I could locate — unsurprising for a PTAB trial in which the petitioner (IBM) and the patent owner were not adverse in the underlying infringement suits.

What the alerts say happened. The most substantive piece is a Drinker Biddle (now Faegre Drinker) client alert republished by National Law Review, which reported that the Board's Final Written Decision (Paper 54, dated 2015‑09‑23) found that claim 1 of the '694 patent — the patent's sole claim and the only claim challenged — had not been shown unpatentable. The alert explains that the Board applied the broadest reasonable interpretation and sided with IBM on construction, reading "contents of the packet" to mean "the header and/or payload of the packet," but that IV nonetheless prevailed by antedating the asserted prior art: IV proved the invention was reduced to practice "at least as early as early 1996 but no later than June 11, 1996," knocking out Hughes and Abraham as § 102 references. The alert notes the Board found the "AT&T documents" insufficient corroboration of inventor Partha Dutta's testimony but credited non-inventor Dr. Dalibor Vrsalovic's corroborating testimony, and it frames the takeaway as a burden-of-proof lesson: the petitioner bears the burden of persuasion on the prior-art status of every reference. The alert lists related proceedings as "numerous district court cases," the parallel Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2014‑00786, and IBM's IPR2014‑01465.

Procedural follow-ups and the only "significance" framing I found. A second Drinker Biddle alert, also via National Law Review, reported the Board's 2015‑11‑20 decision (Paper 49) granting IV's unopposed motion to keep the sealed record sealed pending a possible appeal, noting the Board's remark that testimony from Dr. Michah Lerner had "called into question whether the sealed information . . . was truly confidential." Nothing in this reporting quantifies exposure or market impact. The one item connecting the '694 patent to a broader commercial narrative is a Wiley Rein "Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin" (2015‑04‑06), which reports that the '694 patent was one of five IV patents-in-suit — alongside U.S. Patents 6,715,084, 6,314,409, 5,745,574 and 7,634,666 — in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., and that the Federal Circuit dismissed JPMC's interlocutory appeal of the district court's stay ruling for lack of jurisdiction under AIA § 18(b)(2). That is the closest thing to "significance" reporting: the '694 patent mattered chiefly because it was swept into IV's multi-front bank licensing campaign. The filing itself was noted only in a one-line entry in a National Law Review "PTO Litigation Center Report" dated 2014‑04‑08, listing IPR2014‑00587, filed 2014‑04‑07, patent 6,826,694 "High Resolution Access Control," assignee Intellectual Ventures II LLC, petitioner IBM.

Where reporting goes beyond the record — and where it stops short. There is essentially no analytical or industry-reaction layer here. Trial-level context comes from court documents rather than press: the N.D. Ga. stay order in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. (2014‑10‑07) records that the PTAB instituted IPR of claim 1 of the '694 patent on 2014‑09‑24 and that the patent was being asserted against multiple banks. Docket aggregators such as Docket Alarm document subsequent papers (e.g., the November 2015 denial of IBM's rehearing request, and a March 2016 order expunging sealed information), but these are databases, not journalism. Two caveats on sourcing: I found no press reporting on any Federal Circuit appeal, nor any article corroborating the IPR certificate date given in the case metadata (2018‑02‑12); and I did not find any outlet reporting damages, settlement amounts, or market impact for this proceeding. Treat the "significance" of IPR2014‑00587 as an inference from the court record and law-firm alerts, not as something the press actually reported.

Sources

• Subject:
• Petitioners' proposed construction of "contents of the packet" would make the "wherein" clause from original claim 15 broader in...
• Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures II LLC By: Herbert D
• The ’694 patent also discloses that an access control proxy selects a rule based on an analysis of the payload of a single or mu...
• Patent 6,826,694 B1
• Trials@uspto
• International Business Machines v. Intellectual Ventures II: Granting Request to Preserve Record Pending Appeal IPR2014-00587, I...
• Ex. 1006 | IPR2014-00587 | IBM Corp v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC | Ex Parte
• International Business Machines Corporationv.Intellectual Ventures II LLC - International Business Machines Corporationv
• PTO Litigation Center Report - April 8, 2014
• Published on The National Law Review https://natlawreview
• IPR2014-00587 | IBM Corp v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC | Ex Parte

I'll research counsel of record for the petitioner (IBM, the "plaintiff"/petitioner in this IPR).

