Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`Before, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, RICHARD E.RICE,and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CER. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: March 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`Before, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, RICHARD E.RICE,and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CER. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`Palo Alto Networks,Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`B2 (“the ?154 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311-319. Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We havejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Forthe reasons that follow, we grant the Petition.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. RELATED MATTERS
`
`Petitioner identifies that the patent-at-issue is the subject matter of
`
`various district court cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California (Case Nos. 3:14-cv-04908, 5:14-cv-02998, 5:15-cv-
`
`01353, 5:14-cv-04398, 3:14-cv-01197, and 3:13-cv-05808). Pet. 3.
`
`Petitioner also states that petitions for inter partes review have beenfiled
`
`regarding other patents at issue in the foregoing district court cases. Id.
`
`B. ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1-8, 10, and 11(“the challenged
`
`claims”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following
`
`specific grounds:
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`Reference[s]
`
`
`
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan?
`
`§ 103
`
`2, 4-8, 10, and 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. THE ’154 PATENT (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’154 patent relates to computersecurity, and, more particularly,
`
`to systems and methodsfor protecting computers against malicious code
`
`such as computer viruses. Ex. 1001, 1:7-9, 8:38-40. The ’154 patent
`
`identifies the components of one embodimentof the system as follows: a
`
`gateway computer, a client computer, and a security computer. Jd. at
`
`8:45—47. The gateway computerreceives content from a network, such as
`
`the Internet, over a communication channel. Jd. at 8:47—48. “Such content
`
`maybe in the form of HTML pages, XML documents, Java applets and
`
`other such web content that is generally rendered by a web browser.” Jd. at
`
`_
`
`8:48-51. A content modifier modifies original content received by the
`
`gateway computer and produces modified content that includes a layer of
`
`protection to combat dynamically generated malicious code. Jd. at 9:13-16.
`
`' Patent Application Pub. No. US 2005/0108562 Al (Exhibit 1003)
`.
`(“Khazan”).
`? Sirer et al., Design and Implementation ofa Distributed Virtual machine
`for Networked Computers (1999) (Exhibit 1004) (“Sirer’).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 B1 (Exhibit 1005) (“Ben-Natan”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`D. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`
`Challenged claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 are independent, andillustrative
`
`claim | is reproduced below.
`
`1. A system for protecting a computer from dynamically
`generated malicious content, comprising:
`a content processor(1) for processing content received
`over a network, the content includinga call to a first function,
`and the call including an input, and(ii) for invoking a second
`function with the input, only if a security computer indicates
`that such invocationis safe;
`a transmitter for transmitting the input to the security
`computer for inspection, whenthefirst function is invoked; and
`a receiver for receiving an indicator from the security
`computer whetherit is safe to invoke the second function with
`the input.
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The Boardinterprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
`
`constructionin light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presumethat claim terms havetheir
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaningis the
`
`meaning that the term would haveto a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Petitioner proposed constructions for four terms: “first function,”
`39 66
`
`“second function,” “transmitter,”
`
`“receiver.” See Pet. 9-13. The proposed
`
`constructions are as follows:
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitter
`
`receiver
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction
`
`Substitute function (Pet. 9-10)
`
`Original function (Pet. 10-11)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A circuit or electronic device designed to
`
` accept data from an external communication
`
`A circuit or electronic device designed to
`
`
`send electrically encoded data to another
`
`location (Pet. 11-12)
`
`system (Pet. 12-13).
`
`Petitioner generally supports its proposed constructions with citations
`
`to the specification of the ’154 patent and opinion testimony of its witness,
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (Rubin Decl. or Ex. 1002). Id.
`
`Patent Owner submits that each of the terms hasa plain and ordinary
`
`meaning understoodto a person of ordinary andthat no construction is
`
`needed. Prelim. Resp. 6—12. Upon review of the arguments and evidence
`
`presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we concludethat
`none ofthese termsare at the heart of the parties’ arguments, and, therefore,
`construction of these termsis not helpful in our determination of whether to
`
`institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy). Accordingly, we do not construe any claim termsatthis time.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS GROUND BASED ON KHAZANAND SIRER
`
`Petitioner asserts that Khazan discloses “every element of the
`
`Petitioned Claims except a modified input variable and details of performing
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`dynamic analysis on a remote computer.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner challenges
`
`Petitioner’s assertions that Khazan discloses several limitations and asserts
`
`that Sirer’s disclosure of dynamic service components does not meetthe
`
`claims underPetitioner’s theory of unpatentability. Prelim. Resp. 14-24.
