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: IPR2019-01291
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725
`____________
`
`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. 2047 Page 1 of 97
`
`

`

`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)) ......................................8
`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 ........................9
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))...........................................9
`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)) .....10
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)).....................................10
`SUMMARY OF THE ’725 PATENT ........................................................10
`Overview of the ’725 Patent....................................................................10
`A.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................14
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’725 Patent ............................................14
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))............................15
`A.
`“Conversational Flow[s]”........................................................................15
`B.
`“State of the Flow” ..................................................................................16
`C.
`“Child Protocol” ......................................................................................16
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’725 PATENT .....................................................................................17
`Prior Art...................................................................................................17
`1.
`Riddle.......................................................................................17
`Summary of the Problem and Solution....................................19
`The Operation of Riddle ..........................................................21
`Baker........................................................................................28
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 ...........29
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`Applications.............................................................................32
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) ...............33
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`a)
`b)
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 2 of 97
`
`

`

`B.
`
`a)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`b)
`c)
`
`Count 1: Riddle in view of Baker Renders Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17
`Obvious....................................................................................................35
`1.
`Claims 10 and 17 .....................................................................35
`Limitations [10 Pre] and [17 Pre] “A method of performing
`protocol specific operations on a packet passing through a
`connection point on a computer network, the method
`comprising:” ............................................................................35
`Limitations [10(a)] and [17(a)] “(a) receiving the packet;” ....37
`Limitations [10(b)] and [17(b)] “(b) receiving a set of protocol
`descriptions for a plurality of protocols that conform to a
`layered model, a protocol description for a particular protocol
`at a particular layer level including:” ......................................38
`Limitations [10(b)(i)] and [17(b)(i)] (i) if there is at least one
`child protocol of the protocol at the particular layer level, the-
`one or more child protocols of the particular protocol at the
`particular layer level, the packet including for any particular
`child protocol of the particular protocol at the particular layer
`level information at one or more locations in the packet related
`to the particular child protocol,................................................46
`Limitations [10(b)(ii)] and [17(b)(ii)] (ii) the one or more
`locations in the packet where information is stored related to
`any child protocol of the particular protocol, ..........................54
`Limitations [10(b)(iii)] and [17(b)(iii)] “(iii) if there is at least
`one protocol specific operation to be performed on the packet
`for the particular protocol at the particular layer level, the one
`or more protocol specific operations to be performed on the
`packet for the particular protocol at the particular layer level 54
`Limitations [10(c)] and [17(c)] “(c) performing the protocol
`specific operations on the packet specified by the set of
`protocol descriptions based on the base protocol of the packet
`and the children of the protocols used in the packet,”.............58
`Limitations [10d] “wherein the protocol specific operations
`include one or more parsing and extraction operations on the
`packet to extract selected portions of the packet to form a
`function of the selected portions for identifying the packet as
`belonging to a conversational flow.”.......................................59
`Limitation [17(d)] “wherein the packet belongs to a
`conversational flow of packets having a set of one or more
`states, and wherein the protocol specific operations include one
`or more state processing operations that are a function of the
`ii
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 3 of 97
`
`

`

`2.
`
`a)
`
`3.
`
`a)
`
`state of the conversational flow of the packet, the state of the
`conversational flow of the packet being indicative of the
`sequence of any previously encountered packets of the same
`conversational flow as the packet.” .........................................66
`Claim 12...................................................................................67
`Limitation [12] “A method according to claim 10, wherein
`which protocol specific operations are performed is step (c)
`depends on the contents of the packet such that the method
`adapts to different protocols according to the contents of the
`packet.” ....................................................................................67
`Claim 13...................................................................................69
`Limitation [13] “A method according to claim 10, wherein the
`protocol descriptions are provided in a protocol description
`language.” ................................................................................69
`Claim 16...................................................................................70
`Limitation [16] “A method according to claim 10, wherein the
`protocol specific operations further include one or more state
`processing operations that are a function of the state of the
`flow of the packet.”..................................................................70
`Count 2: Riddle in View of Baker and Further in View of RFC 1945
`Renders Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 as Obvious.................................71
`Count 3: Riddle in View of Baker and Further in View of RFC 1889 and
`RFC 2326 Renders Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 as Obvious...............78
`VIII. FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 314 and 325 .................................82
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................85
`
`D.
`
`4.
`
`a)
`
`C.
`
`iii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 4 of 97
`
`

`

`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)................................................................................................18
`
`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................................................................................................................9, 10, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, et seq...........................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ..........................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ............................................................................................................................9
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.............................................................................................................14, 18, 19, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .........................................................................................................................17
`
`iv
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 5 of 97
`
`

`

`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. 2047 Page 6 of 97
`
`

`

`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. 2047 Page 7 of 97
`
`

`

`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. 2047 Page 8 of 97
`
`

`

`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. 2047 Page 9 of 97
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia Corp. and Nokia of America Corp. (collectively “Petitioners”) request
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 (collectively, “the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (EX1002, “the ’725 Patent”). The
`
`Board previously instituted IPR IPR2017-00863 by Sandvine Corporation and
`
`Sandvine Incorporated ULC (collectively, “Sandvine”) against claims 1 and 2 of the
`
`’725 Patent based on WO 97/23076 A1 to Baker (EX1013, “Baker”). EX1058. The
`
`Patent Owner abandoned claims 1 and 2 and then the Board entered an adverse
`
`judgment. EX1059.
`
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 contain eight identical limitations. EX1002.
`
`A comparison of claims 1, 10, and 17 is contained in EX1062. The Board has already
`
`determined, and the Patent Owner has not disputed, that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Baker teaches limitations [10 Pre], [10(a)], [10(b)], [10(b)(i)],
`
`[10(b)(ii)], [10(b)(iii)], [10(c)], [17 Pre], [17(a)], [17(b)], [17(b)(i)], [17(b)(ii)],
`
`[17(b)(iii)], and [17(c)]. EX1058. Thus, the only question for the Board is whether
`
`the limitations unique to claims 10 and 17, i.e., [10(d)] and [17(d)], and the
`
`dependent claims are taught in the combinations set forth below.
`
`Limitations [10(d)] and [17(d)] require a “conversational flow.” In a second
`
`IPR – IPR2017-00862 – Sandvine challenged claims 10 and 17 based primarily on
`
`1
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 10 of 97
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,393 (“Engel”). EX1052, 7. In IPR2017-00862 the Board
`
`denied institution because it found that Engel failed to show the claimed
`
`“conversational flow[s].” EX1052, 20. The prior art used in this Petition discloses
`
`all of the limitations of the Challenged Claims including the claimed “conversational
`
`flow[s].”
`
`The ’725 Patent incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,661,099 (“the ’099 Patent”)
`
`(09/608,237) by reference. EX1002, 2:21-24. 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
`
` 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.” EX1046, 16. An example of the alleged
`
`2
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 11 of 97
`
`

`

`problem according to the Patent Owner is demonstrated through Skype. EX1036,
`
`18-19. As shown below, Skype generates multiple separate connection flows for
`
`video, audio, and control information. Id.
`
`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. 2047 Page 12 of 97
`
`

`

`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. 2047 Page 13 of 97
`
`

`

`EX1052, 17.
`
`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 the construction of
`
`‘conversational flow’ above requires.” EX1052, 18. The Board noted “[w]hat
`
`distinguishes this invention from prior art network monitors is that it has the ability
`
`5
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 14 of 97
`
`

`

`to recognize disjointed flows as belonging to the same conversational flow.”
`
`EX1052, 18 (internal citation omitted).
`
`This Petition relies on Baker, which the Board has already determined, in the
`
`context of claim 1, teaches claims limitations [10b], [10b(i)], [10b(ii)], [10b(iii)],
`
`[10c], [17b], [17b(i)], [17b(ii)], [17b(iii)], and [17c]. Additionally, the prior art
`
`below shows the claimed conversational flows in four different ways. First, the prior
`
`art discussed below links disjointed TCP flows for FTP applications. EX1006,
`
`¶¶427-438. The German Federal Patent Court has already invalidated a family
`
`member of the ’725 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, ¶¶439-448. The provisional patent application that lead to the ’725 Patent
`
`admits that consolidating disjointed flows for PointCast is a conversational flow.
`
`EX1014, 12:16-25. Third, the prior art discussed below links HTTP flows based
`
`upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP Referer field. EX1006,
`
`¶¶469-482. 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, ¶¶471-475. Fourth, the prior art discussed below
`
`links RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows. EX1006, ¶¶483-494. The Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 15 of 97
`
`

`

`previously told the Board that relating RTSP, RTP, and RTCP flows created a
`
`conversational flow. EX1046, 24.
`
`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 ’725 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. 6,651,099 (IPR2019-01290), 6,771,646 (IPR2019-01292),
`
`6,839,751 (IPR2019-01289), and 6,954,789 (IPR2019-01293).1
`
`1 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. 2047 Page 16 of 97
`
`

`

`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
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 17 of 97
`
`

`

`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 ’725 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging Claims
`
`10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 (the “Challenged Claims”) on the grounds identified herein.
`
`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 (10, 12, 13, 16, and 17) in the ’725 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Baker.
`
`Count 2: the Challenged Claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Baker 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 Baker 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 ’725 Patent should be
`
`construed is provided below.
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 18 of 97
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’725 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
`
`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 ’725 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’725 Patent
`
`The ’725 Patent relates to examining packets passing through a connection
`
`point on a computer network to determine whether a packet is of a conversational
`
`flow associated with an application program. EX1002, 7:12–26. Fig. 3 shows
`
`network packet monitor 300. EX1002, 8:48–13:50.
`
`10
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 19 of 97
`
`

