- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 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.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. 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 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01153 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jungck, alone or with RFC2003.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 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.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 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.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Jungck meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 22
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Whether or not this was known as a general proposition does not address reasons why Jungck’s traffic appears to bypass the edge servers upon which Petitioner relies and why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to apply its rules to all traffic or why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Jungck’s operation to use device 900 instead of the edge servers and what effect that would have on the rest of the operation of Jungck. Petitioner also appears to rely on its declarant who testifies it was well-known to block all incoming traffic. Fintiv Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 72–73). Nevertheless, this section of the Declaration was not cited in the Petition but rather is referred to indirectly in a portion of the Declaration which is cited in the Petition. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 241). Paragraph 211 of the Declaration states “[a]s also discussed in Section IV, the use of block lists (e.g., blacklists) to perform packet filtering, including both ingress and egress filtering, was well-known,” but does not refer to paragraphs 72 and 73. Ex. 1004 ¶ 211 (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.” DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”). Additionally, paragraph 72 of the Declaration contains new argument regarding “firewall” and “standard networking practice” based on references (Bharali and Wood) not cited for that proposition in the Petition. Ex. 1004 ¶ 72. We find the Petition improperly incorporates this section of the Declaration by reference because the basis of the “firewall” argument is not explained sufficiently in the Petition. Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative opinion) (describing the proper course of action as “to not consider arguments that are not made in the Petition, but are instead incorporated by reference”).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“other, Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art on October 22, 2012 (the filing date of the application that matured in the ’437 patent), would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 [Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti] ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage, appears appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,437 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01155 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–20 under § 325(d), finding the asserted art and arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Examiner during prosecution of the ’343 patent and that Mantripragada is cumulative to Buck, which was considered during prosecution of the ’343 patent. We further find that Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution that the packet transformation function is configured “to prevent an exfiltration operation” resulted in allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent, which overlaps with the argument that Patent Owner makes in this case against Petitioner’s challenges. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. Petitioner has not shown that the two-stage filtering process was a basis for the Examiner’s allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent over the cited prior art. We, therefore, find that the same or substantially the same prior art, and the same or substantially the same arguments, previously were presented to the Office under the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Petitioner’s declarant testifies regarding the prosecution history of the ’343 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–90. He concludes that “the ’343 Patent claims were apparently allowed because the Examiner concluded that the prior art of record failed to disclose a two-stage packet filtering process,” mirroring Petitioner’s argument. Id. ¶ 90. Petitioner’s declarant does not indicate how the facts support this conclusion. As mentioned, Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution leading to allowance was that the ’343 patent’s claims recite applying the packet transformation function configured to prevent an exfiltration operation. Ex. 1002, 1614–1615, 1639. Petitioner’s declarant does not explain sufficiently where in the prosecution history Patent Owner argued that a two-stage packet filtering process distinguished the ’343 patent’s claims over the prior art, or where the Examiner allowed the claims because of two-stage packet filtering. Accordingly, lacking evidentiary support, the declarant’s testimony is entitled to little or no weight on this point. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, we see no additional evidence or facts in the Petition that warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Therefore, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 4
Nonecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Bright Data Ltd. v. Metacluster LT, UabInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-00983 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion (see generally Prelim. Resp.). The prior art itself demonstrates the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). in light of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan is: an individual who had (1) a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, or in an equivalent field that includes network engineering as a topic of study (hereinafter, “technical study”), plus at least one year of industry technical experience in the computer network field, such as serving as an engineer for an Internet service provider performing network design, development, or configuration tasks, or as a software developer for network communications software or related utility software, or (2) three years of full-time technical experience in the field of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science or in an equivalent field that includes network engineering or network communications software (hereinafter, “technical fields”), or (3) an equivalent combination of academic study in technical study and work experience in the technical fields.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Proxy Rotator’ as ‘a system coupled of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting’” (Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:4–7)). of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting” (id. at 5:4–7). In accordance with the Specification’s “general terminology description,” we construe the term “Smart Proxy Rotator” as a system coupled of separate components implementing a specific method and responsible for collecting statistical data, proxy control, rotation, maintenance, and reporting.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“construed as “‘the portion of all proxy requests received by the SPR during a time period that the SPR will refer to a particular proxy provider,’ which may be equal to the weight assigned to that particular proxy provider divided by the sum of weights assigned to all proxy providers during the same time period” (Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 56)). Patent Owner’s definition requiring a “utilization threshold” to be a “portion of all proxy requests received by the SPR during a time period that the SPR will refer to a particular proxy provider” is too narrow. The ’948 Patent does not expressly define the term “utilization threshold,” and, instead, describes utilization thresholds using an example (id. at 8:1–8). The ’948 Patent states [o]ne of the usage examples can be the following: if one provider has a weight equal to 10, and the other provider has a weight equal to 20, the proxy rotator should use the second provider 66.6% of the time and the first provider 33.3% of the time, when no changes to the default providers’ weights have been introduced. These percentages are the utilization thresholds of each provider. threshold is a goal amount of use, not an actual amount of use. A utilization threshold may represent a desired maximum percentage (i.e., proportion), of proxy requests to be referred to a particular proxy provider. Based on the Specification’s use of a “utilization threshold,” we construe the term to mean “a maximum percentage of use assigned to a particular proxy provider that is equal to a weight for the particular proxy provider divided by the sum of respective weights assigned to all proxy providers during the same time period.