Keysight Technologies Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01607
• Patent #: 10,511,572
• Filed: September 30, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Keysight Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Centripetal Networks, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Rapid Response Network Policy Implementation
• Brief Description: The ’572 patent describes network protection devices, such as firewalls, that can switch between different rule sets to respond to network conditions. To avoid processing packets with an outdated rule set during a switch, the system caches incoming packets and resumes processing them with the new, updated rule set once the switch is complete.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, and Hayter - Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24 are obvious over Roese in view of 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 combination discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Roese taught a base rapid response system for network protection that processes packets using pre-installed rule sets and can switch between them based on triggers (e.g., a network attack). Golnabi taught optimizing firewall rule sets by merging, separating, or reordering rules to improve performance. Huima disclosed pausing packet processing while firewall rules are being updated to avoid using outdated rules, and then resuming processing. Hayter taught using multiple processors and a cache to minimize latency and improve the efficiency of packet processing in network devices. Petitioner asserted that the claim limitations in the ’572 patent are substantially the same as those in the related ’148 patent, which were previously found obvious over this same combination in a Final Written Decision (FWD).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that collateral estoppel applied from the ’148 FWD, which found motivation to combine these references. Independently, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to achieve predictable benefits. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Golnabi’s rule optimization techniques to Roese’s system to improve efficiency, incorporate Huima’s method of pausing packet processing to prevent errors during Roese’s rule set changes, and implement Hayter’s use of caching to efficiently handle the paused packets.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known network management and optimization techniques to a known type of network security system to achieve improved performance and reliability.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roese, Golnabi, Huima, Hayter, and Esbensen - Claims 3, 11, and 19 are obvious over the combination in Ground 1 further in view of 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 built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 3, 11, and 19, which required storing rule sets in a memory buffer and "dynamically adjusting" the buffer based on the size of the rule sets. Petitioner argued that the base combination taught storing rule sets in a cache (a memory buffer). The additional reference, Esbensen, explicitly taught a method for dynamically changing the size of a cache memory based on the size of the data to be stored.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner again relied on collateral estoppel from the ’148 FWD, which found a motivation to combine these references. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that since the combination of Roese and Golnabi results in rule sets that can change in size (due to merging or splitting), a POSITA would have been motivated to look for ways to efficiently manage the cache memory. Esbensen provided a known solution for dynamically allocating cache memory, and a POSITA would have applied its teachings to the Roese system to optimize memory usage and avoid allocating an excessively large, static cache.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in applying Esbensen’s dynamic cache sizing to the base system, as it was a known technique for improving memory efficiency in computer systems.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not deny institution for discretionary reasons.
• To avoid discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in parallel district court litigation any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR petition.
• Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the same or substantially the same art and arguments were not previously presented to the Patent Office. Although some references were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of the ’572 patent, the Examiner provided no analysis or indication that they were substantively considered, particularly in the combinations asserted in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’572 patent as unpatentable.