`

`EX1002, Fig. 3.
`
`Packet 302 is examined and evaluated by network 300 “in an attempt to
`
`determine its characteristics, e.g., all the protocol information in a multilevel model,
`
`including what server application produced the packet.” EX1002, 8:51–57.
`
`“[P]arsing and extraction of selected portions of packets to generate an identifying
`
`signature” is accomplished by parser subsystem 301, and analysis of the packets is
`
`accomplished by analyzer 303. EX1002, 8:64–9:3.
`
`11
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 20 of 97
`
`

`

`“Parser subsystem 301 examines the packets using pattern recognition process
`
`304 that parses the packet and determines the protocol types and associated headers
`
`for each protocol layer that exists in packet 302.” EX1002, 9:17–20. Protocol
`
`description language (PDL) files 336 “describe[] both patterns and states of all
`
`protocols that . . . occur at any layer, including how to interpret header information,
`
`how to determine from the packet header information the protocols at the next layer,
`
`and what information to extract for the purpose of identifying a flow, and ultimately,
`
`applications and services.” EX1002, 9:29–35.
`
`The ’725 Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/608,237, issued as the ’099 Patent (EX1001), which discloses “protocol specific
`
`operations on individual packets including extracting information from header fields
`
`in the packet used for building a signature for identifying the conversational flow of
`
`the packet and for recognizing future packets as belonging to a previously
`
`encountered flow.” EX1002, 2:21–30. The parser recognizes different patterns in the
`
`packet
`
`identifying the protocols used. EX1002, 2:30–32. For each protocol
`
`recognized, packet elements are extracted (read and/or copied) to form the flow
`
`signature (also called a “key”). EX1002, 2:32–34.
`
`Compiler/optimizer 310 generates two sets of internal data structures.
`
`EX1002, 9:42–43, Fig. 3. The first is the set of parsing/extraction operations 308
`
`12
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 21 of 97
`
`

`

`wherein “database 308 of parsing/extraction operations includes information
`
`describing how to determine a set of one or more protocol dependent extraction
`
`operations from data in the packet that indicate a protocol used in the packet.”
`
`EX1002, 9:43–52. “The other internal data structure that is built by compiler 310 is
`
`the set of state patterns and processes 326.” EX1002, 9:53–54. “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 a conversational flow.” EX1002, 9:54–60.
`
`Input to compiler/optimizer 310 “includes a set of files that describe each of
`
`the protocols that can occur.” EX1002, 41:24–25. “These files are in a convenient
`
`protocol description language (PDL) which is a high level language.” EX1002,
`
`41:25–27. “The PDL file for a protocol provides the information needed by
`
`compilation process 310 to generate the database 308.” EX1002, 41:57–59. “That
`
`database in turn tells the parser subsystem how to parse and/or extract information,
`
`including one or more of what protocol-specific components of the packet to extract
`
`for the flow signature, how to use the components to build the flow signature, where
`
`in the packet to look for these components, where to look for any child protocols,
`
`and what child recognition patterns to look for.” EX1002, 41:59–65.
`
`13
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 22 of 97
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’725 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000 as Ser. No. 09/609,179, 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
`
`’725 Patent, for purposes of this Petition only it is assumed that the ’725 Patent is
`
`entitled to that date.
`
`The ’725 Patent incorporates the ’099, ’646, and ’751 Patents which also
`
`claim priority to the same provisional application, by reference. EX1002, 1:12–38.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’725 Patent
`
`The ’725 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000, with 18 claims. EX1016, 1. On
`
`June 4, 2003, the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112 as
`
`indefinite and claims 1-3, 13-14, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated
`
`by U.S. Pat. No. 5,860,585 to Bruell (“Bruell”). EX1016, 262-266. The Examiner
`
`indicated that claims 4-11 and 15-16 contained allowable subject matter. EX1016,
`
`267-268.
`
`On June 13, 2003, the Applicants heavily amended the claims based on the
`
`allowable subject matter indicated by the Examiner. EX1016, 275-277. The
`
`Applicants also argued that Bruell did not disclose the claimed invention. EX1016,
`
`289-290. In so arguing, Applicants specifically stated that “Applicants invention is
`
`14
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2047 Page 23 of 97
`
`

`

`in order to recognize packets…as belonging to a conversational flow.” Id. at 290.
`
`On June 27, 2013 the Applicants filed a supplemental response that revised its
`
`previous amendments and arguments with respect to claim 18. EX1016, 293-298. In
`
`the supplemental response, the Applicants further expounded on the concept of state
`
`processing, which is broadly described as any processing relevant
`
`to the
`
`conversational flow. Id. at 290-291.
`
`On Ju