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,601,948 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2021 · IPR2021-00984 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness grounds taught or suggested the claimed responsive fragmentation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one Challenged Claim of the ’669 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’669 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and fewer years of design and development experience. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63). “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” Prelim. Resp. 37. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 3 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Yang. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 6 (“Petitioner construes each term as having its ordinary and customary meaning.”); Prelim. Resp. 11 (“Patent Owner does not propose any claim term departs from its ordinary and customary meaning.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“While not showing a teaching away, the above statement in Sourani contrasting stop points and fragmentation does show that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Sourani would know that the stop points in Sourani are not intended to be fragments. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why, despite this contrast, one of ordinary skill would use fragmentation with the system of Sourani.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,876,669 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, and supplemental briefing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–15, 18–24, 26, 27, and 30–32 of the ’928 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’928 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and one to two years of experience in the design and development of network communication systems. Alternatively, a POSITA would have a Master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a closely related field, and less years of design and development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–71). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30. We regard Petitioner’s proposed definition as reasonable, and” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner does not propose any claim terms for construction. Pet. 7 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes each of the ’928 claim terms as having its ordinary and custom[ary] meaning.”). Although, Petitioner does submit that, “[f]or purposes of this IPR only, Petitioner relies on the claim scope positions Patent Owner has advanced in district court for ‘port definer module.’” Pet. 8. Similarly, Patent Owner argues each claim term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, except that, as in the parallel district court proceeding, the function of alleged means-plus-function term “port definer module” should be construed to be “designating any one physical link of the logical link and examining the designated link of the logical link.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We note that, in the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not appear to identify any structure in the Specification for performing that function. See generally Prelim. Resp. Regardless, we do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have (1) taken Y.1731, which says nothing concerning aggregated physical links with a single logical link to which packets are directed; (2) then turned to the architectural basis for Y.1731, namely “Ethernet specification G.8010/Y.1306”; (3) then turned to standards “IEEE 802.1D, 802.1Q, and 802.3,” which are “account[ed] for” by G.8010/Y.1306, and specifically selected to pursue 802.3 from among those; (4) then, without any reference or indication in Y.1731 itself, turned specifically to standard IEEE 802.3ad within the set of 802.3 standards, and specifically to its disclosure of aggregated physical links with a single logical link; and then (5) upon making all of these connections, understood Y.1731 itself to disclose or teach aggregated physical links with a single logical link, particularly in the context of the Challenged Claims as a whole. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”). Although “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421), the Federal Circuit has observed that “‘the prejudice of hindsight bias’ often overlooks that the ‘genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.’” Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 30, 2021 · IPR2021-00571 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–6 and 10–15 because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the required control traffic label limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Notably, although Petitioner understands that the Examiner allowed the Challenged Claims based on this “indicating” limitation (Pet. 33), Petitioner fails to direct us with particularity to any disclosure or teaching in Fine of a “control traffic label” itself “indicating” to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment. See Pet. 33–35. As argued by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 47– 48), Petitioner does not explain with particularity how or why Fine’s VLAN Tag field 304 or Destination Address field 306 (or both) indicates to LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to user equipment (or teaches such “indicating”). Instead, Petitioner merely leaps from arguing that Fine teaches that tagged BPDUs do not reach user equipment (Pet. 34), to averring that this constitutes or teaches the claimed “indicating” limitation, without providing particular support and explanation for such a leap. See Pet. 33–35; 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (The petition must identify supporting evidence “with particularity.” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art . . . .” (emphasis added)). For the foregoing reasons, and constrained by the Petition, we are not persuaded that the cited evidence adequately supports Petitioner’s contention that Fine discloses “the control traffic label indicating to the LSRs that the STP is to be executed by the LSRs without transmission of the BPDU to the user equipment,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,127,523 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2020-00170 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–14 and 17–20 because the petition did not adequately explain combining Hull and Barber.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“disclosure or that the Decision’s analysis of Hull is unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioner does not point to any disclosure in Hull of descriptors that are not invariant to distortions such as those caused by translation, rotation, and scaling. See Req. Reh’g 2–8. Although Petitioner cites references in Hull to “other” or “alternative” embodiments, Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any descriptors other than distortion- invariant descriptors in those embodiments. See id. at 3–8. Nor does Petitioner cite any disclosure in Hull explicitly stating that distortion-invariant descriptors are “optional” or “exemplary,” as Petitioner contends. See id. at 1, 6, 8.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,253,201 - Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Kove Io, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2020-00276 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show RFC1034 disclosed the claimed unique identifier-to-entity relationship for claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 17, 23, 24, 30, and 31.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. See Office Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)) (emphasis added). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute a requested review, our inquiry seeks to ascertain whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the challenges set forth in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). That inquiry is not limited to disputes presented in a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Indeed, filing of a Patent Owner Preliminary Response is optional and does not impact our statutory obligation to review the Petition for a reasonable likelihood of success. 35 U.S.C. § 313; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“upon does not remedy the deficiencies we identified in the Petition. As we stated, Dr. Weissman’s testimony “does not resolve the failure of Petitioner to account for the required relationship between a host computer (i.e., entity) and a domain name (i.e., identifier).” Dec. on Inst. 20–21 (citing Pet. 19–20, 22–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 88) (emphasis added). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments or evidence regarding the claimed “entity” because Petitioner did not clearly explain how a “host” as disclosed in RFC1034 meets the claimed entity and how a domain name (i.e., the “identifier”) identifies a single host. A rehearing request is not an opportunity to argue what should have been addressed in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 7,233,978
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.