`
`1. Overview ofKhazan (Exhibit 1003)
`
`Khazanistitled “Technique for detecting executable malicious code
`
`using a combination ofstatic and dynamic analyses.” The Abstract of
`
`Khazan statesthat:
`
`Described are techniques used for automatic detection of
`malicious code byverifying that an application executes in
`accordance with a model defined using calls
`to a
`predetermined set of targets, such as external routines. A
`modelis constructed usinga static analysis of a binary form
`of the application, and is comprised of a list of calls to
`targets, their invocation and target locations, and possibly
`other call-related information. When the application is
`executed, dynamic analysis is used to intercept calls to
`targets and verify them against the model.
`
`Ex. 1003, Abstract. Figure 7, reproduced below, showsin moredetail the
`
`flow of control between functionsat run timeto interceptcalls to the
`
`predetermined functions or routines being monitored as part of dynamic
`
`analysis. Id. | 25.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`Applicatinn.EXE(Source Function)
`
` ADDRESS APILA API_A_OFFSRT:
`
`
`
`CALL API_A
`
`kernel 32 DLL (Target Function) 200°)
` LOCLA «:
`
`Wrapper Function
`
`
` sampotine Function
`212
`or Stub Function
`
`
`/rraen.n
`
`
`API_A_STUB:
`
`<VERIFY CALL ~ PRE
`
`MONTTORING CODE>
`<saved instructions from
`
`API_A>
` CALL API_A_TRAMPOLINE
`
`
`
`JUMP API_A + AP!_A_OFFSET:
`
`
`<POST MONITORING CODE>
`
`RETURN /* To source */
`
`
`
`
`The flow in Figure 7 depicts the control flow when a WIN32 API
`
`function is invoked at run time from the application using a call instruction.
`
`Id. § 82. A call is madeto the target function API_A. Jd. J 83. Control
`
`transfers (Fig. 7, arrow 202) to the target function API_A within the
`
`kernel132 DLL. Jd. The target function API_A includesa transfer or jump
`
`instruction to a wrapper function. Jd. Control, therefore, transfers (Fig. 7,
`
`arrow 204) to the wrapper function (API_A_STUB). Jd. Theintercepted
`
`call is verified. Id. ] 84. This verification includes using static analysis
`
`information, including parameter information. Jd. § 87. After verification, a
`
`trampoline function is invoked (Fig. 7, arrow 206) to execute previously
`
`saved instructions of API_A, whicharethefirst instructions of the routine
`
`API_Athat were replaced with a jump instruction to the wrapper function.
`
`Id. § 88. Control transfers back to the target function to continue execution
`
`of the target function body as indicated by arrow 208. Id.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`2. Overview ofSirer (Ex. 1004)
`
`Sireris titled “Design and implementation of a distributed virtual
`
`machine for networked computers.” Ex. 1004, 1. Sirer describes
`
`centralizing service functionality in a distributed virtual machine by
`
`portioning static and dynamic components. /d at 2. Figure 1, reproduced
`
`below,illustrates the organization of those components.
`
`Static Service Components
`
`Dynamic Service
`Components
`
`Clients
`
`
`Server \
`ManagementSvcs
`Runime
`
`
`
`ecmone[en[coe]=p sewer {7
`
`
`
`
`Network
`
`Management
`
`
`
`Security
`
`Library
`moneger
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Administration
`Console
`
`
`
`Perimeter Services
`
`Execution Svcs
`
`Verifier
`
`Compiler
`
`Internet
`
`Security
`
`Client
`
`_
`
`
`
`Figure 1. The organization of static and dynamic service components in a distributed virtual machine.
`
`Figure 1 showsstatic service components, such as security
`
`enforcement, running at a networktrust boundary.
`
`/d. at 3. Dynamic
`
`service components provide service functionality to clients during run-time
`
`as necessary. Id. “The code for the dynamic service components resides on
`
`the central proxy andis distributed to clients on demand.” Jd. at 4. The
`
`security service “forces applications to comply with an organization’s
`
`security policy by inserting appropriate checks through binary rewriting.”
`
`Id. at 5. “During execution of the rewritten application, the enforcement
`
`manager executes the inserted access checks, querying the security service
`
`based on the security identifiers and permissionsit maintains.” Id.
`
`3. Discussion
`
`Petitioner contends that Khazan teaches “content received over a
`
`network” through Khazan’s instrumented “application executable.” See Pet.
`
`19; see also Ex. 1003 { 73 (“At step 128, the instrumented application and
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`associated libraries are executed.”). Petitioner points to Khazan’s claim 35
`
`as support for the contention that the “instrumented executable” is obtained
`
`from anotherhost, and, therefore, it is received over a network. Pet. 20.
`
`Petitioner contends that Khazan in combination with Sirer discloses the
`
`content “includinga call to a first function.” Pet. 20-21.
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s contention by arguing that
`
`Khazan’s executable, e.g., Application. EXE shown in Figure 7, does not
`
`include a “first function.” Prelim. Resp. 15-17. Patent Ownerfurther
`
`contends that Sirer makescalls to a “dynamic service component,” which
`
`Patent Ownercontendsis a separate computer, and there is no evidencethat
`
`a computer is equivalent to a function. Prelim. Resp. 17-18. We are not
`
`persuadedat this time by Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Weunderstand the Petition as equating the claimed “content”to the
`
`instrumented application executable, not the original or source application
`
`executable. Further, although we agree with Patent Ownerthat there is a
`
`distinction between an “instrumented application executable” (which
`
`involves wrapper functions included in an application) and an “instrumented
`
`executable” (which involves wrapper functions includedinalibrary),
`
`Petitioner has asserted that Khazan teaches instrumentation of both whenit
`
`refers to “instrumented application andlibraries.” See Prelim. Resp. 12-13
`
`(Patent Owner arguing that wrapper functions are neverincluded in
`
`Khazan’s application, only in a library); but see Ex. 1003, Fig 4B (Step 128:
`“Execute the instrumented application and associated libraries”), § 79 (“Any
`[Jof a wide variety of different techniques may be used in connection with
`
`instrumenting the application 102 and any necessary libraries.”), and J 118
`
`(“[A]lthough the foregoing description instrumentslibraries, such as DLLs,
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`other bodies of code .
`
`.
`
`. even the application, may also be instrumented and
`
`used in connection with the techniques described herein.”).
`
`With regard to Sirer, Patent Ownerarguesthat Sirer does not teach
`
`“functions.” Prelim. Resp. 17-19. Patent Ownerfurther characterizes as
`
`unsupported attorney argumentPetitioner’s assertions that dynamic service
`
`componentsare calls to functions, and argues that cites to Petitioner’s
`
`Declarant, Dr. Rubin, “impermissibly attempt to circumvent the page
`
`limits.” Jd. These arguments are not persuasive for two reasons. First, Sirer
`
`states that the code for the dynamic service components is downloadedif
`
`needed. Ex. 1004, 4. Therefore, Sirer’s service components do not appear
`
`to be “computers,” as Patent Ownerargues, andinstead, Sirer tends to
`
`support Petitioner’s assertions. Second, we understandthe Petition to rely
`
`on Sirer as teaching instrumentation techniques performed at a proxy,
`whereas Khazan’s preferred embodimentteaches instrumentation at the host
`during dynamic analysis. Pet. 24-25. We do notsee Petitioner as relying
`
`solely on Sirer as teaching the “first function.” See Pet. 20 (“As received,
`
`the [Khazan] content includesthe substitute first function (added by
`
`Khazan’s instrumentation).”). Therefore, Patent Owner’s argument
`
`regarding deficiencies of Sirer’s teachingsin isolation does not address
`
`sufficiently the asserted combination of Khazan andSirer.
`
`Petitioner contends that Khazan teaches“the call including an input”
`
`because the wrapper function includes a parameter(i.e., input), which is
`
`verified during the pre-monitoring stage of the wrapper function execution.
