UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA CORP. AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2019-01289
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 1 of 87
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ...........................................................................................v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8.................................7
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ..........................................7
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))...................................................7
`C.
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ......................................7
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ............................................8
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103) .................................................8
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................8
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))...........................................8
`B.
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2)).....................9
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)).........................................9
`D.
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)) .......9
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)).......................................9
`SUMMARY OF THE ’751 PATENT ........................................................10
`Overview of the ’751 Patent....................................................................10
`A.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................11
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’751 Patent ............................................12
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))............................13
`A.
`“Conversational Flow[s]”........................................................................13
`B.
`“State of the Flow” ..................................................................................14
`C.
`“State Operations”...................................................................................14
`D.
`“Flow-entry database”.............................................................................15
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’751 PATENT .....................................................................................15
`Prior Art...................................................................................................16
`1.
`Riddle.......................................................................................16
`Summary of the Problem and Solution....................................17
`The Operation of Riddle ..........................................................19
`Bruins.......................................................................................25
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 ...........26
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`Applications.............................................................................29
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) ...............30
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`a)
`b)
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 2 of 87
`
`

`

`A.
`
`a)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`b)
`
`Count 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14 and 15 are Anticipated by Riddle or
`Rendered Obvious by Riddle in view of Bruins .....................................32
`1.
`Claim 1.....................................................................................32
`Limitation [1 Pre] “A method of analyzing a flow of packets
`passing through a connection point on a computer network, the
`method comprising:” ...............................................................32
`Limitation [1a] “(a) receiving a packet from a packet
`acquisition device coupled to the connection point;”..............34
`Limitation [1b(i)] “(b) for each received packet, looking up a
`flow-entry database for containing one or more flow-entries for
`previously encountered conversational flows, the looking up to
`determine if the received packet is of an existing flow,” ........35
`Limitation [1b(ii)] “a conversational flow including an
`exchange of a sequence of one or more packets in any
`direction between two network entities as a result of a
`particular activity using a particular layered set of one or more
`network protocols, a conversational flow further having a set
`of one or more states, including an initial state;”....................44
`Limitation [1c] “(c) if the packet is of an existing flow,
`identifying the last encountered state of the flow, performing
`any state operations specified for the state of the flow, and
`updating the flow-entry of the existing flow including storing
`one or more statistical measures kept in the flow-entry; and” 47
`Limitation [1d] “(d) if the packet is of a new flow, performing
`any state operations required for the initial state of the new
`flow and storing a new flow-entry for the new flow in the
`flow-entry database, including storing one or more statistical
`measures kept in the flow-entry,”............................................49
`Limitation [1e] “wherein every packet passing though the
`connection point is received by the packet acquisition device,
`and”..........................................................................................51
`Limitation [1f] “wherein at least one step of the set consisting
`of of [sic] step (a) and step (b) includes identifying the
`protocol being used in the packet from a plurality of protocols
`at a plurality of protocol layer levels,” ....................................52
`Limitation [1g] “such that the flow-entry database is to store
`flow entries for a plurality of conversational flows using a
`plurality of protocols, at a plurality of layer levels, including
`levels above the network layer.”..............................................55
`Claim 2.....................................................................................55
`ii
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`2.
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 3 of 87
`
`

