Keysight Technologies Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01535
• Patent #: 10,609,062
• Filed: September 13, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Keysight Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Centripetal Networks, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Rule-Based Network Threat Filtering and Management
• Brief Description: The ’062 patent discloses a packet-filtering device that uses a plurality of rules to identify network packets corresponding to specified network-threat indicators. Based on operators within the rules, the device can either block or allow the packets, log the events, and present the information in a user interface that allows a user to modify the rule operators.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sourcefire - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Sourcefire.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sourcefire (Sourcefire 3D System User Guide Version 4.10).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sourcefire, a user guide for a commercial network security system, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. The "Sourcefire 3D System" with its "Intrusion Prevention System" (IPS) was asserted to be the claimed "packet filtering device." This system used "intrusion rules" (the claimed "packet filtering rules") with defined criteria (e.g., source/destination IP addresses) to identify malicious packets. These rules specified an operator, such as "alert" (allow) or "drop" (block), that was applied to triggering packets. Sourcefire’s user interface displayed detailed "intrusion events," including information identifying the triggered rule, the threat indicators, and data indicating whether the packet was allowed or dropped. The interface also allowed a user to modify a rule’s operator (e.g., from "alert" to "drop"), and the system would then apply this updated rule to subsequent packets.
  • Key Aspects: The petition’s central argument relied on collateral estoppel. Petitioner asserted that in a prior IPR (the ’722 IPR), the Board issued a Final Written Decision (FWD) finding claims of a terminally-disclaimed parent patent (Patent 9,413,722) unpatentable over the same Sourcefire reference. As the Federal Circuit affirmed that FWD, Petitioner argued the Board's findings regarding Sourcefire's teachings are binding and demonstrate that Sourcefire renders the nearly identical claims of the ’062 patent obvious.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) or Fintiv factors for several reasons.
• Sotera Stipulation: Petitioner entered a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in parallel district court litigation any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the IPR if review is instituted.
• Advanced Bionics Factors: Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the Examiner committed material errors during prosecution and did not have the benefit of key arguments presented in the petition.
  • New Arguments and Evidence: The petition contended that its arguments were not substantially the same as those before the Examiner. Crucially, the Examiner did not have the benefit of the Board’s FWD in the ’722 IPR or the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance. Therefore, the Examiner could not have considered the binding effect of collateral estoppel regarding Sourcefire's teachings on materially similar claims.
  • Examiner Error: Petitioner alleged the Examiner made material errors by reaching conclusions directly contradicted by the Board’s later findings in the ’722 IPR. Specifically, the Examiner incorrectly concluded that Sourcefire did not teach "allowing" a packet to continue and that the claimed "explicit progression" of steps was non-obvious. Petitioner asserted that the prosecution history reflects only a conclusory analysis of Sourcefire, not the detailed evaluation required to preclude institution. These affirmed contrary findings from the Board were presented as clear evidence of material Examiner error warranting institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’062 patent as unpatentable.