Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`Brian A.E. Smith (SBN 188147)
`Alden KW Lee (SBN 257973)
`Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
`Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
`BARTZO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1900
`bsmith@bzbm.com
`alee@bzbm.com
`jchen@bzbm.com
`jfraresso@bzbm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and
`Counterclaimant Packet Intelligence LLC
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-02471-WHO
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S REPLY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
` v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaimant.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`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’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
` CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 2
`
`A. “conversational flow(s)”/ “conversational flow-sequence” ........................................ 2
`
`B. “a flow-entry database” terms ..................................................................................... 6
`
`C. “the flow”/ “existing flow” / “new flow” .................................................................... 8
`
`D. “a protocol/state identification mechanism…configured to determine the protocol
`and state of the conversational flow of the packet” .................................................... 9
`
`E. “claim preambles” ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd.,
`494 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Mass. 2007) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................................................................................. 1, 7
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00252-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2019-2041 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020) ............................................................................ passim
`
`Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1135 (N.D.N.Y. Jan 5, 2011) ................................................................. 7
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.,
`569 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ......................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`
`Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2019-2041 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020), addressing these disputed terms. The
`
`Court: (1) affirmed the jury verdict of willful infringement; (2) affirmed the validity of the asserted
`
`claims under §§ 101, 102(a), and 102(f); and (3) affirmed all damages-related findings other than
`
`pre-suit damages.
`
`The Court described the inventions of the patents-in-suit1 as follows:
`
`[The asserted patents] teach a method for monitoring packets exchanged over a
`computer network. A stream of packets between two computers is called a
`connection flow. ’789 patent col. 2 ll. 43–45. Monitoring connection flows cannot
`account for disjointed sequences of the same flow in a network. Id. col. 3 ll. 56–59.
`The specifications explain that it is more useful to identify and classify
`“conversational flows,” defined as “the sequence of packets that are exchanged in
`any direction as a result of an activity.” Id. col. 2 ll. 45–47. Conversational flows
`provide application-specific views of network traffic and can be used to generate
`helpful analytics to understand network load and usage. See ’751 patent col. 3 l. 2–
`col. 4 l. 11.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2019-2041, slip op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. July 14,
`
`2020) [hereinafter NetScout Appeal]. In affirming the infringement verdict, the Court addressed the
`
`following term from representative claim 19 of the ’789 Patent: “a memory for storing a database
`
`comprising none or more flow-entries for previously encountered conversational flows, each flow-
`
`entry identified by identifying information stored in the flow entry.” See id. at 8. The Court held
`
`that “the claims do not require the joining of connection flows into conversational flows.” Id. As
`
`detailed below, in so holding, the Court rejected PAN’s positions for the “flow-entry database”
`
`terms as well as the “flow/existing flow/new flow” terms. The Federal Circuit’s holding is binding
`
`in this proceeding. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390-91 (1996)
`
`(“[T]reating interpretive issues as purely legal will promote (though it will not guarantee)
`
`intrajurisdictional certainty through the application of stare decisis . . . .”).
`
`
`1 The NetScout appeal related to the ’725, ’751, and ’789 Patents. However, the parties in this case
`have not disputed that like terms across the patents warrant like constructions. Thus, the Federal
`Circuit’s analysis is binding as to terms at issue in this case.
`1
`
`PI’S REPLY 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`II. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“conversational flow(s)”/ “conversational flow-sequence”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“conversational flow(s)”/
`“conversational flow-
`sequence”
`
`All Asserted Claims
`
`
`Packet Intelligence’s
`Construction
`“the sequence of packets that
`are exchanged in any
`direction as a result of an
`activity—for instance, the
`running of an application on a
`server as requested by a
`client—and where some
`conversational flows involve
`more than one connection,
`and some even involve more
`than one exchange of packets
`between a client and server”
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks’
`Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`Alternatively, “the sequence
`of packets that are exchanged
`in any direction as a result of
`specific software program
`activity (for instance, the
`running of a specific
`videoconference program),
`where such packets form
`multiple connection flows
`that are linked based on that
`activity (for instance, linking
`an audio connection and a
`video connection that result
`from the same
`videoconference).”
