PTAB

IPR2020-00580

Unified Patents LLC v. Alterwan Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Routing Packets in a Virtual Private Network
  • Brief Description: The ’534 patent discloses methods for routing data packets by identifying whether packets are associated with a virtual private network (VPN), routing VPN-associated packets via a dedicated connection using a first routing table, and routing non-VPN packets over a different connection using a second, mutually-exclusive routing table.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Dantu and Aziz - Claims 1, 6, and 8 are obvious over Dantu in view of Aziz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dantu (Patent 6,532,088) and Aziz (Patent RE39,360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dantu, the primary reference, discloses the core framework of the challenged claims, while Aziz provides the missing teachings on packet encapsulation and encryption.
      • Dantu was asserted to teach a method for routing IP traffic in a fiber optic ring network that creates multiple VPNs. Each node in Dantu’s network contains multiple, separate forwarding tables, with at least one table corresponding to a specific VPN and other tables for different VPNs or general user traffic. Petitioner argued Dantu’s nodes perform the claimed steps of receiving packets, identifying their association with a particular VPN by examining packet header information (e.g., destination address) to select the correct forwarding table, and routing them along dedicated paths corresponding to that table. Packets not associated with the first VPN are routed over different, mutually-exclusive paths (e.g., to the internet or another VPN) according to other tables, thus meeting the core limitations of independent claim 1.
      • For the limitations of dependent claim 6, Petitioner contended that Dantu’s nodes function as the claimed "first endpoint" and "second endpoint" of the network connection. The process of identifying packets inherently requires the claimed "examining header information" to consult the forwarding tables and determine the packet's destination.
      • Aziz was introduced to supply the explicit teachings for "encapsulating" packets (claim 1) and encrypting them with a pre-shared key (claim 8). Petitioner argued that Aziz discloses a "tunneling bridge" that intercepts packets, encrypts them, and encapsulates them by adding a new IP header for secure transmission over a public network. Petitioner asserted this is a conventional form of encapsulation. For claim 8, Petitioner pointed to Aziz’s disclosure that the receiving tunneling bridge is pre-configured with the necessary decryption key, which is "locally stored" and known in advance ("a priori") of receiving the packet, directly mapping to the claim’s encryption requirements.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Dantu with Aziz to add a necessary layer of security to Dantu’s multi-VPN routing system. Dantu provided an efficient architecture for routing traffic for different VPNs along dedicated paths but did not detail a robust security mechanism. Aziz taught a well-known and conventional method—tunneling with encapsulation and encryption—for securing private network traffic. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Aziz’s established security features into Dantu’s system to protect sensitive data traversing the network, which is a primary goal of any VPN implementation. Both references are from the same field of endeavor and address the problem of routing packets securely and economically.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved implementing a standard security protocol (tunneling, as taught by Aziz) onto a known packet-routing architecture (Dantu). The integration of these widely understood networking concepts was considered predictable and would not have required undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 6, and 8 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable.