Sandvine Corp v. Packet Intelligence LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00863
• Patent #: 6,665,725
• Filed: February 9, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC
• Patent Owner(s): Packet Intelligence, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-2

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method of Performing Protocol Specific Operations on a Packet
• Brief Description: The ’725 patent discloses a method for performing protocol-specific operations on a network data packet. The method uses a set of protocol descriptions to identify protocols within the packet, locate child protocols, and perform operations like parsing and state processing based on the packet's layered protocol structure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation under §102(b) - Claims 1-2 are anticipated by Baker.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Baker (International Publication No. WO 97/23076).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baker, which discloses a system for parsing and analyzing network data frames, teaches every limitation of claims 1 and 2. Baker's network interface system is programmed with "analysis control logic" to perform operations on network frames (packets) based on "protocol description files" (PDFs).
    • Claim 1 (Independent): Petitioner asserted that Baker's system performs the claimed method by:
      • (a) Receiving a packet: Baker's network analyzer or router receives frames of network data.
      • (b) Receiving protocol descriptions: Baker receives a set of PDFs that describe layered protocols (e.g., Ethernet, IP, TCP) conforming to the ISO/OSI model. Each PDF for a given protocol describes its child protocols, information on the location of those child protocols within a packet, and the specific parsing and extraction operations to be performed. For example, Baker's Ethernet PDF identifies a Generic Protocol (GP) as a child and includes offset information for the "Ethernet Protocol Type" field that identifies it.
      • (c) Performing operations based on base and child protocols: Baker's "ParseFrame" control logic systematically parses network frames starting with the base protocol (e.g., Ethernet). It uses information from the PDFs to extract values from packet fields (e.g., the Type field) and uses those values to identify the child protocol (e.g., GP) and continue parsing the next protocol layer.
      • (d) Storing and organizing a database: Baker generates a database in memory from the set of PDFs. This database includes a data structure of protocol records and a "ProtocolList" sorted vector that acts as an index. Baker's data structure includes lookup arrays that contain information on possible child protocols.
      • (e) Searching and indexing the data structure: The system searches the packet for child protocol fields. The values extracted from these fields (child recognition patterns) are used to index into Baker’s lookup structures. The search iterates through the fields of a protocol header until a valid entry for a child protocol is found. The lookup structure entries contain a pointer to the next protocol's data structure, indicating validity.
      • (f) Configured for rapid searches: Petitioner argued that Baker's data structure is configured for rapid searches by using extracted child recognition codes to directly index memory locations in lookup arrays, which is the same method disclosed in the ’725 patent. Petitioner also argued this limitation is purely functional and entitled to no patentable weight (see Section 4).
    • Claim 2 (Dependent): Petitioner argued that Baker's PDFs are written in a protocol description language, as they provide commands and attributes for defining header length, field layouts, and child protocols. Furthermore, Baker's "initialization" process, which reads the PDFs into memory and extracts protocol and control record information to create the searchable data structures, constitutes the claimed step of "compiling the PDL descriptions to produce the database."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the limitation in claim 1, "whereby the data structure is configured for rapid searches using the index set," should be afforded no patentable weight.
  • Petitioner contended that the term "rapid" is not a structural limitation but rather a statement of a desired result or intended use. Citing case law, Petitioner asserted that apparatus claims are defined by what a device is, not what it does, and that such functional language does not confer patentability if the prior art structure can inherently perform the function. Accordingly, they argued this phrase is purely functional and cannot distinguish the claims from Baker.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2 of Patent 6,665,725 as unpatentable.