IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ORCKIT CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2024-00037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,652,111
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER
`§§42.104(A)-(B) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a)) ....................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested (§42.104(b)) ........... 1
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’111 PATENT ............................................................. 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’111 Patent .................................................................. 3
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date .......................................................................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 5
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 5
`
`IV. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL .............................. 8
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under Fintiv Isn’t Appropriate ........................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Discretionary Denial Under General Plastic Isn’t Appropriate ........... 9
`
`V. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 12-24, AND 27-31 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER LIN IN VIEW OF SWENSON. ........................................................10
`
`A.
`
`Lin ........................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`Swenson ...............................................................................................12
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................14
`
`D.
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................33
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................35
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................37
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`G.
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................38
`
`H.
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................40
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................41
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................42
`
`K.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................43
`
`L.
`
`Claim 12 ..............................................................................................44
`
`M. Claim 13 ..............................................................................................45
`
`N.
`
`Claim 14 ..............................................................................................45
`
`O.
`
`Claim 15 ..............................................................................................45
`
`P.
`
`Claim 16 ..............................................................................................46
`
`Q.
`
`Claim 17 ..............................................................................................47
`
`R.
`
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................48
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`Claim 19 ..............................................................................................48
`
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................49
`
`U.
`
`Claim 21 ..............................................................................................50
`
`V.
`
`Claim 22 ..............................................................................................51
`
`W. Claim 23 ..............................................................................................52
`
`X.
`
`Claim 24 ..............................................................................................52
`
`Y.
`
`Claim 27 ..............................................................................................53
`
`Z.
`
`Claim 28 ..............................................................................................53
`
`AA. Claim 29 ..............................................................................................54
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`BB. Claim 30 ..............................................................................................54
`
`CC. Claim 31 ..............................................................................................55
`
`VI. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1, 5-9, 12-24, AND 27-30 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER SHIEH IN VIEW OF SWENSON ....................................................55
`
`A.
`
`Shieh ....................................................................................................55
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................57
`
`C.
`
`Claims 5-9 ...........................................................................................69
`
`D.
`
`Claim 12 ..............................................................................................69
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim 13 ..............................................................................................70
`
`Claim 14 ..............................................................................................70
`
`G.
`
`Claim 15 ..............................................................................................71
`
`H.
`
`Claim 16 ..............................................................................................71
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claim 17 ..............................................................................................72
`
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................72
`
`K.
`
`Claim 19 ..............................................................................................73
`
`L.
`
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................73
`
`M. Claim 21 ..............................................................................................74
`
`N.
`
`Claim 22 ..............................................................................................74
`
`O.
`
`Claim 23 ..............................................................................................75
`
`P.
`
`Claim 24 ..............................................................................................76
`
`Q.
`
`Claim 27 ..............................................................................................76
`
`R.
`
`Claim 28 ..............................................................................................77
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`Claim 29 ..............................................................................................77
`
`Claim 30 ..............................................................................................77
`
`VII. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .....................................78
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’111 Patent
`
`1003 Curriculum Vitae of Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`1004 Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,264,400 (“Lin”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0291088 (“Shieh”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0322242 (“Swenson)
`
`1008 RFC 2460, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
`
`1009 Nunes, A., et al., A Survey of Software-Defined Networking: Past,
`Present, and Future of Programmable Networks
`
`1010 Complaint in Orckit Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00276
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`1011 Amended Scheduling Order in Orckit Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1012
`
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, Vidal, K., United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, June 21, 2022
`
`1013
`
`Federal Case Management Statistics for the Eastern District of Texas,
`as of June 30, 2022
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`1.1
`
`1.2
`
`1.3
`
`1.4
`1.5
`
`Claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31
`1.0 A method for use with a packet network including a network node for
`transporting packets between first and second entities under control of a
`controller that is external to the network node, the method comprising:
`sending, by the controller to the network node over the packet network,
`an instruction and a packet-applicable criterion;
`receiving, by the network node from the controller, the instruction and
`the criterion;
`receiving, by the network node from the first entity over the packet
`network, a packet addressed to the second entity;
`checking, by the network node, if the packet satisfies the criterion;
`responsive to the packet not satisfying the criterion, sending, by the
`network node over the packet network, the packet to the second entity;
`and
`responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, sending the packet, by
`the network node over the packet network, to an entity that is included
`in the instruction and is other than the second entity.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the instruction is 'probe',
`'mirror', or 'terminate' instruction, and upon receiving by the network
`node the 'terminate' instruction, the method further comprising blocking,
`by the network node, the packet from being sent to the second entity and
`to the controller.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the instruction is a 'probe', a
`'mirror', or a 'terminate' instruction, and upon receiving by the network
`node the 'mirror' instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the
`criterion, the method further comprising sending the packet, by the
`network node, to the second entity and to the controller.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the instruction is 'probe',
`'mirror', or 'terminate' instruction, and upon receiving by the network
`node the 'probe' instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the
`criterion, the method further comprising: sending the packet, by the
`network node, to the controller; responsive to receiving the packet,
`analyzing the packet, by the controller; sending the packet, by the
`controller, to the network node; and responsive to receiving the packet,
`sending the packet, by the network node, to the second entity.
`
`1.6
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`The method according to claim 1, further comprising responsive to the
`packet satisfying the criterion and to the instruction, sending the packet
`or a portion thereof, by the network node, to the controller.
`The method according to claim 5, further comprising storing the
`received packet or a portion thereof, by the controller, in a memory.
`The method according to claim 5, further comprising responsive to the
`packet satisfying the criterion and to the instruction, sending a portion
`of the packet, by the network node, to the controller.
`The method according to claim 7, wherein the portion of the packet
`consists of multiple consecutive bytes, and wherein the instruction
`comprises identification of the consecutive bytes in the packet.
`The method according to claim 5, further comprising responsive to
`receiving the packet, analyzing the packet, by the controller.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the analyzing comprises
`applying security or data analytic application.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the analyzing comprises
`applying security application that comprises firewall or intrusion
`detection functionality.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the analyzing comprises
`performing Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) or using a DPI engine on the
`packet.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the packet comprises distinct
`header and payload fields, and wherein the analyzing comprises
`checking part of, or whole of, the payload field.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein 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.
`The method according to claim 16, wherein the packet is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packet, and wherein the one or
`more flag bits comprises comprise a SYN flag bit, an ACK flag bit, a
`FIN flag bit, a RST flag bit, or any combination thereof.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet comprises distinct
`header and payload fields, the header comprises at least the first and
`second entities addresses in the packet network, and wherein the packet-
`applicable criterion is that the first entity address, the second entity
`address, or both match a predetermined address or addresses.
`The method according to claim 18, wherein the addresses are Internet
`Protocol (IP) addresses.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet is an Transmission
`Control Protocol (TCP) packet that comprises source and destination
`TCP ports, a TCP sequence number, and a TCP sequence mask fields,
`and wherein the packetapplicable criterion is that the source TCP port,
`the destination TCP port, the TCP sequence number, the TCP sequence
`mask, or any combination thereof, matches a predetermined value or
`values.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet network
`comprises a Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN),
`the Internet, Metropolitan Area Network (MAN), Internet Service
`Provider (ISP) backbone, datacenter network, or inter-datacenter
`network.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the first entity is a server
`device and the second entity is a client device, or wherein the first entity
`is a client device and the second entity is a server device.
`The method according to claim 22, wherein the server device comprises
`a web server, and wherein the client device comprises a smartphone, a
`tablet computer, a personal computer, a laptop computer, or a wearable
`computing device.
`The method according to claim 22, wherein the communication between
`the network node and the controller is based on, or uses, a standard
`protocol.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the network node comprises
`a router, a switch, or a bridge.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet network is an
`Internet Protocol (IP) network, and the packet is an IP packet.
`The method according to claim 28, wherein the packet network is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) network, and the packet is an
`TCP packet.
`30.0 The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the
`network node from the first entity over the packet network, one or more
`additional packets; checking, by the network node, if any one of the one
`or more additional packets satisfies the criterion;
`responsive to an additional packet not satisfying the criterion, sending,
`by the network node over the packet network, the additional packet to
`the second entity; and responsive to the additional packet satisfying the
`criterion, sending the additional packet, by the network node over the
`packet network, in response to the instruction.
`
`24
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30.1
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`31
`
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the packet network is a
`Software Defined Network (SDN), the packet is routed as part of a data
`plane and the network node communication with the controller serves as
`a control plane.
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`• § 42.8(b)(1): Juniper Networks, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`• § 42.8(b)(2): The ’111 Patent is at issue in the following cases that may affect,
`
`or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Orckit Corporation v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Orckit Corporation v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00821 (D. Del.);
`
`Orckit Corporation v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00822 (D. Del.); and
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2023-00554 (P.T.A.B).
`
`• §§ 42.8(b)(3), (4): A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition. Juniper
`
`consents to email service at ipr@fischllp.com.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Kyle K. Tsui (Reg. No. 62,602)
`kyle.tsui@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: 202.362.3527
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Andrew L. Ramos (Reg. No. 76,865)
`andrew.ramos@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: 202.362.3522
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111 (“the ’111 Patent”) relates to deep packet
`
`inspection (“DPI”) in a software defined network (“SDN”). During prosecution,
`
`the Applicant relied heavily on claim limitations reciting “… sending, by the
`
`controller to the network node over the packet network, an instruction and a
`
`packet-applicable criterion” and “… receiving by the network node from the
`
`controller, the instruction and the criterion” to distinguish the prior art.1 But as
`
`shown below, and as Dr. Bhattacharjee’s Declaration (Ex. 1004) confirms, this
`
`wasn’t new and would’ve been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Included with this Petition is a timely Motion for Joinder. Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc. (“Juniper,” “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31 of the ’111 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`STANDING AND IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER §§42.104(A)-(B)
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (§42.104(a))
`
`Juniper certifies the ’111 Patent is available for IPR. Juniper isn’t barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR on the asserted grounds.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Relief Requested (§42.104(b))
`
`A Motion for Joinder accompanies this Petition, which, in the interest of
`
`judicial economy, relies on copies of the exhibits filed in IPR2023-00554. Relying
`
`
`1 Ex. 1002 at 322-330, 397-417, 492-501.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`on this identical evidence challenging the same claims with substantially identical
`
`grounds, Juniper asks the Board to find claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) unpatentable under §1032 based on the following patents and printed
`
`publications in view of the general knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) prior to the purported invention:
`
`Ground
`
`Proposed Challenges
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Lin3 and Swenson4 render obvious claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31.
`
`Shieh5 and Swenson render obvious claims 1, 5-9, 12-24, and 27-30.
`
`Lin was filed December 2, 2013 and issued February 16, 2016. Lin qualifies
`
`as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2). Swenson claims priority to a pair
`
`of provisional applications filed on June 1, 2012, and January 18, 2013,
`
`respectively. Swenson was filed as a non-provisional application on May 31, 2013
`
`and published on December 5, 2013. Thus, Swenson qualifies as prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1)-(2). And Shieh was filed as a provisional application
`
`on April 11, 2012 and as a nonprovisional application on April 10, 2013. Shieh
`
`
`2 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 (AIA) applies to the ’111 Patent.
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 9,264,400 (Ex. 1005) (“Lin”).
`
`4 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0322242 (Ex. 1007) (“Swenson”).
`
`5 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0291088 (Ex. 1006) (“Shieh”).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`published on October 31, 2013. Thus, Shieh qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a)(1)-(2).
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ’111 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’111 Patent
`
`The ’111 Patent discloses methods and systems relating to “deep packet
`
`inspection (DPI) in a software defined network (SDN).”6 The ’111 Patent discloses
`
`a “central controller of the SDN” that is used to “configure[e] a plurality of
`
`network nodes operable in the SDN” with instructions that tell the network nodes
`
`what to do with incoming packets.7 For example, the central controller may send a
`
`“probe” instruction to a network node such that, when the network node receives a
`
`packet that matches a “packet-applicable criterion,” the network node will “mirror”
`
`(i.e., send) some or all of the packet to a security component for inspection.8
`
`“[T]he central controller 111 [shown below in Figure 1 of the ’111 Patent] is
`
`configured to perform deep packet inspection on designated packets from
`
`designated flows or TCP sessions.”9 “To this end, the central controller 111 is
`
`further configured to instruct each of the network nodes 112 which of the packets
`
`
`6 ’111 Patent, Abstract; see id., 1:14-16, Bhattacharjee, ¶¶30-34.
`
`7 ’111 Patent, 2:27-30, 2:3-32; Bhattacharjee, ¶30.
`
`8 ’111 Patent, 2:3-44; Bhattacharjee, ¶30.
`
`9 ’111 Patent, 4:5-7; Bhattacharjee, ¶31.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`and/or sessions should be directed to the controller 111 for packet inspections.”10
`
`“The determination [of whether a packet requires inspection] is performed based
`
`on a set of instructions provided by the controller 111.”11 “A packet that requires
`
`inspection is either redirected to the controller 111 or mirrored and a copy thereof
`
`is sent to the controller 111.”12
`
`
`
`’111 Patent, Fig. 1.
`
`During prosecution, the Applicant relied heavily on claim limitations
`
`reciting “… sending, by the controller to the network node over the packet
`
`network, an instruction and a packet-applicable criterion” and “… receiving by the
`
`network node from the controller, the instruction and the criterion” to distinguish
`
`
`10 ’111 Patent, 4:8-11.
`
`11 Id., 4:14-15.
`
`12 Id., 4:15-18.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`the prior art, along with arguments that there was no motivation to combine the
`
`cited art.13
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`Solely for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioner assumes that the priority
`
`date for the ’111 Patent is April 22, 2014, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 61/982,358 to which the ’111 Patent claims priority.14
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`As of April 22, 2014, a POSITA would’ve had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of
`
`professional experience, and a POSITA would’ve had a working knowledge of
`
`hardware and software for packet-switched networking.15 Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education and vice versa.16
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`In inter partes review, claim terms must be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention in
`
`
`13 EX1002 at 322-330, 397-417, 492-501; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶35-46.
`
`14 Bhattacharjee, ¶47.
`
`15 Id., ¶¶48-49.
`
`16 Id., ¶48.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`light of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.17
`
`The claim term “controller” should be construed to mean “an entity
`
`configured to perform deep packet inspection on packets.”18 The ’111 Patent
`
`discloses “a method for deep packet inspection (DPI) in a software defined
`
`network (SDN), wherein the method is performed by a central controller of the
`
`SDN.”19 Further, the patent states that “the central controller 111 is configured to
`
`perform deep packet inspection on designated packets from designated flows or
`
`TCP sessions.”20
`
`Further, the ’111 Patent describes that “the central controller 111 includes a
`
`DPI flow detection module 311, a DPI engine 312, and a memory 313, and a
`
`processing unit 314,” as shown below in Figure 3.21 “The DPI engine 312 [is]
`
`configured to inspect a packet or a number of bytes to provide application metadata
`
`as required by an application executed by an application server 120.”22 A POSITA
`
`would’ve known from this description that the central controller was configured in
`
`
`17 See 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (en banc).
`
`18 ’111 Patent, 10:52-62; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶69-71.
`
`19 ’111 Patent, 2:27-30 (emphasis added); see id., 3:56-59.
`
`20 Id., 4:5-7 (emphasis added); see id., 2:49-51, 4:8-11, 9:67-10:1.
`
`21 ’111 Patent, 5:33-36.
`
`22 Id., 5:36-39; see id., 5:40-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`this manner to provide DPI on redirected packets, as all of the embodiments in the
`
`’111 Patent disclose that redirected packets are sent to the central controller for
`
`DPI.23
`
`’111 Patent, Fig. 3 (annotated); see id. Figs. 4-6.
`
`
`
`Further, the claim term “instruction” should be construed to mean “a
`
`command to determine if a packet requires inspection or not.”24 The ’111 Patent
`
`discloses that “each network node 112 is configured to determine if an incoming
`
`packet requires inspection or not.”25 The patent states that “the central controller
`
`
`23 See, e.g., Bhattacharjee, ¶71; ’111 Patent, 4:8-18, 4:49-50, 8:1-5.
`
`24 ’111 Patent, 10:56-62; Bhattacharjee, ¶72.
