PTAB

IPR2024-00675

Cisco Systems Inc v. InfoExpress Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Network Gatekeeper for Protected Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’484 patent describes a system for managing access to a protected computer network. The network is logically divided into a "restricted subset" and a "less-restricted subset," with a "network gatekeeper" controlling access by auditing devices against security policies before granting them entry to the less-restricted areas.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Krantz - Claims 1-5, 11, 12, 16-19, and 23-25 are obvious over Krantz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Krantz (Application # 2004/0111520).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Krantz taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Krantz described a network access control system using Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs) to create logically separate network segments, which directly correspond to the ’484 patent’s "restricted" (VLAN B) and "less-restricted" (VLAN C) subsets. Krantz’s "server 215" was asserted to be the claimed "network gatekeeper," and its "authentication module 217" functioned as the claimed "policy auditor" by inspecting client credentials (e.g., username, password, OS credentials) against security policies stored in a database before granting access. Petitioner contended that upon successful authentication, Krantz’s server sent commands to reconfigure an access point (the "communication device") to permit the client device access to the less-restricted network segment, fulfilling the "access control" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference. Petitioner argued Krantz’s disclosure was comprehensive enough to render the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann - Claims 1-6, 11-13, 15-19, and 23-25 are obvious over Krantz in view of Herrmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Krantz (Application # 2004/0111520) and Herrmann (Application # 2004/0107360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Krantz did not explicitly teach certain security policy features, Herrmann supplied the missing elements. Herrmann addressed the specific problem of enforcing security policies, such as ensuring connecting devices have up-to-date antivirus software, before granting network access. Petitioner argued that adding Herrmann’s specific policy checks (e.g., antivirus version data, as required by claim 6) to Krantz’s general authentication framework was an obvious improvement. Herrmann also disclosed using a "policy agent 413" on the client device to retrieve security information and report it to a policy server. This agent-based data collection was argued to render obvious claim 15’s limitation of a policy auditor configured to request data from an agent.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Krantz and Herrmann to improve the security of Krantz’s known network access system. Herrmann explicitly stated it was "particularly important" to ensure devices run current antivirus programs to prevent infection. A POSITA would have recognized that incorporating Herrmann’s antivirus checks into Krantz’s pre-access authentication process was a simple, logical step to enhance network security, a primary goal of the Krantz system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining the teachings involved adding a known software-based security check (Herrmann) to an existing authentication framework (Krantz), which required only minor modifications and used compatible network protocols.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting the challenges were not cumulative. Neither Krantz nor Herrmann was cited or considered by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’484 patent, and the petition presented detailed expert testimony that was not previously available.
  • §314(a) Arguments (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors weighed against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Key arguments included that no stay had been requested in the parallel district court litigation, and the median time-to-trial in the Northern District of California (48.9 months) meant a final written decision would likely issue more than a year before any trial. Furthermore, investment in the parallel litigation was minimal as it was in the early stages, and the petition’s merits were exceptionally strong, with the prior art disclosing a nearly identical architecture to solve the same problem as the ’484 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 11-13, 15-19, and 23-25 of the ’484 patent as unpatentable.