Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-1
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`
`Sable Networks, Inc.
`
`Oral Argument: September 7,2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 B2
`
`IPR2021-00909
`
`Cloudflare, Splunk v. Sable Networks
`
`
`Page 2010-1
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`
`Sable Networks, Inc.
`
`Oral Argument: September 7,2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 B2
`
`IPR2021-00909
`
`Cloudflare, Splunk v. Sable Networks
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-2
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Yung(cid:3)+(cid:3)Copeland(cid:3)+(cid:3)Ye
`
`8,(cid:3)14–16,(cid:3)28,(cid:3)34–36
`
`Yung(cid:3)+(cid:3)Four(cid:882)Steps(cid:3)Whitepaper
`
`3
`
`Yung(cid:3)+(cid:3)Copeland
`
`9–13,(cid:3)19–24,(cid:3)29–33,(cid:3)39–44(cid:3)
`
`Yung
`
`1,(cid:3)2,(cid:3)4–7,17,(cid:3)18,(cid:3)25–27,37,(cid:3)38(cid:3)
`
`Alleged(cid:3)Obviousness(cid:3)References
`
`Claim(s)(cid:3)Challenged
`
`The Proceeding Is Now Limited To Part Of Grounds 1-3
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-3
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`5.Ground 3: No Public Availability Shown
`4.Ground2:NoMotivationShown
`3.Ground2:No “Badness Factor” Shown
`2.Grounds 1-2: No Typographical Error Shown
`1.Claimed Invention
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-4
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 4
`
`POR, 6-8; ID, 5-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Inflicts(cid:3)penalty(cid:3)(“increased(cid:3)drop(cid:3)rate”)(cid:3)that(cid:3)may(cid:3)rehabilitate(cid:3)flow’s(cid:3)ongoing(cid:3)behavior
`Identifies(cid:3)misbehavior(cid:3)using(cid:3)each(cid:3)flow’s(cid:3)“observed(cid:3)behavior”(cid:3)in(cid:3)form(cid:3)of(cid:3)“behavioral(cid:3)statistics”
`(cid:882)Such(cid:3)as(cid:3)peer(cid:882)to(cid:882)peer(cid:3)traffic,(cid:3)which(cid:3)uses(cid:3)a(cid:3)disproportionate(cid:3)amount(cid:3)of(cid:3)bandwidth
`
`(cid:882)
`(cid:882)
`
`(cid:882)Novel(cid:3)identification(cid:3)of(cid:3)undesirable(cid:3)behavior(cid:3)of(cid:3)individual(cid:3)flows
`Mechanism(cid:3)for(cid:3)Identifying(cid:3)and(cid:3)Penalizing(cid:3)Misbehaving(cid:3)Flows(cid:3)In(cid:3)A(cid:3)Network
`
`Claimed Invention
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-5
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 5
`
`ID, 37-38; POR, 1-2, 12-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`error” or that these claims were intended to be in Ground 2
`No evidence suggests Ground 1’s challenge to Claims 17, 18, 37 and 38 was a “typographical
`
`Ground 1 fails as to Claims 17, 18, 37, 38
`
`Institution Decision (37-38) correctly found:
`
`There Is No Basis To Deviate From The Grounds In The Petition
`Grounds 1-2, Claims 17, 18, 37, 38:
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-6
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 6
`
`Sur-Reply, 5-13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Here: Inconsistency is notpresent and these arguments as to these claims are notpresented
`
`-Amperex:inconsistency between petition and patent clearly showed typo in heading
`-Nippon:internal inconsistency clearly showed typo in list of references
`-Netapp:internalinconsistencyclearlyshowedtypoinsummary of grounds
`-IBM:internal inconsistency “ma[de] clear” petition “included a typo”
`-Axonics:petition’sstatementswereinternallyinconsistent
`
`AND Petition In Fact Included Arguments In Question Specifically Made As To Claims In Question
`EveryCase Petitioners Cite For Correcting “Errors” In Petitions Rested On Proof An Error Occurred
`
`The Board Cannot Change The Petition Based On An Alleged “Error” That No Evidence Shows
`
`There Is No EvidenceOfAny “Typographical Error”
`Grounds 1-2, Claims 17, 18, 37, 38:
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-7
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 7
`
`Sur-Reply, 4-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`There was no “error” in any of the three petitions, let alone all three.