`

`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`a)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`a)
`
`Limitation [2a] “A method according to claim 1, wherein step
`(b) includes extracting identifying portions from the packet,”55
`Limitation [2b] “wherein the extracting at any layer level is a
`function of the protocol being used at the layer level, and”....56
`Limitation [2c] “wherein the looking up uses a function of the
`identifying portions.”...............................................................57
`Claim 5.....................................................................................58
`Limitation [5] “A method according to claim 1, further
`including reporting one or more metrics related to the flow of a
`flow-entry from one or more of the statistical measures in the
`flow-entry.”..............................................................................58
`Claim 10...................................................................................58
`Limitation [10a] “A method according to claim 1, wherein step
`(c) includes if the packet is of an existing flow, identifying the
`last encountered state of the flow and performing any state
`operations specified for the state of the flow starting from the
`last encountered state of the flow; and” ..................................58
`Limitation [10b] “wherein step (d) includes if the packet is of a
`new flow, performing any state operations required for the
`initial state of the new flow.”...................................................59
`Claim 14...................................................................................60
`Limitation [14] “A method according to claim 10, wherein the
`state operations include updating the flow-entry, including
`storing identifying information for future packets to be
`identified with the flow-entry.” ...............................................60
`Claim 15...................................................................................60
`Limitation [15] “A method according to claim 14, further
`including receiving further packets, wherein the state
`processing of each received packet of a flow furthers the
`identifying of the application program of the flow.”...............60
`Count 2: Riddle in View of Bruins and Further in View of RFC 1945
`Renders Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, and 15 as Obvious.................................62
`Count 3: Riddle in View of Bruins and Further in View of RFC 1889
`and RFC 2326 Renders Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, and 15 as Obvious ........69
`VIII. FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 314 and 325 .................................72
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................75
`
`C.
`
`b)
`
`5.
`
`a)
`
`6.
`
`a)
`
`B.
`
`iii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 4 of 87
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2015-00812, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) ...................................................... passim
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`STATUTES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8...........................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)..........................................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.103............................................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104............................................................................................................8, 9, 10, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, et seq...........................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ........................................................................................................28, 29, 30, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ........................................................................................................12, 16, 26, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.........................................................................................................................17, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) ..........................................................................................................................15
`
`iv
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 5 of 87
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`EX1009
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`EX1014
`EX1015
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (the “’099 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (the “’725 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (the “’646 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (the “’751 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (the “’789 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al. (“Riddle”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,980 to Packer et al. (“Packer”)
`RFC 1945, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC
`1945”)
`RFC 2616, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (“RFC
`2616”)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-
`00381-JRG, Dkt. No. 74, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement (June 7, 2019)
`WO 97/23076 A1 to Baker (“Baker”)
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903
`File History for US Patent No. 6,651,099
`File History for US Patent No. 6,665,725
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646
`File History for US Patent No. 6,839,751
`File History for US Patent No. 6,954,789
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 66, Claim Construction Memorandum and
`Order (March 14, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-1, Declaration of Sadaf R. Abdullah
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-2, Dr. Kevin Almeroth’s
`Demonstrative Slides (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 250, Transcript from Oct. 12, 2017
`(October 17, 2017)
`
`v
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 6 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1024
`
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`
`EX1031
`EX1032
`
`EX1033
`
`EX1034
`
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`EX1038
`
`EX1039
`
`EX1040
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-1, Declaration of Steven Udick
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-2, Dr. Almeroth’s direct testimony
`demonstratives (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-1, Declaration of Michael Lyons
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-4, Russell Dietz’s demonstratives
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 244, Transcript from Oct. 10, 2017 AM
`session (October 17, 2017)
`Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni
`26/16 (EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`Applications (“RFC 1889”)
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (“RFC 2326”)
`Redline showing a comparison of US Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle
`et al. (“Riddle”) to provisional application number 60/066,864
`PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, the Wall
`Street Journal (April 15, 1996)
`Brown, Judy, PointCast Network Provides a world of Information,
`News, Weather, Stock Quotes Can Be Displayed, Milwaukee
`Journal Sentinel (March 18, 1996)
`PointCast Makes Debut On Internet Screens to Acclaim, Internet
`Business News (March 19, 1996)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 55-21, Packet Intelligence’s Tutorial
`(January 20, 2017)
`Provisional application number 60/066,864
`Claim chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the
`specification of provisional application number 60/066,864
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004,
`Response to Office Action
`RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC 765”)
`
`vi
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 7 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1041
`
`EX1042
`
`EX1043
`
`EX1044
`
`EX1045
`
`EX1046
`
`EX1047
`
`EX1048
`
`EX1049
`
`EX1050
`
`EX1051
`
`EX1052
`
`EX1053
`EX1054
`
`EX1055
`
`EX1056
`EX1057
`EX1058
`
`EX1059
`
`EX1060
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (June 5, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 9 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC 1543”)
`RFC 2026, The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 (“RFC
`2026)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314, NetScout’s JMOL of No
`Infringement (October 5, 2018)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,175 to Wakeman et al. (“Wakeman”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,725 to Cheriton et al. (“Cheriton”)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 6 (August 31, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Abandonment, Paper No. 8 (Dec. 1,
`2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Adverse Judgment, Paper No. 9 (Dec. 20, 2017)
`
`vii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 8 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1061
`EX1062
`EX1063
`EX1064
`EX1065
`EX1066
`EX1067
`
`EX1068
`
`RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC 793”)
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,308,148 to Bruins et al. (“Bruins”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,808 to Hasani et al. (“Hasani”)
`Claim Listing for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`Omitted
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 - Information processing
`systems -- Open Systems Interconnection -- Basic Reference
`Model -- Part 4: Management framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC 791”)
`
`viii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 9 of 87
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia Corp. and Nokia of America Corp. (collectively “Petitioners”) request
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2 5, 10, 14, and 15 (collectively, “the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (EX1004, “the ’751 Patent”).
`
`Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC (collectively, “Sandvine”)
`
`previously challenged the ’751 Patent in IPR2017-000451 based primarily on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,115,393 (“Engel”). EX1048, 6. In IPR2017-00451 the Board denied
`
`institution because it found that Engel failed to show the claimed “conversational
`
`flow[s].” EX1048, 22. The prior art used in this Petition discloses all of the
`
`limitations of the Challenged Claims including the claimed “conversational
`
`flow[s].”
`
`The ’751 Patent incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,661,099 (“the ’099 Patent”)
`
`(09/608,237)1 by reference. EX1004, 2:11-20. The ’099 Patent describes:
`
` a “flow” as “a stream of packets being exchanged between any two
`
`addresses in the network,”
`
` a “connection flow” as “all
`
`the packets involved with a single
`
`connection,” and
`
`1 The ’751 Patent contains a typographical error regarding the application
`
`number of the ’099 Patent.
`
`1
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 10 of 87
`
`

