• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
68 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)
For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
To satisfy this requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the Board no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1.
Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if requested, will be held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

10 Institution Decision Grant: Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314

Document IPR2023-00458, No. 10 Institution Decision Grant - Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2023)
An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless ... the information presented in the petition ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have used Chambers’ gateway to implement Auradkar’s “assigning” and other claimed functions and automatically assign the pertinent security policies because an enterprise has different users who use multiple devices to access cloud data.
Petitioner proposes to improve “Auradkar’s existing whole-document search” so “the modified system would have allowed retrieval of encrypted document portions stored in the cloud” to conserve network bandwidth as Chiueh teaches.
This argument is unavailing because Chiueh does not counsel against encrypting document pages and word sets at an enterprise system of Auradkar or at an intermediate gateway of the Auradkar-Chambers combination.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Order Other: Granting Petitioner Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Andrew N Klein 37 CFR § 4210

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)
Before JAMES P. CALVE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
On July 18, 2023, Petitioner filed motions for admission pro hac vice of Andrew N. Klein (Paper 82) in each of the above-captioned proceedings (collectively, “Motions”).
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause.
In authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in the proceeding.
Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Klein.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 >>