COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 1 of 65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

SABLE NETWORKS, INC. AND 

SABLE IP, LLC,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No._________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLC (collectively, “Sable” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this 

action and make the following allegations of patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent Nos.: 

6,954,431 (the “’431 patent”); 6,977,932 (the “’932 patent”); 7,630,358 (the “’358 patent”);

8,085,775 (the “’775 patent”); 8,243,593 (the “’593 patent”); and 8,817,790 (the “’790 patent”)

(collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper” or “Defendant”) 

infringes the patents-in-suit in violation of the patent laws of the United States of America, 

35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

INTRODUCTION

1. The patents-in-suit arise from technologies developed by Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts

- one of the founding fathers of the internet.1

 The patents relate to technologies for efficiently 

managing the flow of data packets over routers and switch devices. Dr. Roberts and engineers at 

Caspian Networks, Inc. and later Sable Networks, Inc. developed these technologies to address the 

 1 Chris Woodford, THE INTERNET: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA VOLUME 2 at 204 (2005) 

(“Widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Internet, Lawrence Roberts was the 

primary architect of ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 2 of 65

increasing amount of data sent over computer networks. 

2. Dr. Roberts is best known for his work as the Chief Scientist of the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (ARPA) where he designed and oversaw the implementation of 

ARPANET, the precursor to the internet. Dr. Roberts’ work on ARPANET played a key role in 

the development of digital network transmission technologies.2

 Initially, ARPANET was used 

primarily to send electronic mail and Dr. Roberts developed the first program for reading and 

sending electronic messages. 

Keenan Mayo and Peter Newcomb, How The Web Was Won, VANITY FAIR at 96-97 (January 7, 

2009); One of the Engineers Who Invented the Internet Wants to Build A Radical new Router,

IEEE SPECTRUM MAGAZINE (July 2009); Katie Hafner, Billions Served Daily, and Counting, N.Y.

TIMES at G1 (December 6, 2001)(“Lawrence Roberts, who was then a manager at the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency's Information Processing Techniques Office, solved that problem after 

his boss began complaining about the volume of e-mail piling up in his in box. In 1972, Dr. Roberts 

produced the first e-mail manager, called RD, which included a filing system, as well as a Delete 

function.”). 

3. Dr. Roberts’ work on ARPANET played a key role in the development of packet 

switching networks. Packet switching is a digital network transmission process in which data is 

broken into parts which are sent independently and reassembled at a destination. Electronic 

messages sent over the ARPANET were broken up into packets then routed over a network to a 

 2 Katie Hafner, Lawrence Roberts, Who Helped Design Internet’s Precursor, N.Y. TIMES at A2 

(December 31, 2018) (“Dr. Roberts was considered the decisive force behind packet switching, 

the technology that breaks data into discrete bundles that are then sent along various paths around 

a network and reassembled at their destination.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 3 of 65

destination. “In designing the ARPANET, Roberts expanded on the work he'd done at MIT, using 

those tiny data packets to send information from place to place.”3 Packet switching has become 

the primary technology for data communications over computer networks. 

George Johnson, From Two Small Nodes, a Mighty Web Has Grown, N.Y. TIMES at F1 (October 

12, 1999).

4. After leaving ARPANET, Dr. Roberts grew increasingly concerned that existing 

technologies for routing data packets were incapable of addressing the increasing amounts of data 

traversing the internet.

4

 Dr. Roberts identified that as the “Net grows, the more loss and 

transmission of data occurs. Eventually, gridlock will set in.”5 

The Internet is broken. I should know: I designed it. In 1967, I wrote the first plan 

for the ancestor of today's Internet, the Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Network, or ARPANET, and then led the team that designed and built it. The main 

idea was to share the available network infrastructure by sending data as small, 

independent packets, which, though they might arrive at different times, would still 

generally make it to their destinations. The small computers that directed the data 

traffic-I called them Interface Message Processors, or IMPs-evolved into today's 

 3 Code Metz, Larry Roberts Calls Himself the Founder of The Internet. Who Are You To Argue, WIRED MAGAZINE (September 24, 2012); John C. McDonald, FUNDAMENTALS OF DIGITAL 

SWITCHING at 211 (1990) (“The ARPANET was, in part, an experimental verification of the 

packet switching concept. Robert’s objective was a new capability for resource sharing.”).

