Case IPR2023-00554
`Patent 10,652,111
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ORCKIT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2023-00554
`Patent 10,652,111
`____________
`
`EXHIBIT 2025
`
`DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 1 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 1
`
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS ................................................................................. 9
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................... 9
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................... 11
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) .......................................................... 11
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT AND THE STATE OF
`THE ART .....................................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background of the ’111 Patent ....................................... 15
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Cited References ........................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Lin (Ex. 1005) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Shieh (Ex. 1006) ....................................................................... 19
`
`Swenson (Ex. 1007) ................................................................. 19
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................... 20
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................21
`
`VII. NO COMBINATION OF THE CITED PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES TEACHES OR SUGGESTS EVERY
`LIMITATION OF THE CLAIMS .............................................................21
`
`A.
`
`Lin and Swenson do not render obvious claim 1 ............................ 21
`
`i
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 2 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`Lin and Swenson do not disclose or render obvious
`the claimed controller under either Patent Owner’s or
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions. ..................................... 21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Lin does not disclose or render obvious a
`controller configured to perform or capable of
`controlling DPI. .............................................................22
`
`Swenson does not disclose or render obvious a
`controller configured to perform or capable of
`controlling DPI. .............................................................26
`
`A POSITA would not have combined Swenson’s
`controller with Lin’s or adapted such a
`combination to practice the claimed controller
`in Lin’s system in any event. ........................................33
`
`Lin does not disclose sending the packet to the
`second entity “responsive to the packet not
`satisfying the criterion” or sending the packet
`to an entity other than the second entity
`“responsive to the packet satisfying the
`criterion.” ......................................................................37
`
`B.
`
`Shieh and Swenson do not render obvious claim 1 ........................ 41
`
`1.
`
`Shieh does not disclose the claimed “packet-
`applicable criterion” responsive to which a packet is
`sent either to a second entity or to another entity that
`is different from the second entity. ........................................ 41
`
`C. Claim 3: The prior art does not disclose sending the packet
`to an entity that is other than the second entity and to the
`controller ............................................................................................. 44
`
`D. Claims 4 and 5: The prior art does not disclose sending the
`packet to an entity that is other than the second entity and
`to the controller .................................................................................. 46
`
`E.
`
`Claim 6: The prior art does not disclose storing the packet
`by the controller in a memory .......................................................... 46
`
`ii
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 3 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`
`Claim 7: The prior art does not disclose sending “a portion
`of the packet” as claimed .................................................................. 49
`
`G. Claim 16: The prior art does not disclose “the packet
`comprises distinct header and payload fields, the header
`comprises one or more flag bits, and wherein the packet-
`applicable criterion is that one or more of the flag bits is
`set” ...................................................................................................... 50
`
`H. Claim 30: The prior art does not disclose “receiving…one
`or more additional packets” as claimed .......................................... 51
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................54
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 4 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Miguel Gomez. I have been retained as an expert witness to
`
`provide my independent opinion in regards with matters at issue in the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. 10,652,111 (“the '111 Patent”) in the IPR2023-00554 proceeding. I
`
`have been retained by Orckit Corporation (“Orckit”), the Patent Owner, in the above
`
`proceedings. Petitioner in this case is Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”).
`
`2.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and would
`
`do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3. My CV is being submitted herewith as Exhibit 2026 to this proceeding
`
`and is summarized in Section II, infra.
`
`4.
`
`I am not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have
`
`applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`5.
`
`The opinions I set forth herein are my own and are based on my
`
`education, experience, training, and skill I have accumulated.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree from
`
`Yale University in 1983. I have forty years of experience in the design and
`
`
`
`1
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 5 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`development of hardware and software technology used in computer systems,
`
`communications systems, networking and storage infrastructure, and database
`
`systems. My experience includes extensive knowledge of computer operating
`
`systems, programming languages, and mobile and embedded applications. I am also
`
`highly skilled in the use of microelectronics simulation software, ASIC and FPGA
`
`coding, in hardware design languages, including Verilog and VHDL. I'm also
`
`skilled at programming for embedded systems and applications in C, C++ and C#.
