`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FORTINET, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR2023-00459
`
`Patent No. 10,084,825 B2
`__________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.
`
`IPR2023-00459
`Patent 10,084,825 B2
`Claims 1-7 and 10-31
`Petitioner Netskope’s Demonstratives
`
`Oral Hearing
`June 21, 2024
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a Cooperative Security Fabric
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a Cooperative Security Fabric
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`ID at 9
`
`5
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`Institution Decision
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`ID at 9-10, 30
`
`6
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`‘825 Patent
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`’825 at Abstract;1:64-67
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`‘825 Patent
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`Board’s Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`structure of a switch or network”
`
`‘825 Patent
`
`• PO does not dispute that Chandra and
`Keohane disclose a “CSF” under the
`Board’s interpretation
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a Cooperative Security Fabric
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`Board’s Construction of
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“Cooperative Security Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`“a topology of network security appliances that cooperate to inspect
`structure of a switch or network”
`incoming and outgoing traffic along multiple interconnected paths”
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`Board’s Construction of
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“Cooperative Security Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`“a topology of network security appliances that cooperate to inspect
`structure of a switch or network”
`incoming and outgoing traffic along multiple interconnected paths”
`
`ID at 30
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Incoming/Outgoing
`
`’825 Patent
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Incoming/Outgoing
`
`’825 Patent
`
`’825 Patent
`
`’825 Patent
`
`1:64-67
`
`Petition 26-27, 71-72; Reply 3-5, 10-15
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2:3-19
`
`14
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`Board’s Construction of
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“Cooperative Security Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`“a topology of network security appliances that cooperate to inspect
`structure of a switch or network”
`incoming and outgoing traffic along multiple interconnected paths”
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Multiple Interconnected Paths
`
`’825 Patent
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Multiple Interconnected Paths
`
`’825 Patent
`
`’825 Patent
`
`1:33-37
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`Board’s Construction of
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of
`“Fabric”
`“Cooperative Security Fabric”
`“a network topology such as the physical
`“a topology of network security appliances that cooperate to inspect
`structure of a switch or network”
`incoming and outgoing traffic along multiple interconnected paths”
`
`2.
`
`PO’s Additional “Hidden” Limitations
`1.
`“CSF” cannot inspect internal network traffic, i.e., traffic from
`one part of the network to another. (POR, 20; Black Depo. Tr.,
`33:11-15.)
`“CSF” only processes traffic transmitted from the Internet into
`the network and from the network to the Internet. (POR, 20;
`Black Depo. Tr., 70:10-13.)
`“CSF” requires three or more interconnected security
`appliances. (Black Depo. Tr., 19:2-7.)
`“CSF” cannot be “a single thread.” (POR, 12.)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ID at 9; Reply, 3, 4
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Internal Network Traffic
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-reply
`
`Patent Owner Expert
`
`POR at 20
`
`Sur-reply at 7.
`
`Black Depo. Tr. at 33:11-15
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Only Internet Traffic
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-reply
`
`Sur-reply at 20
`
`Patent Owner Expert
`
`POR at 20
`
`Black Depo. Tr., 33:11-15
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Three or More Appliances
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`Provisional
`
`Black Depo. Tr. at 19:2-7
`
`Provisional, ¶32
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong – Cannot Be a Single Thread
`
`Patent Owner Reply
`
`Provisional
`
`POR at 12
`
`Provisional
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`1. The Board Correctly Construed “Fabric”
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Is Wrong
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a Cooperative Security Fabric
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Chandra
`PO does not dispute that Chandra discloses a “CSF” under the Board’s interpretation.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Reply, 6-7
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Chandra
`Chandra also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`POR, 36-37
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Chandra
`Chandra also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`’825 Patent – Claim 4
`
`POR, 36-37
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Keohane
`PO does not dispute that Keohane discloses a “CSF” under the Board’s interpretation.
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Reply, 7-9
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Keohane
`Keohane also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`Reply, 20-22
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Keohane
`Keohane also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`POR, 57
`
`Sur-reply, 13
`
`Sur-reply, 14-15
`
`Reply, 20-22
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Keohane
`Keohane also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`POR, 50
`
`ID, 30
`
`Reply, 20-22
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`3. The Prior Art Discloses a CSF - Keohane
`Keohane also discloses a “CSF” under PO’s construction.
`
`Reply, 20-22
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Chandra – “local network policies” (Claims 2, 4, 15)
`
`Chandra CE Labels
`
`Pet., 37-38; Reply, 23-24
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Chandra – “a first packet of a session” (Claim 12)
`
`Chandra CE Labels
`
`Reply, 23-24
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Keohane – “a first packet of a session” (Claim 12)
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Chandra – “next network appliance” and “next network appliance participating in a CSF”
`(Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29)
`
`Chandra
`
`Pet., 54-56; Reply, 25-27
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Chandra – “next network appliance” and “next network appliance participating in a CSF”
`(Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29)
`
`Chandra Figs 2 and 8 (redrawn and annotated)
`
`Pet., 54-56; Reply, 25-27
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Chandra – “next network appliance” and “next network appliance participating in a CSF”
`(Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29)
`
`Chandra Figs 2 and 8 (redrawn and annotated)
`
`Pet., 54-56; Reply, 25-27
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Keohane – “next network appliance” and “next network appliance participating in a CSF”
`(Claims 6, 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, 29)
`
`’825 patent, 4:1-8
`
`Keohane, ¶23
`
`Pet., 65, 71-72, 78; Reply, 27-28
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Keohane Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`
`
`Keohane – “not transmitted from the second network security appliance” (Claim 4)
`
`POR at 57
`
`Keohane Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`Pet., 85; Reply, 29-30
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Keohane – updating flags (Claims 6, 17, 23, 28)
`
`Keohane
`
`Franz Rebuttal Declaration
`
`Reply, 30-31
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Keohane – removing flags (Claims 7, 18, 24, 29)
`
`Keohane
`
`Franz Rebuttal Declaration ¶73
`
`Reply, 31
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Background: ’825 Patent
`
`’825 patent
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Background: the ’825 Patent
`
`subnet 151
`
`subnet network
`security appliance 150
`
`network security
`appliances 121, 130a and
`130b, 140a-140d
`
`subnets 141a-141d
`
`’825 patent
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Background: ’825 Patent
`
`’825 patent
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Background: ’825 Patent
`
`’825 patent
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Chandra
`
`Chandra
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Chandra
`
`Chandra
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Chandra
`
`Chandra
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Keohane
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`Buruganahalli
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Buruganahalli
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