`
`-That petition contains the samegrounds against sameclaims
`
`Joinder petitioner Splunk based itspetition on Cloudflare/SonicWall petition
`
`-Thatpetitioncontains the samegrounds against sameclaims
`
`Cloudflare/SonicWall basedtheir petition on Palo Alto Networks et al. petition
`
`Three Separate Petitions
`The Fictional “Typographical Error” Would Have To Be Found In
`Grounds 1-2, Claims 17, 18, 37, 38:
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-8
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 8
`
`Sur-Reply, 4-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Sirona Dental Sys. GMBH v. InstitutStraumann AG, 892 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original)
`own obviousness theory,” “institut[ing] a different inter partesreview of [its] own design”
`“It would … not be proper for the Board to deviate from the grounds in the petition and raise its
`
`The Law Does Not Permit Adding Or Changing Grounds
`Grounds 1-2, Claims 17, 18, 37, 38:
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-9
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 9
`
`Pet. 49; POR 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Petition relies on Dr. Jeffay’sipse dixit
`
`Yung+Copeland“Concern Index” Not Shown To Be Claimed “Badness Factor”
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-10
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 10
`
`POR 19; Sur-Reply 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`refers to as suspicious activity … would certainly qualify as a badness factor.” Id. at 35:17-36:15 (emphasis added).
`“a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that whatever a badness factor is, Copeland’s recitation of what it
`
`to be disclosed
`Dr. Jeffaycould only argue that “whatever a badness factor is,” it must be found
`
`don’t think they would understand what the bounds of the term mean.” Ex. 2007 [JeffayTranscript] 35:17-36:7.
`“a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize badness factor as a term of art. And I think –reading the ’593 patent, I
`POSITA
`Dr. Jeffaydid not know what “badness factor” means to a
`Deposition:
`
`Yung+Copeland“Concern Index” Not Shown To Be Claimed “Badness Factor”
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-11
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 11
`
`POR 18-19
`
`Petitioner
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`obviousas a matter of law
`“badness factor” is
`
`indefiniteas a matter of law
`“badness factor” is
`
`To The Board
`
`To The District Court
`
`contradictory positions
`Dr. Jeffayisjustacting as a mouthpiece for Petitioner’s
`
`Yung+Copeland“Concern Index” Not Shown To Be Claimed “Badness Factor”
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-12
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 12
`
`POR 21-27; Sur-Reply 21-28; Ex. 2007 40:19-41:10, 42:12-43:3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`claimed factors, but whether it teachesPOSA the use of them
`-The question is not whether Yung+Copelandallowsuse of
`you from using behavioral statistics” is beside the point
`Testimony that “there’s nothing in Copeland to prevent
`-not stored as to individual flows
`-not behavioral statistics from flow behavior
`
`headerinformation
`“Concern Index” in Copeland is calculated only by packet
`
`“Concern Index” is not “Badness Factor”
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-13
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 13
`
`POR 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`-Patent’s embodiments calculate badness factor
`
`for each flow
`
`individual flows
`Independent claims calculate “badness factor” for
`
`“suspicious” hosts
`“Concern Index” in Copeland is directed to identifying
`
`Claims Require Calculating “Badness Factor” For Each Flow
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-14
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 14
`
`POR 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`stem entirely from this statement in Yung
`Jeffayconfirmed in deposition that alleged motivation does
`
`behavior pattern can incorporate other factors as well”
`“stem[] (entirely) from” Yung’s statement that its “application
`and Copeland based premise that motivation does not
`Institution Decision premised on motivation to combine Yung
`
`No Motivation Shown To Combine As Proposed
`Ground 2 (Yung + Copeland) (Claims 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, 39–44):
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-15
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 15
`
`POR, 28-44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`untimely in this proceeding
`Evidence provided without excuse after Patent Owner’s right to introduce evidence was closed is
`
`New “public availability” declarant was improperly substituted
`
`After institution:
`
`Petition failed to show that Four-Steps Whitepaper was prior art
`Before institution:
`
`Whitepapernotshowntohavebeenpubliclyavailable
`Ground 3 (Yung + Whitepaper) (Claim 3)
`
`
`
`Cloudflare & Splunk v. Sable Networks, IPR2021-00909
`Page 2010-16
`Sable Networks Inc. Exhibit 2010
`
`Slide 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE(cid:3)EXHIBIT(cid:3)(cid:882)NOT(cid:3)EVIDENCE
`
`Questions?
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
