- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01199 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4
- Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied
“not object to a new panel of APJs hearing this case if remanded.” Id. at 20. As such, Patent Owner requested Director Review (Paper 74), asking that the Director “de-institute,” based on an abuse of discretion. The Director (Paper 75) denied the request and directed the Board to assign a new panel on remand (see Papers 76, 77). B.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in The Art We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the prior Decision. See Decision 25. F.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“This argument is unpersuasive because Buruganahalli uses rules/policies to filter encrypted packets by correlating them with handshaking packets that have unencrypted data, in the same way that is done in the ‘856 Patent. The only “filtering step” in the patent that “use[s] rules to filter encrypted packets without decryption” (PO Resp. 20) is the hello message approach used, for example, at steps 19 and 23 (see id.), which is clearly disclosed in Buruganahalli.7 As explained above, the ‘856 Patent does not describe applying rules to encrypted packets. Instead, it describes (a) filtering encrypted packets by correlating them with unencrypted data in other packets and (b) by decrypting the packets and applying the rules that are recited in the claims to unencrypted data. As also explained above, the amendment added the rules of step 22, which are applied to decrypted data, to a claim that was drafted to cover filtering of encrypted packets. However, among the criteria used in the filtering performed at step 22 is a “uniform resource identifier (URI),” which, we conclude, covers Buruganahalli’s “domain name.” Thus, despite the error made during prosecution, the claims that issued cover Buruganahalli’s method of determining that a session should be filtered based on a domain name in unencrypted handshake data.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103 over Buruganahalli; the evidence of copying does not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable
“given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above. Examination of Aaron Striegel We also do not find the Aaron Striegel’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. The testimony provides statements such as “I found evidence that it could be plausible,” “[s]o we can see the timeline is very plausible,” and “I found it very plausible that indeed that this technology could have made its way into these respective accused products.” Ex. 1029, 31:12–32:3. This testimony suggests the possibility of copying but does not demonstrate actual evidence of copying. At most, this testimony indicates that further consideration of the underlying evidence is warranted, but does little to support an ultimate finding of copying. Again, even taking this testimony as evidence of copying, it still must stand up against the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner
“need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,917,856 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Suga and Gorsuch; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner also asserts prejudice for “not knowing” which Suga Exhibit “the Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert is relying on (see Exhibit 1021 and 1022),” without further explanation. Mot. Reply 6. Exhibit 1022 is a dictionary definition of “node.” How this relates to Patent Owner’s argument of prejudice is not explained. Id. at 5–6. The Board perceives no difficulty following Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which cite Suga Exhibit 1005, including the testimony of Dr. Buehrer regarding the English language translation of Suga, which is identical in Exhibits 1005 and 1017. Patent Owner, moreover, opted not to depose Dr. Buehrer, did not file a deposition transcript of Dr. Buehrer in this proceeding, and does not allege any difference or substantive deficiency in the English language translation in Suga Exhibits 1005 and 1017, which are identical. We fail to see any prejudice to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 84
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons given above, we determine the Petition establishes by” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2025-00059 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Yook, Bauer, and Lee.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’135 patent. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 of the ’135 patent on all presented challenges. Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”), 2, 23.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentable
“D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Yook 1. Yook (Ex. 1005) Yook relates particularly “to a method and mobile terminal that can divide the screen into individual divided screen areas and simultaneously present user functions on the individual divided screen areas.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 3. Reproduced below are Figures 1 and 2 of Yook. Figure 1 “illustrates an external appearance of a mobile terminal,” and Figure 2 “is an illustration of an exemplary block diagram of the mobile terminal” shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 12. Mobile terminal 100 includes touch screen 140, control unit 160, and storage unit 150, as well as radio frequency unit 110, input unit 120, and audio processing unit 130. Id. ¶ 25. Touch screen 140 includes display unit 141 and touch panel 143 that can be arranged in front of display unit 141. Id. ¶ 30. Mobile unit 100 can activate a screen management program stored in storage unit 150 “in response to a user request,” and control unit 160 can cause display unit 141 to divide the screen into several divided screen areas and output functional view areas related to user functions to the individual divided screen areas. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 31, 37. Also, “[t]he screen area management program can be loaded on the control unit 160 in response to program may include:” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,141,135 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,141,135 - Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mooney; the Board also found Mooney combined with Lee renders the disputed limitations obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). “Patent Owner agrees with the Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Resp. 4. Patent Owner adds that a POSITA would have had “at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in wireless communication between devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29). Mr. Zaheer testifies that a POSITA “would” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The claim language and specification define and describe an “activation cue” in functional terms: a data communication from an external source is received by the cell phone and recognized as an activation cue if it causes the switching element to be assigned its first (activated) state. Ex. 1001, 9:28–31, 9:42–46, 10:14–16, 13:55–60, 14:53–59, 15:4–6, 19:20–26. Patent Owner agrees that “upon an activation cue being received by portable electronic device 10, switching element 44b switches to its activated state.” Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:14–16). The activation cue may be a predetermined bit sequence, a predetermined contactless data transmission, continuously emitted, pulsed, or punctual, but these are unclaimed non-limiting embodiments of the preferred form of data transmission. Id. at 9:25–26 (“for example a predetermined bit sequence”), 11:20–22 (“One example . . . emit an activation cue in the form of a predetermined contactless data transmission”), 14:65–15:3 (continuously emitted, pulsed or punctual cue). We will not read such preferred embodiments from the specification into claim language that is not so limited. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (care should be taken “not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”); see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”); see also IQRIS Techns. LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 2025 WL 727717, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“It is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“operatively linked to said electronic circuit” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. We note there is no presumption of applying means-plus-function analysis to the switching element, because the limitation does not use the words “means for” that would mandate such claim construction treatment, and “switching” may invoke structure as well as function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349–1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). Regardless, we look to the meaning of the claim phrase at issue in view of the specification. We determine that the ’294 patent provides a clear, concise meaning for the switching element upon which both parties rely for construction. Patent Owner’s express agreement with Petitioner, that the claimed switching element is described in the ’294 patent as “any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations in response to an activation cue being received by transceiver 18 or not,’” is particularly telling because it is not consistent with Patent Owner’s argument that the switching element means “switching of the data.” Resp. 7, 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28–318). The claim language does not recite, and the specification does not describe, the switching element as a device that switches the data. Therefore, we determine the claimed “data conveyance switching element” means any type of switching device that allows data to be 8 We presume Patent Owner’s citation to “Exh. 2001, 9:28-31” on page 7 was intended to be a citation to the ’294 patent (Ex. 1001), as cited on page 31. whether or not an “activation cue” is received by the cell phone “cue receiver.”” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“[external] data exchange device” as a device with a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). As above, whether we construe the “[external] data exchange device” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. Patent Owner, quoting the description of a data exchange device in the ’294 patent, contends that a “[external] data exchange device” “can be any sort of data exchange device comprising an electronic circuit (not shown) therein and a data transceiver 9a.” Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:4–6). Patent Owner also responds to the Petition by clarifying that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). Petitioner argues in reply that Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s mappings of Mooney’s “cordless telephone base unit” or “cellular network infrastructure” to the claimed data exchange devices, such that no construction is necessary to resolve the dispute. Reply 5 (citing Resp. 16–37; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] recite “a first [second] data transceiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit [in the cell phone],” both of which are defined functionally as “for exchanging data between said electronic circuit [in the cell phone] and a first [second] external data exchange device over a first [second] communication link.” Nothing in the the other independent claims, further limits the form or function of the “[external] data exchange device,” although a device external to the cell phone may invoke additional structure. We determine the plain meaning of “[external] data exchange device” as claimed and described in the ’294 patent governs: any [external] device that comprises an electronic circuit and data transceiver for exchanging data with the electronic circuit in the cell phone over a communication link. slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2025-01084 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–29 over Ross, Agarwal, and Biran because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’896 patent. We institute inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’896 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing computer science (i.e., computer science, computer information systems, computer engineering, etc.) or cybersecurity and (2) at least two years of work experience with cybersecurity and cloud computing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53–54). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA at this stage of the proceeding. See generally, Prelim. Resp. ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’896 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“1[Pre] A method for generation of unified graph models for network entities, comprising: Petitioner contends that the preamble is not limiting, but to the extent by teaching the remaining limitations of the claim which are the steps in generating unified graph models for network entities, as the preamble recites. Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner that the preamble is not limiting because it merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention and because none of the subsequent limitations rely upon the preamble for completeness or antecedent basis. See Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67 (CCPA 1976).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“sufficiently established a motivation to combine Ross, Agarwal, and Biran in the manner proposed. For example, Petitioner contends for limitation 1[b] that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Ross’s system to genericize network entities as taught by Agarwal and that Agarwal provides an express motivation to do so, explaining that “[t]he grouping of nodes can be helpful when attempting to understand system properties in a cloud environment, like availability, security and performance, where the system includes a large number of nodes.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:13–26, 13:21–27; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–108). Similarly, for limitation 1[d] Petitioner argues that “Biran provides express motivation to implement Ross to gather information on host-less components . . . to generate an accurate, service-aware view of the system infrastructure.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:59– 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 134–136). These disclosures demonstrate that Petitioner’s motivation to combine stems from the prior art references themselves rather than from hindsight. Moreover, Petitioner’s contentions are supported by credible testimony from Dr. Easttom. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–108, 122–123, Addressing a motivation to combine on a limitation-by-limitation basis, as Petitioner has done in its Petition, is not necessarily improper, and may in fact be more suitable in certain situations depending on the proposed combination. Patent Owner does not provide any authority supporting its contention that providing a motivation to combine in the manner asserted in the Petition is contrary to proper obviousness analysis under Graham.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,929,896 - Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2025-01087 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 because Orca showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its § 103 obviousness ground over Shua and Lang.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. We determine that institution of an inter partes review of the challenged claims is appropriate. B. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 103 involves determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who knows the relevant art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors to consider include the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Id. One or more factors may predominate. Id. Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the field of the ’529 Patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with 2–3 years additional education or experience might substitute for these requirements.” Pet. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not address this issue. We find Petitioner’s formulation to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceedings, including the asserted prior art and the ’529 Patent, and we preliminarily adopt and apply that definition for purposes of this Decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Owner contends that Petitioner’s argument “inverts the appropriate understanding: just because the challenged patent identifies an example security database that stores a representation of a computing environment as nodes and edges does not mean that anything that stores a representation of a computing environment as nodes and edges is necessarily a security database.” Prelim. Resp. at 7–8. We agree with the logic of Patent Owner’s argument, but disagree that Petitioner necessarily “relies on this inverted understanding for its prior art mapping.” Id. at 8. We understand Dr. Zadok’s explanation to mean only that the claim term “security database” encompasses graph databases that include a representation of the computing environment, meaning that some (but not necessarily all) security databases are graph databases. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 100. The language in the Petition to which Patent Owner objects can be read consistently with Dr. Zadok’s declaration. Petitioner does not, however, take a position on what the outer bounds of the claim term “security database” should be. Without attempting a full construction of the term “security database,” it is possible to determine from the current record, at least on a preliminary basis, some of the database types that would fall within its scope. The ’529 Patent explains that the claimed “security database” is part of an “inspection cybersecurity threats. Specifically, it provides as follows: In certain embodiments, the cloud computing environment 110 is monitored for cybersecurity objects, threats, risks, and the like, by an inspection environment 130. In an embodiment, the inspection environment 130 is configured to monitor the cloud computing environment 110 for cybersecurity objects, threats, risks, combinations thereof, and the like. Ex. 1001, 6:1–7; see id. Fig. 1. The ’529 Patent also provides: “In an embodiment, the inspection environment 130 further includes a security database 136. In some embodiments, the security database 136 is configured to store a representation of the cloud computing environment 110, for example based on a predetermined data schema.” Id. at 7:46–50. Thus, we can conclude that the term “security database,” as used in the ’529 Patent, encompasses at least a database within an inspection environment that monitors for cybersecurity threats and is configured to store a representation of a cloud computing environment that is monitored by the inspection environment. An example of such a security database is the Neo4j® graph database. Id. at 7:58–60. As discussed below, another example is the “context map” disclosed in Shua ’048. See Ex. 1005, 15, 25.