Let me verify counsel details from the FWD document and related filings.

Let me confirm the full petitioner-side counsel list and check for any Federal Circuit appeal.

Counsel of Record — Petitioner (IBM)

Threshold correction on framing. This is not a patent infringement action and IBM is not a "plaintiff." IPR2014-00587 is an inter partes review before the PTAB; the parties are styled Petitioner (IBM, which filed the petition on 2014‑04‑07) and Patent Owner (Intellectual Ventures II LLC). There is no plaintiff, defendant, complaint, or answer, and no "local counsel" requirement. What follows is therefore the counsel of record for Petitioner International Business Machines Corp. — i.e., the party whose interest aligns with the "plaintiff" designation in the case metadata. I flag this because the metadata's "Plaintiff(s): International Business Machines Corp." label is a database artifact of how PTAB proceedings get mapped into litigation-style schemas, not a reflection of the actual pleading structure.

Petitioner (IBM) — counsel of record

How I verified this. Petitioner-side counsel are identified on the face of the Board's own papers:

• Final Written Decision, Paper 54 (Sept. 23, 2015) and the Decision Denying Request for Rehearing, Paper 57 (Nov. 6, 2015) caption the Petitioner's representatives as "Kenneth R. Adamo / Eugene Goryunov / Kirkland & Ellis LLP" (Kirkland service mailbox: IBM_IPR_Service@kirkland.com for IBM's IPR portfolio). (FWD PDF; rehearing decision)
• Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notice (filed Oct. 15, 2014), whose certificate of service names "[t]he following counsel for Petitioner: Kenneth R. Adamo / Eugene Goryunov / KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 300 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60654." (notice‑18.pdf)
• Order Granting Request to Preserve Record Pending Appeal, Paper 59 (Nov. 20, 2015), which lists the Petitioner block as Adamo, Goryunov (Kirkland) — with the Compass Bank petitioners' separate counsel appearing in the jointly captioned companion IPR2014‑00786. (docketalarm PDF)
• Conference-call transcript in which Adamo identifies himself repeatedly ("It's Ken Adamo," "MR. ADAMO … we have a court reporter here with us in our offices in Chicago"), confirming he was the arguing attorney of record throughout trial.

No IBM in-house counsel appears in the mandatory notices or the caption for this IPR. IBM's PTAB practice in this campaign was to designate outside Kirkland counsel as lead and back-up, with service routed through a Kirkland IBM‑IPR mailbox. I found no listing of IBM in-house attorneys (e.g., from IBM's Armonk/Yorktown IP law department) on the record for IPR2014‑00587.

Caveat on docket aggregators. Free PTAB aggregators are unreliable for this field: the Ex Parte AI Lab page for IPR2014‑00587 lists "No Attorneys," and Docket Alarm's party tab is populated by scraped paper titles rather than a counsel table. I did not rely on those; the names above come from the papers themselves and the FWD caption. I also could not retrieve the original Petitioner Power of Attorney (Paper 2) for IPR2014‑00587 directly, so while the FWD caption, service certificates, and transcripts uniformly name only Adamo and Goryunov, I cannot rule out that a Kirkland attorney who never entered an appearance signature block (e.g., a Washington, D.C. appellate-side colleague) participated behind the scenes.

Opposing side (Patent Owner IV) — provided only for completeness

Not responsive to the question, but useful for the conflict check:

• Brenton R. Babcock (lead) and Ted M. Cannon (back-up), Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614 — substituted in by Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notice dated 2014‑10‑15.
• Donald J. Coulman and Tim R. Seeley, Intellectual Ventures, 3150 139th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98005 — in-house, designated back-up.
• Herbert D. Hart III and Aaron F. Barkoff, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., 500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor, Chicago, IL 60661 — original IV counsel, who signed the substitution notice and were allowed to withdraw on the conference call ("the new counsel is admitted, and the old counsel can be withdrawn"). Note that the "motion to withdraw" event visible on Docket Alarm for this case is the patent owner's substitution, not any petitioner change.

