throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: December 21, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`35 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Packet Intelligence LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Request for
`Rehearing (Paper 24, “Req. Reh’g”) of our Decision granting institution of
`inter partes review (Paper 20, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) of
`claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 B1 (“the ’646
`patent”). For the following reasons, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`is denied.
`
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify
`all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the
`place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an
`opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review
`the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of
`law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”
`PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567
`(Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
`III. ANALYSIS
`Patent Owner requests that we rehear our Institution Decision and
`“deny institution as to the ’646 Patent.” Req. Reh’g. 8. In particular, Patent
`Owner argues that the Board’s construction of the claim term
`“conversational flow” created ambiguity “and has led to confusion about the
`meaning of” that term. Id. at 7–8. Patent Owner requests that the Board
`adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “conversational flow,” which Patent
`Owner argues “has been relied on by this Board, multiple district courts, and
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner also requests that we reverse
`our Decision granting institution, which, Patent Owner argues, relies on a
`misunderstanding of the types of transmissions that may constitute a
`“conversational flow.” Id. at 6–8.
`A. “Conversational Flow”
`At the outset, we disagree with Patent Owner that we incorrectly
`construed “conversational flow.” In our Institution Decision, we
`acknowledged that, in prior inter partes review proceedings involving the
`’646 patent and related patents, the Board preliminarily construed
`“conversational flow” as
`the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a
`result of an activity (for instance, the running of an application
`on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational
`flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve
`more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.
`Inst. Dec. 26–27 (citing, e.g., IPR2017-00450, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB
`July 26, 2017) (Ex. 1056)). We also acknowledged that the district court in
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-230 (E.D.
`Tex.) and Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00147
`(E.D. Tex.) adopted the same construction with only non-substantive
`punctuation changes. Id. at 27.
`We nevertheless preliminarily construed “conversational flow” as a
`“sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an
`activity.” Inst. Dec. 29. We explained that we saw no “reason to include the
`additional phrases of the prior Board and district court constructions”—
`namely, the phrases “for instance, the running of an application on a server
`as requested by a client,” “where some conversational flows involve more
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`than one connection,” and “some even involve more than one exchange of
`packets between a client and a server.” Id. (emphases added).
`We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of
`conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an
`application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational
`flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than
`one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in
`the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where
`some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst. Dec. 29.
`Patent Owner does not persuade us, on this record, that omission of these
`phrases from our definition of “conversational flow” is, as a matter of claim
`construction, erroneous. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com,
`Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 811 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that exemplary language
`“introduces an example of a broader genus rather than limiting the genus to
`the exemplary species”).
`Nor does Patent Owner persuade us that our preliminary construction
`is erroneous because other panels of “this Board, multiple district courts, and
`the Federal Circuit” have allegedly relied on the exemplary language in
`construing “conversational flow.” Req. Reh’g 7; see also id. at 1–3. We
`observe that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit appears to have expressly analyzed “conversational flow” as
`necessarily including the “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” phrases.
`The District Court, for example, adopted Patent Owner’s construction
`without analysis after the parties “reached agreement” at a hearing dated
`March 2, 2017, but that hearing does not appear to be of record in these
`proceedings. See id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1067, 6). And the Federal Circuit, if
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`anything, appears to have relied on a definition of “conversational flow”
`lacking the additional phrases Patent Owner advances here. See id. (citing
`Ex. 2060, 3). Specifically, in describing “conversational flows,” the court
`stated that:
`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.”
`Ex. 2060, 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:45–47) (emphasis added). We also observe
`that the Board’s previous constructions of “conversational flow” were, like
`here, merely preliminary. See, e.g., IPR2017-00450, Paper 8 at 10
`(interpreting “conversational flow” “for purposes of this Decision”). Patent
`Owner does not point us to any analysis where the prior panels relied on the
`exemplary language to, for example, deny institution in any proceeding. See
`generally Reh’g Req. For these reasons, the mere fact that other panels or
`tribunals have adopted certain claim constructions does not, without more,
`persuade us that a mistake in claim construction has occurred here.
`B. Alleged Ambiguity
`We also disagree with Patent Owner that our construction of
`“conversational flow” introduced ambiguity into this proceeding. In this
`regard, Patent Owner argues that our “more concise construction” fails to
`take into account who is involved in the conversation and, thus, “ignore[s]
`the ‘conversational’ portion of ‘conversational flow.’” Reh’g Req. 4. Patent
`Owner argues that the prior art Riddle “treats packets corresponding to the
`same type of activity identically regardless of whether it is part of a
`‘conversational flow.’” Id. (emphases omitted). Patent Owner argues that
`“conversational flow must be examined in the context of the client or clients
`participating in the conversation.” Id. at 5. The Board’s abbreviated
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`construction, Patent Owner argues, “ignores this concept” and
`“unintentionally expands the meaning of conversational flow . . . to instead
`correspond to any activity, regardless of the participants involved in a
`particular conversation.” Id.
`At bottom, we understand Patent Owner’s argument to be that the
`Board’s construction improperly expands a “conversational flow” to
`encompass a multitude of activities between unrelated parties. See Reh’g
`Req. 5–7. But even if we included the exemplary language in the
`construction of “conversational flows,” that language would not limit the
`number of activities nor the parties involved in that conversation. Put
`differently, because the language is exemplary, none of the phrases (“for
`instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client,”
`“where some conversational flows involve more than one connection,” and
`“some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and
`a server”) appear—at least on this record—to exclude multiple activities and
`multiple parties.
`Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that our construction of “conversational flow” is the result of a
`misunderstanding or misapprehension of the claimed invention or the prior
`art. The parties are encouraged to fully brief this issue during trial, keeping
`in mind the appropriate burdens, and setting forth the most applicable claim-
`construction canons and case law.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`On this record, Patent Owner neither persuades us that we overlooked
`or misapprehended any matter, nor sufficiently shows that instituting an
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 patent was an
`abuse of discretion.
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph F. Edell
`Adam A. Allgood
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`joe.edell.ipr@fischllp.com
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Mark D. Rowland
`James R. Batchelder
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`R. Allan Bullwinkel
`Michael F. Heim
`HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket