Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 7
`
`James R. Batchelder (CSB # 136347)
`Mark D. Rowland (CSB # 157862)
`Andrew T. Radsch (CSB # 303665)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Ave., Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Brian A. E. Smith (SBN 188147)
`Alden KW Lee (SBN 257973)
`Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
`Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
`BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: (415) 956-1900
`Email: bsmith@bzbm.com
`Email: alee@bzbm.com
`Email: jchen@bzbm.com
`Email: jfraresso@bzbm.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant and
`Counterclaimant
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature
`page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaimant.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Tutorial: March 6, 2020, 10:00AM
`Hearing: March 9, 2020, 10:00AM
`Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: Honorable William H. Orrick III
`
` JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`EX. 1079 Page 1
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 7
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Palo Alto Networks,
`Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Packet Intelligence LLC
`(“Packet Intelligence”) (collectively, the “Parties”), having met and conferred, submit this Joint
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement with respect to United Stated Patent Nos.
`6,651,099 (“the ’099 patent”), 6,665,725 (“the ’725 patent”), 6,771,646 (“the ’646 patent”),
`6,839,751 (“the ’751 patent”), and 6,954,789 (“the ’789 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`Patents”).
`1.
`
`Agreed Claim Constructions (Pat. L.R. 4-3(a))
`The Parties agree on the constructions of the following claim terms:
`
`Claim Term
`“child protocol”
`“a slicer”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Agreed Construction
`Claims
`’725 patent, claims 10 and 17 No construction necessary
`’789 patent, claim 19
`“a component or process that
`performs extraction operations
`on a packet”
`
`Proposed Constructions of Disputed Terms (Pat. L.R. 4-3(b))
`2.
`The Parties’ proposed construction of each disputed term and identification of intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence supporting that construction is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`Terms Most Significant to Resolution of the Case (Pat. L.R. 4-3(c))
`3.
`Palo Alto Networks’ Position: The Parties dispute the proper construction of effectively
`five (5) claim terms. Palo Alto Networks submits that each disputed term is significant to the
`resolution of the case. Of those five disputed terms, at least two are potentially case or claim
`dispositive:
`
`1. “conversational flow(s)” / “conversational flow-sequence” (all asserted claims)
`– Palo Alto Networks contends that these claim terms are indefinite. A finding
`that these terms are indefinite would be case dispositive (while still pertaining to
`Palo Alto Networks’ request for a finding that this case is exceptional and for an
`award of fees, costs, and expenses), because such a finding of indefiniteness
`would result in all asserted claims being held invalid. An invalid claim cannot be
`infringed.
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`2. “protocol/state identification mechanism . . . configured to determine the
`protocol and state of the conversational flow of the packet” (’099 patent, claim 1)
`– Palo Alto Networks contends that this term is indefinite. A finding that this
`term is indefinite would be dispositive of Palo Alto Networks’ claim seeking a
`declaratory judgement that it has not infringed any asserted claim of the ’099
`patent, and of Packet Intelligence’s claim that Palo Alto Networks has infringed
`the ’099 patent, because an invalid claim cannot be infringed.
`Packet Intelligence’s Position: Packet Intelligence identifies the following terms as most
`significant to the resolution of the case: (1) “conversational flow/conversational flow-
`sequence”; (2) “[existing/new] flow”; (3) “flow-entry database”; and (4) “protocol/state
`identification mechanism....” The construction of terms (1) and/or (4) may be case or claim
`dispositive.
`4.
`
`Anticipated Length of Claim Construction Hearing (Pat. L.R. 4-3(d))
`Live Technology Tutorial
`A.
`Pursuant to the Court’s August 20, 2019 Minute Entry (Dkt. 34) setting a technology
`tutorial for March 6, 2020, and further adopting the proposal in the Parties’ Joint Case
`Management Conference Statement for a one hour technology tutorial, with one hour split
`evenly between the Parties (Dkt. 27 at 6), the Parties maintain that a live tutorial would be most
`helpful to educate the Court on the technology at issue, as the Parties will be available to answer
`any questions the Court may have during the tutorial.
`Claim Construction Hearing
`B.
`The Parties anticipate that three hours will be required for the claim construction
`hearing.
`Anticipated Witness Testimony (Pat. L.R. 4-3(e))
`5.
