Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1095
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Counterclaimant
`
`v.
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Counter-Defendant.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC (“Packet Intelligence” and “Counterclaimant” herein)
`
`makes the following answer to Plaintiff PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.’s (“Palo Alto
`
`Networks” and “Plaintiff” herein) Original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-
`
`Infringement. Packet Intelligence demands a jury trial on all issues triable as of right.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Palo Alto Networks has filed a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 2, upon information and
`
`belief.
`
`3.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that it sent a notice letter to Palo Alto Networks on
`
`January 18, 2019 alleging infringement of the Patents-in—Suit. Counterclaimant denies the
`
`remaining allegations Paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that it has sent notice letters to other companies with
`
`locations in this District but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that it acquired the Patents-in—Suit from Exar
`
`Corporation of Fremont, California but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2597-000/1414720-1
`2
`Case No. 3 : l9-cv—02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00002
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 21
`
`8.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that it entered into a settlement agreement related to the
`
`Patents-in—Suit with Cisco Systems, Inc. for which Packet Intelligence received monetary
`
`consideration but denies remaining allegations of Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that it has an agreement with Russell Dietz of San Jose,
`
`California and that it has directed communications to Mr. Dietz regarding the Patents-in—Suit.
`
`Packet Intelligence also admits that it has directed communications to Joseph Maixner regarding
`
`the Patents-in—Suit. Packet Intelligence denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`11.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`DISPUTE BETWEEN PALO ALTO NETWORKS AND
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Packet Intelligence admits the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Packet
`
`Intelligence’s letter. Except as so admitted, the allegations in Paragraph 18 are denied.
`
`19.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`the parties and that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement
`
`against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that such declaratory judgment
`
`has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2597-000/1414720-1
`3
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv—02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00003
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 4 of 21
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’099 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that
`
`such declaratory judgment has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
`
`relief.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’725 PATENT
`
`23.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that
`
`such declaratory judgment has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
`
`relief.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’751 PATENT
`
`26.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that
`
`such declaratory judgment has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`relief.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’789 PATENT
`
`29.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`4
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv—02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00004
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 5 of 21
`
`such declaratory judgment has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
`
`relief.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’646 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`Packet Intelligence admits that Plaintiff purports to bring a declaratory judgment
`
`action of non-infringement against Packet Intelligence. However, Packet Intelligence denies that
`
`such declaratory judgment has any factual or legal basis and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
`
`relief.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`Packet Intelligence denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Packet Intelligence denies all allegations of Paragraphs A through D of Plaintiff’s Prayer for
`
`Relief and further denies that any relief should be granted to Plaintiff.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`Packet Intelligence contends that Palo Alto Networks infringes claims of each of the
`
`Patents-in—Suit directly, as well as by inducing infringement and by contributing to infringement.
`
`Packet Intelligence reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses
`
`as the case progresses.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Packet Intelligence LLC, by and through its undersigned attorneys hereby
`
`demands a jury trial and alleges the following in support of its Counterclaims for patent
`
`infringement against Palo Alto Networks:
`
`1.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws of
`
`Texas since June 2012. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 505 East Travis
`
`Street
`
`Suite 209, Marshall, TX 75670.
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`5
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1 2
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00005
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Palo Alto Networks is a Delaware Corporation, with
`
`a principal place of business at 3000 Tannery Way, Santa Clara, California 95054.
`
`11.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for infringement of several United States patents. Federal
`
`question jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over such action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`l 3 3 8(a).
`
`4.
`
`Palo Alto Networks maintains a regular and established place of business within
`
`the Northern District of California at 3000 Tannery Way, Santa Clara, California 95054. Palo
`
`Alto Networks develops and/or sells the Accused Products, identified below, from this location.
`
`5.
`
`For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and Packet Intelligence contends that
`
`venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`
`III.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN—SUIT
`
`6.
`
`The patents-in—suit are early pioneer patents in the field of network traffic
`
`processing and monitoring. Each of the asserted patents claim priority to provisional US. Patent
`
`Application No. 60/141,903 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Traffic in a
`
`Network,” filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 30,1999.
