UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA CORP. AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2019-01290
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 1 of 94
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................................... vi
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8.................................6
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ..........................................6
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))...................................................6
`C.
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ......................................6
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ............................................7
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103) .................................................7
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................7
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))...........................................7
`B.
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2)).....................8
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)).........................................8
`D.
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)) .......8
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)).......................................9
`SUMMARY OF THE ’099 PATENT ..........................................................9
`Overview of the ’099 Patent......................................................................9
`A.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................11
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’099 Patent ............................................12
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))............................12
`A.
`“Conversational Flow[s]” or “Conversational Flow Sequence”.............12
`B.
`“State of the Flow” ..................................................................................13
`A.
`“State Operations”...................................................................................14
`B.
`“Flow-entry database”.............................................................................14
`C.
`“Parsing/Extraction Operations” .............................................................15
`D. Means-Plus-Function Terms ...................................................................15
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’099 PATENT .....................................................................................16
`Prior Art...................................................................................................17
`1.
`Riddle.......................................................................................17
`Summary of the Problem and Solution....................................18
`The Operation of Riddle ..........................................................20
`Cheriton ...................................................................................27
`Bruins.......................................................................................28
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 ...........29
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`a)
`b)
`
`i
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 2 of 94
`
`

`

`B.
`
`a)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`b)
`
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`5.
`Applications 31
`6.
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) ...............32
`Count 1: Riddle in View of Cheriton and Bruins Renders Claims 1, 2, 4,
`and 5 as Obvious .....................................................................................33
`1.
`Claim 1.....................................................................................33
`Limitation [1 Pre] “A packet monitor for examining packets
`passing through a connection point on a computer network in
`real-time, the packets provided to the packet monitor via a
`packet acquisition device connected to the connection point,
`the packet monitor comprising:” .............................................33
`Limitation [1a] “(a) a packet-buffer memory configured to
`accept a packet from the packet acquisition device;”..............36
`Limitation [1b] “(b) a parsing/extraction operations memory
`configured to store a database of parsing/extraction operations
`that includes information describing how to determine at least
`one of the protocols used in a packet from data in the packet;”
`.................................................................................................38
`Limitation [1c] “(c) a parser subsystem coupled to the packet
`buffer and to the pattern/extraction operations memory, the
`parser subsystem configured to examine the packet accepted
`by the buffer, extract selected portions of the accepted packet,
`and form a function of the selected portions sufficient to
`identify that the accepted packet is part of a conversational
`flow-sequence;” .......................................................................41
`Limitation [1d] “(d) a memory storing a flow-entry database
`including a plurality of flow-entries for conversational flows
`encountered by the monitor;” ..................................................48
`Limitation [1e] “(e) a lookup engine connected to the parser
`subsystem and to the flow-entry database, and configured to
`determine using at least some of the selected portions of the
`accepted packet if there is an entry in the flow-entry database
`for the conversational flow sequence of the accepted packet;”
`.................................................................................................51
`Limitation [1f] “(f) a state patterns/operations memory
`configured to store a set of predefined state transition patterns
`and state operations such that traversing a particular transition
`pattern as a result of a particular conversational flow-sequence
`of packets indicates that the particular conversational flow-
`sequence is associated with the operation of a particular
`ii
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 3 of 94
`
`

