PTAB

IPR2020-01583

Apcon Inc v. Gigamon Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Creating and/or Managing Meta-Data for Data Storage Devices Using a Packet Switch Appliance
Brief Description: The ’466 patent relates to a packet switch appliance for creating and managing meta-data for network traffic analysis. The technology purports to improve network forensics by adding a meta-data tag—including an identifier of the switch appliance and information about the network port where a packet was first received—to data packets for review by external instruments.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Daniel (7,706,363) and Merchant (6,778,547).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Daniel disclosed the core limitations of independent claim 1, including a packet switch appliance that creates a meta-data tag (a "switch tag") for packets. Daniel's tag included fields for the "Source Device (network switch)" ("Src Dev") and the "Source Port" ("Src_Port") where the packet entered the network, directly teaching the addition of a switch identifier and port information. To the extent Daniel was considered deficient, Merchant was argued to cure it by disclosing a multiport switch that adds a "forwarding descriptor" to packets, which includes a "receive port number" field indicating the specific port on which a frame was received.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to improve network routing and facilitate the direction of packets. Petitioner asserted that modifying Daniel's switch tag to incorporate Merchant's explicit "Rx Port" field was a simple substitution of one type of information for another, as Daniel already taught adding a "Src_Port" field for the same general purpose.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the modification involved combining known packet-tagging techniques to achieve the predictable result of enhanced packet routing information.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Daniel (7,706,363), Merchant (6,778,547), and Tadimeti (7,656,812).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Daniel and Merchant to add the timestamping limitations of claims 13, 14, and 23. Petitioner contended that Tadimeti explicitly taught adding a label or header to replicated packets that includes "a timestamp indicating the time that the replicated packet was first received by the switch (in the case of ingress SPAN), the time that the replicated packet was first transmitted by the switch (in the case of egress SPAN), or both." This disclosure directly mapped to the "first time stamp," "arrival time," and "second time stamp" limitations in the challenged claims.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Tadimeti's timestamping functionality to the packet-tagging system of Daniel and Merchant to further improve network performance monitoring and analysis. Including timestamps is a well-known method for enhancing network routing and efficiency, which aligns with the goals of the primary references.
- Expectation of Success: Adding timestamp information to a packet header was a conventional and straightforward modification in network technology, which would yield the predictable benefit of more detailed packet metadata.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tadimeti (7,656,812).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tadimeti, standing alone, rendered the challenged claims obvious. Tadimeti disclosed a packet-switched network where switches add a label to packets containing meta-data. This label explicitly included "the WWN of the switch" (a switch identifier) and "the Fabric Port WWNs on which the packet is received" (a port identifier). Tadimeti also expressly disclosed adding timestamps indicating packet ingress and egress times. Petitioner asserted these teachings met all the key limitations of the independent claims and the dependent claims related to timestamping.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations with Junos (a user manual) to teach the "out-of-band appliance" limitation of claim 12.

"out of band": Construed as "outside the path of network traffic." This construction was important for grounds relying on Junos, which taught a passive monitoring station that did not transmit traffic back into the network.
"network port": Construed as "a port configured to be connected to a network (and not configured to be connected to an instrument)."
"instrument port": Construed as "a port configured to be connected to an instrument (and not configured to be connected to a network)." These constructions were central to mapping prior art ports to the distinct roles recited in the claims.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition contended that the claims and prior art presented in the IPR were substantially different from those at issue in a parallel district court case. Petitioner also asserted that the merits of the invalidity grounds were exceptionally strong ("an open-and-shut case"). Finally, Petitioner argued that even if the district court trial proceeded on schedule, the PTAB's Final Written Decision would likely issue before any appeals were concluded, promoting efficiency.

Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 5, 8, 12-14, 17, 20, 22-23 of the ’466 patent as unpatentable.