`
`7.
`
`Mr. Russell S. Dietz, the first listed inventor on four of the five patents-in—suit, is a
`
`recognized thought leader who publishes and lectures regularly on network data management,
`
`cloud computing and virtualization security solutions. Mr. Dietz has more than 30 years of
`
`experience in the technology and security space and has a proven record of success as Chief
`
`Technology Officer of multiple hardware, software and systems security companies, and is a
`
`recognized pioneer and innovator in cloud computing and virtualization security solutions. He has
`
`more than 20 years of leadership and expertise anticipating trends, and evaluating new
`
`technologies in data communications, data management and Enterprise security. Mr. Dietz is an
`
`active member of the Internet and Engineering Task Force (IETF), Optical Internetworking Forum
`
`(01F) and the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF).
`
`8.
`
`On November 18, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`duly and legally issued US. Patent No. 6,651,099 (“the ’099 Patent”) entitled “Method and
`
`
`2597-000/1414720-1
`6
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv—02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00006
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471—WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 7 of 21
`
`Apparatus for Monitoring Traffic in a Network.” Packet Intelligence owns all substantial rights to
`
`the ’099 Patent, including the right to sue and recover damages for all infringement thereof.
`
`Documents assigning the ’099 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on
`
`February 1, 2013 at Reel/Frame 29737-613. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct
`
`copy of the ’099 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`The ’099 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 275 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`10.
`
`On December 16, 2003, the USPTO duly and legally issued US. Patent No.
`
`6,665,725 (“the ’725 Patent”) entitled “Processing Protocol Specific Information in Packets
`
`Specified by a Protocol Description Language.” Packet Intelligence owns all substantial rights to
`
`the ’725 Patent, including the right to sue and recover damages for all infringement thereof.
`
`Documents assigning the ’725 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on
`
`February 1, 2013 at Reel/Frame 29737-613. A true and correct copy of the ’725 Patth is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`11.
`
`The ’725 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 260 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`12.
`
`On August 3, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued US. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`(“the ’646 Patent”) entitled “Associative Cache Structure for Lookups and Updates of Flow
`
`Records in a Network Monitor.” Packet Intelligence owns all substantial rights to the ’646 Patent,
`
`including the right to sue and recover damages for all infringement thereof. Documents assigning
`
`the ’646 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on February 1, 2013 at
`
`Reel/Frame 29737-613. A true and correct copy of the ’646 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`13.
`
`The ’646 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 170 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2597-000/1414720-1
`7
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv—02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00007
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Huawei Devices USA Inc.
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC
`
`inter partes
`
`in Limine
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Nokia of America Corporation,
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson Inc.,
`
`inter partes
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 10 of 21
`
`20.
`
`Palo Alto Networks has been aware of the status of these litigations and IPRs and
`
`of the existence and subject matter of the Asserted Patents since at least January 18, 2019, at
`
`which time Packet Intelligence sent a notice letter alleging Palo Alto Networks infringes the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS
`
`\DOOQON
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`21.
`
`The Asserted Patents are generally directed to systems and methods for classifying
`
`and monitoring network traffic as well as the use of state operations and state-of-the—fiow analysis
`
`to accommodate classification and monitoring of network traffic. These innovative concepts
`
`enable classification of data packets passing through a network to provide detailed insight and
`
`information to network managers and operators. More specifically, the Asserted Patents disclose
`
`and claim improved techniques for monitoring network traffic through, among other things,
`
`categorizing network traffic into “conversational flows” — relating sequences of data packets
`
`exchanged in any direction over a network comprising multiple connections among network
`
`devices, which may be client or server devices, based on specific application activity. This was an
`
`improvement over conventional systems and methods for classifying and monitoring network
`
`traffic based only on “connection flows” — data packets transmitted over a single network
`
`17
`
`connection.
`
`22.