`
`PAN first alleges that this coined term is indefinite, relying on allegedly conflicting
`
`arguments made in litigation and IPR proceedings. See ECF No. 67 at 3-13 [hereinafter Response].
`
`But PAN presents its evidence without context and refuses to accept that some conversational flow
`
`exchanges include multiple connections—and some only include a single connection. Packet
`
`Intelligence has consistently argued that the specification defines the scope of both “conversational
`
`flow” and “connection flow.” And the Federal Circuit addressed conversational flows and
`
`connection flows when affirming the jury’s infringement verdict in NetScout.
`
`This term has been discussed and construed in several prior proceedings.2 And in every
`
`proceeding in which it was construed, the construction mirrored that proposed by Packet
`
`Intelligence in this case. That is because “conversational flow” is explicitly defined in the
`
`specification. See NetScout Appeal, No. 2019-2041, slip op. at 3 (“The specifications explain that
`
`
`2 See ECF No. 63 [hereinafter Opening Brief] at 7-8 (detailing prior tribunals that have construed
`“conversational flow”); see also Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00252-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.), ECF Nos. 89, 95, and 96 (claim construction opening brief, response brief, and
`reply brief, respectively); Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-00381-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.), ECF Nos. 95, 102, and 104 (claim construction opening brief, response brief, and reply
`brief, respectively).
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`it is more useful to identify and classify ‘conversational flows,’ defined as ‘the sequence of packets
`
`that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity.’” (emphasis added)). And despite this
`
`term being briefed in at least three prior district court cases (plus the co-pending case against
`
`Juniper), no party or court has ever alleged or ruled that the term “conversational flow” is indefinite.
`
`Given the battle-tested history of the patents-in-suit, PAN tries to manufacture inconsistencies by
`
`omitting or distorting the context of the prior proceedings. See Response at 5 (listing five purported
`
`inconsistencies). Packet Intelligence addresses each below.
`
`First, “connection flow” and “conversational flow” are not the same thing. The patent
`
`specification defines each:
`
`The term “connection flow” is commonly used to describe all the packets involved
`with a single connection. A conversational flow, on the other hand, is 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. It is desirable to
`be able to identify and classify conversational flows rather than only connection
`flows. The reason for this is that some conversational flows involve more than one
`connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a
`client and server.
`
`ECF 63-2 [hereinafter ’099 Patent] at 2:35-45. The two flow types are different because a
`
`“connection flow” is determined by the endpoint addresses of a single connection (i.e., the source
`
`and destination IP addresses and port numbers). This information is gleaned from the IP layer (layer
`
`3) and TCP/UDP layer (layer 4) of a packet. A conversational flow, however, is the sequence of
`
`packets exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity. Monitoring only connection flows
`
`does not require an analysis of the “activity” to which the connection relates. Some activities may
`
`involve a single connection (e.g., sending an email message), while some may involve several
`
`connections (e.g., a skype video/audio call).
`
`Determining the underlying activity is protocol dependent, and often requires information
`
`from the Application Layer (layer 7). See, e.g., ’099 Patent at 14:63-66 (“The state processor 328
`
`analyzes both new and existing flows in order to analyze all levels of the protocol stack, ultimately
`
`classifying the flows by application (level 7 in the ISO model).”). This application-specific
`
`information is accounted for in the claims, for example, by the “parsing/extraction operations
`
`memory configured to store a database of parsing/extraction operations that includes information
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`describing how to determine at least one of the protocols used in a packet from data in the packet.”
`
`Id. at 35:9-13. Additionally, the state patterns/operations memory includes application and protocol
`
`specific information used to discern the “activity” to which a given flow relates: “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 application program.” Id. at 35:31-37. Endpoint
`
`addresses, which define a connection flow, are typically insufficient to determine the “activity” to
`
`which a packet (or sequence of packets) relates. See, e.g., id. at 10:8-11:23 (describing packet
`
`analysis at multiple protocol layers to recognize the underlying application and activity).
`
`PAN’s next two points address whether a “conversational flow” requires linking more than
`
`one connection flow. As detailed in Packet Intelligence’s opening brief, and noted above, whether
`
`a conversational flow links more than one connection flow depends on the nature of the activity
`
`involved. Some activities involve a single connection—others involve multiple connections. Packet
`
`Intelligence’s arguments within the IPR context simply explained that the prior art reference
`
`(Engel) did not have the ability to correlate connection flows based on the underlying activity. See
`
`ECF No. 67-6 at 3 (“One of the key novel features of the ’099 patent, and the focus of the arguments
`
`in this preliminary response, is the ability to relate individual packets to one another into
`
`‘conversational flows.’” (emphasis added)). PAN’s highlighted passage on the same page indicates
`
`that packets and connection flows are related “based on specific application activity.” These
`
`arguments are not inconsistent with Packet’s proposed construction, and they do not require that
`
`every conversational flow must include packets from more than one connection.
`
`PAN’s final two points relate to network activity and how that relates to applications and/or
`
`protocols. Within the IPR context, Packet Intelligence explained that simply grouping all packets
`
`of a particular protocol together was different from grouping the packets that result from an activity.
`
`As an example, two different Skype calls would represent two different conversational flow
`
`exchanges. A monitor that simply grouped or related all “Skype” communications would simply
`
`be grouping by protocol, regardless of the number of underlying activities that created the packet
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`exchanges. PAN takes this discussion out of context to manufacture a purported inconsistency.
`
`Next, PAN briefly addresses dicta from Judge Gilstrap in Sandvine. Judge Gilstrap’s
`
`statement that “this construction requires ‘more than one connection’” (Response at 12) just means
`
`that those words are within the construction: “the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any
`
`direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application on a server as
`
`requested by a client—and where some conversational flows involve more than one connection,
`
`and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and server.” ECF No.
`
`63-9 at 6 (emphasis added). PAN’s continued assertion that Packet Intelligence has taken
`
`inconsistent positions in litigation and IPRs (see Response at 12) is at best a mischaracterization of
`
`the record. NetScout made similar arguments, and the Federal Circuit discredited them. See
`
`NetScout Appeal, 2019-2041, slip op. at 8 (“Even if NetScout were correct that the claims require
`
`correlating connection flows into conversational flows . . . the FSB contains flow entries and the
`
`information in the flow record can be used to correlate or associate flow entries into conversational
`
`flows.”).
`
`The Court should reject PAN’s argument that “conversational flow” is indefinite. Multiple
`
`forums have addressed this term, and none have suggested that this term is indefinite. On the
`
`contrary, every forum to address this term has adopted a construction that mirror’s Packet
`
`Intelligence’s proposed construction. As detailed in Packet Intelligence’s Opening Brief, the Court
`
`should also reject PAN’s proposed construction—it unnecessarily injects long passages with no
`
`relation to the definitional language of the specification. This Court should adopt Packet’s proposed
`
`construction, which has been adopted by the PTAB as well as district courts.
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“a flow-entry database” terms
`
`Claim Term
`
`“a flow-entry database / a
`database…for previously
`encountered conversational
`flows/for conversational
`flows encountered by the
`monitor”
`
`’099 claim 1
`’646 claims 1, 7
`’751 claim 1
`’789 claims 1, 19, 44
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks’
`Construction
`“a flow-entry database / a
`database … for previously
`encountered conversational
`flows / for conversational
`flows encountered by the
`monitor, where each
`conversational flow has a
`separate entry in the flow-
`entry database.”
`
`
`Packet Intelligence’s
`Construction
`PI proposes to construe “flow
`entry database” as “a database
`configured to store entries,
`where each entry describes a
`flow”
`
`No further construction
`necessary beyond that
`proposed for “flow entry
`database.”
`
`
`PAN summarized the dispute for these terms as follows:
`
`Does a “flow entry database . . . for conversational flows” encompass a database of
`only connection flow entries where such entries could be linked into a
`conversational flow, as PI contends; or, does it require that such linkage actually
`occur, so that each conversational flow has a separate entry in the database, as PAN
`contends and as applicants stated during prosecution?
`
`Response at 16-17 (emphasis omitted). The Federal Circuit has now resolved this dispute, agreeing
`
`with Packet Intelligence’s position.
`
`In the NetScout appeal, NetScout argued that “a memory for storing a database comprising
`
`none or more flow-entries for previously encountered conversational flows” required a database of
`
`already correlated flow entries—i.e., the database cannot contain connection flow entries. See
`
`NetScout Appeal, No. 2019-2041, slip op. at 7-8 (“NetScout argues that the limitation requires
`
`correlating connection flows
`
`into conversational flows.”). This served as NetScout’s
`
`noninfringement position because its accused products maintain information about connection
`
`flows. See id. at 8 (“In NetScout’s view, the record establishes that the accused products track
`
`connection flows but never join them together.”). Packet Intelligence responded to “NetScout’s
`
`claim construction argument, [stating] . . . that the claims do not require joining flows into a single
`
`conversational flow.” Id. The Federal Circuit agreed with Packet Intelligence and rejected
`
`NetScout’s proposed claim construction:
`
`We first agree with Packet Intelligence that the claims do not require the joining of
`connection flows into conversational flows. The term “conversational flow”
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`appears in claim 19’s memory limitation: “a memory for storing a database
`comprising none or more flow-entries for previously encountered conversational
`flows, each flow-entry identified by identifying information stored in the flow
`entry.” ’789 patent col. 36 ll. 45–48. Contrary to NetScout’s argument, however, a
`limitation requiring memory for storing flow entries for previously encountered
`conversational flows does not require the added action of correlating connection
`flow entries into conversational flows.
`
`Id. (emphases added).
`
`The Federal Circuit has squarely addressed the claim construction proposed by PAN, and it
`
`rejected that proposed construction. And neither party has alleged that the flow-entry database
`
`limitations should be construed differently across the patents. Thus, the Federal Circuit’s holding
`
`in the NetScout appeal is binding in this proceeding. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 390–91 (“[T]reating
`
`interpretive issues as purely legal will promote (though it will not guarantee) intrajurisdictional
`
`certainty through the application of stare decisis . . . .”). The Federal Circuit has “recognize[d] the
`
`national stare decisis effect that [its] decisions on claim construction have.” Key Pharm. v. Hercon
`
`Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor
`
`Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 946, 963–64 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“A district court must apply the Federal
`
`Circuit’s claim construction even where a non-party to the initial litigation would like to present
`
`new arguments.”); Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd., 494 F. Supp. 2d 54, 60–61 (D. Mass.
`
`2007) (holding when the Federal Circuit has already construed claims, that Court’s construction is
`
`binding and district courts may not modify its holding); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., No.
`
`5:07-CV-945 (NAM/DEP), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1135, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2011) (“[D]istrict
`
`courts are bound to apply the Federal Circuit’s claim constructions, even as against non-parties to
`
`the initial litigation.”). For these reasons, the Court should adopt Packet Intelligence’s proposed
`
`construction.
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“the flow”/ “existing flow” / “new flow”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“the flow” / “existing flow” /
`“new flow”
`
`’099 claims 1, 2
`’725 claim 16
`’646 claims 1, 7, 16
`’751 claims 1, 5, 10, 15
`’789 claims 1, 13, 14, 16, 19,
`44
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks’
`Construction
`“the conversational flow” /
`“existing conversational flow”
`/ “new conversational flow”
`
`Packet Intelligence’s
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`Alternatively:
`construe
`to
`PI proposed
`“flow” as “a stream of packets
`being exchanged between any
`two addresses in the network”
`
`The Federal Circuit resolved this dispute when it addressed the flow-entry database terms.
`
`See supra Section II.B. As detailed above, the Federal Circuit held that the claimed “memory
`
`storing a flow-entry database” need not include already correlated connection flow entries. See
`
`NetScout Appeal, No. 2019-2041, slip op. at 8 (“[A] limitation requiring memory for storing flow
`
`entries for previously encountered conversational flows does not require the added action of
`
`correlating connection flow entries into conversational flows.” (emphasis omitted)). PAN’s
`
`proposed construction is inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s holding.
