• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2021-01150 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held that Petitioner had not shown claims 1–18 unpatentable under § 103 over Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen because the combination did not teach or motivate transmission responsive to correlation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Final Written Decision for “not clearly explaining its holding or rationale regarding motivation to combine and whether the proposed combination teaches the final limitation of claim 1: transmitting an indication of the first host responsive to the correlating.” Palo Alto Networks, 122 F.4th at 1384. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explained that the Final Written Decision “never made a clear finding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton by adding Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step,” as proposed by Petitioner. Id. at 1385. The Federal Circuit stated that the Board “failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Paxton to provide the recited notification as taught by Sutton in response to the correlation disclosed in Paxton.” Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[b]y reading Paxton and Sutton in isolation, the Board erred,” and that we vacate and remand for the Board to clarify and explain its holding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the identity of the first host (e.g., to an administrator) as taught by Sutton, responsive to the correlating disclosed by Paxton to improve network security.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the alleged invention of the ’903 patent “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is similar, with Patent Owner contending that the ordinary skilled artisan “would be someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 27– 31). Similar to Petitioner, Patent Owner also states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “may have additional industry experience in lieu of a formal degree.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “After review of the current record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “responsive to the correlation, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references in the manner advocated by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that this combination would only involve “[t]he application of known techniques (e.g., Sutton’s implementation of rules and data to define security policies, disallowed websites, etc.) to improve similar devices (e.g., servers, gateways, firewalls, etc. in Sutton’s and Paxton’s systems) to provide predictable results in the same way (e.g., to provide packet-filtering functions preventing communications with potentially malicious hosts).” Id. at 22–23.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,530,903 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,530,903
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable over either Kovatch and Burrows or Wise and Burrows because the combinations did not teach the claimed polling and rank-decrease limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” 5 The complete record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. same proposal. PO Resp. 1. On the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art and adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “From this description in Burrows, it is clear that index 70 has no sense of ranking, and that Burrows’ system overall has no sense of ranking prior to a query; thus, adding or deleting a webpage from the index does not change a ranking that does not yet exist. It is also clear that, if a page is flagged as deleted, it will be ignored by the query module when the query module queries the index and ranks the identified qualified pages. Id. at 15:12–16, 15:21–22. The webpage’s rank is not decreased, as the webpage is never ranked in the first place. As Mr. Occhiogrosso testifies: web page. A “polled web site” page cannot be ranked in the Burrows system because the Burrows ranking is performed only after a user query is performed. Only at that time can the Burrows system provide a ranked list (of qualified webpages) for presentation to the user. As Burrows discloses, the Automated Web Browser is robotic in nature and not associated with the queries of users. Ex. 2009 ¶ 181. Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony on this point is consistent with Burrows’ description, credible, and entitled to substantial weight. We have considered Mr. Lipoff’s testimony that a skilled artisan “would have understood that combining Burrows’s polling mechanism receiving no response into Kovatch would decrease the entries’ ranking or placement in Kovatch’s destination tree in order to further limit the pages that may not be of interest to the user.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 172 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:38–46). That testimony, however, is conclusory and lacks persuasive reasoning. Moreover, the passage in Burrows to which it cites (Ex. 1006, 1:38–46) does not teach or suggest decreasing the ranking of webpages. Thus, Mr. Lipoff’s testimony on this point lacks credibility and is entitled to little weight. Upon consideration of the complete record, we are not persuaded that Kovatch and Burrows teach claim limitations 1H and 2H.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Reply, Petitioner argues that “the type of database record that Burrows polls and ranks makes no difference for this teaching; processing costs and cycles, equating to processing time, are a potential issue any time computer processing occurs.” Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1061 ¶ 24). Mr. Lipoff repeats this statement in his testimony without identifying the basis for it, rendering that testimony of little value. Ex. 1061 ¶ 24. In any case, it appears that Petitioner and Mr. Lippoff are arguing that a general notion of processing cost any time computer processing occurs would lead a skilled artisan to decrease a webpage’s rank based on response time. This is a new argument, not presented in the Petition, and is therefore forfeited and will not be considered. In any case, Petitioner has not supported this new argument with persuasive evidence.” slip op. at 31

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In sum, for several reasons, Petitioner has not shown that Kovatch and Burrows teach claim limitations 1H–1J and 2H–2J and, therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Kovatch and Burrows teach each limitation of claims 1 and 2. 4. Conclusion of Nonobviousness As explained above, Petitioner has failed to show that the combination of Kovatch and Burrows teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 2. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious over Kovatch and Burrows.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,721,705 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,721,705
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00186 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Scoda did not disclose the claimed interception limitation and Hallak did not disclose execution of the removed script after removal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the invention of the ’091 patent would have had master’s degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or would have had a bachelor’s degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in internet communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt the level of ordinary skill as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, this proposal appears to be consistent with the ’091 patent and the prior art of record and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the parties’ agreed upon construction is supported by the record before us and apply it in our patentability analysis below, requiring the embedded script to be removed before that script is executed. We determine that no other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “during trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Scoda discloses intercepting a web page sent from a We agree with Patent Owner that portions of Scoda cited in the Petition do not disclose a web page, let alone one sent from a server and addressed to a client browser. See PO Resp. 17; Tr. 73:10–23. Scoda discloses that “[t]he core module 21 is executed by the web content proxy server 12 to determine where to provide the response with the executed JavaScript functionality in the exemplary environment 10, such as to a web browser on one of the client devices 14(1)–14(n).” Ex. 1016 ¶ 55. But this functionality does not refer to a web page from a server. Instead, this discussion is about a HTTP request that comes from a client device and may include one or more hidden JavaScript identifiers. See id. ¶¶ 50–55. The discussion about providing a response to a web browser on a client device refers to a response to the client device’s HTTP request, in the form of an error message, that is sent from the proxy server to client device. Id. ¶ 58. As Patent Owner points out, this is one of the two scenarios presented in Scoda, the other one being that HTTP request is sent to the server. Id.; PO Resp. 36; see also Ex. 2009 ¶ 70. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth that these communications between the client and proxy server or the proxy server and the content server do not disclose the “intercepting” limitation.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “deficient, Petitioner attempts to change the focus of its argument. Pet. Reply 2–3. Petitioner instead relies on Figure 8 and related discussion as “Scoda’s disclosure of proxy server 12 processing a web page that was sent from a web server.” Id. Scoda, and Petitioner’s argument based on this disclosure is, therefore, an untimely new argument presented in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,516,091 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,516,091
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00187 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not proven unpatentable: Athas does not show the same packets are received, modified, and forwarded; neither obviousness combination teaches execution in response to the client’s execution of the second script.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’457 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science, or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Pet. 14 (citing Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31). For our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Institution Dec. 11. Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’s explanation,” he bases his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Final Written Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner 6 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. and used previously in our Institution Decision. We find that this formulation is consistent with the ’457 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “as “the number of packets” intercepted in limitation 1a (see PO Resp. 6–7). Petitioner responds that resolving this argument is not necessary. Pet. Reply 1. We find that whether claim 1 requires the packets intercepted by the network appliance in limitation 1a to be the same packets involved in limitations 1b–1d, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that any same number of packets in Athas that are received at proxy platform 101 are then modified and forwarded as required by limitations 1b–1d, for the reasons discussed below. We agree with Patent Owner that the number of packets in limitations 1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “1b-1d are the same, and, therefore, we find that Petitioner’s citations to Athas do not disclose the sequence of operations recited in claim limitations 1b–1d. Petitioner, therefore, does not demonstrate that Athas anticipates the claim. Specifically, we are not persuaded either by Petitioner’s assertions or Dr. Williams’s testimony that in Athas, the same “number of packets” that are received and modified by Athas’s proxy platform 101 are then forwarded to Athas’s proxy client 107, as required by limitations 1b–1d. PO Resp. 6– 7; 15–20; Almeroth Decl. ¶¶ 76–77. Petitioner does not persuasively address this issue the Petition or in its Reply (see Pet. Reply 2–11, asserting, in a footnote, only that “Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding same versus different packets,” and that “Dr. Williams’s testimony does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.”). Id. at 11 n.4 (citing Ex. 2011, 115:22–117:20, 118:5–12). The citations to Dr. Williams’s testimony do not help Petitioner meet its burden of showing that the “same packets” feature is met by a preponderance of the evidence. Pet. Reply 11. The testimony of Dr. Williams cited by Petitioner relates to whether a hypothetical request for a web page forwarded from a conventional proxy to a server would use the same packets as the original request from a client to the proxy. See Ex. 2011, 115:7–21. The testimony does not address the issue raised by limitations 1b–1d, which is whether Athas discloses using the same packets for the receiving, modifying, and forwarding operations performed by the network appliance. In any event, we find Dr. Williams’s testimony on this issue to be equivocal and unconvincing. Several times he avoids answering questions by stating “it depends on how the software is written” or “it depends on the details of the code.” See id. at 117:8–17; 118:10–12. There is, therefore, no persuasive evidence of record demonstrating that Athas discloses that the same “number of packets” received at proxy platform 101 are, in a modified form, forwarded to proxy client 107. For example, there is no support in the record for a finding that once the content of packets sent from service platform 109 to proxy platform 101 in Athas is extracted and manipulated to replace non-MWL scripts with MWL scripts and the DOM is generated, modified versions of the same received packets are forwarded to provide the web page to proxy client 107, as opposed to completely new packets. We find no sufficient support for this contention in Dr. Williams’s testimony:” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,924,457 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,924,457
• Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UabNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00185 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not proven unpatentable; the Board found the asserted WebShield and Hallak grounds failed on script-removal and execution sequencing, and the Kothari combination lacked motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes two claim constructions. PO Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term “embedded script,” as defined in the ’498 patent, as “a script that is included or incorporated by reference into a markup language description of a web page and executable by a browser rendering that web page.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:23–26). According to Patent Owner, a “script” is “a sequence of machine-readable instructions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–23). Patent Owner proposes that we construe “executing . . . the removed embedded script” as requiring the removal of the script embedded in the web page to take place before the script is executed. Id. This limitation is recited in claim 1 and in each of the other independent claims. Ex. 1001, 11:43–46 (claim 1), 12:17–20 (claim 10); 12:58–63 (claim 19). Petitioner responds that “[t]hese claim terms have already been construed by the district court and those constructions are not disputed in this proceeding.” Pet. Reply 2. We find that these undisputed constructions are supported by the record before us. We, therefore, adopt them for this Decision. We do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other terms for this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has not provided a description of the ordinarily skilled artisan. However, Dr. Almeroth testifies that although he “do[es] not necessarily agree with every aspect of Dr. Williams’ explanation,” he bases 7 Neither party has presented evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. his opinions on Dr. Williams’s description of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Almeroth Decl. ¶ 36. For this Decision, therefore, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’498 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Williams. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 30–31.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by Dr. Williams’s testimony that WebShield teaches or suggests this limitation. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 132–137. His testimony does not address the claimed sequence required by the claims and, in fact, quotes WebShield’s description of parsing and executing the embedded JavaScript files to create the DOM data structures relied on by Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth. See id. at ¶ 136 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5).” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree that Petitioner’s citations to WebShield do not disclose the sequence of operations called for by the claims. WebShield expressly states that “the HTML page, embedded JavaScript files and embedded CSS files will be parsed and executed to create the DOM data structures of the webpage.” Ex. 1008, 5 (emphasis added). As Dr. Almeroth explains, “WebShield does not remove an embedded script and then subsequently execute the removed embedded script. . . . WebShield . . . executes the embedded JavaScript without first removing that JavaScript from the web page, and only subsequently generates ‘the new HTML page [that WebShield] transfers to the client browser T(R).’” Almeroth Decl. ¶ 78 (quoting Ex. 1008, 6) (final alteration in original). We are not persuaded by Dr. Williams’s testimony that WebShield teaches or suggests this limitation. See Williams Decl. ¶¶ 132–137. His testimony does not address the claimed sequence required by the claims and, in fact, quotes WebShield’s description of parsing and executing the embedded JavaScript files to create the DOM data structures relied on by Patent Owner and Dr. Almeroth. See id. at ¶ 136 (quoting Ex. 1008, 5).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,503,498 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,503,498
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Almondnet, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01259 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 35–51 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not show that the claimed computers automatically authorize a distinct third-party second media property to allow ad display.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the recited “system” of claim 35 does not necessarily exclude a “third-party second media property.” As Petitioner points out, claim 35 uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” such that the recited “system comprising one or more computers” may include components other than the recited “one or more computers.” See Pet. Reply 1 (citing CIAS, Inc. v. All. Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “programmed to implement a method of directing electronic advertisements” more naturally modifies “one or more computers,” rather than “system.” Id. at 3. Nonetheless, it is clear from the plain language of claim 35, as well as from the prosecution history of the related ’745 patent, that the third-party second media property must be distinct from such “one or more computers.” Petitioner’s repeated use of the abbreviation “TPSMP” obscures the fact that claim 35 does not simply recite a “second media property” but instead specifically recites a “third-party second media property.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–19 (emphasis added). Highlighting the significance of the modifier “third-party,” as Patent Owner points out, is the fact that that modifier was added to “second media property” in the phrase “automatically electronically authorizing, with at least one of the computers, a third party second media property to allow display, to the electronic visitor when later visiting the second media property, of an advertisement” in an Examiner’s amendment during prosecution of the ’822 patent’s grandparent ’286 application to avoid certain prior art, and the prosecution record of the ’286 application reflects that this amendment was made to make it clear that the recited “authorizing is being done of an unrelated site.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 10–11. More particularly, as Patent Owner points out, the applicant stated in the cited examiner interview report that “the claim structure already made [it] clear” that “the authorizing is being done of an unrelated site . . . because the phrase ‘authorizing’ a site does not seem to cover a site deciding something on its own,” but that the amendment to specify a “third party second media property” made that requirement “explicit.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 7–8 (quoting the same).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, minus the phrases “at least” modifying the education and “or more” modifying the number of years of experience. As we explained in our Institution Decision, although Petitioner’s articulation otherwise appears consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art, inclusion of such qualifiers render the articulation vague by being open-ended thus encompassing the level of education and experience of an expert, someone with more than ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. 12. Thus, in summary, we find that one with ordinary skill in the art at the pertinent time period would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, and/or analysis/research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user/entity profile management and/or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field, where more education could supplement practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the parties’ respective contentions in light of the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 35 is unpatentable over the combination of Perry, Wilson, and Bronson. In particular, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “a system comprising one or more computers programmed to implement a method . . . comprising: . . . automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property to allow display . . . of an advertisement correlated with the profile-attribute information received about the visitor.” Although Figure 1 of Perry depicts a “system” that includes computers programmed to implement a method of distributing advertisements to users over the Internet, we are not persuaded that any component in that system implements a method that includes “automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property” to display such advertisements. As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner identifies “Internet publisher computer systems 131 and 132” and “advertising service company computer system 140 comprising one or more CPUs 141” as the recited “one or more computers.” Pet. 7; PO Resp. 11. Although there is no dispute that Publisher Systems 131 and 132 and ASC 140 are computers, we find that neither satisfies the remaining limitations of claim 35, particularly because neither “automatically electronically authoriz[es] a third-party second media property” to display advertisements. As we explain in our claim construction discussion above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the recited “system” necessarily must exclude the “third-party second media server.” See supra § III.C. Nonetheless, the third-party second media server still must be separate and distinct from the “one or more computers programmed to implement [the recited] method,” lest the modifier “third-party” be rendered meaningless.” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Further, Patent Owner did not present Mr. Sherwood as an expert on patent law or claim drafting, and we decline to give substantial weight to his testimony on this issue that is ultimately a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (ruling that the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law to be determined exclusively by the courts). Still further, Petitioner’s counsel conceded that the formatting of the claim is not dispositive. Tr. 14:14–18.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,200,822 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,822
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2023 · IPR2021-01150 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen because the combination did not establish transmission responsive to the packet correlation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill in the art. Dec. 21. Patent Owner offers a different formulation in the Response, but neither party provides substantive argument as to why its proposed level of skill is correct. See Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12–13. We do not find a material difference between the parties’ proposals. Based on this record, we apply the level of skill laid out in our Institution Decision because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we find for the purpose of this Decision and based on the record before us, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent. We note, however, that our determinations on patentability would not change if we accepted Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “After review of the current record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that this combination is insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. PO Resp. 28–44. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner does not explain why any such transmitting would be responsive to the correlation as required by the claims. Id. at 30. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that the proposed combination “would simply result in notifying administrators of potentially infected devices in reaction to finding that ‘a packet [has been] detected as communicated to/from a darknet address (postboundary).’” Id. (quoting Pet. 22). According to Patent Owner, this is not enough because “[t]he detection of darknet activity involves no correlation whatsoever . . . it simply involves a comparison of the original addresses information of a packet to a list of darknet addresses.” Id. Patent Owner further argues that the recited responsiveness also is not taught by Paxton, which identifies a source of packet transmission without teaching any actions that occur responsive to that identification. Id. at 31. This assertion is supported by Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich, who opines that “Paxton does not disclose or suggest doing anything with the packet matching information unless and until malicious activity is sensed. Although I note that Petitioner argues that Paxton ‘generat[es] a match log including the identity of the packet source address,’ Paxton does not disclose doing anything responsive to, or in reaction to, generating this match log.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 83 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner’s “assertion that Paxton does not disclose ‘doing anything responsive to correlating packets,’ is facetious: there would be no purpose in doing that determining at all if it was not recorded or otherwise made known.” Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that “Paxton expressly teaches creating a log and notifying a network administrator of the identified host.