`

`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`2.
`
`a)
`
`3.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`application program, visiting each state in a traversal including
`carrying out none or more predefined state operations;” ........53
`Limitation [1g] “(g) a protocol/state identification mechanism
`coupled to the state patterns/operations memory and to the
`lookup engine, the protocol/state identification engine
`configured to determine the protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of the packet; and” ..................................57
`Limitation [1h] “(h) a state processor coupled to the flow-entry
`database, the protocol/state identification engine, and to the
`state patterns/operations memory, the state processor,
`configured to carry out any state operations specified in the
`state patterns/operations memory for the protocol and state of
`the flow of the packet,”............................................................59
`Limitation [1i] “the carrying out of the state operations
`furthering the process of identifying which application
`program is associated with the conversational flow-sequence
`of the packet, the state processor progressing through a series
`of states and state operations until there are no more state
`operations to perform for the accepted packet, in which case
`the state processor updates the flow-entry, or until a final state
`is reached that indicates that no more analysis of the flow is
`required, in which case the result of the analysis is
`announced.” .............................................................................61
`Claim 2.....................................................................................63
`Limitation [2] “A packet monitor according to claim 1,
`wherein the flow-entry includes the state of the flow, such that
`the protocol/state identification mechanism determines the
`state of the packet from the flow-entry in the case that the
`lookup engine finds a flow-entry for the flow of the accepted
`packet.” ....................................................................................63
`Claim 4.....................................................................................65
`Limitation [4a] “A packet monitor according to claim 1,
`further comprising: a compiler processor coupled to the
`parsing/extraction operations memory, the compiler processor
`configured to run a compilation process that includes:” .........65
`Limitation [4b] “receiving commands in a high-level protocol
`description language that describe the protocols that may be
`used in packets encountered by the monitor, and”..................66
`Limitation [4c] “translating the protocol description language
`commands into a plurality of parsing/extraction operations that
`iii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 4 of 94
`
`

`

`4.
`
`a)
`
`are initialized into the parsing/extraction operations memory.”
`.................................................................................................67
`Claim 5.....................................................................................68
`Limitation [5a] “A packet monitor according to claim 4,
`wherein the protocol description language commands also
`describe a correspondence between a set of one or more
`application programs and the state transition
`patterns/operations that occur as a result of particular
`conversational flow-sequences associated with an application
`program,” .................................................................................68
`Limitation [5b] “wherein the compilation process further
`includes translating the protocol description language
`commands into a plurality of state patterns and state operations
`that are initialized into the state patterns/operations memory.”
`.................................................................................................69
`Count 2: Riddle in View of Cheriton, Bruins, and Further in View of
`RFC 1945 Renders Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as Obvious .............................69
`Count 3: Riddle in View Cheriton, Bruins, and Further in View of RFC
`1889 and RFC 2326 Renders Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as Obvious .............74
`VIII. FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 314 and 325 .................................77
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................80
`
`D.
`
`b)
`
`C.
`
`iv
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 5 of 94
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2015-00812, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) ...................................................... passim
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................17
`
`STATUTES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8...........................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) .........................................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)..........................................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.103............................................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104............................................................................................................7, 8, 12, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, et seq...........................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ..............................................................................................................30, 31, 32
`
`35 U.S.C §102(e) ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.........................................................................................................................18, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .........................................................................................................................16
`
`v
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 6 of 94
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`EX1009
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`EX1014
`EX1015
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (the “’099 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (the “’725 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (the “’646 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (the “’751 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (the “’789 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al. (“Riddle”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,980 to Packer et al. (“Packer”)
`RFC 1945, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC
`1945”)
`RFC 2616, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (“RFC
`2616”)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-
`00381-JRG, Dkt. No. 74, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement (June 7, 2019)
`WO 97/23076 A1 to Baker (“Baker”)
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903
`File History for US Patent No. 6,651,099
`File History for US Patent No. 6,665,725
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646
`File History for US Patent No. 6,839,751
`File History for US Patent No. 6,954,789
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 66, Claim Construction Memorandum and
`Order (March 14, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-1, Declaration of Sadaf R. Abdullah
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-2, Dr. Kevin Almeroth’s
`Demonstrative Slides (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 250, Transcript from Oct. 12, 2017
`(October 17, 2017)
`
`vi
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 7 of 94
`
`