`
`7.
`
`From August 2006 to March 2009, I was VP of engineering for
`
`ActSolar. ActSolar was a solar power converter and instrumentation company where
`
`I developed the system architecture that defined the hardware and software for a
`
`solar inverter and a data gathering and control sub-system. I wrote a control program
`
`in the C programming language to manage power conversion for the solar inverter. I
`
`also managed a small team of engineers that built the software defined radio
`
`responsible for retrieving solar panel data. The data gatherer utilized the IEEE
`
`802.15.4 low-rate wireless personal area network (WPAN) standard to retrieve
`
`power and temperature readings from each solar panel and aggregate that data at a
`
`server. This information was used to maximize the solar array output.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 6 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`In 2006, ActSolar was sold to National Semiconductor. The transfer of
`
`technology included the software radio for data collection, the inverter and a variant
`
`of the power converter hardware that performed shading compensation.
`
`9.
`
`From September 2004 to August 2005, I was a consultant for
`
`BridgeWave Inc. I built a 10 Gbps Ethernet test platform to facilitate manufacturing
`
`tests of BridgeWave's high speed wireless network system. This system replaced the
`
`Smart Bits Ethernet test analyzer used in the manufacturing test environment. I also
`
`built a test generator, specifically an Ethernet packet generator, which generated
`
`packets of various sizes, address spaces, payload and checksums. I built a test
`
`receiver and analyzer which detected various failure mechanisms, maintained
`
`statistics and reported them to a user interface written in Lab View. A Xilinx Vertex
`
`II FPGA was employed in the first version of the test platform and a Xilinx Spartan
`
`3e in the second version.
`
`10. From September 2003 to March 2004, I was a consultant for PA
`
`Consulting Group. I provided hardware evaluation services for corporate mergers
`
`and acquisitions. These services included systems and hardware reviews in the
`
`following areas: (1) Analysis of system performance to the cost of the hardware
`
`implementation; (2) Review of the VHDL and Verilog code implementations,
`
`documentation and development strategies; (3) VHDL and Verilog code
`
`
`
`3
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 7 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`management including compilation processes, simulation, test coverage, bug
`
`tracking and source code control; (4) FPGA and ASIC tool chain management; (5)
`
`Circuit board design and layout for production environments; (6) Circuit board
`
`certification testing for FCC, UL, and Environmental tests; (7) Review of production
`
`line management including assembly and test processes; and (8) Review of hardware
`
`code for copyright or license violations.
`
`11. From January 2003 to May 2003, I was a consultant for Santel
`
`Networks. I developed an optical duo-binary (ODB) encoder. Operating at 10.7
`
`Giga bits per second (GBps), ODB reduces the spectral spread to ½ of the ordinary
`
`NRZ format. This format allows high spectral efficiency over long distances by
`
`reducing nonlinear penalties due to narrower channel spacing and allows a higher bit
`
`rate or increases transmission distances. The project was implemented in a Xilinx
`
`FPGA running at 667 Mhz with a 10.7 GHz Mux/Demux feeding 32 LVDS streams
`
`to the FPGA. The ODB behavior was simulated in a C-coded simulation. The
`
`circuit board's highest clock speed was 10.7 Gigahertz and was modeled in HSPICE.
`
`Board level simulation was performed using NCVerilog. Several patents were
`
`applied for and the board was shown at the Optical Fiber Communication
`
`Conference & Exposition in March of 2003.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 8 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`12. From March 2001 to December 2002, I was Director of Hardware,
`
`Content Networking Division for Extreme Networks, Inc. I managed a team of
`
`hardware and software engineers that developed and maintained a Layer 2-5 Content
`
`Addressable Switch. The switch was capable of L2, L3, L4 switching as well as L5
`
`switching. In the L5 mode, the SLB used HTTP and HTML headers to make routing
`
`decisions. All routing decisions were made in real time (1 GBPs) by hardware logic
`
`in FPGAs while a Power PC provided a user interface, configuration management
`
`and housekeeping diagnostics. Communications between the hardware elements and
`
`the PowerPC CPU was via a PCI bus. I was responsible for the system design as
`
`well as for managing the product manufacturing process.