`

` a “conversational flow” as “the sequence of packets that are exchanged
`
`in any direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of
`
`an application on a server as requested by a client.”
`
`See, e.g., EX1001, 2:35-40, 12:4-5.
`
`According to Packet Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”) “[t]he problem with
`
`only tracking connection flows is that certain applications and protocols may
`
`generate multiple connections. In other words, a single application may spawn
`
`multiple connections for a single activity.” EX1042, 17. An example of the alleged
`
`problem according to the Patent Owner is demonstrated through Skype. EX1036,
`
`17-18. As shown below, Skype generates multiple separate connection flows for
`
`video, audio, and control information. Id.
`
`2
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 11 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1036, 18.
`
`As shown by Patent Owner’s “conversational
`
`flow” slide below, a
`
`“conversational flow” requires linking each of those separate connection flows into
`
`one “conversational flow.”
`
`3
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 12 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1036, 19.
`
`Similarly, the Patent Owner provided the following illustration to distinguish
`
`the Engle prior art reference in the previous IPR.
`
`4
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 13 of 87
`
`

`

`EX1048, 18.
`
`The Board wrote “packets 1 and 2 may both result from the same application
`
`(e.g., video and audio traffic using Skype), but Engel would not link them as being
`
`part of a single conversational flow.” Id. Further, “we do not see—and Petitioner
`
`does not point to—anything in Engel indicating that it links communications by
`
`application (as opposed to by layer and client-server pair) as our interpretation of
`
`‘conversational flow’ above requires.” EX1048, 19. The Board noted “[w]hat
`
`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.”
`
`EX1048, 19 (internal citation omitted).
`
`5
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 14 of 87
`
`

