PTAB

IPR2022-01421

Keysight Technologies Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Network Protection Device with Pre-processing of Rule Sets
  • Brief Description: The ’009 patent discloses systems and methods for network security that involve dynamically managing and applying multiple rule sets to network traffic. The technology focuses on preprocessing rule sets to optimize performance before they are implemented by a network protection device to filter packets.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Petitioner’s challenge centered on the assertion that the claims of the ’009 patent are obvious variations of claims from a related patent (Patent 9,674,148), which were previously found unpatentable in an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a Final Written Decision (FWD) affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Petitioner argued that collateral estoppel applied to many of the core invalidity issues.

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 8-24, and 26-30 are obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Roese (Application # 2006/0048142), Golnabi (a 2006 IEEE publication), Huima (Application # 2004/0015905), and Hayter (Patent 7,320,022).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Patent Owner was collaterally estopped from contesting the teachings of this prior art combination, as it was successfully used to invalidate related claims in the ’148 patent IPR. Roese was asserted to disclose a foundational rapid-response network protection system that uses rule sets. Golnabi was cited for its teaching of optimizing firewall rule sets by merging, separating, and reordering them to improve performance. Huima was added for its disclosure of pausing packet processing while a new rule set is being implemented to prevent packets from being processed using outdated rules. Hayter was included for its teachings on using multiple processors and caching to increase the speed and efficiency of packet processing. Petitioner contended that minor differences in claim language between the ’009 patent and the invalidated ’148 patent claims did not materially alter the obviousness analysis.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that the Patent Owner was precluded from re-litigating the motivation to combine these references. Regardless, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Roese with Golnabi to improve rule processing efficiency, with Huima to ensure rule changes are applied consistently without processing packets against outdated rules, and with Hayter to increase overall system throughput and speed. The combinations were presented as predictable improvements to Roese’s base system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known network processing and optimization techniques to achieve a more efficient and responsive network security system.

Ground 2: Claims 6-7 and 25 are obvious over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, Hayter, and Esbensen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Roese (Application # 2006/0048142), Golnabi (a 2006 IEEE publication), Huima (Application # 2004/0015905), Hayter (Patent 7,320,022), and Esbensen (Patent 5,226,141).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Esbensen to the primary combination from Ground 1 to address claim limitations related to dynamically adjusting the size of a memory buffer. Petitioner argued that the base combination of Roese, Huima, and Hayter taught a system that caches packets during rule set updates. Esbensen was asserted to teach a method for dynamically changing the size of a cache memory based on the size of the data that needs to be stored. Claims 6, 7, and 25 require storing rule sets and dynamically adjusting a memory buffer based on the size of a rule set.
    • Motivation to Combine: Again relying on collateral estoppel, Petitioner argued the motivation was previously established. A POSITA implementing the primary combination would be motivated to incorporate Esbensen’s dynamic cache allocation method. Since Golnabi teaches that rule sets can be combined or split, their memory footprint changes. A POSITA would combine Esbensen’s teachings to efficiently manage memory, avoiding the allocation of an excessively large, static cache and thereby improving system efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying Esbensen's known technique for dynamic memory sizing to the cache in the Roese/Hayter system was presented as a straightforward and predictable design choice for a POSITA.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) or §325(d).
  • To avoid denial based on parallel district court litigation (Fintiv factors), Petitioner provided a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in that litigation any invalidity grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR.
  • Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the USPTO. Although the FWD from the prior IPR of the ’148 patent was cited on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’009 patent, the examiner never discussed, analyzed, or applied the underlying prior art references (Golnabi, Huima, Hayter, and Esbensen) against the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-30 of Patent 10,681,009 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.