Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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 / Counterclaim-
`Defendant PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff / Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`Defendant / Counterclaimant.
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS’
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 1 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 2
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................... 2
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 3
`A.
`“conversational flow(s) / “conversational flow-sequence” ....................................... 3
`1.
`The term “conversational flow” is indefinite ................................................ 3
`a.
`Legal principles of indefiniteness ..................................................... 3
`b.
`The intrinsic record does not define the meaning and scope of
`“conversational flow” with requisite reasonable certainty ................ 4
`Prior rulings underscore the term’s indefiniteness .......................... 11
`PI should be estopped from asserting the term has a definite
`meaning ........................................................................................... 12
`Any construction of “conversational flow” must incorporate PI’s limiting
`statements to the Patent Office in IPR proceedings .................................... 13
`“flow-entry database . . . for conversational flows” ................................................ 16
`“protocol/state identification mechanism . . . configured to determine the protocol
`and state of the conversational flow of the packet”................................................. 19
`“the flow” / “new flow” / “existing flow” ............................................................... 23
`D.
`Preambles ................................................................................................................ 25
`E.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`2.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`c.
`d.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 2 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................20, 22
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................15
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................2, 14, 15
`
`Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`725 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................4
`
`Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`899 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................21
`
`Elston v. Westport Ins. Co.,
`253 F. App’x 697 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................13
`
`F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-03166-VC, 2018 WL 6039873 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) .......................................14
`
`In re Fought,
`941 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................25
`
`Grecia v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`780 F. App’x 912 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................20
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................4, 6
`
`Infinity Computer Prod., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-463, 2019 WL 2422597 (D. Del. June 10, 2019) ........................................................4
`
`Inverness Med. Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp.,
`309 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................2
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..............................................................................................4, 15
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................................4
`
`Kilopass Tech. Inc. v. Sidense Corp.,
`No. 10-cv-02066 2012 WL 1534065 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2012) .................................................13
`-ii-
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 3 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`Kyowa Hakko Bio, Co., Ltd. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00313, 2019 WL 5061066 (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2019) adopted by 2020
`WL 3403207 (D. Del. June 19, 2020) ..........................................................................................8
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................20
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................17
`
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................13
`
`MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu,
`933 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................20, 21
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) ...................................................................................................................13
`
`O2 Micro Int’l. v. Beyond Innov.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................16, 23
`
`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................25
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................2
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen, Inc.,
`No. 2012-1560, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013) ...................................................................17
`
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................17
`
`Tech. Properties Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................15
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................4, 9
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. NortonLifeLock, Inc.,
`No. 3:13-cv-808, 2019 WL 7040931 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2019) ................................................12
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................24
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-iii-
`
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 4 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................17
`
`Virtual Solutions, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`925 F. Supp. 2d 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ..........................................................................................9
`
`In re Walter,
`698 F. App’x 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................4
`
`White v. Dunbar,
`119 U.S. 47 (1886) .....................................................................................................................15
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................19, 20, 21, 22
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-iv-
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 5 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC
`Exhibit to the Declaration of Stepan Starchenko in Support of Palo
`Alto Networks’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, submitted
`herewith
`Paragraph 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, 6,954,789 (filed as Ex. 1 and
`previously filed at ECF 46-2)
`United States Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`
`
`PAN
`
`PI
`
`Ex. _
`
`Schmidt ¶ _
`
`’099 or ’099 patent
`
`’725 or ’725 patent
`
`United States Patent No. 6,665,725
`
`’646 or ’646 patent
`
`United States Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`’751 or ’751 patent
`
`United States Patent No. 6,839,751
`
`’789 or ’789 patent
`Patents-in-Suit or
`Asserted Patents
`Asserted Claims
`
`USPTO or Patent Office
`
`United States Patent No. 6,954,789
`
`the ’099, ’751, ’725, ’646, and ’789 patents
`’099 patent: claims 1 and 2; ’725 patent: claims 10, 12, 16 and
`17; ’646 patent: claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18; ’751 patent: claims 1,
`2, 5, 10, 14, and 15; ’789 patent: claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, 33,
`34, 42, 44, 48, and 49
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`POSITA
`
`IPR
`
`PTAB
`
`BRI
`
`POPR
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`inter partes review
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`All emphasis added, and internal quotations omitted, unless otherwise specified.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-v-
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 6 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`Exhibit 10
`
`Exhibit 11
`
`Exhibit 12
`
`Exhibit 13
`
`Exhibit 14
`
`Exhibit 15
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`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
`
`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, 6,954,789
`(previously filed at ECF 46-2)
`’099 Patent
`Excerpts of Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee Packet Intelligence LLC, Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., No. 19-2041 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15,
`2019), ECF 27
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Sandvine Corp., et al. v. Packet
`Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper 6 (PTAB April 28,
`2017)
`Excerpts of 11/6/2017 AM Trial Tr., Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine
`Corp., No. 2:16-cv-147-JRG (E.D. Tex.), ECF 60, produced by PI at Bates
`Nos. PACK-037914, PACK-037964, PACK-037975-978, PACK-038012-014
`and PACK-038056.
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Sandvine Corp., et al. v.
`Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper 8 (PTAB Jul.
`26, 2017)
`Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Judgement As A Matter Of Law,
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine Corp., No. 2:16-cv-147-JRG (E.D. Tex.
`Sep. 7, 2018), ECF 91
`Excerpts of translation of Packet Intelligence’s Complaint for Infringement of
`EP 1 196 856, Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine Corp., Mannheim
`Regional Court, Germany (Jul. 7, 2016), produced by PI at Bates Nos.
`PCKTINT-00043871-872, PCKTINT-00043882-895
`Excerpts of Packet Intelligence’s Opposition to Netscout’s Rule 50(b)
`Renewed Motion For Judgement As A Matter Of Law Of No Infringement,
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-230-
`JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2018), Dkt. 323
`Excerpts of Packet Intelligence LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No 2:14-cv-252-JRG (E.D.
`Tex. Jan. 26, 2015), Dkt. 89
`Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, Sandvine Corp., et al.
`v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR-2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper 11 (PTAB
`Nov. 17, 2017)
`Excerpts of 10/10/2017 PM Trial Tr., Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2018), Dkt.
`245, produced by PI at Bates Nos. PACK-033955, PACK-034045, PACK-
`034089-091, PACK-034150-153
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Req. for Rehearing, Sandvine
`Corp., et al. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00769 (’099 Patent), Paper
`10 (PTAB Sep. 15, 2017)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Juniper Networks, Inc., et al. v. Packet
`Intelligence LLC, IPR2020-00335 (’099 Patent), Paper 7 (PTAB Jun. 12,
`2020)
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Packet Intelligence LLC v.
`NetScout Systems Inc., et al. No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2017),
`Dkt. 66
`Verdict Form, Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc., et al. No.
`2:16-cv-230-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2017), Dkt. 237
`-vi-
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 7 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Excerpts of Office Action Response, ’751 Patent File History, Nov. 3, 2003
`Excerpts of Office Action Response, ’646 Patent File History, Feb. 10, 2004
`Excerpts of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903
`Excerpts of Packet Intelligence’s Technology Tutorial, Packet Intelligence
`LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20,
`2017), Dkt. 55-21
`Excerpts of Office Action, ’646 Patent File History, Sep. 10, 2003
`U.S. Patent. No. 5,917,821 to Gobuyan et al. (“Gobuyan”), produced by PI at
`Bates Nos. DEFPI0007667-696
`Excerpts of 11/6/2017 PM Trial Tr., Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine
`Corp., No. 2:16-cv-147-JRG (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 70
`
`Excerpts of Packet Intelligence’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG (E.D.
`Tex. Feb 10, 2017), Dkt. 58
`Definition of “concatenate,” The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`Electronics Terms (6th ed., 1996), at 195
`’646 Patent
`’751 Patent
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Sandvine Corp., et al. v.
`Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00450 (’646 Patent), Paper 8 (PTAB Jul.
`27, 2017)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Sandvine Corp., et al. v.
`Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00629 (’789 Patent), Paper 8 (PTAB Jul.
`26, 2017)
`’789 Patent
`
`Exhibit 17
`Exhibit 18
`Exhibit 19
`Exhibit 20
`
`Exhibit 21
`Exhibit 22
`Exhibit 23
`
`Exhibit 24
`
`Exhibit 25
`Exhibit 26
`Exhibit 27
`Exhibit 28
`
`Exhibit 29
`
`Exhibit 30
`
`
`
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-vii-
`
`
`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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 8 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`PI’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (ECF 63) (“Br.”) fails to confront unignorable record
`evidence and law that undermine its claim construction positions.
`A glaring example of PI’s head-in-the-sand approach is its treatment of the coined term
`“conversational flow.” PI argues that a sentence in the specification defines “conversational flow”
`and, for that reason alone, the term is not indefinite. PI’s argument ignores Federal Circuit precedent
`that the definiteness inquiry does not end at identifying a “definition,” but rather also assesses
`whether that “definition” imparts meaningfully precise claim scope. PI’s “definition,” like the term
`“conversational flow,” is not meaningfully precise; instead, it is plagued by an impermissible “zone
`of uncertainty.” That uncertainty is exacerbated by other intrinsic evidence, namely, PI’s statements
`in IPR proceedings about the meaning of “conversational flow” that contradict the specification’s
`“definition.” Instead of addressing this intrinsic evidence, PI ducks it by labeling its own statements
`to the USPTO as “simply attorney argument”—ignoring their legal significance.