Two open items I could not close

1. No Federal Circuit appeal docket identified for IPR2014‑00587. The Board's November 2015 order preserving the sealed record "pending outcome of possible appeal" shows an appeal was contemplated, and the metadata's termination date of 2018‑02‑12 (IPR certificate issued) is roughly two-and-a-half years after the Sept. 2015 FWD — a gap that would ordinarily be consistent with an appeal having run its course. But I found no notice of appeal, no CAFC docket number, and no opinion for this IPR. Treat the certificate date as unverified, and treat the existence of any appeal as an inference from the record-preservation order rather than a documented fact.
2. Current whereabouts of Goryunov. I could confirm his Kirkland role and registration number as of the 2014–2015 filings but did not verify a current firm affiliation in this research session; I decline to state one without a source. Adamo's Kirkland affiliation is documented through at least the February 2016 Federal Circuit appearance in the related matter.

Bottom line: If the question is "who represented IBM (the petitioner/plaintiff-side party) in IPR2014-00587," the complete, record-verified answer is Kenneth R. Adamo (lead) and Eugene Goryunov (back-up), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago — and nothing in the record shows any local counsel, in-house appearance, or additional firm on the petitioner's side.

I'll research counsel of record carefully. First, a framing note matters here: IPR2014-00587 has no "defendant" in the Article III sense — the closest analogue to a defendant is the Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IBM is the petitioner). I'll identify IV II's counsel, and also note counsel in the parallel district court suits where IV II appeared (there it was plaintiff).

Good leads. Let me pin down the full counsel roster and the apparent substitution of counsel.

Let me nail down the mandatory notices and who actually argued, plus the Federal Circuit appeal counsel.

Counsel of record — but first, a framing correction that changes the answer

There is a threshold problem with the question as posed. IPR2014-00587 has no "defendant." It is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two sides are the Petitioner (IBM Corp.) and the Patent Owner (Intellectual Ventures II LLC). IV II is not a defendant here — it is the responding party who owns the '694 patent.

So I've answered the closest analogue: counsel of record for the Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures II LLC — the party occupying the defensive side of this docket. I've flagged below (a) a second ambiguity — IV II was the plaintiff, not a defendant, in the parallel bank infringement suits — and (b) exactly where the record is silent or unverified. I have not invented any attorney; every name below is tied to a document or firm record.

---

1. Counsel of record for the Patent Owner (IV II) in IPR2014-00587

Outside counsel — Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP (Irvine, CA office: 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor, Irvine, CA 92614).

In-house counsel — Intellectual Ventures (3150 139th Avenue S.E., Bellevue, WA 98005).

A note on the substitution of counsel. The docket shows a change of patent-owner counsel in the fall of 2014: a "Notice — Order Conduct of the Proceedings" (Paper 21, Oct. 23, 2014) and the Oct. 15, 2014 Updated Mandatory Notice substituting Babcock in as lead counsel. The IPR2014-00587 oral-hearing transcript excerpt I retrieved contains the colloquy — "the new counsel is admitted, and the old counsel can be withdrawn" — confirming a substitution occurred. I could not retrieve the identity of the withdrawing predecessor counsel, and I will not guess (see open items).

---

2. What is verified vs. what I could not verify

Well grounded:

• Knobbe Martens (Cannon, then Babcock as lead, plus Cannon as back-up) represented IV II in IPR2014-00587 — anchored by the Cannon-signed Joint Request filed in the 00587 docket itself.
• Babcock was IV II's designated lead counsel for the '694 patent IPRs effective Oct. 15, 2014, and argued IV's appeals to the Federal Circuit.
• Coulman was IV's in-house registered practitioner across the parallel IV II proceedings and on the '694-adjacent '409 patent.
• The Board-side of 00587 was Judges James T. Moore, Meredith C. Petravick (author), and Benjamin D.M. Wood.