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find nothing contradictory in Petitioner’s argument that “100% of an organization’s assets” would include its AI models. Pet. 11, 21. Shua ’048 appears to contemplate treating multiple layers of structures as assets to be mapped and monitored. Ex. 1005 ¶ 30 (Shua’s Orca system “automatically assesses the security state of discovered asset[s] throughout the technology stack, including all four cloud layers: I/S, OS, apps, and data.”). On the current record, a VM is an asset that contains other assets, including an AI model.10 We conclude that for the purposes of institution, Petitioner’s mapping, as elucidated by Dr. Zadok, adequately demonstrates that the combination of Shua and Lang discloses limitation 1[c] and the corresponding limitations in claims 9 and 10. We further conclude that Petitioner’s identification of a motivation to combine Shua with Lang is adequate for institution purposes.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,003,529 - Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2025 · IPR2025-01085 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both § 103 grounds: Calvo and Nguyen, and Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in a petition and preliminary response 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the ’693 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar degree, with at least two years of experience in the field of cybersecurity; additional education or experience might substitute for these requirements. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–64). Patent Owner does not provide a level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’693 patent specification.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“support a construction that is similar to Petitioner’s construction of a “network path” as “a link between two machines.” See Pet. 17. That is, limitation 1(a) recites “selecting a reachable resource having a network path to access the reachable resource, wherein the reachable resource is a cloud object . . . having access to an external network which is external to the cloud computing environment,” and limitation 1(b) recites “actively inspecting the network path to determine if the network path of the reachable resource is accessible from the external network.” This plain language shows that a network path is simply a connection (link) between an external network object and a resource in a cloud (or cloud object). The specification provides an example of accessing “port 22”: “Active inspection allows to [sic] generate instructions directed at the reachable resource over a network path, which when received by the reachable resource cause the reachable resource to send a response.” Ex. 1001, 5:40–45. The specification also states that “a network path may include sequential representations of possible data/control flows between two or more objects in a graph.” Ex. 1001, 12:49–52; accord Ex. 1001, 12:60–62 (describing “a path show[ing] a connection between security objects and/or computing objects that communicate over a network”), 12:42–44 (“A network path is a connection of two or more security objects accessible from an external or internal network, and/or an external or internal object.”). In other words, the specification indicates that a transmitting testing object may be an object external to the cloud connected via a network path to another object (a cloud resource for testing). The “network path” may also include resources/objects (represented as graph vertices) on the path. See id. at 12:51–59 (“A path may be a vertexonly path, describing a sequence of vertex-to-vertex ‘hops,’ an edge-only path, describing only the edges included in the sequence without description of the associated vertices, or a combined edge-vertex path, describing both edges and vertexes included in the sequence.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we construe a “network path” as “a connection between an external object and a cloud resource, wherein the connection itself include objects and/or cloud resources.”” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. Remaining Terms No express construction of any other claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,936,693 - Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00348 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–16 and 18–21 as obvious over Leaning, and claims 2 and 9 as obvious over Leaning and Gamble.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“This argument is misplaced. Petitioner does not propose modifying any of Leaning’s teachings. Rather, Petitioner relies on Leaning’s alternative embodiment (i.e., “employ[ing] a criterion which anticipates underflow and avoids it”). See Ex. 1004, 15:3–6; Pet. 38 (citing and quoting same). Patent Owner acknowledges this fact. See PO Sur-reply 12 (“Leaning proposes an alternative embodiment.”) (citing Ex. 1004, 14:25–15:8)). Accordingly, Petitioner need not show a reasonable expectation of success for implementing an alternative embodiment expressly disclosed in Leaning.10” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence little to no weight. v. Unexpected Results Patent Owner argues that the MOVE Media Player “achieved what” slip op. at 65
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
Patent outcomesUS 8,868,772 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. et al. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00347 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning or Leaning and Gamble, because Petitioner proved the asserted grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“argue, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing any of its proposed modifications.” PO Sur-reply 9. This argument is misplaced. Petitioner does not propose modifying any of Leaning’s teachings. Rather, Petitioner relies on Leaning’s alternative embodiment (i.e., “employ[ing] a criterion which anticipates underflow and avoids it”). See Ex. 1004, 15:3–6; Pet. 35–36 (citing same). Patent Owner acknowledges this fact. See PO Sur-reply 11 (“Leaning proposes an alternative embodiment.”) (citing Ex. 1004, 15:3–6). Accordingly,” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we accord Patent Owner’s evidence little to no weight. v. Unexpected Results Patent Owner argues that the MOVE Media Player “achieved what” slip op. at 58
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“E. Summary on Motion to Strike For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Motion is partly” slip op. at 107
Patent outcomesUS 9,407,564 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564
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.