Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`Alan M. Fisch (pro hac vice)
`alan.fisch@fischllp.com
`R. William Sigler (pro hac vice)
`bill.sigler@fischllp.com
`Jeffrey M. Saltman (pro hac vice)
`jeffrey.saltman@fischllp.com
`Adam A. Allgood (SBN: 295016)
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Tel: 202.362.3500
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`Ken K. Fung (SBN: 283854)
`ken.fung@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`400 Concar Drive
`San Mateo, CA 94402
`Tel: 650.362.8207
`Fax: 202.362.3501
`Counsel for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-04741-WHO
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 3
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`“conversational flow” / “conversational flow-sequence” .............................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The intrinsic record, from the specifications to Packet Intelligence’s
`statements during prosecution and IPRs, repeatedly confirms that this Court
`should construe “conversational flow” to require “multiple connection
`flows” linked by “specific software program activity.” ....................................... 3
`
`The Intrinsic Record Further Confirms That “Conversational Flow”
`Requires “Specific Software Program Activity.” ................................................. 8
`
`3. Other Tribunals’ Constructions Support Juniper’s Proposed Construction. ........ 9
`
`“flow-entry database” .................................................................................................. 13
`
`“the flow” / “new flow” / “existing flow” ................................................................... 17
`
`“base protocol” ............................................................................................................ 18
`
`“slicer” ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`“a protocol/state identification mechanism …” .......................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G. Preambles .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-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 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch Inc.,
` 334 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 8
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 1123752 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012) ......................................... 8
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
` 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 7
`Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp.,
` 55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 24
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
` 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 21
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
` 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 6, 8
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
` 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ................................................................................................................... 1
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
` 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 20
`Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
` 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 11
`Corus Realty Holdings, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc.,
`No. C18-0847, 2019 WL 2766508 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2019) ................................................ 15
`Digital-Vending Services Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
` 672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 21
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
` 700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 12
`Facebook, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. 4:18-cv-05434, 2019 WL 6828359 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) .......................................... 15
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
` 535 U.S. 722 (2002) ................................................................................................................... 1
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.,
` No. 17-cv-4467-BLF, 2019 WL 1369938 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) ....................................... 9
`Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc.,
` 373 F.3d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 18
`In re Johnston,
` 435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 3
`In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG Patent Litig.,
` 320 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D.D.C. 2018) ........................................................................................... 9
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`In re Paulsen,
` 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 8
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
` 450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 1
`Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd.,
` 617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 8
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
` 733 F.2d 881 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................. 18
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 22
`MyMail, Ltd. v. IAC Search & Media, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04488, 2020 WL 1043659 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) ............................................... 15
`Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp.,
` 242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 1
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 6, 7
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
` 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 7, 8
`Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Oz-Post Int’l, LLC,
` No. 3:18-cv-1188-WHO, 2020 WL 3187950 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2020) .................................. 3
`SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp.,
` 828 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 9
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
` 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 7
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Big River Tel. Co., LLC,
`No. 08-2046-JWL, 2009 WL 1992537 (D. Kan. July 8, 2009) ................................................. 16
`Stephens v. Attorney Gen. of Cal.,
` 23 F.3d 248 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................................ 9
`Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V.,
` 358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 19
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
` 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 19
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
` 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 14
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
` 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-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 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The law precludes using claim construction to expand the scope of a patent outside the
`bounds of the patentee’s invention. As the Federal Circuit has explained, claim construction must
`not “enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the invention.”1 This
`protects the public from a patentee extending its monopoly rights beyond the patent’s contribu-
`tions to the public storehouse of knowledge. Indeed, the Supreme Court has time and again reit-
`erated that “exclusive patent rights are given in exchange for disclosure to the public.”2
`Juniper’s proposed constructions here follow these principles, while Packet Intelligence’s
`do not. The term “conversational flow” exemplifies these divergent approaches. The patents dif-
`ferentiate between devices that classify packets of information into a “connection flow,” as com-
`monly used in the prior art, and a “conversational flow,” as claimed in all five patents-in-suit.
`For instance, the ’099 patent specification states:
`
`Some prior art packet monitors classify packets into connection flows. 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.3
`Juniper’s proposed construction for “conversational flow” maintains this distinction, defining the
`term to involve linking a group of multiple individual connection flows. Packet Intelligence’s
`proposal, on the other hand, blurs the line between “connection flow” and “conversational flow,”
`such that a “conversational flow” may be a single, individual connection flow, or a group of con-
`nection flows. Thus, Packet Intelligence seeks to capture the single connection of a “connection
`flow,” thereby eliminating the unique aspects of “conversational flow” that the specification es-
`tablishes.
`
`
`1 Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quot-
`ing Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`2 E.g., Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 736 (2002)
`(citing Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150–51 (1989) (“The fed-
`eral patent system thus embodies a carefully crafted bargain for encouraging the creation and dis-
`closure of new, useful, and nonobvious advances in technology and design in return for the ex-
`clusive right to practice the invention for a period of years.”)).
`3 ’099 Patent (Dkt. #57-2) at 2:34–40.
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`1
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`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
`
`
`But Packet Intelligence’s proposal here runs contrary to what it has told the Patent Office
`and another district court. In defending the validity of its patents, Packet Intelligence has repeat-
`edly argued that the prior art does not teach “conversational flows” because it fails to group or
`link together multiple individual connection flows. For instance, during prior IPR proceedings
`challenging the Asserted Patents, Packet Intelligence distinguished the prior art by contending
`that “different connection flows are related to each other into conversational flows.”4 And Packet
`Intelligence’s expert on claim construction here, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, previously testified to an
`Eastern District of Texas jury that a conversational flow is “more than just a single connection
`flow. It’s multiple connection flows that can be related to each other.”5 Juniper’s proposed con-
`struction is consistent with these statements explaining Packet Intelligence’s view of the scope of
`its invention, while Packet Intelligence’s proposed construction is not.
`Packet Intelligence’s approach to another term, “a protocol/state identification mecha-
`nism,” similarly shows its efforts to expand its monopoly beyond its contribution to the art. The
`“mechanism” is a means for performing the claimed function of determining “the protocol and
`state of the conversational flow of the packet.” But the specification leaves the public—including
`Juniper—guessing as to the corresponding structure that performs this function. Packet Intelli-
`gence’s solution is to ask the Court to rewrite the patent to define that structure as a particular da-
`tabase, processor, or “equivalents thereof.” The law, including the Federal Circuit’s seminal
`2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC decision,6 precludes this approach. This term is thus in-
`definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for failing to inform the public of the invention’s boundaries.
`The parties’ proposals on the other terms-at-issue follow the same pattern, with Juniper
`integrating the Asserted Patents’ and Packet Intelligence’s declarations on the scope of the
`claims, and Packet Intelligence overlooking them. For these reasons, and as explained in more
`detail below, Juniper respectfully asks this Court to apply longstanding claim construction prin-
`ciples and hold Packet Intelligence to the bounds of its claimed invention.
`
`4 Ex. 1 (IPR2017-00769, Paper 6) at 40.
`5 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Sandvine Corp. et al., E.D. Tex. Case 2:16-cv-147-JRG, Dkt. #72
`(trial transcript) at 105:21–106:5.
`6 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`2
`
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND BACKGROUND
`Juniper understands that this Court is well-versed in claim construction law, and thus ad-
`dresses the particular law applicable to the issues here in the context of the disputed terms.7 Sim-
`ilarly, Juniper addresses specific points regarding the relevant technology and background of the
`invention in the context of the disputed terms. The Declaration of Juniper’s expert, Dr. Steven
`M. Bellovin,8 and Juniper’s forthcoming technology tutorial provide a fuller discussion of the
`background of the claimed invention and the firewall technology at issue in this case.
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“CONVERSATIONAL FLOW” / “CONVERSATIONAL FLOW-SEQUENCE”9
`1.
`The intrinsic record, from the specifications to Packet Intelligence’s
`statements during prosecution and IPRs, repeatedly confirms that this
`Court should construe “conversational flow” to require “multiple con-
`nection flows” linked by “specific software program activity.”
`It is undisputed that “conversational flow” was not and is not a term used in the art.10
`Based on the intrinsic record, this Court should construe this term to differentiate “conversational
`flows” from “only connection flows.”11 As detailed below, a “conversational flow” involves
`linking together a group of multiple related connection flows. And if a “conversational flow”
`may just be one single connection flow, as Packet Intelligence proposes, that optional element
`would not define the scope of the invention.12
`
`
`7 See generally Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Oz-Post Int’l, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-1188-WHO,
`2020 WL 3187950, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2020).
`8 See Dkt. #54-3. Dr. Bellovin is a Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University, a po-
`sition that he has held since 2005. Id. at ¶ 3. Before that, he worked in the industry and as an Ad-
`junct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. See id. at ¶¶ 3–4. He received his Ph.D. in
`Computer Science in 1982 from the University to North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Id. at ¶ 2.
`9 As found in: ’099 Patent (Dkt. #57-2) claims 1 and 5; ’725 Patent (Dkt. #57-3) claims 10 and
`17; ’646 Patent (Dkt. #57-4) claims 1, 7, and 16; ’751 Patent (Dkt. #57-5) claims 1, 17; and ’789
`Patent (Dkt. #57-6) claims 1, 19, and 44.
`10 See Dkt. #54-3 at ¶ 82.
`11 See id. at ¶¶ 78 (quoting ’099 Patent at 2:40–42), 85.
`12 See In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision,
`optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). For a similar
`reason, Packet Intelligence’s assertion that the “core dispute regards whether a ‘conversational
`flow’ always requires multiple connection flows” is misleading. The issue is what the claim re-
`quires. By using the word “always,” Packet Intelligence confirms that it is seeking to construe
`“conversational flow” so that it can sometimes mean one thing, and at other times mean another.
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`3
`
`
`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 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`For instance, the ’099 Patent specification, when read as a whole, shows that devices and
`methods that identify only “connection flows” cannot satisfy the “conversational flow” limita-
`tions. The specification’s Background section, which Packet Intelligence relies on, begins by ac-
`knowledging that “prior art packet monitors classif[ied] packets into connection flows.”13 Then,
`as noted above, the specification describes the difference between these “connection flows” and
`the claimed “conversational flows” as follows:
`
`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 in-
`stance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client.14
`But although the specification suggests that some “connection flows” may be “conversational
`flows,” or vice versa, it emphasizes that the purpose of the invention is not to identify or classify
`“only connection flows” (i.e., packets exchanged over individual connections):
`
`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 pack-
`ets between a client and server.15
`And the specification declares that linking a group of multiple “connection flows” into one “con-
`versational flow” is what is novel about the purported invention, and what is missing from the
`prior-art monitors that already classified packets into connection flows:
`
`What distinguishes this invention from prior art network monitors is that it has the
`ability to recognize disjointed flows as belonging to the same conversational flow.16
`The specification, when read as a whole, thus confirms that the “conversational flow” limitations
`cannot be satisfied by pointing to only “connection flows.”17 And any construction of “conversa-
`tional flows” that may encompass only individual connections or connection flows only supports
`finding the claims invalid.
`
`
`
`13 ’099 Patent at 2:34–35.
`14 ’099 Patent at 2:35–40. The ’789 Patent specification includes the same language, while the
`other Asserted Patents incorporate it by reference.
`15 ’099 Patent at 2:40–45 (emphasis added).
`16 ’099 Patent at 3:48–51.
`17 Dkt. #54-3 at ¶¶ 81–85 (Dr. Bellovin opining that Juniper’s construction is consistent with the
`specifications of the Asserted Patents).
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-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 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`Outside of the briefing here, Packet Intelligence’s actions show that it shares the same
`view on validity. Packet Intelligence has repeatedly argued that prior art does not teach “conver-
`sational flows” because it fails to link together a group of multiple individual connection flows.18
`For instance, during IPR proceedings brought by Sandvine challenging the Asserted Patents,
`Packet Intelligence argued that conversational flows “relate”—i.e., link together—“packets, and
`ultimately connection flows, when they are the result of an application activity.”19 Packet Intelli-
`gence argued that this distinguishes its inventions from the prior art:
`
`[The] Engel [prior art] cannot create conversational flows, as it does not capture
`“flow” information of any kind and expressly states that its concept of dialog means
`that every dialog is unique and not part of or related to any other dialog. This stands
`in stark contrast with the concept of “connection flows” and “conversational flows”
`in [the Asserted Patents] where each packet is part of a single connection flow, and
`different connection flows are related to each other into conversational flows.20
`In the same proceedings, Packet Intelligence also asserted that “to create [the] conversa-
`tional flows taught in the ’099 patent,” a packet monitor must “establish relationships between
`individual flows.”21 Similarly, Packet Intelligence stated that:
`
`The ’099 patent treats packets as complete units, such that information is extracted
`from the packets, entire packets are related to each other as part of a connection
`flow, and ultimately connection flows are related to each other when they are part
`of an application activity (i.e., a conversational flow).22
`And these statements to the PTAB track Packet Intelligence’s arguments and expert testi-
`mony in infringement trials against other defendants. For instance, Packet Intelligence’s expert
`on claim construction here, Dr. Almeroth, previously testified to an Eastern District of Texas
`jury in Packet Intelligence’s 2017 trial against Sandvine that:
`
`Clearly, a conversational flow is something different than a connection flow by
`itself. … It’s a result of an activity running an application on a server, something
`like Facebook. So it’s more than just a single connection flow. It’s multiple con-
`nection flows that can be related to each other.23
`
`18 See, e.g., Dkt. #54-3 at ¶¶ 100–101.
`19 Ex. 1 (IPR2017-00769, Paper 6) at 45.
`20 Id. at 40.
`21 E.g., id. at 43.
`22 E.g., id. at 38–39.
`23 E.D. Tex. Case 2:16-cv-147-JRG, Dkt. #72 at 105:21–106:5; see also Dkt. #54-3 at ¶ 98 (Dr.