`
`13. From January 2000 to March 2001, I was Director of Hardware for
`
`Webstacks, Inc. (now Extreme Networks, Inc.). Extreme Networks and several
`
`venture founding partners commissioned Webstacks to build a Content Addressable
`
`Switch which would operate as a L2-5 server load balancer. This switch included
`
`content routing, load balancing, firewall and security capabilities utilizing Secure
`
`Sockets Layers (SSL). I was hired to be the system architect. My responsibilities
`
`included hiring the hardware and software engineers that would implement the
`
`server load balancer as well as set up the manufacturing process. I hired 13 ASIC,
`
`FPGA and software engineers into my department and managed them for the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 9 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`duration of the project. Within one year, our team had developed the product and
`
`met Extreme Networks' acquisition criteria. Extreme Networks purchased
`
`Webstacks for $68MM cash and stock.
`
`14. From February 1997 to December 1999, I was a consultant for Philips
`
`Semiconductor. I developed Philips Semiconductors' portion of a certification
`
`environment used by Philips Semiconductor and Microsoft to verify operation of
`
`Philips' Poseidon handheld chipset running Windows CE. This included board
`
`development, C coding, FPGA coding and simulation as well as porting to Windows
`
`CE. Later, I supported the development of Philips' version of the MIPS 4000 with
`
`communications and storage devices to emulate a system on a chip. I also designed
`
`ASIC logic and board level hardware for a 56Kbs software modem while at Philips.
`
`15. From September 1994 to January 1997, I was President and Founder of
`
`Minden Group, Inc. The Minden Group developed and sold several types of
`
`memory adapters and a video conferencing system. The adapters were designed to
`
`expand the memory capacity of Personal Computers while saving the customer
`
`money. Both the adapters and the video conferencing system were sold through
`
`retail stores throughout the United States and Canada. Over 250,000 memory
`
`adapters were sold at stores such as Fry's, CompUSA, Computer City and Future
`
`Shop. After developing these products, I organized and managed a team of 10 to 15
`
`
`
`6
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 10 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`employees focused on sales, marketing, finance and production. Manufacturing of
`
`the primary components was performed through contract manufacturing in Taiwan
`
`with final assembly and distribution in the United States. Distribution included order
`
`fulfillment, contracted sales channel distribution networks and end-point retail
`
`management.
`
`16. From August 1992 to September 1994, I was Senior Hardware Manager
`
`of RAID Product Development for MTI, Inc. In this capacity, I was responsible for
`
`architectural development of the next generation RAID 1-5 systems and for
`
`managing the product development group. I introduced several design approaches
`
`that resulted in lower product costs as well as methods for interfacing with the
`
`company's other hierarchical storage components.
`
`17. From April 1989 to August 1992, I was Founder and President of
`
`Spectrum Analysis, Inc., a consulting services company. I founded and operated
`
`Spectrum Analysis, Inc. with three other partners. Spectrum Analysis, Inc.
`
`specialized in electrical circuit design with emphasis on FPGA and ASIC emulation
`
`and complex PCB level designs.
`
`18. From September 1988 to March 1989, I was Applications Manager for
`
`Quickturn Systems, Inc. Quickturn developed an ASIC emulator using Xilinx
`
`FPGAs. I was hired as Quickturn's first applications engineer, and was initially
`
`
`
`7
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 11 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`responsible for developing the training and demonstration systems for Quickturn's
`
`initial customers. Later, as the company matured, I managed the customer support
`
`team. Because this ASIC emulator worked at a fraction of clock speed, I developed
`
`a methodology of slowing board designs to a fraction of the original clock speed, (on
`
`the order of 100s of KHz) while maintaining clock and memory (DRAM) integrity.