`

`EX1024
`
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`
`EX1031
`EX1032
`
`EX1033
`
`EX1034
`
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`EX1038
`
`EX1039
`
`EX1040
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-1, Declaration of Steven Udick
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-2, Dr. Almeroth’s direct testimony
`demonstratives (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-1, Declaration of Michael Lyons
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-4, Russell Dietz’s demonstratives
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 244, Transcript from Oct. 10, 2017 AM
`session (October 17, 2017)
`Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni
`26/16 (EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`Applications (“RFC 1889”)
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (“RFC 2326”)
`Redline showing a comparison of US Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle
`et al. (“Riddle”) to provisional application number 60/066,864
`PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, the Wall
`Street Journal (April 15, 1996)
`Brown, Judy, PointCast Network Provides a world of Information,
`News, Weather, Stock Quotes Can Be Displayed, Milwaukee
`Journal Sentinel (March 18, 1996)
`PointCast Makes Debut On Internet Screens to Acclaim, Internet
`Business News (March 19, 1996)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 55-21, Packet Intelligence’s Tutorial
`(January 20, 2017)
`Provisional application number 60/066,864
`Claim chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the
`specification of provisional application number 60/066,864
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004,
`Response to Office Action
`RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC 765”)
`
`vii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 8 of 94
`
`

`

`EX1041
`
`EX1042
`
`EX1043
`
`EX1044
`
`EX1045
`
`EX1046
`
`EX1047
`
`EX1048
`
`EX1049
`
`EX1050
`
`EX1051
`
`EX1052
`
`EX1053
`EX1054
`
`EX1055
`
`EX1056
`EX1057
`EX1058
`
`EX1059
`
`EX1060
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (June 5, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 9 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC 1543”)
`RFC 2026, The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 (“RFC
`2026)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314, NetScout’s JMOL of No
`Infringement (October 5, 2018)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,175 to Wakeman et al. (“Wakeman”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,725 to Cheriton et al. (“Cheriton”)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 6 (August 31, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Abandonment, Paper No. 8 (Dec. 1,
`2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Adverse Judgment, Paper No. 9 (Dec. 20, 2017)
`
`viii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 9 of 94
`
`

`

`EX1061
`EX1062
`EX1063
`EX1064
`EX1065
`EX1066
`EX1067
`
`EX1068
`
`RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC 793”)
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,308,148 to Bruins et al. (“Bruins”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,808 to Hasani et al. (“Hasani”)
`Claim Listing for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`Omitted
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 - Information processing
`systems -- Open Systems Interconnection -- Basic Reference
`Model -- Part 4: Management framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC 791”)
`
`ix
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 10 of 94
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia Corp. and Nokia of America Corp. (collectively “Petitioners”) request
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 (collectively, “the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (EX1001, “the ’099 Patent”). Sandvine
`
`Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC (collectively, “Sandvine”) previously
`
`challenged the ’099 Patent in IPR2017-00769 based primarily on U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,115,393 (“Engel”). EX1051, 7, 10. In IPR2017-00769 the Board denied institution
`
`because it found that Engel failed to show the claimed “conversational flow[s].”
`
`EX1051, 25. The prior art used in this Petition discloses all of the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims including the claimed “conversational flow[s].”
`
`The ’099 Patent describes:
`
` a “flow” as “a stream of packets being exchanged between any two
`
`addresses in the network,”
`
` a “connection flow” as “all
`
`the packets involved with a single
`
`connection,” and
`
` a “conversational flow” as “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.”
`
`See, e.g., EX1001, 2:35-40, 12:4-5.
`
`1
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 11 of 94
`
`

`

`According to Packet Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”) “[t]he 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.” EX1045, 16. An example of the alleged
`
`problem according to the Patent Owner is demonstrated through Skype. EX1036,
`
`18-19. As shown below, Skype generates multiple separate connection flows for
`
`video, audio, and control information. Id.
`
`EX1036, 18.
`
`2
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 12 of 94
`
`

`

`As shown by Patent Owner’s “conversational
`
`flow” slide below, a
`
`“conversational flow” requires linking each of those separate connection flows into
`
`one “conversational flow.”
`
`EX1036, 19.
`
`Similarly, the Patent Owner provided the following illustration to distinguish
`
`the Engle prior art reference in the previous IPR.
`
`3
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 13 of 94
`
`

`

`EX1051, 21.
`
`The Board wrote “packets 1 and 2 may both result from the same application
`
`(e.g., video and audio traffic using Skype), but Engel would not link them as being
`
`part of a single conversational flow.” EX1051, 21. Further, “we do not see—and
`
`Petitioner does not point
`
`to—anything in Engel
`
`indicating that
`
`it
`
`links
`
`communications by application (as opposed to by layer and client-server pair) as the
`
`construction of ‘conversational flows’ above requires.” EX1051, 22. The Board
`
`quoted the ’099 Patent and noted “[w]hat distinguishes this invention from prior art
`
`4
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 14 of 94
`
`

`

`network monitors is that it has the ability to recognize disjointed flows as belonging
`
`to the same conversational flow.” Id.
`
`This Petition relies upon prior art that discloses all of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims, including the claimed conversational flows in four different
`
`ways. First, the prior art discussed below links disjointed TCP flows for FTP
`
`applications. EX1006, ¶¶265-276. The German Federal Court has already
`
`invalidated a family member of the ’099 Patent and found that linking disjointed
`
`TCP flows for FTP applications is a conversational flow. EX1029, 35-36. Second,
`
`the prior art discussed below recognizes disjointed flows for an application called
`
`PointCast. EX1006, ¶¶277-285. The provisional patent application that lead to the
`
`’099 Patent admits that consolidating disjointed flows for PointCast
`
`is a
`
`conversational flow. EX1014, 12:16-25. Third, the prior art discussed below links
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field. EX1006, ¶¶344-356. The Patent Owner’s expert has stated that linking
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field, yields a conversational flow. EX1006, ¶¶346-350. Fourth, the prior
`
`art discussed below links RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows. EX1006, ¶¶357-367. The
`
`Patent Owner previously told the Board that relating RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows
`
`created a conversational flow. EX1045, 23-24.
`
`5
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 15 of 94
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are Nokia of America Corporation, Nokia Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Nokia”), Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’099 Patent is at issue in Packet Intelligence LLC v. Nokia of America
`
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.), Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson
`
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 2:18-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.), Packet
`
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-230 (E.D. Tex.), and
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02471 (N.D. Cal).
`
`Petitioners are also contemporaneously filing petitions for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (IPR2019-01291), 6,771,646 (IPR2019-01292),
`
`6,839,751 (IPR2019-01289), and 6,954,789 (IPR2019-01293).1
`
`C.
`
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead counsel for Nokia is Thomas W. Davison (Reg. No. 57,160), 950 F
`
`Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-1404, Tel: 202-239-3933, Fax: (202) 654-4913
`
`1 Collectively, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and
`
`6,954,789 are referred to as the “Challenged Patents.”
`
`6
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 16 of 94
`
`

`

`and Stephen Lareau (Reg. No. 62,273). Backup counsel for Nokia is S. Benjamin
`
`Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421) M. Scott Stevens (Reg. No. 54,762) and Stephen Lareau
`
`(Reg. No. 62,273), each of Alston & Bird LLP, Bank of America Plaza, 101 South
`
`Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC 28280-4000, Tel: 704.444.1000, Fax:
`
`704.444.1111.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R §42.10(b), Powers of Attorney are being submitted with
`
`this Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`directed
`
`to
`
`Tom.Davison@alston.com, Ben.Pleune@alston.com, Scott.Stevens@alston.com,
`
`and Stephen.Lareau@alston.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent Office to charge Deposit Account No. 16-
`
`0605 for the Petition fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a), and for any additional fees.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’099 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging Claims
`
`1, 2, 4, and 5 (the “Challenged Claims”) on the grounds identified herein.
`
`7
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 17 of 94
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2))
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioners request
`
`cancellation of the Challenged Claims (1, 2, 4, 5) in the ’099 Patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Count 1: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Cheriton and Bruins.
`
`Count 2: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Cheriton, Bruins, and further in view of RFC 1945.
`
`Count 3: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Cheriton, Bruins, and further in view of RFC 1889 and RFC
`
`2326.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’099 Patent should be
`
`construed is provided below.
`
`D.
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’099 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the above grounds is provided below.
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 18 of 94
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5))
`
`The text below provides exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied on
`
`to support the challenge and also explains the relevance of the evidence to the
`
`challenge raised. The text below also identifies the specific portions of the evidence
`
`that support the challenge. A Table of Exhibits is set forth above.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’099 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’099 Patent
`
`The ’099 Patent relates to examining packets passing through a connection
`
`point on a computer network to determine whether a packet is of an existing
`
`conversational flow. EX1001, Abstract. Fig. 3 of the ’099 Patent is reproduced
`
`below which shows a network packet monitor 300. EX1001, 11:43–45.
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 19 of 94
`
`