4 eWeek Editors, Feeling A Little Congested, EWEEK MAGAZINE (September 24, 2001) (“Lawrence 

Roberts, one of the primary developers of Internet precursor ARPANet and CTO of Caspian 

Networks, recently released research indicating that Net traffic has quadrupled during the past 

year alone.”).

5 Michael Cooney, Can ATM Save The Internet, NETWORK WORLD at 16 (May 20, 1996); 

Lawrence Roberts, A RADICAL NEW ROUTER, IEEE Spectrum Vol. 46 34-39 (August 2009).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 4 of 65

routers, and for a long time they've kept up with the Net's phenomenal growth. Until 

now.

Lawrence Roberts, A Radical New Router, IEEE SPECTRUM Vol. 46(7) at 34 (August 2009)

(emphasis added).

5. In 1998, Dr. Roberts founded Caspian Networks.

6 At Caspian Networks, Dr. 

Roberts developed a new kind of internet router to efficiently route packets over a network. This 

new router was aimed at addressing concerns about network “gridlock.” In a 2001 interview with 

Wired Magazine, Dr. Roberts discussed the router he was developing at Caspian Networks – the 

Apeiro. “Roberts says the Apeiro will also create new revenue streams for the carriers by solving 

the ‘voice and video problem.’ IP voice and video, unlike email and static Web pages, breaks 

down dramatically if there's a delay - as little as a few milliseconds - in getting packets from host 

to recipient.”7

Jim Duffy, Router Newcomers take on Cisco, Juniper, NETWORK WORLD at 14 (April 14, 2013); 

Stephen Lawson, Caspian Testing Stellar Core Offering, NETWORK WORLD at 33 (December 17, 

2001); Tim Greene, Caspian Plans Superfast Routing For The ‘Net Core, NETWORK WORLD at 10 

(January 29, 2001); Andrew P. Madden, Company Spotlight: Caspian Networks, MIT

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW at 33 (August 2005); and Loring Wirbel, Caspian Moves Apeiro Router To 

Full Availability, EE TIMES (April 14, 2003).

 6 Caspian Networks, Inc. was founded in 1998 as Packetcom, LLC and changed its name to 

Caspian Networks, Inc. in 1999.

7 John McHugh, The n-Dimensional Superswitch, WIRED MAGAZINE (May 1, 2001).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 5 of 65

6. The Apeiro debuted in 2003. The Apeiro, a flow-based router, can identify the 

nature of a packet – be it audio, text, or video, and prioritize it accordingly. The Apeiro included 

numerous technological advances including quality of service (QoS) routing and flow-based 

routing. 

7. At its height, Caspian Networks Inc. raised more than $300 million dollars and 

grew to more than 320 employees in the pursuit of developing and commercializing Dr. Roberts’ 

groundbreaking networking technologies, including building flow-based routers that advanced 

quality of service and load balancing performance. However, despite early success with its 

technology and business, Caspian hit hard times when the telecommunications bubble burst. 

8. Sable Networks, Inc. was formed by Dr. Sang Hwa Lee to further develop and 

commercialize the flow-based networking technologies developed by Dr. Roberts and Caspian 

Networks.8

 Sable Networks, Inc. has continued its product development efforts and has gained 

commercial success with customers in Japan, South Korea, and China. Customers of Sable 

Networks, Inc. have included: SK Telecom, NTT Bizlink, Hanaro Telecom, Dacom Corporation, 

USEN Corporation, Korea Telecom, China Unicom, China Telecom, and China Tietong.

 8 Dr. Lee, through his company Mobile Convergence, Ltd. purchased the assets of Caspian 

Networks Inc. and subsequently created Sable Networks, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 6 of 65

SK Telecom and Sable Networks Sign Convergence Network Deal, COMMS UPDATE – TELECOM 

NEWS SERVICE (February 4, 2009) (“South Korean operator SK Telecom has announced that it has 

signed a deal with US-based network and solutions provider Sable Networks.”); China Telecom 

Deploys Sable, LIGHT READING NEWS FEED (November 19, 2007) (“Sable Networks Inc., a leading 

provider of service controllers, today announced that China Telecom Ltd, the largest landline 

telecom company in China, has deployed the Sable Networks Service Controller in their 

network.”).

9. Armed with the assets of Caspian Networks Inc. as well as members of Caspian 

Networks’ technical team, Sable Networks, Inc. continued the product development efforts 

stemming from Dr. Roberts’ flow-based router technologies. Sable Networks, Inc. developed 

custom application-specific integrated circuits (“ASIC”) designed for flow traffic management. 

Sable Network, Inc.’s ASICs include the Sable Networks SPI, which enables 20 Gigabit flow 

processing. In addition, Sable Networks, Inc. developed and released S-Series Service Controllers 

(e.g., S80 and S240 Service Controller models) that contain Sable Networks’ flow-based 

programmable ASICs, POS and Ethernet interfaces, and carrier-hardened routing and scalability 

from 10 to 800 Gigabits.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 7 of 65

SABLE NETWORKS S-SERIES SERVICE CONTROLLERS (showing the S240-240G Multi-Shelf System, 

S80-80G Single-Shelf System, and S20-20G Stand-Alone System). 

10. Sable pursues the reasonable royalties owed for Juniper’s use of the inventions 

claimed in Sable’s patent portfolio, which arise from Caspian Networks and Sable Networks’ 

groundbreaking technology.

SABLE’S PATENT PORTFOLIO

11. Sable’s patent portfolio includes over 34 patent assets, including 14 granted U.S. 

patents. Dr. Lawrence Roberts’ pioneering work on QoS traffic prioritization, flow-based 

switching and routing, and the work of Dr. Roberts’ colleagues at Caspian Networks Inc. and Sable 

Networks, Inc. are claimed in the various patents owned by Sable. 

12. Highlighting the importance of the patents-in-suit is the fact that the Sable’s patent 

portfolio has been cited by over 1,000 U.S. and international patents and patent applications 

assigned to a wide variety of the largest companies operating in the computer networking field. 

Sable’s patents have been cited by companies such as:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

9

 9 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,411,965; 7,436,830; 7,539,499; 7,580,351; 7,702,765; 7,817546; 

7,936,695; 8,077,721; 8,493,867; 8,868,775; and 9,013,985.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 8 of 65

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

10

• Broadcom Limited11

• EMC Corporation12

• F5 Networks, Inc.13

• Verizon Communications Inc.14

• Microsoft Corporation15

• Intel Corporation16

• Extreme Networks, Inc.17

• Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.18

13. The Sable patent portfolio has been cited by Juniper in over 37 of its own patents 

and patent applications. 

THE PARTIES

SABLE NETWORKS, INC.

14. Sable Networks, Inc. (“Sable Networks”) is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of California. 

15. Sable Networks was formed to continue the research, development, and 

commercialization work of Caspian Networks Inc., which was founded by Dr. Lawrence Roberts 

 10 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,463,639; 7,702,810; 7,826,375; 8,593,970; 8,717,889; 8,811,163; 

8,811,183; 8,964,556; 9,032,089; 9,065,773; and 9,832,099.

11 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,187,687; 7,206,283; 7,266,117; 7,596,139; 7,649,885; 8,014,315; 

8,037,399; 8,170,044; 8,194,666; 8,271,859; 8,448,162; 8,493,988; 8,514,716; and 7,657,703.

12 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,134; 7,185,062; 7,404,000; 7,421,509; 7,864,758; and 

8,085,794.

