PTAB

IPR2020-01585

Apcon Inc v. Gigamon Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Packet Switch Methods and Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’656 patent discloses a packet switch and switching method that uses distinct "network ports" and "instrument ports" to operate in an "out-of-band" configuration. This setup is designed to enable the collection and analysis of specific network packets for monitoring purposes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Junos and Amdahl - Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 17-21, and 23-26 are obvious over Junos 5.6 in view of Amdahl.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Junos 5.6 (a JUNOS™ Internet Software Feature Guide) and Amdahl (Patent 7,697,427).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Junos 5.6, a user manual for Juniper networking equipment, disclosed all key elements of the independent claims. Junos 5.6 taught using a router in an out-of-band "passive monitoring" configuration where an optical splitter copies network traffic, sending it to a monitoring station that does not transmit back into the network. This monitoring station had dedicated ports for receiving traffic ("network ports") and other ports for sending copies of that traffic to analysis tools like packet analyzers ("instrument ports"). Junos 5.6 also disclosed establishing logical connections to route different traffic flows (e.g., TCP vs. UDP) to different analyzers. Petitioner contended that Amdahl taught a method for distributing network traffic to multiple traffic managers based on packet source and destination addresses to ensure flow persistency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Junos 5.6's out-of-band monitoring system with Amdahl's more granular, address-based traffic distribution method. This combination would be a simple and logical step to improve the routing of specific packet flows to designated monitoring instruments, which is a well-known goal in network management.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Junos 5.6 already demonstrated routing based on packet characteristics (e.g., protocol type). Integrating Amdahl’s use of source/destination addresses was a predictable extension of this existing filtering and routing capability to achieve more precise traffic management.

Ground 2: Obviousness over MacBride, Hegge, and Amdahl - Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 17-21, and 23-26 are obvious over MacBride in view of Hegge and Amdahl.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: MacBride (Patent 6,823,383), Hegge (Application # 2001/0055274), and Amdahl (Patent 7,697,427).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that MacBride taught a network visibility system that taps network traffic, creates copies, and sends them to monitoring instruments via "shadowing units" that prevent the instruments from transmitting back into the network, thus teaching an out-of-band architecture. Hegge taught a network switch with multiple "mirror ports" that could identify specific data flows and copy them to designated monitoring devices based on administrator-defined policies. As in Ground 1, Amdahl taught distributing packets based on source/destination addresses to maintain flow integrity when sending traffic to multiple management devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify MacBride's tapping system by incorporating the teachings of Hegge and Amdahl. Specifically, a POSITA would combine Hegge’s method of directing specific flows to specific mirror ports with Amdahl’s method of using packet address information for distribution. This would create a more sophisticated and flexible out-of-band monitoring solution, allowing for more intelligent load balancing and traffic segregation among monitoring tools, a known objective in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield predictable results. MacBride already disclosed an aggregation/dissemination unit for routing tapped traffic. Integrating Hegge’s flow-based mirroring policies and Amdahl’s address-based routing rules would be a straightforward enhancement to this existing functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated it would rely on the claim constructions adopted in the parallel district court litigation for the purposes of the IPR. The key constructions identified were:
    • "out of band": "outside the path of network traffic"
    • "network port": "a port configured to be connected to a network (and not configured to be connected to an instrument)"
    • "instrument port": "a port configured to be connected to an instrument (and not configured to be connected to a network)"

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core reasons were:
    • Dissimilar Issues: The issues in the IPR were not the same as those in the parallel district court case. The IPR challenged a broader set of claims (20 claims vs. 2 in district court) and relied on different prior art combinations, including the Amdahl reference, which was not at issue in the district court litigation.
    • Strong Merits: Petitioner asserted the grounds presented an "open-and-shut case" for unpatentability, which weighs heavily in favor of institution to correct the record for claims that should not have issued.
    • Timing and Efficiency: While a trial was scheduled, Petitioner argued that the PTAB is the more appropriate and expert forum for resolving these invalidity questions. It also noted potential trial delays and the fact that an IPR provides greater certainty and efficiency in resolving the patentability of the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 17-21, and 23-26 of the ’656 patent as unpatentable.