`

`This Petition relies upon prior art that discloses all of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims, including the claimed conversational flows in four different
`
`ways. First, the prior art discussed below links disjointed TCP flows for FTP
`
`applications. EX1006, ¶¶668-678. The German Federal Patent Court has already
`
`invalidated a family member of the ’751 Patent and found that that linking disjointed
`
`TCP flows for FTP applications is a conversational flow. EX1029, 35-36. Second,
`
`the prior art discussed below recognizes disjointed flows for an application called
`
`PointCast. EX1006, ¶¶679-688. The provisional patent application that lead to the
`
`’751 Patent admits that consolidating disjointed flows for PointCast
`
`is a
`
`conversational flow. EX1014, 7:16-25. Third, the prior art discussed below links
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field. EX1006, ¶¶746-758. The Patent Owner’s expert has stated that linking
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field, yields a conversational flow. EX1006, ¶¶748-752. Fourth, the prior
`
`art discussed below links RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows. EX1006, ¶¶759-769. The
`
`Patent Owner previously told the Board that relating RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows
`
`created a conversational flow. EX1042, 25.
`
`6
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 15 of 87
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are Nokia of America Corporation, Nokia Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Nokia”), Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’751 Patent is at issue in Packet Intelligence LLC v. Nokia of America
`
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.), Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson
`
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 2:18-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.), Packet
`
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-230 (E.D. Tex.), and
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02471 (N.D. Cal).
`
`Petitioners are also contemporaneously filing petitions for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (IPR2019-01291), 6,651,099 (IPR2019-01290),
`
`6,771,646 (IPR2019-01292), and 6,954,789 (IPR2019-01293).2
`
`C.
`
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead counsel for Nokia is Thomas W. Davison (Reg. No. 57,160), 950 F
`
`Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-1404, Tel: 202-239-3933, Fax: (202) 654-4913
`
`and Stephen Lareau (Reg. No. 62,273). Backup counsel for Nokia is S. Benjamin
`
`2 Collectively, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and
`
`6,954,789 are referred to as the “Challenged Patents.”
`
`7
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 16 of 87
`
`

`

`Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421), M. Scott Stevens (Reg. No. 54,762), and Stephen Lareau
`
`(Reg. No. 62,273), each of Alston & Bird LLP, Bank of America Plaza, 101 South
`
`Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC 28280-4000, Tel: 704.444.1000, Fax:
`
`704.444.1111.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R §42.10(b), Powers of Attorney are being submitted with
`
`this Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`directed
`
`to
`
`Tom.Davison@alston.com, Ben.Pleune@alston.com, Scott.Stevens@alston.com,
`
`and Stephen.Lareau@alston.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent Office to charge Deposit Account No. 16-
`
`0605 for the Petition fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a), and for any additional fees.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’751 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the
`
`Challenged Claims (1, 2, 5, 10, 14, and 15) on the grounds identified herein.
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 17 of 87
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2))
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioners request
`
`cancellation of the Challenged Claims (1, 2 5, 10, 14, and 15) in the ’751 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: (a) Riddle anticipates the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e); or (b) the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Bruins.
`
`Count 2: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Bruins and further in view of RFC 1945.
`
`Count 3: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Bruins, and further in view of RFC 1889, and RFC 2326.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’751 Patent should be
`
`construed is provided below.
`
`D.
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’751 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the above grounds is provided below.
`
`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5))
`
`The text below provides exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied on
`
`to support the challenge and also explains the relevance of the evidence to the
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 18 of 87
`
`

`

`challenge raised. The text below also identifies the specific portions of the evidence
`
`that support the challenge. A Table of Exhibits is set forth above.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’751 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’751 Patent
`
`The ’751 Patent discloses “[a] method of and monitor apparatus for analyzing
`
`a flow of packets passing through a connection point on a computer network.”
`
`EX1004, Abstract. The ’751 Patent explains that there was a need in the art for “a
`
`real-time network monitor that can provide details as to the application programs
`
`being used.” EX1004, 1:54–59. The disclosed monitor receives packets passing in
`
`either direction through its connection point on the network and “elucidate[s] what
`
`application programs are associated with each packet” by extracting (reading and/or
`
`copying) information from the packet, using selected parts of the extracted
`
`information to “build[] a signature for identifying the conversational flow of the
`
`packet,” and performing a lookup of “a database of flow records for previously
`
`encountered conversational flows to determine whether [the] signature is from an
`
`existing flow.” EX1004, 2:11–43, Fig. 1.
`
`Fig. 3 depicts various components of network packet monitor 300, including
`
`parser subsystem 301, analyzer subsystem 303, and database of known flows 324.
`
`EX1004, 8:47–9:2. Parser subsystem 301 “parses the packet and determines the
`
`protocol types and associated headers for each protocol layer that exists in the packet
`
`10
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 19 of 87
`
`