`

`EX1001, Fig. 3.
`
`Parser 301 parses and extracts (reads and/or copies) selected portions of
`
`packet 302 to generate an identifying signature, and analyzer 303 analyzes the
`
`packet. See EX1001, 11:59–65. For each protocol there are several fields that are
`
`recognized, such as the destination (recipient) and the source (sender). EX1001,
`
`12:5–8. Values of the fields are used by monitor 300 to identify the flow. Id.
`
`Extraction process 306,
`
`implemented by an extracting and information
`
`identifying (EII) engine in parser 301, extracts (reads and/or copies) characteristic
`10
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 20 of 94
`
`

`

`portions (signature information) from packet 302 using extraction masks supplied
`
`from the extraction-operations database (e.g., parsing/extraction database 308) to
`
`identify information from the packet. EX1001, 12:12–22, 13:14–25. The
`
`parsing/extraction process is required to recognize the packet as part of a flow.
`
`EX1001, 13:14–25.
`
`A parser record, which includes the signature, the hash, and the packet itself,
`
`is passed on to lookup process 314 carried out by the lookup engine (LUE) to
`
`determine whether the particular packet belongs to a known flow as indicated by the
`
`presence of a flow-entry matching the flow in a database of known flows 324.
`
`EX1001, 13:54–61, 14:3–13.
`
`Flow-entry database 324 “stores flow-entries that include the unique flow-
`
`signature, state information, extracted information from the packet for updating
`
`flows,” and statistics about the flow. EX1001, 14:14–18. If state processing is
`
`required, then state processor 328 carries out any state operations according to state
`
`instructions from state pattern and processes database 326. EX1001, 14:58–62.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’099 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000 as Ser. No. 09/608,237, claiming
`
`priority to a provisional patent application, No. 60/141,903, filed on June 30, 1999.
`
`EX1001. While Petitioners do not accede to a priority date of June 30, 1999 for the
`
`11
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 21 of 94
`
`

`

`’099 Patent, for purposes of this Petition only it is assumed that the ’099 Patent is
`
`entitled to that date.
`
`The ’099 Patent incorporates the ’646, ’725, and ’751 Patents, which also
`
`claim priority to the same provisional application, by reference. EX1001, 1:11–36.
`
`The ’789 Patent is a continuation of the ’099 Patent. EX1005.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’099 Patent
`
`The ’099 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000, with 59 claims. EX1015, 1. On
`
`June 25, 2003, the Examiner allowed claims 1-10. EX1015, 212. The Examiner
`
`noted that the prior art allegedly did not teach the claimed “state patterns/operations
`
`memory” or “state processor.” Id. The Examiner rejected claims 11-59 under 35
`
`U.S.C §102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,483,804 to Muller et al.
`
`EX1015, 213. In response to the rejection on July 8, 2003, the Applicants cancelled
`
`claims 11-59. EX1015, 590. The ’099 Patent then issued November 18, 2003.
`
`EX1001.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`A.
`
`“Conversational Flow[s]” or “Conversational Flow Sequence”
`
`The terms “conversational flow[s]” and “conversational flow sequence” are
`
`in every independent claim. The Patent Owner previously agreed these terms mean:
`
`the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a
`result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application
`12
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2046 Page 22 of 94
`
`

`

`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.
`
`EX1051, 9-10.
`
`In prior IPRs, the Board applied the Patent Owner’s construction. Id. Further,
`
`the Patent Owner agreed to this construction in a previous district court litigation.
`
`EX1020, 6.
`
`In the related district court action, Petitioners have proposed that
`
`“conversational flow[s]” or “conversational flow sequence” means: “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—where the activity
`
`creates multiple connection flows.” EX1012, 7. The prior art below invalidates the
`
`’099 Patent under both proposed constructio