`Further evidencing and adding to the fatal “zone of uncertainty” enveloping “conversational
`flow,” PI has taken positions in litigation (including this one) that irreconcilably contradict its
`positions in IPRs about the meaning and scope of “conversational flow.” These include whether a
`“conversational flow” requires (1) more than one connection flow, (2) linking multiple flows, and
`(3) linking flows by specific application activity. PI’s treatment of “conversational flow” as ever-
`malleable, whether to escape invalidity or argue for infringement, both confirms and solidifies the
`“zone of uncertainty” that renders “conversational flow” indefinite. PI must not be permitted to
`treat this claim term like a “nose of wax,” twisting it one way to argue for patentability, and another
`way to assert infringement.
`If the Court nonetheless decides that “conversational flow” can be construed, its construction
`must take into account the prosecution history, including PTAB proceedings, and be delimited by
`PI’s clear, narrowing statements there about that term’s meaning. The same is true for PI’s intrinsic
`statements about the claim term “flow-entry database . . . for conversational flows.”
`Another term in dispute, “protocol/state identification mechanism . . . configured to
`determine the protocol and state of the conversational flow of the packet,” raises a different issue.
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 9 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`PI asserts that the term does not invoke §112 ¶6, but its argument contravenes controlling case law
`that confirms that this term does invoke §112 ¶6. Further, a term subject to §112 ¶6 is indefinite if
`the specification does not disclose adequate structure for performing the claimed functions. PI fails
`to present any evidence or argument that the specification discloses adequate corresponding
`structure if §112 ¶6 applies. The specification does not, and so the term is indefinite.
`In contrast to PI’s head-in-the-sand approach, PAN proposes constructions that take into
`account all of the relevant evidence and are supported by controlling law.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`II.
`Claim construction begins with the intrinsic evidence: the claim language, the patent
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`2005). The prosecution history may “inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating
`how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the
`course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415
`F.3d at 1317 (citation omitted). Statements made in IPR proceedings are part of the intrinsic record.
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As with patent
`prosecution, statements made by the patent owner during inter partes review put the public on notice
`of how the patent owner views its patent.”).
`“A claim term used in multiple claims should be construed consistently.” Inverness Med.
`Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation
`omitted).
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`The five Asserted Patents are related, claim priority to a common provisional application,
`and contain similar claims. Each Asserted Patent is directed to monitoring and classifying data
`packets passing through a connection point on a computer network. E.g., Ex. 2, Abstract. Devices
`communicating in a network transmit data in packets. Schmidt ¶52. According to the Asserted
`Patents, “prior art packet monitors classify packets into connection flows,” where a “connection
`flow” is “all the packets involved with a single connection” between two devices. Ex. 2, 2:34-37.
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-2-
`
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 10 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`A single device in a network may have multiple connections to other devices, with each connection
`assigned a “port number,” resulting in multiple connection flows. Schmidt ¶50.
`The alleged advancement of the Asserted Patents, according to PI, is classifying packets into
`“conversational flows”—a term that applicants coined and included in every Asserted Claim—
`rather than prior art “connection flows.” E.g., Ex. 2, 2:40-42; Ex. 3 at 6 (“The [Asserted] Patents
`vary in scope, but all include the key ability of classifying packets as belonging to activity-related
`‘conversational flows.’”); Ex. 4 at 1-2 (“Conversational flows are a fundamental requirement of the
`challenged claims and an innovative feature of the [Asserted Patents].”).
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`“conversational flow(s) / “conversational flow-sequence”
`A.
`The Asserted Patents’ coined term “conversational flow,” which appears in all Asserted
`Claims, suffers from an impermissible “zone of uncertainty” that renders the claims fatally
`indefinite. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899 (2014) (“[A] patent must be
`precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, . . . in a manner that avoids ‘[a] zone of
`uncertainty . . . .’”) (citations omitted). That “zone of uncertainty” is evidenced most dramatically
`in PI’s and its expert’s irreconcilably contradictory statements about the meaning and scope of that
`term—contradictions that PI and its expert, Dr. Almeroth, fail to address, let alone reconcile. If the
`Court decides to construe “conversational flow” nonetheless, its construction must take into account
`the prosecution history, including PTAB proceedings, and be delimited by PI’s clear, narrowing
`statements about the meaning of that term.
`The term “conversational flow” is indefinite
`1.
`Legal principles of indefiniteness
`a.
`A patent must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the
`inventor . . . regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶2 (now §112(b)). This “definiteness”
`requirement is a foundation of the patent system and serves a critical public notice function. See,
`e.g., Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901-902, 911. A “zone of uncertainty” around a patent claim, in contrast,
`is “innovation-discouraging” and renders a claim indefinite. Id. at 909-910. Thus, “[a] patent is
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`-3-
`
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 11 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`invalid for indefiniteness if its claims . . . fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in
`the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. at 901. A patentee’s inconsistent statements about the
`meaning of a term may evidence and contribute to such a “zone of uncertainty.” See, e.g., Teva
`Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding “average molecular
`weight” to be indefinite where “patentee in one instance stated that it was Mw [weight average
`molecular weight] and in the other stated it was Mp [peak average molecular weight]”).1
`The intrinsic record does not define the meaning and scope of
`b.
`
`“conversational flow” with requisite reasonable certainty
`There is no dispute that “conversational flow” is a coined term that had no plain and ordinary
`meaning in the art at the time of the alleged invention. Br. 6; Ex. 3 at 6 (“‘Conversational flow’ is
`a term coined by the inventors . . . .”). As a consequence, it “fell to the applicants, as a duty, to
`provide a precise definition.” J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1570 (Fed.
`Cir. 1997).2 Contrary to PI’s arguments, whether the specification sets forth a definition of
`“conversational flow” “does not end the inquiry” into definiteness. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc.
`v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As Halliburton explained, “[e]ven if a claim
`term’s definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in
`the art cannot translate the definition into meaningfully precise claim scope.” Id. That is the issue
`here. And glaringly absent from PI’s Opening Brief is any evidence that a POSITA would translate
`the specification’s purported “definition” into sufficiently definite scope as the law requires. See id.
`Here, there is overwhelming evidence that patentee did not define its coined term with
`
`
`1 See also, e.g., In re Walter, 698 F. App’x 1022, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Here, the term’s ill-defined
`boundaries coupled with the patentee’s erratic use of the term fails to inform skilled artisans about
`the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”) (citing Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901); Infinity
`Comput. Prod., Inc. v. Oki Data Am., Inc., No. 18-cv-463, 2019 WL 2422597, at *5-6 (D. Del. June
`10, 2019) (holding “passive link” indefinite where patentee’s contentions to the PTAB about the
`claim term were “materially inconsistent” with patentee’s earlier contentions about that term).
`2 See also Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(“[B]ecause the disputed term is a coined term, meaning it has no ordinary and customary meaning,
`the question is whether the intrinsic evidence provides objective boundaries to the scope of the
`term.”) (citation omitted); Capital Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp., 725 F. App’x 952, 959 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (affirming indefiniteness finding where “‘transactional operator’ has no commonly-accepted
`definition and its scope is unclear in view of the intrinsic evidence and Capital Security’s proposed
`construction”).
`
`PAN’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`-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
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2067
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 12 of 35
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 67 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`specificity, but instead left an impermissible zone of uncertainty around “conversational flow.” The
`intrinsic record is replete with inconsistencies. Moreover, applying the same claim language and
`“definition” from the specification, patentee PI and its expert, Dr. Almeroth, have made materially
`and irreconcilably contradictory assertions about the meaning of that term across different
`proceedings.3 Those contradictions both evidence and contribute to the term’s impermissible zone
`of uncertainty. As part of the parties’ December 2019 claim construction submissions in this case,
`PAN’s technical expert, Dr. Douglas Schmidt, submitted a declaration supported by the record
`evidence, summarizing patentee’s contradictory assertions about this claim limitation as follows:
`PI, applying the same purported specification definition, in…
`Litigation
`Can a “connection flow” and “conversational flow” be the same thing?
`“Yes”
`Does “conversational flow” require more than one connection flow?
`Does a “conversational flow” require linking together multiple flows?
`Does a “conversational flow” require linking together flows based on
`specific application activity?
`Is linking by protocol information within scope of a “conversational
`flow”?
`
`IPRs
`
`“No”
`
`“Yes”
`
`“Yes”
`
`“Yes”
`
`“No”
`
`“No”
`
`“No”
`
`“No”
`
`“Yes”
`
`Schmidt ¶¶69-142. Each is addressed in turn below.
`First, a POSITA could not have determined with reasonable certainty whether a single
`“connection flow” falls within the scope of the claimed “conversational flow.” On one hand, the
`specification contrasts a connection flow from a conversational flow. Ex. 2, 2:34-40 (“The term
`‘connection flow’ is commonly used to describe all the packets involved with a single connection.
`A conversational flow, on the other hand . . .”). In prosecution, patentee repeatedly relied upon the
`claimed categorization of packets into conversational flows, rather than only connection flows, as
`the allegedly novel feature.4 Ex. 17 at 8 (“It is important to be able to distinguish between the term
`
`3 Contrary to PI’s argument, Br. 9, the fact that PI derived these contrad