`
`19. From July 1987 to August 1988, I was an Applications Engineer for
`
`Telestream Corporation and was responsible for demonstration system development,
`
`training and sales support for a software based communications protocol converter
`
`product. From March 1985 to July 1987 I was a design engineer for StrataCom Inc.,
`
`an early voice and data network equipment manufacture. StrataCom developed the
`
`IPX, a packet over leased T1 transmission and management system. I was
`
`responsible for the voice compression card as well as designing a way to include
`
`data over a primarily voice solution. The hardware I developed eventually evolved
`
`into the Frame Relay protocol. Cisco bought StrataCom in 1996.
`
`20. From June 1983 to March 1985, I was a Design Engineer for ROLM
`
`Corporation. I was responsible for the development of a multiplex/demultiplex
`
`hardware board used in the ROLM BUS 295 telephone switch. A novel elastic
`
`buffer was used to automatically determine the length of an inter-cabinet data bus,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 12 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`whose length varied based on the customer's requirements. This eliminated the need
`
`for manufacturing technicians to manually adjust clock skew.
`
`21. A more detailed account of my work experience and other
`
`qualifications is listed in my Curriculum Vitae filed as Exhibit 2026 in this matter.
`
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`22.
`
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed the exhibits submitted to date in this IPR, as well as the Petition,
`
`Preliminary Response, and Institution Decision.
`
`IV.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, which I understand is sometimes referred to as an
`
`“ordinary artisan” or by the acronym “POSITA” or “POSA” (person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art), as of the time of the invention. For purposes of this Declaration, I have
`
`been instructed to use April 7, 2006 as the time of invention. I understand that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have
`
`known the relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean relevant to
`
`the challenged claims of the '111 Patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 13 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art references, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of
`
`education of active workers in the field, and my own experience working with those
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`25.
`
`I was at the time of invention, and am currently, one of more than
`
`ordinary skill in the art through my education and research experience. As of the
`
`date of the invention, I am very familiar with the types of problems encountered in
`
`computer networking , the types of prior art solutions described in prior art
`
`references, and the rapidity at which innovations are made. Indeed, I am very
`
`familiar with people having this level of skill in the area of computer networking and
`
`am very familiar with commonly used technologies as Ethernet and the internet
`
`protocol / transmission control protocol (TCP/IP) suite. At the time of the invention,
`
`and since that time, I have been involved in the design and development of computer
`
`networks and in that capacity have worked with and managed teams of numerous
`
`individuals that would qualify as a POSITA.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 14 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claims of the patent-at-issue in this IPR are generally
`
`interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning taking into
`
`consideration the so-called “intrinsic evidence” of the patent consisting of (1) the
`
`claim language; (2) the specification; and (3) the prosecution history.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that claim terms may be explicitly defined in the patent
`
`specification, or they may be implicitly defined through consistent usage in the
`
`specification. I also understand that the scope of claim terms may be limited by
`
`statements in the specification or prosecution history where the applicant clearly
`
`disavows or disclaims subject matter.
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a patent may be invalid if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that the following factors must
`
`be evaluated to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden of proof that a
`
`claimed invention is obvious:
`
`1. The scope and content of the prior art relied upon by Petitioner;
`
`2. The difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent
`
`and the prior art;
`
`
`
`11
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 15 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`3. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of the patent
`
`was made; and
`
`4. Any objective indicia of non-obviousness, including, for example:
`
`(1) commercial success of an embodiment; (2) a long-felt need; (3)
`
`skepticism; (4) failure by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention; (5) copying by others of the subject matter of the
`
`claim invention; (6) unexpected results of the claimed invention; (7)
`
`acceptance of others and industry praise; and (8) licensing of the patents.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`have been informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks already
`
`known, and claimed inventions almost of necessity will likely be combinations of
`
`what is already known.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry to
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have
`
`motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine or
`
`modify the prior art references in the manner proposed by the Petitioner to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention. Put another way, a finding of obviousness should be
`
`12
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 16 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`supported by an apparent reason to combine or modify the prior art references as
`
`proposed by the Petitioner.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry that
`
`it is understood how the combination of references is supposed to work. An
`
`explanation of the operation of the combined references is often a prerequisite to
`
`showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make
`
`the proposed combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that a finding of obviousness “requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would
`
`have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research
`
`and development to yield the claimed invention.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex,
`
`Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In addition, I have been informed that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art should have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining the references as proposed.
