KeySight Technologies Inc v. CenTriPetal NeTWorks Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-XXXX
• Patent #: 10,681,009
• Filed: August 12, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Keysight Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Centripetal Networks, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Network Protection Method and Device
• Brief Description: The ’009 patent describes a method and device for protecting computer networks by applying rule sets to packet traffic. The system can dynamically update and switch between different rule sets to respond to network conditions, and it includes methods for preprocessing rules to optimize performance. The technology is substantially the same as that of U.S. Patent 9,674,148, which was previously invalidated.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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 (an 2006 IEEE publication), Huima (Application # 2004/0015905), and Hayter (Patent 7,320,022).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner’s primary argument rested on collateral estoppel, asserting that the Patent Owner was precluded from re-litigating the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A Final Written Decision (FWD) in a prior IPR on the related ’148 patent (the ’148 FWD), which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, found nearly identical claims obvious over the same combination of references. Regardless, Petitioner argued that Roese teaches a base network protection system that responds to threats by applying rule sets. Golnabi teaches optimizing rule sets by merging, separating, and reordering rules. Huima teaches pausing packet processing while rule sets are updated to avoid using outdated rules. Hayter teaches using an integrated cache to store packets during such a pause to enable high-performance processing upon resumption.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Roese with Golnabi to optimize firewall performance and efficiency. A POSITA would incorporate Huima’s teaching of pausing packet processing into Roese’s system to ensure new, more protective rule sets take effect immediately without processing further packets under old rules. Hayter would be combined to add high-performance caching, a known technique to efficiently handle packets paused per Huima’s method.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as the combination involved applying known network management and optimization techniques to improve the performance of a conventional network protection system.
  • Key Aspects: The core of this ground was the assertion of collateral estoppel based on the ’148 FWD, which invalidated claims with only cosmetic differences over the same prior art combination.

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 (an 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 built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Esbensen to address limitations in claims 6-7 and 25 related to dynamically adjusting memory size. Esbensen teaches a method and apparatus for dynamically changing the storage capacity of a cache memory based on the size of the data to be written into it. Petitioner argued this directly teaches the limitations of "dynamically adjusting" the size of a memory buffer based on the size of the rule sets to be stored, as Roese’s system includes a cache for storing rule sets.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Esbensen’s dynamic cache allocation into the system of Roese as modified by the other references. Because the combination with Golnabi allows for rule sets to be combined or split, the memory required to store them changes. A POSITA would look to a known solution like Esbensen to efficiently manage cache memory and avoid allocating an excessive, fixed cache size, thereby improving overall system efficiency.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in applying Esbensen’s dynamic memory management to Roese’s caching function, as it represented a straightforward application of a known memory optimization technique.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented two primary arguments against discretionary denial.
• First, to avoid denial under Fintiv based on parallel district court litigation, Petitioner made a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in the parallel litigation any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the IPR if instituted.
• Second, Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Although the ’148 FWD was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’009 patent, the examiner never discussed or analyzed its findings, nor did the examiner consider the specific prior art references of Golnabi, Huima, Hayter, or Esbensen.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 10,681,009 as unpatentable.