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 30, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 119; Pet., 14–15, 40; Dec. 38–39). We, however, are not persuaded that this argument was articulated sufficiently in the Petition. Petitioner cites pages 14–15 of the Petition. That portion of the Petition states “[m]atching packets and identifying the true source of packet transmissions is useful for network security, providing a way to trace malicious activity sensed at the edge of a network and identify nodes infected with malicious content.” Pet. 14–15. It is true that Paxton states that the ability to identify the true source of a packet transmission “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content, which can allow the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. We find no argument in the Petition that asserts “allow[ing] the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content” means that a transmission is made (or any other action is taken) responsive to the correlation. Sutton also fails to fill in this gap. Petitioner argues that “Sutton discloses transmitting the indication of the first host (e.g., notifying an administrator) responsive to identifying a device associated with malicious activity.” Pet. 41. Sutton “monitors communications to identify access attempts to/from darknet addresses” and if such an attempt is found “a notification or other corrective action can be provided identifying such potentially malicious activity.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, code (57)). Sutton further states that if devices associated with malicious activity “reside within the enterprise network, a notification 355 can be provided to the enterprise network (e.g., a network administrator) indicating that such devices are potentially infected with malicious software code.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, 10:60–11:3). Sutton identifies malicious nodes by determining whether a communication is destined or originating from an address in the darknet address database. Ex. 1007, 6:15–22. Thus, if a darknet address is found then Sutton will transmit a message indicating the malicious presence. This leaves us with a correlation from Paxton with no specific actions taken postcorrelation, and a transmission from Sutton unrelated to any correlation, but without the necessary bridge showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the transmission would be responsive to the correlation. As such, Petitioner has not provided us with argument and evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that this combination is insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. PO Resp. 28–44. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner does not explain why any such transmitting would be responsive to the correlation as required by the claims. Id. at 30. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that the proposed combination “would simply result in notifying administrators of potentially infected devices in reaction to finding that ‘a packet [has been] detected as communicated to/from a darknet address (postboundary).’” Id. (quoting Pet. 22). According to Patent Owner, this is not enough because “[t]he detection of darknet activity involves no correlation whatsoever . . . it simply involves a comparison of the original addresses information of a packet to a list of darknet addresses.” Id. Patent Owner further argues that the recited responsiveness also is not taught by Paxton, which identifies a source of packet transmission without teaching any actions that occur responsive to that identification. Id. at 31. This assertion is supported by Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich, who opines that “Paxton does not disclose or suggest doing anything with the packet matching information unless and until malicious activity is sensed. Although I note that Petitioner argues that Paxton ‘generat[es] a match log including the identity of the packet source address,’ Paxton does not disclose doing anything responsive to, or in reaction to, generating this match log.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 83 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner’s “assertion that Paxton does not disclose ‘doing anything responsive to correlating packets,’ is facetious: there would be no purpose in doing that determining at all if it was not recorded or otherwise made known.” Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that “Paxton expressly teaches creating a log and notifying a network administrator of the identified host.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 30, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 119; Pet., 14–15, 40; Dec. 38–39). We, however, are not persuaded that this argument was articulated sufficiently in the Petition. Petitioner cites pages 14–15 of the Petition. That portion of the Petition states “[m]atching packets and identifying the true source of packet transmissions is useful for network security, providing a way to trace malicious activity sensed at the edge of a network and identify nodes infected with malicious content.” Pet. 14–15. It is true that Paxton states that the ability to identify the true source of a packet transmission “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content, which can allow the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. We find no argument in the Petition that asserts “allow[ing] the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content” means that a transmission is made (or any other action is taken) responsive to the correlation. Sutton also fails to fill in this gap. Petitioner argues that “Sutton discloses transmitting the indication of the first host (e.g., notifying an administrator) responsive to identifying a device associated with malicious activity.” Pet. 41. Sutton “monitors communications to identify access attempts to/from darknet addresses” and if such an attempt is found “a notification or other corrective action can be provided identifying such potentially malicious activity.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, code (57)). Sutton further states that if devices associated with malicious activity “reside within the enterprise network, a notification 355 can be provided to the enterprise network (e.g., a network administrator) indicating that such devices are potentially infected with malicious software code.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, 10:60–11:3). Sutton identifies malicious nodes by determining whether a communication is destined or originating from an address in the darknet address database. Ex. 1007, 6:15–22. Thus, if a darknet address is found then Sutton will transmit a message indicating the malicious presence. This leaves us with a correlation from Paxton with no specific actions taken postcorrelation, and a transmission from Sutton unrelated to any correlation, but without the necessary bridge showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the transmission would be responsive to the correlation. As such, Petitioner has not provided us with argument and evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,530,903 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,530,903

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.