`
`33.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed to consider both the
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that it is impermissible for common sense to be applied to fill gaps in
`
`prior art that fails to teach or suggest a limitation of the claim. I also understand that
`
`the obviousness inquiry should guard against hindsight bias or hindsight
`
`13
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 17 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`reconstruction where after-the-fact reasoning is applied to combine prior art
`
`elements using the claimed invention as a template, without establishing that, as of
`
`the date of the invention, there exists a motivation to combine or apparent reason to
`
`combine the prior art as proposed.
`
`34.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed that, to qualify as
`
`proper prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as analogous
`
`art. I have been informed that a reference qualifies as analogous art with respect to
`
`the claims if it is either: (1) from the same field or endeavor as the patent; or (2) the
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the
`
`invention. I have also been informed that for a reference to be reasonably pertinent,
`
`it must logically have commended itself during the ordinary course of development
`
`to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.
`
`35.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have also been instructed that, as noted
`
`above, secondary considerations can often be probative evidence of non-obviousness
`
`and can serve to avoid hindsight bias. I have been instructed that secondary
`
`considerations can be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. I
`
`have been instructed that Patent Owner can show non-obviousness if: (1) the
`
`industry praised their work; (2) their design was copied by others; (3) their design
`
`14
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 18 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`achieved a high level of commercial success; or (4) their invention had unexpected
`
`beneficial results, for example.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT AND THE STATE OF THE ART
`
`A. Technical Background of the ’111 Patent
`
`36. The ’111 Patent is titled “Method and System for Deep Packet
`
`Inspection in Software Defined Networks.” Ex. 1001, abstract. Deep Packet
`
`Inspection (DPI) is a technique for examining network communications that can be
`
`used to extract data patterns from a data communication channel. Ex. 1001, 1:21-25.
`
`The extracted data patterns are useful for a variety of purposes, including network
`
`security and data analytics. Id.
`
`37. A software defined network (SDN) is a networking architecture that
`
`provides for centralized management of the nodes in a network, as opposed to the
`
`distributed architecture utilized by conventional networks. Ex. 1001, 1:30-38. For
`
`example, a SDN may utilize a controller to manage network nodes such as
`
`vSwitches. Id. SDN-based architectures typically decouple the data forwarding (e.g.
`
`data plane) from control decisions (e.g. control plane), such as routing, resources,
`
`and other management functionalities. Ex. 1001, 1:39-49. The decoupling may allow
`
`the data plane and the control plane to operate on different hardware, in different
`
`runtime environments, and/or operate using different models. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 19 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`38. The ’111 Patent proposes methods for DPI in a software defined
`
`network. Ex. 1001, 2:27-3:3. In one exemplary embodiment, a network system 100
`
`as shown in Fig. 1 includes a controller 111 “configured to perform deep packet
`
`inspection on designated packets from designated flows or TCP sessions… the
`
`central controller 111 is further configured to instruct each of the network nodes 112
`
`which of the packets and/or sessions should be directed to the controller 111 for
`
`packet inspections:”
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:5-11, Fig. 1.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 20 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`39. Controller 111 may provide instructions to the network nodes that
`
`configure the network nodes to analyze the headers of incoming packets for DPI. Ex.
