Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co v. Parity Networks LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00331
• Patent #: 6,763,394
• Filed: November 14, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
• Patent Owner(s): Parity Networks, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Virtual Egress Packet Classification at Ingress
• Brief Description: The ’394 patent describes a network packet router system designed to perform both ingress and egress packet filtering (pass/drop determinations) entirely at the ingress port. This architecture aims to increase efficiency and reduce hardware complexity by using a first lookup table containing egress-port-specific rules and a second lookup table for ingress-only rule determinations that do not require egress port data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are obvious over Kadambi in view of Bechtolsheim.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadambi (Patent 6,104,696) and Bechtolsheim (Patent 6,377,577).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kadambi teaches the core invention of consolidating egress pass/drop determinations at the ingress port of a network router. Kadambi was asserted to disclose a system using a first lookup table that determines a packet's destination port based on header information (mapping to the claimed table with "egress port identity") and a separate, programmable rules table for filtering that operates independently of egress ports (mapping to the "second lookup table...without egress port numbers"). Bechtolsheim was cited as teaching the specific mechanism for comparing packet headers against rules, disclosing the use of access control lists (ACLs) stored in content-addressable memory (CAM) to permit or deny packet access based on header data.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the references because both teach improved, hardware-based methods for processing data packets. A POSITA would be motivated to implement the routing architecture of Kadambi using the well-known and efficient ACL/CAM-based filtering method taught by Bechtolsheim to achieve predictable improvements in processing speed and performance.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a standard, known filtering technology (Bechtolsheim) to an analogous routing system (Kadambi), which constituted a straightforward design choice with predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are obvious over Kalapathy in view of Bechtolsheim.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kalapathy (Patent 6,810,037) and Bechtolsheim (Patent 6,377,577).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kalapathy discloses a high-performance switch architecture where both ingress and egress functionality are co-located at the ingress port. Kalapathy's rules tables, which include various header combinations and a "destination port" field, were asserted to teach the claimed first lookup table. Its disclosure of separate ingress functions that do not involve egress port selection was argued to teach the claimed second lookup table for ingress-only determinations. As in Ground 1, Bechtolsheim was relied upon to supply the teaching of a specific hardware-based ACL/CAM implementation for the packet filtering and rule-comparison mechanism.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was similar to Ground 1. A POSITA seeking to build a high-performance router would be motivated to integrate Bechtolsheim’s well-understood method for hardware-based ACL processing into the efficient switch architecture described by Kalapathy. This combination was framed as the application of a known technique to a known system to achieve the predictable benefit of faster packet filtering.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as implementing the standard filtering method from Bechtolsheim within Kalapathy's system would involve only routine design changes well within the skill of a POSITA.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be improper. Under 35 U.S.C. §314, it contended that denial was unwarranted as this was its first petition against the ’394 patent. Petitioner also noted that its filing conserves Board resources by mirroring the grounds of a concurrent petition (IPR2018-01590) and that it would seek consolidation if instituted.
• Under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), Petitioner argued that denial would be inappropriate because the asserted prior art references—Kadambi, Kalapathy, and Bechtolsheim—were never cited or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’394 patent and are materially different from the art of record.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14, 16, and 19 of Patent 6,763,394 as unpatentable.