PTAB

IPR2025-00836

Cisco Systems Inc v. Qprivacy USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dynamic Management of Encrypted Data
  • Brief Description: The ’249 patent describes a method for dynamically managing private data during communication between a remote server and a user's device. The system inspects data packets, determines their content or type without decryption, and then modifies or blocks them based on a user's configurable privacy preferences to secure private elements of the user's device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-30 are obvious over Burns in view of Yang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Burns (Patent 8,341,724) and Yang (Patent 8,291,495).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Burns and Yang disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Burns teaches an Intrusion Detection System (IDS), which corresponds to the claimed "remote server," that identifies and responds to encrypted communication sessions not associated with identifiable network applications. Burns’s IDS receives network traffic, including encrypted packets, and is configurable by an administrator to take actions like blocking or throttling sessions, which constitutes the claimed "preference list" and "modifying" the data packet. However, Burns does not detail the specific techniques for identifying applications. For this, Burns expressly refers to and incorporates Yang. Yang teaches identifying applications and protocols based on packet header characteristics, such as TCP port numbers in a packet header, which maps to the claim limitation of determining a packet's "content" or "data type" based on its "characteristics" without decryption. Petitioner asserted that performing this analysis transparently in a network forwarding plane, as taught by Burns, meets the "real time" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because Burns explicitly incorporates Yang by reference for its "techniques for identifying specific applications and protocols." Petitioner contended this express incorporation provides a clear and compelling reason to combine the teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as Burns directs the artisan to Yang's established techniques for application identification to enhance the functionality of its own IDS.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 7, 13, 15, 22, 24, and 30 are obvious over Burns, Yang, and Guruswamy

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Burns (Patent 8,341,724), Yang (Patent 8,291,495), and Guruswamy (Patent 8,209,756).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Burns and Yang to further address limitations in certain dependent claims, such as claim 4, which requires the preference list to include both "data packet types" and "communication data patterns." While Burns and Yang teach using rules based on data types (applications/protocols), Guruswamy was introduced for its explicit teaching of creating "compound network attack definitions." Guruswamy’s system allows an administrator to define an attack using a combination of a specific protocol (a "data packet type") and specific "patterns" (e.g., regular expressions), which corresponds to a "communication data pattern." The combined teachings would render obvious a preference list that includes forbidden/allowed rules based on both the type of data and its behavioral patterns.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that the motivation to combine Guruswamy flows through the chain of incorporation. Burns incorporates Yang, and Yang, in turn, expressly incorporates Guruswamy by reference for its disclosure of "details on application of attack definitions, e.g. compound attack definitions." A POSITA reviewing Burns would be led to Yang, who would then be led directly to Guruswamy for more advanced techniques on defining rules and patterns.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in integrating Guruswamy's compound attack definition methods into the Burns/Yang IDS framework, as it represents a logical enhancement of the rule-based system already disclosed.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
  • §325(d) Denial: Petitioner contended denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary references (Burns, Yang, and Guruswamy) were not cited or substantively considered during the prosecution of the ’249 patent.
  • Discretionary Denial under Fintiv: Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors weigh against denial. The co-pending litigation is in its early stages, with key events like claim construction and discovery deadlines scheduled after the Board’s institution decision. Petitioner asserted it filed the IPR petition promptly after being served with the complaint. To further weigh against denial, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds, or any grounds that could have been reasonably raised in an IPR, in the parallel district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’249 patent as unpatentable.