`The Court’s August 20, 2019 Minute Entry (Dkt. 34) adopted the Parties’ proposal that
`this Joint Claim Construction Statement will include “expert declaration concerning claim
`construction, if any” (Dkt. 27 at 11):
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 4 of 7
`
`Accordingly, Palo Alto Networks submits the Declaration of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
`Regarding Claim Construction For Terms In U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646,
`6,839,751, and 6,954,789, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`Packet Intelligence submits the Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth, attached hereto as
`Exhibit C.
`Unless otherwise requested by the court, the parties do not intend to call any live
`witnesses at the claim construction hearing.
`Factual Findings (Pat. L.R. 4-3(f))
`6.
`Palo Alto Networks’ Position: In addition to making the factual findings set forth in the
`Declaration of Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt Regarding Claim Construction For Terms In U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789, attached hereto as Exhibit B,
`Palo Alto Networks requests that the Court make the following factual findings:
`1. The terms “conversational flow(s)” / “conversational flow-sequence” were not terms of art
`at the time of the alleged invention.
`2. At the time of the alleged invention, it was known that different types of activity other
`than specific software program activity could result in the exchange of packets in a
`network, including, for example:
`• address resolution messages used to discover link layer addresses associated
`with internet layer addresses;
`routing messages that exchange path and reachability information among
`autonomous systems on and between networks;
`• connection initiation and termination messages;
`• keep alive messages sent periodically to determine if a receiving end-device is
`still active; and
`• synchronization messages that exchange timestamps between end-stations over
`variable-latency networks.
`3. Regarding the question “Does the claim term ‘conversational flow’ require the linking
`together of multiple connection flows?”, Patent Owner answered affirmatively in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`•
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 4
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 5 of 7
`
`statements in inter partes review proceedings involving the Asserted Patents, but Patent
`Owner answered negatively in statements in its litigation against NetScout involving the
`Asserted Patents. Those two positions by Patent Owner are clearly inconsistent.
`4. Regarding the question “Does a ‘conversational flow’ require linking together flows based
`on specific application activity?”, Patent Owner answered affirmatively in statements in
`inter partes review proceedings involving the Asserted Patents, but Patent Owner
`answered negatively in statements in its litigations against NetScout and Sandvine
`involving the Asserted Patents. Those two positions by Patent Owner are clearly
`inconsistent.
`5. Regarding the question “Is linking by protocol information within the scope of a
`‘conversational flow’?”, Patent Owner answered negatively in statements in inter partes
`review proceedings involving the Asserted Patents, but Patent Owner answered
`affirmatively in statements in its litigations against NetScout and Sandvine involving the
`Asserted Patents. Those two positions by Patent Owner are clearly inconsistent.
`6. Regarding the question “Are ‘connection flows’ and ‘conversational flows’ the same
`thing?”, Patent Owner answered negatively in statements in inter partes review
`proceedings involving the Asserted Patents, but Patent Owner answered affirmatively in
`inventor testimony Patent Owner elicited in its litigation against Sandvine involving the
`Asserted Patents. Those two positions by Patent Owner are clearly inconsistent.
`7. Patent Owner made statements and took positions concerning the meaning and scope of
`“conversational flow” during inter partes review proceedings involving the Asserted
`Patents that are clearly inconsistent with statements Patent Owner made elsewhere in the
`intrinsic record and in litigations involving the Asserted Patents.
`8. In inter partes review proceedings involving the Asserted Patents, Patent Owner clearly
`and unambiguously stated that the term “conversational flow” requires linking multiple
`connection flows based on specific software program activity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 5
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 6 of 7
`
`9. During prosecution of the ’646 patent, applicants clearly and unambiguously stated that
`the present invention’s “flow-entry database” / “database . . . of flow entries” requires
`each conversational flow to have a separate entry in the flow-entry database.
`10. The term “protocol/state identification mechanism” did not have sufficiently definite
`meaning as the name of structure in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention.
`11. The disclosure of the ’099 patent does not clearly link or associate any algorithm to the
`claimed functions “determine the protocol and state of the conversational flow of a
`packet.”
`Packet Intelligence’s Position: In addition to making the factual findings set forth in the
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth, attached hereto as Exhibit C, Packet Intelligence
`requests that the Court make the following factual findings:
`1. As it pertains to United States Patent Nos. 6,651,099; 6,665,725; 6,771,646;
`6,839,751; and 6,954,789, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the late 1990s would have the
`equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S.
`degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or
`exposure to, packet analysis techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have
`approximately 1-2 years of professional experience with packet network communication
`protocols. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while
`significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.
`2. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “conversational
`flow” is defined in the ’099 Patent specification (and provisional application), and that
`definition conveys to such a person, with reasonable certainty, the meaning and scope of the
`term “conversational flow.”
`3. The terms “protocol/state identification mechanism...” and “protocol/state
`identification engine,” as used in claim 1 of the ’099 Patent, convey structure to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46 Filed 12/17/19 Page 7 of 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Dated: December 17, 2019
`
`By: /s/ Andrew T. Radsch
`
`
`James R. Batchelder (CSB # 136347)
`Mark D. Rowland (CSB # 157862)
`Andrew T. Radsch (CSB # 303665)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Ave. Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`jark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Dated: December 17, 2019
`
`By: /s/ R. Allan Bullwinkel
`
`Brian A. E. Smith (SBN 188147)
`Alden KW Lee (SBN 257973)
`Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
`Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
`BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111
`T: 415-956-1900
`Email: bsmith@bzbm.com
`Email: alee@bzbm.com
`Email: jchen@bzbm.com
`Email: jfraresso@bzbm.com
`
`Jonathan T. Suder (Pro Hac Vice)
`Corby R. Vowell (Pro Hac Vice)
`Dave R. Gunter (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`T: 817-334-0400
`F: 817-334-0401
`jts@fsclaw.com
`vowell@fsclaw.com
`gunter@fsclaw.com
`
`Michael F. Heim (Pro Hac Vice)
`Robert Allan Bullwinkel (Pro Hac Vice)
`Christopher M. First (Pro Hac Vice To Be
`Filed)
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`T: 713-221-2000
`F: 713-221-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`cfirst@hpcllp.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant and
`Counterclaimant
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`EX. 1079 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`EX. 1079 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Preambles.
`
`’099 claim 1; ’646
`claims 1, 7; ’751
`claim 1; and ’789
`claims 1, 19.
`
`“conversational
`flow(s)” /
`“conversational
`flow-sequence”
`
`All Asserted
`Claims
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 14
`
`EXHIBIT A
`Palo Alto Network, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02741-WHO
`Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Limiting.
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`No construction necessary
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`“the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any
`direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the
`running of an application on a server as requested by
`a client—and where some conversational flows
`involve more than one connection, and some even
`involve more than one exchange of packets between a
`client and server”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’099 patent, 35:1-62; ’646 patent, 36:38-67, 37:61-
`38:36; ’751 patent, 50:23-60, 51:1-3; ’789 patent,
`35:9-32, 36:30-37:6.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Trial Testimony from Packet Intelligence LLC v.
`NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., and Packet
`Intelligence LLC v Sandvine Corp., et al., reflected
`at PACK-038070-PACK-038074, PACK-034458-
`PACK-034460, PACK-034471-PACK-034473,
`PACK-034488-PACK-034490, PACK-035046-
`PACK-035048; PACK-038092-PACK-038095,
`PACK-034499-PACK-034502.
`Indefinite.
`
`Alternatively, “the sequence of packets that are
`exchanged in any direction as a result of specific
`software program activity (for instance, the running of
`a specific videoconference program), where such
`packets form multiple connection flows that are
`linked based on that activity (for instance, linking an
`audio connection and a video connection that result
`from the same videoconference).”
`
`
`
`1
`
`EX. 1079 Page 9
`
`

`

`Claim Term
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 3 of 14
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Provisional App. No. 60/141,903: 3:3-4:14, 5:1-6:24,
`6:15-7:29, 7:31-8:32, 10:10-26, 11:9-16, 12:3-4,
`13:27-14:16, 15:7-17:16, 19:15-30, 20:21-26, 26:8-
`27:10, 27:27-29:19, 32:8-36:26, 36:27-37:30, 39:23-
`29, 41-3-42:5, 115:25-30, 123:20-126:127, 141:5-6,
`178:26-29, 230:5-7, 240:15-26.
