Cisco Systems Inc v. Sable IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00166
• Patent #: 8,817,790
• Filed: November 5, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc., Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Aruba Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Sable Networks, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21, 25-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Identifying Flows Based On Behavior Characteristics And Applying User-Defined Actions
• Brief Description: The ’790 patent describes methods and systems for managing network traffic by classifying information packet flows based on their behavioral statistics, rather than relying solely on packet header information. This allows for the application of user-defined actions, such as Quality of Service (QoS) policies, even for traffic that uses dynamic ports or other obfuscation techniques.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-21 and 25-29 are obvious over Olesinski in view of Papp.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Olesinski (Patent 7,782,793) and Papp (Patent 7,843,843).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Olesinski taught the core elements of the challenged claims. Olesinski disclosed a real-time traffic classification system that grouped packets into flows based on header information, maintained a flow table with header-independent statistics (e.g., number of sampled packets, cumulative data size, sampling time), and used off-line trained classification rules to categorize flows based on these statistics. When a flow’s statistics matched a rule’s conditions (a "profile"), Olesinski assigned a traffic class and applied corresponding actions, such as changing packet priority or assigning a class-of-service, to manage QoS.

    Petitioner asserted that Papp supplied additional, well-known details that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have used to implement Olesinski’s system. For instance, while Olesinski mentioned identifying flows via header information, Papp explicitly taught using the standard "5-tuple" for this purpose. More importantly, Papp taught dynamically reclassifying a flow as its characteristics change over time (e.g., an email flow changes when a large file is attached). This addressed a scenario Olesinski did not explicitly detail, ensuring QoS policies could be updated mid-flow. Papp also provided express teachings on applying specific policies to VoIP traffic and using Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) markings to manage service levels, which Petitioner contended were obvious enhancements to Olesinski's framework.

  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Olesinski’s traffic classification system would combine its teachings with Papp to add practical, well-understood implementation details and improve system robustness. Specifically, a POSITA would look to a reference like Papp for the explicit method of grouping packets into flows using the 5-tuple, a detail Olesinski mentioned but did not specify. A POSITA would also incorporate Papp’s teaching of dynamic reclassification to ensure that Olesinski’s system could adapt to changes in flow behavior, thereby maintaining appropriate QoS throughout the life of a flow. This combination would predictably improve the performance and granularity of Olesinski’s QoS system by applying known techniques to solve known problems in traffic management.

  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining Olesinski and Papp. Both references operate in the same technical field of network traffic classification and aim to achieve the same goal of improved QoS management. Integrating Papp's specific, conventional techniques (like 5-tuple identification and dynamic reclassification) into Olesinski's broader, compatible framework would have been a straightforward and predictable engineering task.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigations were in their infancy, with little to no discovery or claim construction investment. It was argued that trial dates were uncertain and likely to occur well after the Board’s deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD), especially given pending motions to transfer venue and potential pandemic-related delays. Petitioner further asserted that the merits of the petition were exceptionally strong, weighing heavily in favor of institution, and that a stay of the district court proceedings was likely.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 and 25-29 of the ’790 patent as unpatentable.