`
`Traffic classification involves detecting the underlying protocols used within a data
`
`packet, as well as the applications or user activity responsible for generating network traffic. It
`
`also involves identifying the underlying protocols/applications of a flow along with recording
`
`traffic statistics. Such classification and monitoring provide network administrators with detailed
`
`information about their networks, which can be used to diagnose network problems, control
`
`bandwidth allocation, and ensure an appropriate quality of service for users.
`
`23.
`
`Conventional network monitors categorized network transmissions into
`
`“connection flows.” A connection fiow refers to the packets involved in a single connection and
`
`relate to a negotiated transmission between specific addresses on two devices. A connection flow
`
`correlates to the source and destination IP address/port pairs used on both ends of the connection
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`10
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00010
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 21
`
`without inspecting the packet’s payload deeper than the headers of the transport layer1 containing
`
`port information. The problem with only tracking connection flows is that certain applications and
`
`protocols may generate multiple connections. In other words, a single application may spawn
`
`multiple connections for a single activity. For example, if user A wants to have a Skype call with
`
`user B, the Skype application may create multiple connections between computer A and B to
`
`conduct the call. There might be one connection which supplies setup information, a second
`
`connection for transmitting video information, and a third connection for transmitting audio
`
`information. Conventional network monitors would consider these three separate connections
`
`even though they originated from a single Skype call.
`
`24.
`
`The Asserted Patents improved upon these conventional network monitoring
`
`systems and methods by categorizing network transmissions into “conversational flows” rather
`
`than merely in “connection flows.” Unlike connection flow, conversational flow is the sequence
`
`of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of a particular activity—for instance, the
`
`running of an application on a server as requested by a client—which may include multiple
`
`connections, transmissions, or exchanges in either direction between the participants in the
`
`conversation. This addressed the problem of disjointed flows in network communications through
`
`“virtually concatenating,” or linking, all related conversational exchanges.
`
`25.
`
`“Conversational flows” are identified through parsing and analyzing data packets at
`
`deeper layers to extract information used to classify each data packet, determining whether it
`
`belongs to an existing conversational flow or is part of a new conversational flow. This is
`
`accomplished, in part, by populating a parsing/extraction operations memory and a state
`
`patterns/operations and database with machine operations that implement programmable rules and
`
`instructions for inspecting packets to identify patterns forming conversational flows.
`
`26.
`
`Network traffic is inspected for pattern recognition to determine protocol types and
`
`headers for each protocol layer. Extracted packet information is compared to stored data
`
`1 The functionality underlying network communications is often viewed in terms of conceptual
`See
`layers, such as those defined in the 7 Layer OSI Model. See OSI Model,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model (visited July 27, 2018). Several different protocol
`options may be available at each layer to accomplish specific tasks needed by the layer above it.
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`1 1
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`\DOOQON
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00011
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 21
`
`corresponding to prior network transmissions to determine whether a current transmission belongs
`
`to a known flow comprising previously inspected transmissions. Extracted data may also be used
`
`to determine the different states, state transitions, and/or state operations to be performed
`
`corresponding to a conversational flow to aid in predicting and/or identifying subsequent
`
`transmissions within a conversational flow and/or to determine the termination of a conversational
`
`flow. One of the many advantages of the invention is properly analyzing the packets exchanged
`
`between a client and a server and maintaining information relevant to the current state of each of
`
`these conversational flows.
`
`27.
`
`Classifying transmissions in the context of conversational flows provides several
`
`benefits over conventional network monitoring systems and methods, including accommodation
`
`of: more flexible and effective stateful firewall operations to permit network operators greater
`
`flexibility in configuring network security policies; more robust understanding of the quality of
`
`service (“QoS”) and bandwidth usage of a multiple connection flow application whereby certain
`
`network traffic could be excluded from data usage limits, bandwidth throttling may be applied to
`
`specific applications or services, and access to certain web browser applications may be restricted
`
`at specified times; and, eavesdropping or lawfill interception, by cloning all of the traffic of a
`
`conversational flow, which allows another user on the network, or elsewhere, to read the content
`
`exchanged over the network without the knowledge of the original recipient.
`
`V.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`28.