13 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,206,282; 7,580,353; 8,418,233; 8,565,088; 9,225,479; 9,106,606; 

9,130,846; 9,210,177; 9,614,772; 9,967,331; and 9,832,069.

14 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,393; 7,821,929; 8,218,569; 8,289,973; 9,282,113; and 

8,913,623.

15 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,567,504; 7,590,736; 7,669,235; 7,778,422; 7,941,309; 7,636,917; 

9,571,550; and 9,800,592.

16 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,177,956; 7,283,464; 9,485,178; 9,047,417; 8,718,096; 8,036,246; 

8,493,852; and 8,730,984.

17 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,654; 7,978,614; 8,149839; 10,212,224; 9,112,780; and 

8,395,996.

18 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,553; 7,957,421; 10,015,079; 10,505,840; and Chinese Patent 

Nos. CN108028828 and CN106161333.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 8 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 9 of 65

to provide flow-based switching and routing technologies to improve the efficiency and quality of 

computer networks.

16. Sable Networks is the owner by assignment of all of the patents-in-suit. 

SABLE IP, LLC

17. Sable IP, LLC (“Sable IP”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 225 S. 6th Street, Suite 3900, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. 

Pursuant to an exclusive license agreement with Sable Networks, Sable IP is the exclusive licensee 

of the patents-in-suit. 

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

18. Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, California 94089. Juniper may be served 

through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 

75201. On information and belief, Juniper is registered to do business in the State of Texas and 

has been since at least April 27, 2017.

19. Juniper conducts business operations within the Western District of Texas in its 

facilities at 1120 South Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 120, First Floor, Building 2, Austin, Texas 

78746. Juniper has offices in the Western District of Texas where it sells and/or markets its 

products, including an office in Austin, Texas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United 

States Code. Accordingly, this Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 9 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 10 of 65

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Juniper in this action because Juniper has 

committed acts within the Western District of Texas giving rise to this action and has established 

minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Juniper would not 

offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant Juniper, directly and/or 

through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has committed 

and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things, offering to 

sell and selling products and/or services that infringe the patents-in-suit. Moreover, Juniper is 

registered to do business in the State of Texas, has offices and facilities in the State of Texas, and 

actively directs its activities to customers located in the State of Texas. 

22. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). 

Defendant Juniper is registered to do business in the State of Texas, has offices in the State of 

Texas, and upon information and belief, has transacted business in the Western District of Texas

and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in the Western District of Texas. 

Juniper maintains a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas, 

including an office in Austin, Texas. 

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,954,431

23. U.S. Patent No. 6,954,431 (the “’431 patent”) entitled, Micro-Flow Management, 

was filed on December 6, 2001, and claims priority to April 19, 2000. The ‘431 patent is subject 

to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 722 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by 

assignment of the ‘431 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘431 patent. A true and 

correct copy of the ‘431 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

24. The ‘431 patent discloses novel methods and systems for managing data traffic 

comprising a plurality of micro-flows through a network. 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 10 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 11 of 65

25. The inventions disclosed in the ‘431 patent improve the quality of service in data 

transmissions over a computer network by relying on per micro-flow state information that enables 

rate and delay variation requirements to be within set quantified levels of service.

26. The ‘431 patent discloses technologies that speed the rate at which data can 

effectively travel over a computer network by optimizing packet discarding.

27. The ‘431 patent discloses the use of micro-flow state information to determine the 

rate of each flow, thus optimizing discards and optimizing the quality of service of data 

transmission.

28. The ‘431 patent discloses methods and systems that avoid networking system 

degradation by not overloading network switch buffers.

29. The ‘431 patent discloses a method for managing data traffic through a network 

that determines a capacity of a buffer containing a micro-flow based on a characteristic.

30. The ‘431 patent discloses a method for managing data traffic through a network 

that assigns an acceptable threshold value for the capacity of the buffer over a predetermined 

period of time.

31. The ‘431 patent discloses a method for managing data traffic through a network 

that delegates a portion of available bandwidth in the network to the micro-flow.