`
`Pet. 27-28. In support of this argument, Petitioner proffers evidence that
`
`describes the operation of the Microsoft Detours package, referenced in
`
`Khazan,to explain that “original function parameters [are] passed to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`wrapperfunction.” Jd. at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 <j 101-02, Ex. 1012, 5
`
`(Detours Article)). Patent Owner counters that the function the Petition
`
`alludes to includes an input, whereasthe claims require that “the call to the
`
`function[] includes an input.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We are not persuadedat
`
`this time by this argument becauseit fails to explain sufficiently the alleged
`
`deficiency. Furthermore, Petitioner has proffered a further assertion that
`
`including a call to the function would have been obvious because “[w]ithout
`
`providing the parameters from the wrapped function to the wrapper function,
`
`the wrapper function could not verify the parameter information,” and that
`
`the Detours package operation suggests passing the parameterto the
`
`function. Pet. 28. Patent Owner’s arguments do not address these
`
`assertions.
`
`Concerning dependentclaim 2, Petitioner asserts that Khazan teaches
`
`“suspend[ing] processing of the content after said transmitter transmits the
`
`input to the security computer.” Pet. 39. In particular, Petitioner alleges that
`
`Khazan “discloses suspending processing in the form oftransferring control
`
`from the application executable to the wrapper function whenit intercepts
`
`the call.” Jd. According to Petitioner, the execution of the contentis
`
`“suspendedfor security verification.” Jd. at 40. This suspension, according
`
`to Patent Owneroccurs before, not after the alleged transmission of the input
`
`to the security computer. Prelim. Resp. 21-22. This argumentis not
`
`persuasive at this time. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s argument,
`
`Petitioner has presented sufficient information to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on the asserted challenge of claim 2.
`
`Finally, with regard to claims 3 and 5, Patent Ownerasserts that the
`
`Petition is deficient in showing that Khazan teaches “the inputis
`
`1]
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`dynamically generated by said content processorprior to being transmitted
`
`by said transmitter.” Prelim. Resp. 23-24. Petitioner points to Khazan
`
`creating and transmitting, during execution, the wrapper function parameter.
`
`Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, invocation at runtime dynamically
`
`generates the parameter. Jd. (relying on Dr. Rubin Decl., Ex. 1002,
`
`{{ 115-18). Patent Owner doesnotallege that Khazan worksdifferently or
`
`not as asserted, but rather, that Petitioner’s assertions are conclusory and that
`
`the statements in the declaration should be ignored. Prelim. Resp. 23. These
`
`arguments are not persuasive. The evidence and argumentspresented, atthis
`
`time, show a reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to the
`
`challenge of unpatentability of claims 3 and5.
`
`Wehave reviewed further Petitioner’s assertions and support provided
`
`regarding the limitations recited in the challenged claims, but not addressed
`
`above. Wedeterminethat, at this juncture, Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claims 1-5 would
`
`have been obvious over the combination of Khazan andSirer.
`
`C. GROUND BASED ON KHAZAN,SIRER, AND BEN-NATAN
`
`Petitioner contends that the “modified input variable” recited in
`
`claims 6 and 10 is taught by Ben-Natan. See, e.g., Pet. 48 (“Ben-Natan
`
`discloses ‘a modified input variable’ in the form of a ‘result data access
`999
`statement.’”). Patent Ownerchallenges the combination with Ben-Natan on
`
`the basis that Ben-Natan is not analogousart and doesnotdisclose the
`
`limitation. Prelim. Resp. 24-30.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`1. Overview ofBen-Natan (Ex. 1005)
`
`Ben-Natanis titled “System and methodsfor nonintrusive database
`
`security.” Ben-Natan describes “configurations of the invention [that]
`
`provide a nonintrusive data level security mechanism for intercepting
`
`database access streams.” Ex. 1005, 6:32-34. “Such an implementation
`
`deploys a security filter between the application and database, and observes,
`
`or ‘sniffs’ the stream of transactions between the application and the
`
`database.” Id. at 6:38-41. “If the ‘sniffed’ transactions indicate restricted
`
`data items, the security filter modifies the transaction to eliminate only the
`
`restricted data items, and otherwise allowsthe transaction to pass with the
`
`benign data items.” Id. at 6:50—54.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner asserts that Khazan teaches an intercepted function(i.e.,
`
`second function) but does not teach “a modified input variable.” Pet. 48.