`
`25 ’111 Patent, 4:12-14.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`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.” Moreover, the exemplary instructions provided in the ’111 Patent are
`
`various commands used to determine whether or not a packet requires inspection.26
`
`Terms not specifically construed have their plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by a POSITA.27
`
`IV. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL
`
`Although institution is discretionary, the grounds for unpatentability
`
`presented in this Petition are neither cumulative or redundant to the prosecution of
`
`the ’111 Patent. The prior art here wasn’t previously considered and isn’t
`
`redundant to any combination of references previously considered. Nor do the
`
`Fintiv or General Plastic factors provide any basis for denial.
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under Fintiv Isn’t Appropriate
`
`The six Fintiv factors considered for §314 denial favor institution.28 Factor 1
`
`is neutral. Patent Owner filed its complaint against Juniper asserting infringement
`
`of the ’111 Patent on July 31, 2023. Because the district court proceeding is in its
`
`
`26 Id.; see id., 8:23-32, 8:40-53, 9:26-28; Bhattacharjee, ¶72.
`
`27 Bhattacharjee, ¶73.
`
`28 See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`early stages, no motion for stay has been filed. Due to the early stage of the district
`
`court proceeding, the parties have only minimally invested in the district court
`
`proceeding, no case schedule currently exists, and no overlap in prior art issues
`
`exist. Indeed, Juniper has yet to respond to the complaint. A final written decision
`
`will issue from this IPR well before the 27-month median time to trial in Delaware
`
`elapses. Factors 2-4 therefore weight in favor of institution. The parties are the
`
`same so factor 5 doesn’t provide a basis for denying institution. And this Petition
`
`seeks joinder of already instituted proceedings. The institution of the original
`
`proceeding, IPR2023-00554, confirms the compelling evidence of unpatentability
`
`included in this petition which relies on the same evidence. Thus, factor 6 also
`
`weighs in favor of institution. And Fintiv offers no basis for denying institution
`
`here.
`
`B. Discretionary Denial Under General Plastic Isn’t Appropriate
`
`Although the Board applies General Plastic to petitions seeking joinder, the
`
`factors don’t support denying institution here.29 This Petition is Petitioner’s first
`
`challenge to the ’111 Patent. And as its Motion for Joinder details, Petitioner
`
`agrees to assume a passive understudy role so that its participation won’t affect the
`
`
`29 Cf. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28,
`
`2020) (precedential) (applying General Plastic factors where Petitioner previously
`
`filed unsuccessful IPR petitions).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`schedule of IPR2023-00554 or impact the Board’s finite resources. In doing so,
`
`Petitioner “effectively neutraliz[es] the General Plastic [discretionary denial]
`
`factors.”30 General Plastics therefore offers no basis for discretionary denial.31
`
`V. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 12-24, AND 27-31 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER LIN
`IN VIEW OF SWENSON.
`
`The combination of Lin and Swenson, along with the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA, renders claims 1-9, 12-24 and 27-31 obvious.32
`
`A. Lin
`
`Lin “relates generally to computer security, and more particularly but not
`
`exclusively to software defined networking.”33 “In one embodiment, a software
`
`defined networking (SDN) computer network includes an SDN controller and an
`
`SDN switch.”34 “The SDN controller inserts flow rules in a flow table of the SDN
`
`
`30 Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00580, Paper 13 at 10-11 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Aug. 21, 2018).
`
`31 See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-
`
`01357, Paper 19 at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (listing factors
`
`considered when petitioners have previously filed petitions).
`
`32 Bhattacharjee, ¶¶74-206.
`
`33 Lin, 1:7-9; see id., Abstract; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶50-56. Background discussion of
`
`software defined networking can be found in Paragraphs 21-29 of Dr.
`
`Bhattacharjee’s declaration and in EX1009.
`
`34 Lin, 1:58-60; Figures 6-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`
`IPR2024-00037
`
`switch to create an SDN pipe between a sender component and a security
`
`component.”35 “The SDN pipe allows outgoing packets sent by the sender
`
`component to be received by the security component.”36 “The security component
`
`inspects the outgoing packets for compliance with security policies and allows the
`
`outgoing packets to be forwarded to their destination when the outgoing packets
`
`pass inspection.”37 Figure 6 of Lin, reproduced below, shows “a schematic diagram
`
`of an SDN computer network 600” in which “[t]he SDN controller 610 provides a
`
`logically centralized framework for controlling the behavior of the SDN computer
`
`network 600.”38 “The SDN controller 610 may include a flow policy database
`