• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
65 results

Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

Docket IPR2023-00458, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 31, 2023)
James Calve, Stephen Belisle, Thomas Giannetti, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
9280678
Patent Owner Fortinet, Inc.
Petitioner Netskope, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

31 Other Fed Circuit mandate: Other Fed Circuit mandate

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 31 Other Fed Circuit mandate - Other Fed Circuit mandate (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2025)
GAnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appellee 2024-2192, 2024-2305, 2025-1085, 2025-1115 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023- 00030,
The parties having so agreed,it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).
(2) Each side shall bear their owncosts.
Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court November7, 2024 Date ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November7, 2024
cite Cite Document
Analyze

29 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 29 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC § 318a (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1...
c. Conclusion Based on the parties’ contentions and record, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis and determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of evidence that claims 2, 3, 8–10, 12, 13, 17, 21–24, 26, and 27 are unpatentable over the combination of Cidon, Shikfa, and Herrmann.
Auradkar encrypts and uploads records, indexes, and tags to the cloud using a trust overlay in searchable format to control access by users based on privileges in a policy.
Patent Owner argues that the antecedent basis for “the policy” that defines cryptographic key information is “a policy for managing access to and processing a file to be stored.” Id. (3) Analysis As discussed in Section II.D.5.b.
Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have added Chiueh’s functionality to Auradkar’s system to allow retrieval of individual pages instead of the whole document so bandwidth of the communication network could be saved, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Patent 9,280,678 B2 (4) Conclusion Based on the parties’ contentions and record evidence, we determine that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Chiueh with those of Auradkar and Chambers in the manner asserted in the Petition for claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

28 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 28 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2024)
Of specific interest is that this technique uses a -- produces a searchable, encrypted file that is stored in the cloud storage services based on a policy that is assigned to a user.
JUDGE CALVE: Yeah, Patent Owner seems to be arguing that this namespace has to be created with additional naming capability beyond what's used in the immediate context of encrypting and storing, and then I guess it criticizes you for -- for doing that.
And really, the genesis of this whole within a particular context, which is totally unambiguous, was that there was a discussion with our expert, Dr. Lee, where he -- the questions were about flat namespace structure, which could be a single identifier.
So in our case, in our view, really, these arguments don't make sense that, number one, they haven't shown the intent in '678 Patent to have multiple sections or have a single policy that's doing all of these; and
So going back to, now we're on page 21, and this is kind of the continuation of the discussion with Judge Calve where in our Cidon, Shikfa, Herrmann grounds, the process was really very similar to what the '678 Patent is -- is describing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

23 Order on Motion: ORDER Setting Oral Argument by Video 37 CFR § 4270

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 23 Order on Motion - ORDER Setting Oral Argument by Video 37 CFR § 4270 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2024)
Patent Owner requests oral argument by video conference with each side allotted sixty minutes to argue.
If at any time during the hearing counsel encounters technical or other difficulties that fundamentally undermine counsel’s ability to represent its client adequately, please let the panel know immediately, and adjustments will be made.5
The Board will grant up to fifteen minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.
In instances where an advocate does not meet the LEAP eligibility requirements due to the number of “substantive” oral hearing arguments, but
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to obligate the party that they represent.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

11 Order Other: SCHEDULING ORDER

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 11 Order Other - SCHEDULING ORDER (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

10 Institution Decision Grant: Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 3...

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 10 Institution Decision Grant - Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Order Other: Granting Petitioner Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Andrew N...

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 9 Order Other - Granting Petitioner Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Andrew N Klein 37 CFR § 4210 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 >>