`
`1001, 4:23-37. For example, the network node may be instructed to either redirect
`
`the packet to controller 111 or send the packet to the destination server 140. Id.
`
`Alternatively, the controller 111 may instruct the network nodes to mirror a number
`
`of bytes within the packet to be sent to controller 111 to perform DPI. Id. The TCP
`
`packet’s header may include fields such as TCP FLAG SYN, TCP FLAG ACK,
`
`TCP FLAG FIN, TCP FLAG RST, which are analyzed by the network node to
`
`execute the instructions sent by the controller, which may vary depending on the
`
`contents of the TCP packet’s header field. Ex. 1001, 4:23-46.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Cited References
`
`40. The Petition asserts the following two grounds:
`
`Ground
`#1
`
`Claims
`1-9, 12-24, and 27-31
`
`#2
`
`1, 5-9, 12-24, and 27-30
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA)
`over Lin and Swenson
`35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA)
`over Shieh and Swenson
`
`
`Pet., i-iii.
`
`1.
`
`Lin (Ex. 1005)
`
`41. Lin (U.S. Patent No. 9,264,400) is titled “Software Defined Networking
`
`Pipe for Network Traffic Inspection” and describes a software defined networking
`
`(SDN) computer network including an SDN controller and an SDN switch. Ex.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 21 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`1005, abstract. The SDN controller inserts flow rules in a flow table of the SDN
`
`switch to create an SDN pipe between a sender component and a security
`
`component. Id.
`
`42. Lin utilizes an SDN Controller 610 (which may be an OpenFlow
`
`Controller) that controls the behavior of the SDN computer network 600 as shown in
`
`Fig. 6:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:40-52, Fig. 6.
`
`43. The SDN controller may include a flow policy database 611. Id. The
`
`flow policy database comprises flow policies that are enforced by the controller 610
`
`on network traffic transmitted over the SDN computer network 600 and may specify
`
`security policies that govern transmission of packets on the network. Id. Flow
`
`18
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 22 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`policies in database 611 are implemented in terms of flow rules 624 that are stored
`
`in flow tables 621 of the SDN switch 620. Ex. 1005, 4:19-31. “The SDN controller
`
`610 may insert flow rules in the flow tables 621.” Ex. 1005, 6:1-3.
`
`2.
`
`Shieh (Ex. 1006)
`
`44. Shieh (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0291088) is titled “Cooperative
`
`Network Security Inspection” and describes a network system including a security
`
`device and a network access device. Ex. 1006, abstract. The network access device
`
`receives a packet from a source node of the network and determines whether the
`
`packet should be routed to a destination node or forwarded to a security device. Ex.
`
`1006, [0037]. The network access device makes this determination based on whether
`
`a bypass flag in a session table stored on the network access device is set to a
`
`predetermined value or not. Id. If the bypass flag is the predetermined value, the
`
`packet is forwarded to the security device. Id. Otherwise, the packet is routed to the
`
`destination node. Id. The bypass flag may be received from the security device,
`
`such as to indicate that the security device no longer wishes to receive further
`
`packets for security inspection. Ex. 1006, [0030].
`
`3.
`
`Swenson (Ex. 1007)
`
`45. Swenson (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0322242) is titled “Real-Time
`
`Network Monitoring and Subscriber Identification with an On-Demand Appliance”
`
`19
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2025
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 23 of 59
`
`

`

`
`
`and describes a system and method for selectively monitoring traffic in a service
`
`provider network. Ex. 1007, abstract. A user device 110 accesses a network via a
`
`steering device 130. Ex. 1007, [0026]. A network controller 140 interfaces with
`
`steering device 130 to coordinate the monitoring and categorization of network
`
`traffic. Id. The network controller provides selective real-time network monitoring
`
`and subscriber identification and monitors large flows in the network, collects flow
`
`statistics, and selects flows to be optimized. Ex. 1007, [0039-0040]. The network
`
`controller may monitor and optimize flow based on historical traffic data for the
`
`average of the bandwidth per user at a partic