`
`Asserted Patents’ Specifications: ’099 Patent at
`Abstract; 2:34-3:6; 3:29-36; 3:48-51; 4:48-50; 4:60-
`62; 4:64-5:5; 5:6-9; 5:18-34; 6:18-30; 6:35-39; 7:3-6;
`7:36-46; 9:12-23, 10:11-22; 10:23-28; 10:53-60;
`10:61-11:9; 11:12-25; 12:48-55; 15:36-41; 15:62-65;
`15:66-67; 16:10-20; 16:22-28; 16:35-40; FIG. 2; (and
`any corresponding disclosures and figures in the ’725
`Patent, ’646 Patent, ’751 Patent, and ’789 Patent).
`
`Application Histories: ’725 Patent, 6/13/2003 Office
`Action Response; ’725 Patent, 6/27/2003
`Supplemental Office Action Response; ’751 Patent,
`11/3/2003 Office Action Response; ’646 Patent,
`2/10/2004 Office Action Response; ’751 Patent,
`4/19/2004 Office Action Response; ’646 Patent,
`4/20/2004 Examiner’s Amendment and Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`IPRs: IPR2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper 6 (Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response), Paper 8 (Decision),
`Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s Response to Request for
`Rehearing), Paper 11 (Decision on Rehearing);
`IPR2017-00862 (’725 Patent), Paper 6 (Patent
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`’099 Patent at Fig 2; 2:34-45; 7:36-46; 16:35-45;
`Claims 1 and 2
`
`’725 Patent at Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, 17
`
`’646 Patent at Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, 18
`
`’751 Patent at 4:14-33; Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15
`
`’789 Patent at 3:55-60; Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
`19, 20, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48, 49
`
`Provisional Application at 3:3-10; 4:1-14; 238:7-12
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00450, Paper 8 at 7-10
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00451, Paper 8 at 7-10
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00629, Paper 8 at 7-9
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00630, Paper 9 at 7-9
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00769, Paper 8 at 8-10
`
`
`2
`
`EX. 1079 Page 10
`
`

`

`Claim Term
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 4 of 14
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Owner’s Preliminary Response), Paper 8 (Decision),
`Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s Response to Request for
`Rehearing), Paper 11 (Decision on Rehearing);
`IPR2017-00863 (’725 Patent), Paper 6 (Decision),
`Paper 9 (Judgment); IPR2017-00450 (’646 Patent),
`Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response),
`Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s
`Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper 11
`(Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00451 (’751
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00629 (’789
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00630 (’789
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Trial Testimony from Packet Intelligence LLC v.
`NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., reflected at PACK-
`033969-PACK-033975; PACK-033983-PACK-
`033996; PACK-034067-PACK-034107; PACK-
`034111-PACK-034133; PACK-034135-PACK-
`034152; PACK-034227-PACK-034257; PACK-
`034270-PACK-034294; PACK-034309-PACK-
`034321; PACK-034359-PACK-034366; PACK-
`
`3
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00862, Paper 8 at 7-10
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00450, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00451, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00629, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00630, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00769, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Sandvine Corp. et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC,
`IPR2017-00862, EX2001 ¶¶ 23-31
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 14, 2017)
`
`EX. 1079 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 5 of 14
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Claim Term
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`034373-PACK-034386; PACK-034457-PACK-
`034498; PACK-034502-PACK-034523; PACK-
`034526-PACK-034542; PACK-034652-PACK-
`034670; PACK-034733-PACK-034764; PACK-
`034782-PACK-034828; PACK-034839-PACK-
`034862; PACK-034862-PACK-034885; PACK-
`034885-PACK-034899; PACK-034900-PACK-
`034916; PACK-034923-PACK-034932; PACK-
`034995-PACK-035029; PACK-035030-PACK-
`035053; PACK-035067-PACK-035074; PACK-
`035156-PACK-035186; PACK-035227-PACK-
`035240; PACK-035245-PACK-035267; PACK-
`035276-PACK-035289; PACK-035424-PACK-
`035427.