`
`Relying on Claim 19 of the ’789 Patent, as the Federal Circuit did, illustrates the issue. First,
`
`the claim includes “a memory for storing a database comprising none or more flow-entries for
`
`previously encountered conversational flows . . . .” ECF No. 63-6 [hereinafter ’789 Patent] at
`
`36:45-47. Then, it requires “a lookup engine . . . to lookup whether the particular packet . . . has a
`
`matching flow-entry, the looking up using at least some of the selected packet portions and
`
`determining if the packet is of an existing flow . . . .” Id. at 36:49-55 (emphasis added). Finally, the
`
`claim recites:
`
`a flow insertion engine . . . configured to create a flow-entry in the flow-entry
`database, the flow-entry including identifying information for future packets to be
`identified with the new flow-entry, the lookup engine configured such that if the
`packet is of an existing flow, the monitor classifies the packet as belonging to the
`found existing flow; and if the packet is of a new flow, the flow insertion engine
`stores a new flow-entry for the new flow in the flow-entry database…
`
`Id. at 36:56-65 (emphasis added). Notably, if the packet is of “a new flow,” then a flow entry for
`
`that new flow is stored in the flow-entry database. And the Federal Circuit confirmed that the flow-
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`entry database can comprise connection flow entries. For this reason, PAN’s arguments that the “a
`
`new flow” and “an existing flow” terms must specify a “conversational flow” should be rejected.
`
`D.
`
`“a protocol/state identification mechanism…configured to determine the protocol
`and state of the conversational flow of the packet”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“a protocol/state identification
`mechanism…configured to
`determine the protocol and
`state of the conversational
`flow of the packet”
`
`’099 claim 1
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks’
`Construction
`A means-plus-function term
`governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`Function: determine the
`protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of the
`packet.
`
`Structure: Indefinite.
`
`Packet Intelligence’s
`Construction
`Not subject to §112, ¶ 6; No
`construction necessary.
`
`Alternative if §112, ¶ 6:
`
`Function: determine the
`protocol and state of the
`conversational flow of a
`packet
`
`Structure: state processor
`instruction database 326 and
`hardware or processor
`running the algorithm
`described by ’099 Patent at
`14:38-46 and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`
`The claimed “protocol/state identification mechanism” does not recite the word “means.”
`
`As a result, this limitation is entitled to a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. See Opening
`
`Brief at 15-16. To the extent the Court disagrees, the term is not indefinite because the specification
`
`details sufficient structure for one of skill in the art to implement the claimed “protocol/state
`
`identification mechanism.”
`
`Specifically, Packet Intelligence identified the state processor instruction database 326 as
`
`corresponding structure. This database contains the state-based information for each of the
`
`corresponding protocols recognized by the packet monitor.
`
`The other internal data structure that is built by compiler 310 is the set of state
`patterns and processes 326. These are the different states and state transitions that
`occur in different conversational flows, and the state operations that need to be
`performed (e.g., patterns that need to be examined and new signatures that need to
`be built) during any state of a conversational flow to further the task of analyzing
`the conversational flow.
`
`Thus, compiling the PDL files and layer selections provides monitor 300 with the
`
`PI’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 2068
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 68 Filed 07/21/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`information it needs to begin processing packets. In an alternate embodiment, the
`contents of one or more of databases 308 and 326 may be manually or otherwise
`generated. Note that in some embodiments the layering selections information is
`inherent rather than explicitly described. For example, since a PDL file for a
`protocol includes the child protocols, the parent protocols also may be determined.
`
`’099 Patent at 12:47-64 (emphases added). The “information [the monitor] needs to begin
`
`processing packets” includes the initial state information for a given protocol. This information is
`
`then maintained and updated for particular flows as packets are processed. See id. at 14:59-62
`
`(“State processor 328 carries out any state operations specified for the state