32. The ‘431 patent discloses a method for managing data traffic through a network 

that uses the buffer for damping jitter associated with the micro-flow.

33. The ‘431 patent has been cited by 103 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘431 patent as 

relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 11 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 12 of 65

• Broadcom Limited

• Intel Corporation

• Sun Microsystems, Inc.

• Oracle Corporation

• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

• Adtran, Inc.

• Time Warner Cable, Inc.

• FSA Technologies, Inc.

• Internap Corporation

• France Telecom

• The Boeing Company

• Wistaria Trading, Ltd.

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,977,932

34. U.S. Patent No. 6,977,932 (the “’932 patent”) entitled, System and Method for

Network Tunneling Utilizing Micro-Flow State Information, was filed on January 16, 2002. The 

‘932 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 815 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is 

the owner by assignment of the ‘932 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘932 patent. 

A true and correct copy of the ‘932 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

35. The ‘932 patent discloses novel methods and apparatuses for utilizing a router 

capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state information. 

36. The inventions disclosed in the ‘932 patent enable the use of micro-flow state 

information to improve network tunneling techniques.

37. The inventions disclosed in the ‘932 patent maintain flow state information for 

various quality of service characteristics by utilizing aggregate flow blocks.

38. The aggregate flow blocks disclosed in the ‘932 patent maintain micro-flow block 

information. 

39. The technologies claimed in the ‘932 patent speed the flow of network traffic over 

computer networks by avoiding time consuming and processor intensive tasks by combining flow 

state information with other information such as label switched paths utilization information. This 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 12 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 13 of 65

permits the micro-flows associated with an aggregate flow block to all be processed in a similar 

manner.

40. The technologies disclosed in the ‘932 patent result in more efficient computer 

networks by avoiding the processor intensive tasks of searching millions of flow blocks to identify 

flow blocks having certain micro-flow characteristics in order to process large numbers of microflows.

41. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information containing an aggregate flow block having tunnel specific information for a particular 

network tunnel.

42. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information containing a flow block having flow state information for a micro-flow, the flow block 

further including an identifier that associates the flow block with the aggregate flow block.

43. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information wherein the aggregate flow block stores statistics for the particular network tunnel.

44. The ‘932 patent has been cited by 86 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘932 patent as 

relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

• Avaya, Inc.

• Fujitsu, Ltd.

• Intel Corporation

• Nokia Corporation

• Qualcomm, Inc.

• Sprint Communications Co.

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 13 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 14 of 65

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,358

45. U.S. Patent No. 7,630,358 (“the ‘358 patent”) entitled, Mechanism for 

Implementing Multiple Logical Routers Within A Single Physical Router, was filed on July 9, 2002, 

and claims priority to July 9, 2001. The ‘358 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term 

extension of 1,136 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by assignment of the ‘358 patent. 

Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘358 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘358 patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

46. The ‘358 patent claims specific methods and systems for implementing multiple 

logical routers within a single physical router. 

47. The ‘358 patent discloses systems and methods that combine the benefits of multirouters and virtual routers. The logical routers are included within the same physical router; 

however, internal links permit improved efficiency over virtual routers because the technologies 

claimed in the ‘358 patent can take advantage of the fact that the logical routers are not standalone 

routers bur are embodied in the same physical router.

48. The ‘358 patent discloses technology for implementing multiple logical routers 

within a single physical router.

49. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a first set of one or more components 

capable of being figured to implement a first logical router within the router.

50. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a second set of one or more components 

capable of being configured to implement a second logical router within the router.

51. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a forwarding routing table that comprises 

an identifier that indicates an internal link is internal rather than an external link.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 14 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 15 of 65

52. The ‘358 patent discloses a router wherein the first and second sets of components 

comprise functionality for establishing the internal link between the first logical router and the 

second logical router and advertising the internal link to other routers external to the router such 

that the first and second logical routers appear to the other routers as interconnected standalone 

routers, wherein the internal link is a logical, non-physical entity. 