`

`302,” “extracts characteristic portions (signature information) from the packet 302,”
`
`and builds the “unique flow signature (also called a ‘key’) for this flow.” EX1004,
`
`9:16–10:39, 29:9–31:6 (describing an example of how the disclosed monitor builds
`
`signatures and flow states in the context of a Sun Remote Procedure Call (RPC),
`
`where, after all of the required processing, “KEY-2 may . . . be used to recognize
`
`packets that are in any way associated with the application ‘a2’”), Fig. 2.
`
`Analyzer system 303 then determines whether the packet has a matching flow-
`
`entry in database of flows 324, and processes the packet accordingly, including, for
`
`example, determining whether the packet belongs to an existing conversational flow
`
`or a new (i.e., not previously encountered) flow and, in the case of the latter,
`
`performing state processing to determine whether the conversational flow has been
`
`“fully characterized” and the classification of the conversational flow for the flow
`
`can be “finalized.” EX1004, 10:56–13:44.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’751 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000 as Ser. No. 60/141,903, claiming
`
`priority to a provisional patent application, No. 60/141,903, filed on June 30, 1999.
`
`EX1002. While Petitioners do not accede to a priority date of June 30, 1999 for the
`
`’751 Patent, for purposes of this Petition only it is assumed that the ’751 Patent is
`
`entitled to that date.
`
`11
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 20 of 87
`
`

`

`The ’751 Patent incorporates the ’099, ’646, and ’725 Patents, which also
`
`claim priority to the same provisional application, by reference. EX1004, 1:7-35.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’751 Patent
`
`On June 30, 2000, the ’751 Patent was filed with 21 claims. EX1018, 82-85.
`
`On July 10, 2003, the Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,850,388 to Anderson (“Anderson”). EX1018,
`
`172-179. In response, on November 3, 2003, the Applicants amended independent
`
`claims 1 and 17 and added claim elements such as “identifying the last encountered
`
`state of the flow” and “performing any state operations.” EX1018, 221-235. The
`
`Applicants also attempted to distinguished Anderson from the purported invention
`
`of the ’751 patent on the basis of the term “conversational flow”. EX1018, 227-234.
`
`On December 23, 2013, the Examiner found the Applicants’ arguments
`
`unpersuasive and again rejected all claims. EX1018, 243. On April 15, 2004, there
`
`was a telephone interview. Id. at 637. On April 19, 2004, the Applicants proposed
`
`amendments. EX1018, 637-648. Those amendments included, among others, adding
`
`a requirement of “a conversational flow” to the independent claims. EX1018, 644-
`
`645. On June 4, 2004, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. EX1018, 651-
`
`652.
`
`12
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 21 of 87
`
`

`

`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`A.
`
`“Conversational Flow[s]”
`
`The terms “conversational flow[s]” is in every independent claim. The Patent
`
`Owner previously agreed these terms mean:
`
`the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a
`result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application
`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.
`
`EX1048, 10.
`
`In prior IPRs, the Board applied the Patent Owner’s construction. Id. Further,
`
`the Patent Owner agreed to this construction in a previous district court litigation.
`
`EX1020, 6.
`
`In the related district court action, Petitioners have proposed that
`
`“conversational flow[s]” means: “the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any
`
`direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of an application on a
`
`server as requested by a client—where the activity creates multiple connection
`
`flows.” EX1012, 7. The prior art below invalidates the ’751 Patent under both
`
`proposed constructions.
`
`13
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2045 Page 22 of 87
`
`

`

`B.
`
`“State of the Flow”
`
`The term “state of the flow” appears in claims 1 and 10 of the ’751 Patent.
`
`According to Patent Owner “state of the flow” means “an indication of all previous
`
`events in the flow that lead to recognition of the content of all of the protocol levels.”
`
`EX1042, 32; see also EX1006, ¶¶136-139. This indication of previous events
`
`includes “parameters such as the time, length of the conversational flow, data rate,
`
`etc.” EX1001, 5:27-34; EX1006, ¶141.
`
`C.
`
`“State Operations”
`
`The term “state operations” a