`
`The “Accused Products” include Palo Alto Networks products, such as firewall
`
`products that include the App-ID feature other similar functionality. These products include, but
`
`are not limited to: PA-Series Firewall products (PA-200, PA-220, PA—220R, PA-7000, PA-7050,
`
`PA-7080; VM—Series Firewall products (VM-SO, VM-lOO, VM-300, VM-SOO, VM-700) and
`
`K2-Series Firewall Products.
`
`29.
`
`The App-ID feature of the Accused Products allows inspection of packets at layers
`
`3-7 of the OSI model to allow identification of a protocol associated with the packet and to
`
`determine the particular application associated with the packet. Palo Alto Networks’
`
`documentation describes this capability as shown below:
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`12
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00012
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 13 of 21
`
`App-ID” uses as many as four identification techniques to
`
`determine the exact identity of applications traversing the
`
`network—irrespective of port. protocol, evasive tactic, or
`
`SSL encryption. Identifying the application is the very first
`
`task performed by App—ID. providing administrators with
`
`the greatest amount of application knowledge and the
`
`most flexibility in terms of safe application.
`
`See “App-ID Technology Brief”, at p. 1, which can be found at the URL:
`
`https://media.paloa1tonetworks.com/documents/techbrief—app-id.pdf.
`
`30.
`
`A flow chart of the process by which the Accused Products identify the application
`
`to which a is shown below in Palo Alto Networks’ documentation shown below:
`
`App-ID
`
`Start
`
`1Check —>
`IP/Port
`
`4-—Pulliyclitk‘t
`
`KNOWN PROTOCOL DECODER
`
`Decryption
`(SSL or SSH)
`
`Dec‘ode
`
`Check
`Signatures
`
`u
`.
`Polity Chek
`
`)
`
`—> Check Application —>
`Signatures
`
`J.
`
`
`
`{—Polity(he
`
`—> IDENYiFIED TRAFFICthO DECODlNGJ
`
`\ UNKNOWN PROTOCOLDECODER
`Apply Heuristics —-> I :
`Poliiv Chair
`
`REPORT& ENFORCE POLICY
`
`See “App-ID Technology Brief”, at p. 1.
`
`31.
`
`The flow chart shows several decision points during the processing of a packet in
`
`the App-ID feature. The Accused Products can be used to implement Quality of Service (“QOS”)
`
`policies that are applied to packets based on the application that is identified. A network operator
`
`using the Accused Products can set QOS policies that can limit the bandwidth for certain
`
`applications during peak hours or prioritize packets associated with applications requiring more
`
`bandwidth, e.g., streaming Video.
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`13
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00013
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 21
`
`w
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`32.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`33.
`
`Palo Alto Networks has infringed directly and continues to infringe directly, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’099 Patent by its manufacture,
`
`sale, offer for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Palo Alto Networks is
`
`therefore liable for infringement of the ’099 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`34.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Networks first had notice of Counterclaimant’s allegations
`
`of infringement of one or more claims of the ’099 Patent by Palo Alto Networks, which is no later
`
`than the date of the notice letter sent by Packet Intelligence on January 18, 2019, Palo Alto
`
`Networks indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’099
`
`Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Palo Alto Networks has induced, caused,
`
`urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell, offer for
`
`sale and/or import one or more of the Accused Products, and thus indirectly infringes at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’099 Patent. Palo Alto Networks has done so by acts including but not limited to
`
`(1) selling such products including features that—when used or resold—infringe, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’099 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing capabilities of such
`
`products; and (3) providing instructions, technical support, and other support and encouragement
`
`for the use of such products, including at least the documents referenced above. Such conduct by
`
`Palo Alto Networks was intended to and actually did result in direct infringement by Palo Alto
`
`Networks’ direct and indirect customers, including the making, using, selling, offering for sale
`
`and/or importation of the Accused Products in the United States.
`
`35.
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ infringement of the ’099 Patent has damaged Packet
`
`Intelligence, and Palo Alto Networks is liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determined
`
`at trial that compensates Packet Intelligence for the infringement, which by law can be no less than
`
`a reasonable royalty.