Explicitly not verified — do not treat as fact:

• The withdrawing/prior lead counsel in 00587 (pre-October 2014). Multiple signals point to an outside firm being replaced by Knobbe, but I could not retrieve the name.
• A stray PTACTS fragment in the '694 file — "Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures II LLC By: Herbert D…" — suggests an attorney whose surname begins with "D." and a "Herbert." I could not confirm who this is or which paper it belongs to; do not assume Herbert D. Hart III or anyone else without pulling the document.
• Petitioner (IBM) counsel. The question asks about the defense side, but for completeness: I did not retrieve IBM's counsel of record for 00587. I won't list names from memory.
• Appellate counsel details. A CourtListener entry for the appeal from IPR2014-00786 shows "BRENTON R. BABCOCK, Knobbe… argued for appellant. Also represented by EDWARD M. [surname truncated in source]." The name is cut off in the indexed snippet — I would not fill it in without the opinion text.

---

3. The separate roster you may actually be asking about

If by "defendant(s)" you mean the bank defendants in IV II's 2013 infringement campaign (IV II v. JPMorgan Chase (S.D.N.Y. 1:13-cv-03777), BBVA Compass, First National Bank of Omaha, Commerce Bancshares, SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, Huntington Bancshares), note two things:

1. Those are different cases. IBM was never a party to them, and the '694 patent's IPR counsel (Knobbe) is IV's counsel — the party that was the plaintiff in those suits.
2. I could not verify the banks' defense counsel for those actions from the sources I reached. If that is the roster you need, it should be pulled from each district-court docket (PACER / CM-ECF) in S.D.N.Y., N.D. Ala., D. Neb., W.D. Mo., N.D. Ga., D. Minn., and S.D. Ohio respectively — I'll flag those as open.

---

4. One database caveat

The aggregator pages for IPR2014-00587 (e.g., the Ex Parte/AI Lab docket page) display "Attorney: No Attorneys." That is a field-population limitation of the aggregator, not evidence that no counsel appeared — the underlying PTACTS filing (the Joint Request) plainly names Cannon. Treat counsel rosters at the aggregator level as incomplete; the mandatory notices filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) are the authoritative source.

---

Key sources

• Joint Request to Preserve the Record Pending Appeal, IPR2014-00587 (signed "Ted Cannon, Counsel for Patent Owner"; Knobbe Martens contact) — PTACTS document repository: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1460817](/patent/1460817)/download-documents
• Patent Owner Updated Mandatory Notice Substituting Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel, IPR2014-00786 (Oct. 15, 2014) — names Brenton R. Babcock (lead) and Ted M. Cannon (back-up), Knobbe Martens, Irvine.
• Updated Mandatory Notice Adding Scott Raevsky and Bridget Smith as Additional Backup Counsel (Nov. 19, 2014) — IPR2014-00786/'694 file.
• CBM2014-00160 Supplemental Mandatory Notice Adding Backup Counsel — confirms Babcock (lead)/Cannon (back-up) as IV II's team.
• IPR2014-00787, Paper 84, Order Granting Patent Owner's Motion to Withdraw Counsel (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2019) — establishes Coulman and Seeley were in-house counsel for IV (withdrawing because "Mr. Coulman is no longer in-house counsel for IV").
• Docket Alarm, IPR2014-00587 docket (Paper 21, Order Conduct of the Proceedings, Oct. 23, 2014; Papers 49, 57, 59, 63): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2014-00587/International_Business_Machines_Corporation_v._Intellectual_Ventures_II_LLC/
• CourtListener, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Compass Bank (Fed. Cir. appeal from IPR2014-00786; Babcock arguing for appellant): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4328712](/patent/4328712)/intellectual-ventures-ii-llc-v-compass-bank/
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 F. App'x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Bottom line: the defensive-side counsel of record in IPR2014-00587 were Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear (Irvine) — ultimately Brenton R. Babcock as lead with Ted M. Cannon as back-up (and Raevsky and Smith added later), supported by IV in-house registered practitioner Donald J. Coulman. The identity of the pre-substitution counsel and IBM's counsel remain unverified and should be pulled from the 00587 mandatory notices and Papers if precision matters.