IPR2023-00458, No. 25 Other other - Petitioner Hearing Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2024)

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FORTINET, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2023-00458
`
`Patent No. 9,280,678 B2
`__________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`

`Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.
`
`IPR2023-00458
`Patent 9,280,678 B2
`Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27
`Petitioner Netskope’s Demonstratives
`
`Oral Hearing
`June 21, 2024
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`Grounds of Invalidity
`
`Ground Basis
`
`1-3
`
`§103
`
`4-5
`
`§103
`
`References
`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann
`+ Fellenstein
`+ Hirai
`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers
`+ Inoue
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–3, 8–14, 16, 17, 21–27
`6
`15
`1–3, 8–17, 21–27
`6
`
`Pet., 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`Overview
`
`1. Background
`
`2. Claim construction – namespace
`
`3. Claim construction – “creating” and “configuring” namespaces
`
`4. Claim construction – “policy”
`
`5. The Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann grounds
`
`6. The Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers grounds
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`Background: the ’678 Patent
`
`stores 114
`
`cloud gateway 108
`
`clients 102
`
`Pet., 12; Ex. 1001,3:20-35
`
`’678 Patent,
`
`(Annotated)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`Background: the ’678 Patent
`
`Pet., 12; Ex. 1001, 2:52-54
`
`’678 Patent,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`Background: Claim 1
`
`
`
`
`
`’678 Patent, 19:57-20:7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`Claim Construction – Namespace
`• The ’678 patent does not describe what namespaces are.
`
`’678 Patent, 6:44-47
`
`’678 Patent, 10:11-16
`
`’678 Patent, 9:19-26
`
`Reply, 1; Lee, ¶101
`
`Black Tr. (Ex. 1025) 39:17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`Claim Construction – Namespace
`“Namespace” can have different forms, for example:
`• Can be hierarchical (Ex. 1020 – Adya et al.),
`• Can include domains (Ex. 1021 – Mika et al. ), or
`• Can be a flat, e.g., single number chosen uniformly at random (EX. 1023 –
`Balakrishnan et al.):
`
`Pet., 10-11; Lee, ¶¶ 41-42
`
`Ex. 1023, p. 344
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`Claim Construction – Namespace
`
`According to the Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms:
`
`Pet., 39-40; Lee, ¶98; Ex. 1014
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`Claim Construction – Namespace
`
`Petitioner:
`• A “set of names available for naming things” such as files or segments.
`Pet., 96; Reply, 1; Lee, ¶217.
`• Namespace’s main function is to uniquely identify objects by their names within the context
`of the namespace.
`
`Reply, 1; Lee, ¶42; Ex. 2004, Lee Tr. 39:6-40:1.
`
`Patent Owner:
`• A set of names available within a particular context (??).
`POR, 18; Black, ¶¶66-67.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`Claim Construction – “Creating/Configuring” Namespaces
`Creating/configuring namespaces is part of producing searchable encrypted file.
`Claim 1 :
`encrypting . . . content of the file to produce a
`searchable encrypted file by:
`
`dividing the file into a plurality of chunks;
`creating namespaces for one or more of the
`plurality of chunks; and
`configuring the namespaces of the one or more
`chunks such that content of the file is encrypted
`in a manner that makes it searchable.
`
`process
`
`result
`
`Reply., 2-3
`
`’678 Patent, 19:62-20:3
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`Claim Construction – Creating/Configuring namespaces
`
`Petitioner:
`• Creating and configuring the namespaces are performed as part of producing
`a searchable encrypted file.
`
`Pet., 96; Reply, 1; Lee, ¶217.
`
`Ex. 2005, Lee Tr., 18:11-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`Claim 1- Policy
`
`’678 Patent, 19:57-20:7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`Claim Construction – “Policy”
`
`“As a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the
`meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir 2008).
`
`“The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must
`evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic
`Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2008).
`
`Reply., 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`Claim Construction – “Policy”
`
`’678 Patent, 9:40-46
`
`Black Tr., 12:1-3
`
`Cidon’s policy specified access and
`sharing permissions, copy control, and
`encryption, which suggests the policy was
`user-specific. Id., ¶¶207-213; Lee Suppl.,
`¶13.
`
`Reply, 16
`
`Auradkar’s enterprise access policy
`defined access rights, encryption, storage,
`and managing access.
`
`Reply, 32;
`Pet. 81-83;
`Auradkar, ¶¶117-119
`
`Reply, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds - Namespaces
`
`Divide into segments
`(Cidon)
`
`Encrypt, create and configure namespace
`(Cidon) (Cidon) (+Shikfa)
`
`Produce searchable encrypted file
`(Cidon + Shikfa)
`
`Pet., 11-12, 17-18, 30-32;
`Reply, 7-8;
`
`Cidon,
`
`(Annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Encryption
`
`Generate SHA-2 signature
`Encrypt each segment
`Attach signature to segment
`
`Reply, 9-10
`
`’678 Patent,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Cidon,
