1 In support of the Joint Motion, the Parties filed a copy of a written confidential settlement agreement.

In view of the early stage of the proceedings and the settlement between the Parties, we determine that it is 1 We refer to papers and evidence filed in IPR2021-00140.

The parties filed the Settlement Agreement and similar motions in the other cases to which this Order pertains.

We determine the Settlement Agreement between the Parties shall be treated as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and shall be kept separate from the files of the involved patents and associated proceedings.

FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement shall remain designated as “Parties and Board Only” in the Board’s filing system, shall be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause, and shall be kept separate from the files of the involved patents and associated proceedings, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

We maintain, at this stage of the proceeding, that the construction of conversational flow should not include “(for instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client), where some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and a server.” As we explained in the Institution Decision, phrases beginning with “for instance,” “where some,” and “some” are “merely exemplary and non-limiting.” Inst.

Nor does Patent Owner persuade us that our preliminary construction is erroneous because other panels of “this Board, multiple district courts, and the Federal Circuit” have allegedly relied on the exemplary language in construing “conversational flow.” Req.

Patent Owner argues that the prior art Riddle “treats packets corresponding to the same type of activity identically regardless of whether it is part of a ‘conversational flow.’” Id. (emphases omitted).

Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, that our construction of “conversational flow” is the result of a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the claimed invention or the prior art.

The parties are encouraged to fully brief this issue during trial, keeping in mind the appropriate burdens, and setting forth the most applicable claim- construction canons and case law.

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Because this Order addresses issues that are the same in each of the proceedings, we issue one Order to be entered in each proceeding.

The parties are not authorized to use this caption unless later permitted.

IPR2018-01247 (Patent 8,479,969 B2) IPR2018-01248 (Patent 8,479,969 B2) IPR2018-01254 (Patent 8,479,969 B2) IPR2018-01703 (Patent 8,616,431 B2) A Trial Order, was issued on September 19, 2019 with an error indicating that “[o]ral argument will commence at 10:00 am Eastern Time on October 17, 2019, on the 9th floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria Virginia.” Paper 32, 2; see also id. at 4 (stating “it is: ORDERED that the oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined above, shall commence at 10:00 am Eastern Time on October 17, 2019).2 The Trial Order should have indicated that “[o]ral argument will commence at 9:00 am Eastern Time on October 17, 2019.” Accordingly, the Trial Order of September 19, 2019 for IPR2018- 01247, 01248, -01254, and -01703, is modified as follows: on page 2, it should read “[o]ral argument will commence at 9:00 am Eastern Time on October 17, 2019, on the 9th floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria Virginia”; and on page 4, it should read “ORDERED that the oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined above, shall commence at 9:00 am Eastern Time on October 17, 2019.” In all other respects, the Order is unchanged.

The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.

Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Kalyan K. Deshpande replaces Administrative Patent Judge Matthew R. Clements on the panel.

Due to recusal, Administrative Patent Judge Gregg I. Anderson replaces Administrative Patent Judge Sally C. Medley on the panel.

Thus, Administrative Patent Judges Kalyan K. Deshpande, Trevor M. Jefferson, and Gregg I. Anderson now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.

All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.

Reh’g”) of our determination in the Final Written Decision (Paper 32, “Decision” or “Dec.”) that Petitioner had not met its burden to establish the unpatentability of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’235 patent”).

Petitioner contends that we erred in our determination that Karol did not anticipate or render obvious the limitation of claim 19, which recites that “the controller sends different packets of a given message to different parallel networks.” Req.

In other words, the passage describes enhancing security by dividing packets from a message or other source such as a session, file, web page, etc.

This portion of the Petition provided background for Petitioner’s general understanding of the ’235 patent, but it did not address Petitioner’s specific contentions as to claim 19.

Patent 6,775,235 B2 that the cited passage supports Petitioner’s argument that the Patentee viewed sessions, files, and web pages to be examples of messages.

On rehearing, Patent Owner asserts that this determination was incorrect because the modified Karol system would not select packets based on destination address as recited in claims 4 and 9.

Patent Owner argues that because claim 4 requires that the destination of the packet is used to select between network interfaces on a per-packet basis, the proposed modification to Karol is insufficient because it limits the routing decision to an analysis of the packet’s source address.

Dr. Negus cites two pieces of evidence to support his testimony that this modification would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, (1) a passage from the ’235 patent that describes selecting paths based on the origin of a packet; and (2) a data and computer communications textbook.

Manual and/or tedious reconfiguration was needed to change the destination address used in packets from a given source LAN such as one at site A, so this approach allowed load-balancing only on a very broad granularity, and did not load-balance dynamically in response to actual traffic.

Patent Owner goes on to argue that “[i]f Karol’s system were modified to analyze only the source address, then there could be no per- packet path selection at the CL-CO gateway because the routing decisions would be predetermined, based on the source.” Req.