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`14
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00014
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 15 of 21
`
`36.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Networks first had notice of the ’099 Patent, at least as
`
`early as January 18, 2019, Palo Alto Networks has continued with its infringement despite the
`
`objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement and Palo Alto Networks’
`
`subjective knowledge of this obvious risk. As Palo Alto Networks has no good faith belief that it
`
`does not infringe the ’099 Patent, at least Palo Alto Networks’ continued infringement of the ’099
`
`Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Packet Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`w
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725
`
`37.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`38.
`
`Palo Alto Networks has infringed directly and continues to infringe directly, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 17 of the ’725 Patent by its
`
`manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Palo Alto
`
`Networks is therefore liable for infringement of the ’725 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`39.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Networks first had notice of Counterclaimant’s allegations
`
`of infringement of one or more claims of the ’725 Patent by Palo Alto Networks, at least as early as
`
`January 18, 2019, Palo Alto Networks indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at
`
`least claim 17 of the ’725 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Palo Alto
`
`Networks has induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect
`
`customers to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import one or more of the Accused Products,
`
`and thus indirectly infringes at least claim 17 of the ’725 Patent. Palo Alto Networks has done so
`
`by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such products including features that—when used
`
`or resold—infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’725 Patent; (2)
`
`marketing the infringing capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, technical
`
`support, and other support and encouragement for the use of such products, including at least the
`
`documents referenced above. Such conduct by Palo Alto Networks was intended to and actually
`
`did result in direct infringement by Palo Alto Networks’ direct and indirect customers, including
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`15
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 00015
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 16 of 21
`
`the making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the
`
`United States.
`
`40.
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ infringement of the ’725 Patent has damaged Packet
`
`Intelligence, and Palo Alto Networks is liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determined
`
`at trial that compensates Packet Intelligence for the infringement, which by law can be no less than
`
`a reasonable royalty.
`
`41.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Networks first had notice of the ’725 Patent, at least as
`
`early as January 18, 2019, Palo Alto Networks has continued with its infringement despite the
`
`objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement Palo Alto Networks’ subjective
`
`knowledge of this obvious risk. As Palo Alto Networks has no good faith belief that it does not
`
`infringe the ’725 Patent, at least Palo Alto Networks’ continued infringement of the ’725 Patent is
`
`willful and deliberate, entitling Packet Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`w
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`42.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully set forth
`
`\DOO\10\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`herein.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`43.
`
`Palo Alto Networks has infringed directly and continues to infringe directly, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 7 of the ’646 Patent by its manufacture,
`
`sale, offer for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Palo Alto Networks is
`
`therefore liable for infringement of the ’646 Patth pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`44.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Networks first had notice of Counterclaimant’s allegations
`
`of infringement of one or more claims of the ’646 Patent by Palo Alto Networks, which is no later
`
`than the January 18, 2019, Palo Alto Networks indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly
`
`infringe at least claim 7 of the ’646 Patth by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Palo
`
`Alto Networks has induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect
`
`customers to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import one or more of the Accused Products,
`
`and thus indirectly infringes at least claim 7 of the ’646 Patent. Palo Alto Networks has done so
`
`
`2697.000/1414720.1
`16
`Case No. 3 : 19-cv-02471-WHO
`DEFENDANT PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Page 00016
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 18 Filed 07/02/19 Page 17 of 21
`
`by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such products including features that—when used
`
`or resold—infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’646 Patent; (2)
`
`marketing the infringing capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, technical
`
`support, and other support and encouragement for the use of such products, including at least the
`
`documents referenced above. Such conduct by Palo Alto Networks was intended to and actually
`
`did result in direct infringement by Palo Alto Networks’ direct and indirect customers, including
`
`the making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the
`
`United States.
`
`45.
`
`Palo Alto Networks’ infringement of the ’646 Patent has damaged Packet
`
`Intelligence, and Palo Alto Networks is liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determined
`
`at trial that compensates Packet Intelligence for the infringement, which by law can be no less than
`
`a reasonable royalty.
`
`46.
`
`As of the time Palo Alto Ne