PTAB

IPR2024-00037

Juniper Networks Inc v. Orckit Corp

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Deep Packet Inspection in a Software Defined Network
  • Brief Description: The ’111 patent describes methods and systems for performing deep packet inspection (DPI) within a software-defined network (SDN). The technology involves a central controller that sends instructions and packet-matching criteria to network nodes, which then selectively redirect certain packets based on those criteria for inspection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31 are obvious over Lin in view of Swenson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lin and Swenson.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lin discloses the fundamental architecture of the challenged claims, including an SDN system where a controller sends "flow rules" (the claimed instruction and criterion) to an SDN switch (the claimed network node). These rules instruct the switch to route certain packets to a separate "security component" for inspection. While Lin's security component is separate, Petitioner asserted that Swenson explicitly teaches a network controller that performs "deep flow inspection" on packets forwarded to it by a network steering device. The combination of Lin’s SDN architecture with Swenson’s teaching of a DPI-capable controller allegedly renders the claimed invention obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lin and Swenson because they are analogous arts addressing the same problem of efficiently routing network traffic for inspection. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the security service of Lin into the controller itself, as taught by Swenson, to achieve greater efficiency, centralized management, and ease of updating security protocols. This modification was presented as a predictable design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The network architectures in both references are similar, featuring a central controller that manages external network nodes, making the integration of Swenson's DPI functionality into Lin's controller a straightforward implementation.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 5-9, 12-24, and 27-30 are obvious over Shieh in view of Swenson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shieh and Swenson.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shieh, like Lin, discloses a system where a central controller (a "firewall controller") sends commands and filtering rules to network nodes ("network access devices"). The nodes use these rules and criteria (e.g., whether a packet is a TCP FIN or RST packet) to determine if a packet should be forwarded to an associated security device for inspection. As in Ground 1, Petitioner relied on Swenson to supply the teaching of a controller that is itself configured to perform DPI. The combination of Shieh's controller-node communication framework with Swenson's DPI-capable controller allegedly renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Shieh and Swenson was presented as being analogous to that for combining Lin and Swenson. Both references address selective packet routing for security purposes using a controller. A POSITA would be motivated to modify Shieh's system to incorporate the security inspection function directly into the controller, as suggested by Swenson, to centralize security processing and improve network efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a reasonable expectation of success for similar reasons as in Ground 1. Given the functional similarities between the architectures—a central controller managing packet forwarding rules on distributed nodes—a POSITA would find it predictable to implement Swenson’s controller-based DPI within Shieh’s system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "controller": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "an entity configured to perform deep packet inspection on packets." This construction is central to the obviousness arguments, as it requires the controller itself to perform DPI. This allows Petitioner to argue that references like Lin and Shieh, which disclose a controller managing a separate security device, do not meet this limitation alone, thus necessitating the combination with Swenson, which allegedly teaches a DPI-capable controller.
  • "instruction": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a command to determine if a packet requires inspection or not." This construction helps map the "flow rules" from Lin and "filtering rules" from Shieh directly to the claimed "instruction," strengthening the argument that these references teach a key element of the claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the parallel district court proceeding is in its earliest stages, with no scheduling order issued and minimal investment by the parties. It was asserted that a Final Written Decision (FWD) from this inter partes review (IPR) would issue well before any potential trial date.
  • Petitioner also argued that denial under General Plastic is inappropriate. This petition seeks joinder with a previously instituted IPR (IPR2023-00554) that relies on the same evidence. Petitioner committed to a passive "understudy" role to avoid impacting the schedule or Board resources, thereby neutralizing the General Plastic factors.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-9, 12-24, and 27-31 of Patent 10,652,111 as unpatentable.