`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Paper No. 40, Petitioner files this Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Strike Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 42). As stated below, Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper 34) does not exceed the permissible scope contemplated by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b) and Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike should be denied.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The arguments Patent Owner attempts to strike from Petitioner’s Reply were
`
`properly raised in rebuttal to arguments made in Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`19). Case IPR2014-00153, Paper 18 (entered September 18, 2014) at 2 (“We
`
`explained that, generally speaking, as long as the Reply is in response to arguments
`
`raised in the Patent Owner’s response, then it is within the proper scope of a Reply.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23.”).
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that claimed “port services” are executed
`by Amara’s “packet classifiers” is proper rebuttal.
`
`
`In the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner argues that the “plain
`
`meaning” of the last element of the challenged independent claims in this IPR
`
`(elements 1.5/19.5/55.5) require applying both port services and control plane port
`
`services to control plane packets. POR at 15-18. Petitioner’s Reply properly
`
`rebuts this argument by noting that this supposed limitation is not present in these
`
`claim elements and that, even if it were, Amara discloses applying port services to
`
`incoming control plane packets via its “packet classifiers.” See Reply § II(A).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`No doubt sensing the weakness of its position, Patent Owner now asks the
`
`Board to strike the latter point of Petitioner’s rebuttal—arguing that Petitioner
`
`should have predicted this tortured reading of the claims and include this argument
`
`in the Petition. As fully discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, there is no basis for
`
`reading the claims as Patent Owner suggests and, as such, Petitioner did not
`
`address this reading in its Petition. The Board has recognized that “where the
`
`patent owner response raises an argument that reasonably could not have been
`
`anticipated by the petitioner, the petitioner properly may, as a part of its reply, rely
`
`on new evidence or cite to different portions of the same prior art reference.” Case
`
`IPR2013-00242, Paper 122 (entered April 22, 2014) at 4. Such a case is clearly
`
`presented here.
`
`Moreover, in the August 23, 2016 deposition of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Bill
`
`Lin—more than a month before Patent Owner filed its Response on September 29,
`
`2016—Patent Owner was put on notice that Dr. Lin believes Amara discloses
`
`applying port services to control plane packets via its packet classifiers. Indeed,
`
`Patent Owner dedicated nearly four pages of its Response to addressing the
`
`position. POR at 25-28. Patent Owner suggests Dr. Lin’s testimony in this regard
`
`was somehow “nonresponsive” or “limited” in nature. Paper 42 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Strike) at 3. To the contrary, Dr. Lin provided comprehensive,
`
`responsive answers to questions posed by counsel. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 at 111: 4-10
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`(“Q: Okay. And is it your position that the policy engines 224 through 228 [of
`
`Amara] are what applies port services? A. So it’s my opinion that port services
`
`includes policies and policy engines. I would just like to note that it could be made
`
`bigger to include packet classification, as well, in general.”); see also id. at 94:20-
`
`95:3 (noting that claim 17 of the ’668 patent “explicitly includes packet
`
`classification as a port service”). To the extent the questioning attorney wished to
`
`have more information on the position, she needed only to have asked.
`
`Patent Owner suggests it put Petitioner on notice of its reading of the claims
`
`as requiring both port services and control plane port services to be applied to
`
`control plane packets. In particular, Patent Owner alleges it “discussed this claim
`
`element in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning” in a Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (POPR) filed in another case regarding the ’668 patent prior
`
`to the filing of the Petition in the instant case. Paper 42 (Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Strike) at 4. Comparing the POPR in question with the POR in the instant case,
`
`however, makes clear no such notice was provided. Indeed, the pages Patent
`
`Owner cites as supposedly evidencing notice do not even discuss the claim element
`
`for which they are argued to have provided notice. Compare Paper 6, IPR2015-
`
`00974, at 25-27 (discussing claim elements 1.2/19.2/37.2/55.2) with POR at 15-18
`
`(discussing claim elements 1.5/19.5/55.5).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`In sum, there is no basis for Patent Owner’s allegations that Petitioner
`
`should have addressed Patent Owner’s creative reading of claim elements
`
`1.5/19.5/55.5 in its Petition, and similarly nothing wrong with Petitioner providing
`
`rebuttal regarding the same in its Reply.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that CoreBuilder discloses “monitoring
`packet flows” is proper rebuttal.
`
`In its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner also argues that the
`
`combination of Amara and CoreBuilder fails to teach the second limitation of each
`
`independent claim (elements 1.2/19.2/55.2) because CoreBuilder does not disclose
`
`“port services” for “monitor[ing] packet flows.” POR at 29-30. Petitioner’s Reply
`
`properly rebuts this argument by noting that Amara discloses this limitation such
`
`that CoreBuilder need not have duplicative disclosure and that, even if there were
`
`such a requirement, CoreBuilder does teach monitoring of packet flows. See Reply
`
`§ II(B). Once again, Patent Owner asks the Board to strike the latter point of
`
`Petitioner’s rebuttal—suggesting that Petitioner should have somehow anticipated
`
`and accounted for Patent Owner’s misstatement of the test for obviousness and
`
`included this argument in the Petition. As fully discussed in Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`there is simply no requirement that CoreBuilder disclose the exact same set of port
`
`services as Amara for the combination to teach the claim element as Patent Owner
`
`suggests. Accordingly, there is no basis for alleging Petitioner should have
`
`addressed this supposed requirement in its Petition. Petitioner instead properly
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`
`discussed it in the Reply.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper 42) should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Lauren A. Degnan
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Lauren A. Degnan, Reg. No. 40,584
`Steven R. Katz, Reg. No. 43,706
`Adam R. Shartzer, Reg. No. 57,264
`Ralph A. Phillips (admitted pro hac vice)
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Date: March 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2509
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 40963-0006IP3
`IPR2016-00309
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on March 3,
`
`2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Strike was provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the email
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jon E. Wright
`Daniel S. Block
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: dblock-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`