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Configuring Namespace
`
`M-W Dictionary (Ex. 1027)
`
`Reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Configuring Namespace
`
`Pet., 40-45; Reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Motivations
`
`Performed by
`Herrmann’s
`gateway server
`
`Pet., 21-22, 43-45; Reply, 11-12
`
`Modified Cidon
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Shikfa’s
`encrypted
`index(es) 28
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – No Teaching-Away
`
`• Shikfa’s client-side encryption did not preclude incorporating a
`gateway with a similar encryption functionality in the Cidon-
`Herrmann combination.
`
`• Shikfa did not teach away the gateway-side encryption because
`it does not “‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
`investigation into’ the claimed invention.” Meiresonne v. Google,
`Inc., 849 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
`
`Pet., 43-45; Reply, 13-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – “policy for
`managing access to and processing a file to be stored on
`cloud platforms”
`Cidon’s policy was assigned to a “user.”
`
`Cidon,
`
`Pet., 25; Reply, 14-16
`
`’678 Patent,
`(Annotated)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Claims 11/25
`• Storing a file “across two or more cloud platforms”
`
`’678 Patent, 16:55-58
`
`’678 Patent, 1:47-51
`
` Cidon’s “archiving and backup to other storage services” and
`“file synchronization between services” mirror the file storing
`process “across multiple cloud platforms” in the ’678 patent.
`Cidon, ¶174.
`
`Reply, 19; Pet., 58-59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`Cidon + Shikfa + Herrmann Grounds – Claims 14/27
`• Policy defines “one or more authorized locations to which the file may be stored”
`
` “Cidon disclosed storing a modified file to a new location to
`prevent a user from directly accessing the location where the
`original file was stored” and a “POSITA would have found it
`obvious that the file locations would be part of Cidon’s security
`policy that could also define (and manage) such location
`information.”
`
`To this end, when encrypting and storing a file (e.g., a modified
`file), Cidon’s system would obtain the authorized location for
`storing the encrypted modified file from the policy, and store the
`encrypted modified file there. Doing so would have “prevented
`[the user] from directly accessing” other unauthorized storages,
`such as the location where the original file was stored, thereby
`improving data security. (Id., ¶367, Lee, ¶152.)
`
`Reply, 20; Pet., 64.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Namespaces
`
`1200:
`1210:
`1202:
`1212:
`
`Tag
`Encrypted Tag
`Payload
`Encrypted Payload
`
`Auradkar,
`
`(Annotated)
`
`Pet., 94-96; Reply, 21-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Namespaces
`
`Pet., 94-96; Reply, 21-24
`
`Auradkar,
`
`(Annotated)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Namespaces
`Chiueh allowed search of individual encrypted pages using a unique ID (filename + page
`offset) mapped to the encrypted keyword
`
`Chiueh, ¶20
`
`Chiueh, ¶40
`
`Pet., 96-97; Reply, 23
`
`Chiueh,
`
`(Annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Encryption
`
`Reply, 24-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Encryption
`
`Reply, 24-26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds – Configuring Namespace
`
`M-W Dictionary (Ex. 1027)
`
`Chiueh’s mapping of keywords to document IDs constituted “configuring the
`namespaces” because Chiueh created an index (a significant word set (SWS))
`that mapped encrypted keywords to corresponding document ID(s) of the
`encrypted pages, so that the content of the encrypted pages could be searched
`using those keywords.
`
`Reply, 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - Motivations
`
`• “[T]he modification is to Auradkar, not Chiueh, and, a skilled artisan could
`weigh pros and cons and determine that the enhancement to Auradkar’s
`system would outweigh any perceived problems with using Chiueh’s
`document ID outside a client when Auradkar already uses similar XML tags
`to search XML fragments.” Inst. Dec., 44.
`
`• Chiueh’s searchable encryption mechanism is not limited by encryption
`location.
`
`• In the Auradkar-Chambers combination, the gateway is controlled by the
`data-protecting entity.
`
`Pet., 78-79, 96-7; Reply, 30-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds - a policy for
`“processing of a file to be uploaded on a cloud”
`
`• Auradkar’s enterprise access policy defined access rights, encryption,
`storage, and managing access.
`
`Black Tr., 10:8-10
`
`Pet., 81-83, 88-93; Reply, 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`Auradkar + Chiueh + Chambers Grounds – Claim 6
`(Annotated)
`Inoue,
`
`Petitioner’s combination incorporates
`Inoue’s functionality of assigning a keyword
`(file content) extracted from file content
`(e.g., Auradkar’s keywords 1510) into the
`Auradkar-Chiueh-Chambers system to
`produce filenames that also included a
`keyword.
`
`Pet., 136-138; Reply, 32-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`Namespaces - Flat vs. Hierarchical Structure
`
`...
`
`…
`
`Ex. 2004, Lee Tr. 33-36; POR, 18, 19, 46; Sur-Reply, 3, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`Namespaces – Domain names
`
`Pet., 10; Ex. 1021, 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`

`Namespaces - Flat vs. Hierarchical Structure
`
`Ex. 1023, 344; Pet., 11
`Ex. 2005, Lee Tr., 29:16-25
`
`Ex. 2005, Lee Tr., 31:17-25
`
`Ex. 2005, Lee Tr., 30:5-23
`
`Ex. 2005, Lee Tr., 36:8-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`Namespaces – Creation (Dr. Black)
`
`Ex. 1025, Black Tr., 42:1-44:13;
`Reply, 6, 21.
`
`(1) 768 patent does not explicitly describe how
`namespaces are created.
`(2) It is left to the cloud provider
`(3) In some embodiments, namespaces are
`created cooperatively by persons writing the
`policy, the policy file itself, and the computer
`between gateways and cloud provider
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`Configuring Namespaces: Claims 1 and 6:
`
`’678 Patent, 19:57-20:7; 20:20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`Claim 1 – managing processing of a file
`
`’678 Patent, 19:57-61
`
`...
`
`Reply, 17
`
`Cidon, ¶222
`
`Cidon, ¶57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served in
`
`its entirety this 18th day of June, 2024 by electronic mail on the Patent Owner via
`
`its attorneys of record:
`
`James M. Glass - jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`John T. McKee - johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`Quincy Lu - quincylu@quinnemanuel.com
`Andrew M. Holmes - drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com
`Ognjen Zivojnovic - ogizivojnovic@quinnemanuel.com
`Razmig H. Messerian - razmesserian@quinnemanuel.com
`Sean Gloth - seangloth@quinnemanuel.com
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`
`
`Dated: June 18, 2024
`
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Meghan Bright/
`Meghan Bright
`Patent Paralegal
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`

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

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.

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

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

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

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go Monthly

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases