Cisco Systems Inc v. InfoExpress Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00676
• Patent #: 8,677,450
• Filed: April 15, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): InfoExpress Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 7-10, 14, 16, 22-23, 25, and 27

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Applying a Security Policy to Network Devices
• Brief Description: The ’450 patent discloses methods for network security where a protected network is logically divided into a restricted subset and at least one less-restricted subset. A "gatekeeper" element within the restricted subset applies security policies to devices requesting access to the less-restricted portions of the network, granting access only upon satisfaction of those policies.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann - Claims 1-4, 7-10, 14, 16, 22-23, 25, and 27 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: Petitioner argued that Krantz discloses the core architecture and method of the challenged claims, including a system for providing controlled access to a protected network logically divided into different segments (VLANs). Krantz’s server acts as a gatekeeper that authenticates a client device and, based on credentials, authorizes access to a less-restricted network segment. Petitioner asserted that Herrmann teaches the missing element: enhancing a basic authentication process by adding specific security policy checks. Herrmann describes collecting information from a client device—such as the status of its antivirus software—using a policy agent on the device to determine compliance with security policies before granting network access. Petitioner contended that combining Herrmann’s detailed security compliance audit with Krantz’s foundational network access control system renders the methods of independent claims 1 and 16 obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Krantz and Herrmann to improve the security of the network access system disclosed in Krantz. Since Krantz’s stated goals included security and automation, a POSITA would have recognized that incorporating Herrmann’s technique for checking device compliance (e.g., antivirus status) would directly further those goals by providing a more robust, automated security check beyond simple user authentication. The combination was presented as a predictable solution to the known problem of ensuring that devices connecting to a network meet security standards.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because it would involve minimal changes to the existing Krantz system, such as adding Herrmann's policy checks as an additional step in Krantz's existing authentication module.
  • Key Aspects: The argument heavily relied on the assertion that Herrmann’s use of a "policy agent" to check for antivirus software status provides the specific "scanning" and "auditing" limitations that augment Krantz's more general authentication framework.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) because neither Krantz nor Herrmann were cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’450 patent, and the combination presents a novel challenge.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. It asserted that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment, no trial date has been set, and a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR would likely issue more than a year before any potential trial. Therefore, the Fintiv factors were argued to weigh strongly against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7-10, 14, 16, 22-23, 25, and 27 of the ’450 patent as unpatentable.