Cisco Systems Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01513
• Patent #: 9,560,077
• Filed: August 10, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Centripetal Networks, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Protecting a Secure Network
• Brief Description: The ’077 patent discloses methods and systems for network security using packet security gateways (PSGs) located at network boundaries. These PSGs receive dynamic security policies from a management server and apply rules to filter, drop, or reroute network traffic based on specified criteria to protect a network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are obvious over Jungck.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jungck (Application # 2009/0262741).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that various embodiments within the single Jungck reference teach all limitations of the independent claims. For independent claim 1, Jungck’s disclosure of a subscribing server provisioning edge servers with filtering rules allegedly meets the "provisioning" limitation. Jungck's teaching of "network-layer transparent monitoring"—where a device intercepts traffic at the link layer without a network-layer address—was argued to meet the limitation that the examiner relied upon for allowance. Petitioner contended that Jungck's edge servers, which drop packets with spoofed source addresses, satisfy the "drop the portion of the packets" limitation. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Jungck’s teaching of integrating a packet interceptor into a LAN switch’s switching matrix/fabric, thereby altering packet flow for analysis and potential dropping, meets the limitation of modifying a switching matrix.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Although this ground relies on a single reference, Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine teachings from different embodiments within Jungck (specifically Emb#3, Emb#4, and Emb#5). The motivation was that all embodiments apply to the same network architecture, perform similar functions like packet filtering to address common problems such as DDoS attacks, and their combination would produce predictable and operable results for various design objectives.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Jungck's embodiments because they are directed to programmable devices for implementing network security and involve applying known programming techniques to improve similar systems.

Ground 2: Claims 5, 11, 17, and 19 are obvious over Jungck in view of RFC 2003.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Jungck (Application # 2009/0262741) and RFC 2003 (an Internet standards track protocol from 1996 titled “IP Encapsulation with IP”).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claims requiring packet "encapsulation." Petitioner argued that Jungck teaches routing packets to an "alternate destination" based on filtering criteria but does not specify the method. RFC 2003, a well-known standard, explicitly discloses "IP in IP" encapsulation as a means to alter normal IP routing and deliver datagrams to an intermediate destination. Petitioner contended that RFC 2003 supplies the specific, well-known implementation for the general rerouting function taught by Jungck.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA, seeking to implement the rerouting function described in Jungck, would combine its teachings with the standardized encapsulation method of RFC 2003. As encapsulation was one of a finite number of predictable solutions for rerouting packets, it would have been an obvious-to-try approach. The broad acceptance of RFC 2003 as an IETF standard provided further motivation for its use.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining a known function (rerouting packets) with a standard, proven implementation method (IP encapsulation) to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner analyzed the challenged claims under both the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and Phillips standards, arguing the claims are obvious regardless of the standard used.
• For several key terms, including "network-layer address," "LAN switch," and "switching matrix," Petitioner adopted, for the purposes of the petition, the constructions that Patent Owner proposed in a parallel district court litigation (Keysight litigation). Petitioner argued that the claims are unpatentable even under the Patent Owner's own proposed definitions.
• Petitioner contended that the term "provisioning," which is not defined in the specification, should be given its plain meaning. It disputed Patent Owner's litigation-based construction that implied "changing a device from one state to another," arguing this interpretation lacked support in the patent.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the specific combination of references and the detailed analysis based on the declaration of its expert, Dr. Kevin Jeffay, had never been presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Petitioner also contended that denial under §314(a) was not warranted. Citing the pre-Fintiv standard from General Plastic, Petitioner argued that instituting the IPR would be an efficient use of Board resources because neither the Patent Owner, the Office, nor the Board had previously addressed the merits of the specific grounds presented in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’077 patent as unpatentable.