`
`Trial Testimony from Packet Intelligence LLC v
`Sandvine Corp., et al., reflected at PACK-037928-
`PACK-037964; PACK-037975-PACK-037999;
`PACK-038006-PACK-038020; PACK-038024-
`PACK-038054; PACK-038060-PACK-038102;
`PACK-038107-PACK-038123; PACK-038126-
`PACK-038145; PACK-038062-PACK-038102;
`PACK-038105-PACK-038123; PACK-038132-
`PACK-038145; PACK-038367-PACK-038388;
`PACK-038412-PACK-038428; PACK-038444-
`PACK-038471; PACK-038496-PACK-038551;
`PACK-038554-PACK-038577; PACK-038667-
`PACK-038703; PACK-038706-PACK-038718;
`PACK-038733-PACK-038735; PACK-038788-
`PACK-038830.
`
`
`4
`
`EX. 1079 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 6 of 14
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Claim Term
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Documents from the German Nullity Actions:
`DEFPI0007858-DEFPI0007924; PACK-038871-
`PACK-038937.
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Expert Dr. Almeroth’s
`Demonstrative Slides: DEFPI0010246-
`DEFPI0010259.
`
`Inventor Russel Dietz’s Demonstrative Slides:
`DEFPI0032580-DEFPI0032582.
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Technology Tutorial:
`DEFPI0009715-DEFPI0009739.
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Prior Claim Construction
`Positions: PAN-PI0024097-PAN-PI0024580, PACK-
`054627-PACK-054765.
`
`Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
`DEFPI0010208-DEFPI0010242.
`
`Post Trial Briefing regarding JMOL of
`Infringement/Non-Infringement: DEFPI0032510-
`DEFPI0032756, PAN-PI0024660-PAN-PI0024700.
`
`Post Trial Briefing regarding JMOL of Invalidity:
`PAN-PI0024701- PAN-PI0025302.
`
`Federal Circuit Appeal Briefing: PAN-PI0024581-
`PAN-PI0024659.
`
`
`5
`
`EX. 1079 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 7 of 14
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`No construction necessary;
`
`Alternatively:
`PI proposes to construe “flow” as “a stream of
`packets being exchanged between any two addresses
`in the network”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’099 Patent at 2:34-3:52; 12:4-5
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“the flow” /
`“existing flow” /
`“new flow”
`
`’099 claims 1,
`2; ’725 claim
`16; ’646 claim 1,
`7, 16; ’751 claims
`1, 5, 10, 15; ’789
`claims 1, 13, 14,
`16, 19, 44.
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Dictionary Definitions: The IEEE Standard
`Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th
`ed. 1996) (“concatenate”), PAN-PI0025878 - PAN-
`PI0025882.
`
`Expert Opinion/Testimony: Declaration of Dr.
`Douglas C. Schmidt Regarding Claim Construction
`For Terms In U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725,
`6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789.
`
`Prior Art: PAN-PI0025303-PAN-PI0025456.
`“the conversational flow” / “existing conversational
`flow” / “new conversational flow”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Asserted Patents’ Claims: ’099 patent at 35:1-
`36:5; ’725 patent at 96:24-57, 97:36-39; ’646 patent
`at 36:38-67, 37:61-38:36, 39:10-40:4; ’751 patent at
`50:23-60; ’789 patent at 35:9-29, 36:30-37:2, 39:3-
`40:2.
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/141,903: 4:64:-4:5, 6:15-24,
`6:25-7:29, 7:31-8:32, 10:10-26, 16:5-17:16, 17:27-
`18:25, 19:15-20:9, 20:12-16, 26:8-27:10, 27:27-
`29:19, 34:21-36:26, 36:27-37:30, 240:28-29.
`
`Asserted Patents’ Specifications: ’099 patent at
`10:23-36, 11:10-27, 12:48-55, 15:18-16:26, 16:35-40
`
`6
`
`EX. 1079 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 8 of 14
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Claim Term
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`(and any corresponding disclosures and figures
`in ’725 Patent, ’646 Patent, ’751 Patent, and ’789
`Patent).