`Bellovin quoting additional such testimony from Dr. Almeroth at trial). And in the currently
`pending IPRs, Packet Intelligence differentiated the Asserted Patents from the prior art based on
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`5
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`This further comports with explanations from the inventors themselves. Russell Dietz, an inven-
`tor listed on each Asserted Patent, testified during Packet Intelligence’s 2017 trial against
`NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas about the creation of a “conversational flow”:
`
`[What we] came up with was a way to take information from all of those different
`packets in each of those connection flows and create a conversational flow. And
`the conversational flow, as we see in this picture, can be 3 or 300 or 30 different
`connection flows, but they’re all associated now to that one application, the app on
`your phone and that web page.24
`Co-inventor David Maixner’s independent testimony in the same trial verified the inventors’ un-
`derstanding that a single “conversational flow” was a combination of multiple flows:
`
`We looked at these -- you know, two connections and four -- or to eight datastreams
`all apart -- all of which made up a call, and we were able to abstract that as conver-
`sational flow. It’s a combination of multiple flows -- in this case a couple of TCP
`connections -- and then multiple datastreams with audio and video going back.25
`Thus, and as Dr. Bellovin concludes, the Asserted Patents’ disclosures and Packet Intelligence’s
`and its expert’s statements in IPRs and litigation establish that a “conversational flow” requires
`linking a group of multiple individual connection flows based on specific software program ac-
`tivity.26
`And the law supports that conclusion, since it is well established that a patent owner may
`disclaim or disavow the scope of a claim in the specification or during a Patent Office proceed-
`ing. For instance, if a patentee describes an invention narrowly during prosecution, the doctrine
`of prosecution disclaimer correspondingly narrows the meaning of the claims and the patentee’s
`monopoly.27 As the Federal Circuit explained in Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., this
`prevents patentees like Packet Intelligence from construing claims “one way in order to obtain
`
`the patents’ “ability to relate different connection flows to one another into ‘conversational
`flows’ to the extent that those connection flows relate to the same activity.” Ex. 2 (IPR2020-
`0335, Paper 7) at 2–3.
`24 Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., et al, E.D. Tex. Case 2:16-cv-230-JRG, Dkt.
`#244 at 56:17-57:15.
`25 Id., Dkt. #245 at 15:18–16:5.
`26 Dkt. #54-3 at ¶ 99; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(“Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a
`full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the
`claim. The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the
`patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”).
`27 E.g., Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-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 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.”28 And in applying such doc-
`trines, courts may consider statements made during an IPR to distinguish prior art references, as
`well as statements during prosecution or IPR proceedings that the Patent Office did not rely on.29
`Here, Packet Intelligence’s previous statements constitute a clear and unmistakable disavowal of
`the scope of the Asserted Patents.30
`Moreover, Packet Intelligence’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, provides no basis for a different
`conclusion. His one-page analysis does little more than quote the language that Packet Intelli-
`gence relies on for its construction.31 He does not discuss the statements in the specification that
`contradict his conclusion, or address the contradictory statements that he and Packet Intelligence
`made in other proceedings.
`And although Packet Intelligence argues that its construction merely tracks “definitional
`language from the specification,”32 that is incorrect. Most notably, Packet Intelligence’s pro-
`posed construction omits the portion of the passage that it relies on that states it is desirable to
`identify more than “only connection flows.”33 Additionally, Packet Intelligence’s request that
`this Court follow that language verbatim lacks the necessary support. As Packet Intelligence
`acknowledges, the “specification may inform the meaning of claim terms, but it does not change
`those meanings unless the patentee has chosen to be his own lexicographer.”34 And Packet Intel-
`ligence does not cite any legal basis to excuse it from its previous disavowals of claim scope (to
`
`
`28 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`29 See Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Aylus Net-
`works, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`30 See, e.g., Biogen, 713 F.3d at 1096 (where claim term could have covered all antibodies that
`target particular antigen, finding argument that invention was enabled for antibodies with “simi-
`lar affinity and specificity” as Rituxin to be “clear and unmistakeable” disclaimer); Seachange,
`413 F.3d at 1374 (finding argument about what prior art does not “describe or suggest” to be
`clear and unmistakeable disclaimer).
`31 Dkt. #54-2 at ¶¶ 63–65.
`32 Dkt. #57 at 6.
`33 ’099 Patent at 2:40–43.
`34 Dkt. #57 at 6 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321). Packet Intelligence asserts that the specifica-
`tion “expressly” defines “conversational flow,” but does not argue in its brief that it acted as its
`own lexicographer. Indeed, this Court explained in Apple v. Samsung that for an inventor “to act
`as his own lexicographer,” the inventor “must do so ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-4741-WHO
`
`7
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC Exh 2070
`Juniper Networks, Inc., et al v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`IPR2020-00337
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document 62 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`the extent that they are disavowals, and not just a mis