`
`Petitioner relies on Ben-Natan teaching a limiter that modifies a data access
`
`statementif the statement provided by the user does not meetthe security
`
`profile for the user. Jd. (citing Ex. 1005, 13:43-67, 14:1-24). According to
`
`Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would “recognize that a data
`
`access statement as disclosed in Ben-Natan is merely a type of function with
`
`input parameters used in, for example, the SQL query language.” Jd.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Ben-Natan is non-analogousart. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 24—28. In particular, Patent Ownercontendsthat “modifying SQL
`
`statements[] is not ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problems faced by the
`
`inventors of the ’154 patent.” Jd. at 26. Further, the problem and solution
`
`identified by Ben-Natan, according to Patent Owner,is to “overcome[]
`
`deficiencies .
`
`. .with respect to data level security in data management and
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`retrieval environments.” Jd.
`
`In contrast, Patent Ownerarguesthat the
`
`”154 patent is concerned with protecting computers from dynamically
`
`generated viruses. Id.
`
`Whethera reference is analogousart is an issue of fact that we resolve
`
`after an inquiry into the similarities of the problems and the closenessof the
`
`subject matter as viewed by a person ofordinary skill in the art. Scientific
`
`Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014). At
`
`this time, the evidence of the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art with respect to the issue of analogousart is incomplete. Although Patent
`Owner, in the Preliminary Response, has attempted to draw outdistinctions
`
`between Ben-Natan and the ’154 patent, Petitioner has proffered evidence
`
`that Khazan and Ben-Natan havesimilarities and complementary techniques.
`
`See Ex. 1002 9 122. Therefore, at this juncture, notwithstanding Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments onthis issue, Petitioner has established a “reasonable
`
`likelihood”of prevailing.
`
`Patent Owneralso contends that Ben-Natan “neverrefers to a
`
`database query as a function.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Patent Owner further
`
`argues that Petitioner’s assertions are conclusory and that the statements in
`
`the declaration should be ignored. Jd. at 29. These arguments are not
`persuasive. Petitioner has supported its assertion that Ben-Natan’s SQL
`commandis a function because“[i]t instructs (commands) the database to
`
`perform somekind of operation and often includes inputs (parameters) and
`
`4 We recognize that Patent Ownerhasnot had an opportunity to cross-
`examine Petitioner’s declarant and introduce contrary evidence ontheissue.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`outputs.” Ex. 1002 4 121 (cited in the Petition at 48). The current record
`
`does not show any contrary evidence.
`
`Wehave reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in the
`
`Petition concerning the contention that claims 6-8, 10, and 11 would have-
`
`been obviousover the combination of Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan. We
`also have reviewed the information presented in the Preliminary Response.
`Arguments by Patent Owneragainstinstitution have been considered and
`
`deemed unpersuasiveat this time. We determinethat, on the current record,
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the contention
`
`that claims 6-8, 10, and 11 would have been obviousasasserted in the
`
`Petition.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, weinstitute inter partes review of the
`
`”154 patent on all the asserted grounds and challenged claims, as follows:
`
`
`
`
`Reference[s]__—'|_Claimschallenged|Basis_
`
`
`6-8, 10, and 11
`
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan
`
`§ 103
`
`The Board has not madea final determination on the patentability of
`
`any challenged claim.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing,it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthatthe Petition is granted as to claims 1—8, 10, and 11 of
`
`the ’154 patent on the groundsstated in the Conclusion; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review ofthe ’ 154 patent is herebyinstituted with trial commencing
`on the entry date of this decision, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given ofthe institution oftrial.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01979
`Patent 8,141,154 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Orion Armon (Lead Counsel)
`Christopher Max Colice (Back-up Counsel)
`Jennifer Volk (Back-up Counsel)
`Brian Eutermoser (Back-up Counsel)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`mcolice@cooley.com
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`beutermoser@cooley.com
`zPaloAltoNetworksIPR@cooley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah (Lead Counsel)
`Jeffrey H. Price (Back-up Counsel)
`Michael Kim (Back-up Counsel)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`17
`
`
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