`
`Application Histories: ’725 Patent, 6/13/2003 Office
`Action Response; ’725 Patent, 6/27/2003
`Supplemental Office Action Response; ’751 Patent,
`11/3/2003 Office Action Response; ’646 Patent,
`2/10/2004 Office Action Response; ’751 Patent,
`4/19/2004 Office Action Response; ’646 Patent,
`4/20/2004 Examiner’s Amendment and Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`IPRs: IPR2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper 6 (Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response), Paper 8 (Decision),
`Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s Response to Request for
`Rehearing), Paper 11 (Decision on Rehearing);
`IPR2017-00862 (’725 Patent), Paper 6 (Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response), Paper 8 (Decision),
`Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s Response to Request for
`Rehearing), Paper 11 (Decision on Rehearing);
`IPR2017-00863 (’725 Patent), Paper 6 (Decision),
`Paper 9 (Judgment); IPR2017-00450 (’646 Patent),
`Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response),
`Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent Owner’s
`Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper 11
`(Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00451 (’751
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00629 (’789
`
`7
`
`EX. 1079 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 9 of 14
`
`Claim Term
`
`“a protocol/state
`identification
`mechanism . . .
`configured to
`determine the
`protocol and state
`of the
`conversational
`flow of the packet”
`(’099 claim 1)
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing); IPR2017-00630 (’789
`Patent), Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response), Paper 8 (Decision), Paper 10 (Patent
`Owner’s Response to Request for Rehearing), Paper
`11 (Decision on Rehearing).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Packet Intelligence’s Technology Tutorial:
`DEFPI0009715-DEFPI0009739.
`A means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`Function: determine the protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of the packet.
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Asserted Patent’s Specification: ’099 patent, Fig. 3,
`14:38-48.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Packet Intelligence’s Expert’s Deposition: PACK-
`054671-PACK-054682, PACK-054725-PACK-
`054743, PACK-054751-PACK-054753.
`
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Not subject to §112, ¶ 6; No construction necessary
`
`Alternative if §112, ¶ 6:
`Function: determine the protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of a packet
`
`Structure: state processor instruction database 326
`and hardware or processor running the algorithm
`described by ‘099 Patent at 14:38-46 and equivalents
`thereof
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`’099 Patent at Fig 3; 14:38-47; 24:37-50; Claim 1
`
`Provisional Application at Fig 11; 8:2-32; 59:5-7;
`62:10-11
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`EX. 1079 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 10 of 14
`
`Claim Term
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Packet Intelligence’s Expert’s Claim Construction
`Declaration: PAN-PI0024513-PAN-PI0024539.
`
`Dictionary Definitions: The IEEE Standard
`Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th
`ed. 1996) (“finite state machine,” “field
`programmable gate array”), PAN-PI0025878 - PAN-
`PI0025882.
`
`Expert Opinion/Testimony: Declaration of Dr.
`Douglas C. Schmidt Regarding Claim Construction
`For Terms In U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725,
`6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789.
`
`“a flow-entry
`database / a
`database … for
`previously
`encountered
`conversational
`flows /for
`conversational
`
`“a flow-entry database / a database … for previously
`encountered conversational flows / for conversational
`flows encountered by the monitor, where each
`conversational flow has a separate entry in the flow-
`entry database.”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence’s Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th ed. 1999)
`(defining “identification” as “In a computer, a code
`number or code name that uniquely identifies a
`record, block, file, or other unit information.”)
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996) (defining “engine”
`as “[a] dedicated processor, architecture, or system
`component that is used for a single and special
`purpose”)
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms (7th ed. 2000) (defining “engine” as “[a]
`dedicated processor, architecture, or system
`component that is used for a single and special
`purpose”)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1997)
`(defining “engine” as “[a] processor or portion of a
`program that determines how the program manages
`and manipulates data”)
`PI proposes to construe “flow entry database” as “a
`database configured to store entries, where each entry
`describes a flow”
`
`No further construction necessary beyond that
`proposed for “flow entry database”
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`
`EX. 1079 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 46-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 11 of 14
`
`Claim Term
`
`flows encountered
`by the monitor”1
`
`’099 claim 1; ’646
`claim 1, 7,
`16; ’751 claim
`1; ’789 claim 1,
`19, 44.
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ Proposed Construction and
`Intrinsic/Extrinsic Evidence
`Provisional App. No. 60/141,903: 6:25-7:29, 10:3-
`31, 17:27-19:6, 26:8-27:10
`
`Asserted Patents’ Specifications: ’099 Patent at
`Abstract, 2:34-48; 2:49-3:51; 4:64-5:9, 9:14-19; 10:8-
`22; 14:41-57; 15:43-16:28; 29:1-34:44; Figs. 2, 9 (and
`any corresponding disclosures and figures
`in ’725, ’646 Patent, ’751 Patent, and ’789 Patent