53. The ‘358 patent has been cited by 42 United States and international patents and 

patent applications as relevant prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies 

have all cited the ‘358 patent as relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Dell Technologies, Inc.

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

• Nicira, Inc.

• International Business Machines Corporation

• NantWorks, LLC

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,085,775

54. U.S. Patent No. 8,085,775 (the “’775 patent”) entitled, Identifying Flows Based On 

Behavior Characteristics And Applying User-Defined Actions, was filed on July 31, 2006. The 

‘775 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 467 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is 

the owner by assignment of the ‘775 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘775 patent. 

A true and correct copy of the ‘775 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 

55. The ‘775 patent discloses novel methods for identifying and handling a single 

application flow of a plurality of information packets. 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 15 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 16 of 65

56. The inventions disclosed in the ‘775 patent teach methods of identifying, 

classifying, and controlling information packet flows based on their observed behavior rather than 

the content of the data packets.

57. The ‘775 patent teaches technologies that can effectively identify and control 

specific types of data traffic despite attempts to conceal the content or type of traffic represented 

by the data packets.

58. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that creates a flow block as the first packet of a flow is 

processed by a router.

59. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that utilizes a flow block adapted to store payload-content 

agnostic behavioral statistics about the flow.

60. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that updates the flow block with the flow’s payload-content 

agnostic behavioral statistics as packets belonging to the flow are processed by the router.

61. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that utilizes a flow incapable of being identified by header 

information alone.

62. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that heuristically determines whether at least one userspecified policy is satisfied by the payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics stored in the flow 

block.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 16 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 17 of 65

63. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that includes functionality wherein the payload-content 

agnostic behavioral statistics for the flow are calculated by the router.

64. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that includes functionality wherein the payload-content 

agnostic behavioral statistics reflect the empirical behavior of the flow.

65. The ‘775 patent discloses a machine-implemented method for the identification and 

handling of a single application flow that includes functionality wherein at least one of the payloadcontent agnostic behavioral statistics is one of the following characteristics: (1) total byte count 

accumulated for the flow, (2) flow life duration, (3) average rate of flow, (4) average packet size, 

(5) average packet rate, (6) average inter-packet gap, (7) instantaneous flow rate, and (8) moving 

average flow rate.

66. The ‘775 patent has been cited by 36 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have all cited the ‘775 patent as 

relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Calix, Inc.

• British Telecommunications Public Limited Company

• Extreme Networks, Inc.

• Fujitsu Ltd.

• Level 3 Communications, Inc.

• Nokia Corporation

• Sprint Spectrum L.P.

• Solana Networks Inc.

• Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co. Ltd.

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 17 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 18 of 65

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,593

67. U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 entitled, Mechanism for Identifying and Penalizing 

Misbehaving Flows in a Network, was filed on December 22, 2004. The ‘593 patent is subject to 

a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 1,098 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by 

assignment of the ’593 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘593 patent. A true and 

correct copy of the ‘593 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

68. The ‘593 patent discloses novel methods and systems for processing a flow of a 

series of information packets. 

69. The inventions disclosed in the ‘593 patent teach technologies that permit the 

identification and control of less desirable network traffic.

70. Because the characteristics of data packets in undesirable network traffic can be 

disguised, the ‘593 patent improves the operation of computer networks by disclosing technologies 

that monitor the characteristics of flows of data packets rather than ancillary factors such as port 

numbers or signatures.

71. The ‘593 patent discloses tracking the behavioral statistics of a flow of data packets 

that can be used to determine whether the flow is undesirable.

72. The ‘593 patent further discloses taking actions to penalize the flow of undesirable 

network traffic.

73. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of a series of information 

packets that maintains a set of behavioral statistics for the flow, wherein the set of behavioral 

statistics is updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, as each information 

packet is processed.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 18 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 19 of 65

74. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of a series of information 

packets that determines, based at least partially upon the set of behavioral statistics, whether the 

flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

75. The ‘593 patent discloses that the determination as to whether the flow is exhibiting 

undesirable behavior is made regardless of the presence or absence of congestion.

76. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of data packets that 

enforces a penalty on the flow in response to a determination that the flow is exhibiting undesirable 

behavior.

77. The ‘593 patent has been cited by 17 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘593 patent as 

relevant prior art.

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• AT&T, Inc.

• International Business Machines Corporation

• Telecom Italia S.p.A.

• McAfee, LLC

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,817,790

78. U.S. Patent No. 8,817,790 (the “‘790 patent”) entitled, Identifying Flows Based on

Behavior Characteristics and Applying User-Defined Actions, was filed on September 23, 2011, 

and claims priority to July 31, 2006. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by assignment of the ‘790

patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘790 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘790

patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 

79. The ‘790 patent claims specific methods and devices for handling a flow of 

information packets.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 19 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 20 of 65

80. The ‘790 patent discloses methods and systems for efficiently identifying 

undesirable traffic over data networks. 

81. The ‘790 patent teaches technologies that identify traffic not by inspecting the 

payload of each data packet, but rather by analyzing and classifying the behavior of the data flows

to identify undesirable traffic.

82. The ‘790 patent discloses applying a user-specified action associated with a policy 

applicable to data flows that are designated undesirable.

83. The ‘790 patent discloses a method of handling a flow that processes a flow 

comprised of two or more information packets having header information in common.

84. The ‘790 patent discloses a method of handling a flow that stores headerindependent statistics about the flow in a flow block associated with the flow.

85. The ‘790 patent discloses a method of handling a flow that updates the headerindependent statistics in the flow block as each information packet belonging to the flow is 

processed.

86. The ‘790 patent discloses a method of handling a flow that categorizes the flow as 

one or more traffic types by determining whether the header-independent statistics match one or 

more profiles corresponding to a traffic type.

87. The ‘790 patent discloses a method of handling a flow that performs an operation 

that is determined according to the one or more traffic types on one or more information packets 

belonging to the flow if the one or more traffic types match one or more particular traffic types 

designated by a user.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 20 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 21 of 65

88. The ‘790 patent family has been cited by 24 United States and international patents 

and patent applications as relevant prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following 

companies have cited the ‘790 patent family as relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Solana Networks, Inc.

• British Telecommunications Public Limited Company

• Level 3 Communications, LLC

• Calix, Inc.

• Nokia Corporation

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

• Sprint Spectrum L.P.

• Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,954,431

89. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

90. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services for managing data traffic comprising a plurality of micro-flows through 

a network. 

91. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Juniper devices 

that manage data traffic comprised of micro-flows, including the following router models: 

ACX1000, ACX1100, ACX2100, ACX2200, ACX4000, ACX5448, ACX6160, and ACX6360 

(collectively, the “‘431 Product(s)”).

92. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘431 Products in 

regular business operations.

93. One or more of the Juniper ‘431 Products include technology for managing data 

traffic comprising a plurality of micro-flows through a network.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 21 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 22 of 65

94. The following excerpt from Juniper documentation shows that the Juniper ‘431

Products support the buffering of micro-flows. Specifically, the Juniper ‘431 Products assign a 

class of service (“CoS”) to each micro-flow. The CoS is the characteristic that then is used by the 

Juniper ‘431 Products to determine the appropriate size of the buffer (queue). 

Junos OS Routing Policies, Firewall Filters, and Traffic Policers User Guide, JUNIPER

DOCUMENTATION at 1686 (April 6, 2020) (emphasis added).

95. One or more of the Juniper ‘431 Products determine the capacity of a buffer 

containing a micro-flow based on a characteristic. The following excerpt from Juniper’s 

documentation of the Juniper ‘431 products shows that the ACX Series Routers take in a data 

packet and assign it to a micro-flow. The micro-flow is associated with a class of service that then 

determines the size of the buffer so that jitter can be minimized.

ACX4000 UNIVERSAL METRO ROUTER HARDWARE GUIDE at 23 (March 31, 2019).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 22 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 23 of 65

96. One or more of the Juniper ‘431 Products assign an acceptable threshold value for 

the capacity of the buffer over a predetermined period of time. The following excerpt from Juniper 

documentation shows that for certain types of data such as “voice” the buffer size is assigned a 

threshold value of 15 percent. 

Junos OS Routing Policies, Firewall Filters, and Traffic Policers User Guide, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 1454 (April 6, 2020) (emphasis added).

97. One or more of the Juniper ‘431 Products use the buffer for damping jitter 

associated with the micro-flow. The buffer size value is based on a specific time value. For 

example, the below excerpt from Juniper documentation shows how the buffer size is based on the 

number of bytes that can be stored in a buffer * 0.1 seconds. 

Junos OS Class of Service User Guide (Routers and EX9200 Switches), JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION 

AT 609 (March 18, 2020) (emphasis added).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 23 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 24 of 65

98. The Juniper ‘431 Products perform the step of using the buffer for damping jitter 

associated with the microflow. Juniper documentation describes that the assignment of buffer 

thresholds (sizing the queue associated with a micro-flow) is used by the Juniper ‘431 Products to 

reduce “jitter” for specific traffic flows.

Junos OS Class of Service User Guide (Routers and EX9200 Switches), JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION 

AT 3 (March 18, 2020) (emphasis added).

99. The Juniper ‘431 Products use buffers to limit jitter which is delay variance. 

100. One or more of the Juniper ‘431 Products delegate a portion of available bandwidth 

in the network to the micro-flow. The following excerpt from Juniper’s documentation describes 

the use of schedulers to “define” the “size of the memory buffer allocated for storing packets.” 

The scheduler uses the CoS value to assign the size of the buffer.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 24 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 25 of 65

Junos OS Class of Service User Guide (Routers and EX9200 Switches), JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION 

AT 604 (March 18, 2020).

101. The Juniper ‘431 Products enable the setting of thresholds for a buffer that include 

the ability to set a threshold as a percentage of the buffer. Specifically, the Juniper ‘431 Products 

assign to each micro-flow a class of service value that, through the scheduler, determines the 

capacity of the buffer. 

Junos OS Routing Policies, Firewall Filters, and Traffic Policers User Guide, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 1689 (April 6, 2020) (emphasis added).

102. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘431 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology for managing data 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 25 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 26 of 65

traffic comprising a plurality of micro-flows through a network, including but not limited to the 

Juniper ‘431 Products. 

103. The Juniper ‘431 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

104. The Juniper ‘431 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

105. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

managing data traffic comprising a plurality of micro-flows through a network, including but not 

limited to the Juniper ‘431 Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs for 

directly infringing one or more claims of the ‘431 patent, including at least claim 1 pursuant to 35 

U.S.C. § 271(a).

106. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘431 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

107. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘431 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘431 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

108. Alternatively, Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘431 patent since at least October 

11, 2011, based on its citation of the ‘431 patent as relevant prior art in five patents and patent 

applications that are assigned to and owned by Juniper. These patents include:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,036,226 (assigned to Juniper and issued on October 11, 2011)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,258,228 (assigned to Juniper and issued on February 9, 2016)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,813,339 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 7, 2017)

• U.S. Patent No. 10,193,807 (assigned to Juniper and issued on January 29, 2019)

• U.S. Patent Appl. 14/531,260 (assigned to Juniper and published on June 4, 2015)

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 26 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 27 of 65

109. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘431 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

would infringe the ‘431 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘431 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘431 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘431 patent, including at least claim 1, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘431 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘431 patent.19 By 

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘431

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘431 patent, including at 

least claim 1, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘431 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘431 Products, e.g., through 

 19 See, e.g., ACX6000 Line Of Universal Metro Routers, JUNIPER DATA SHEET NO. 10006430004-

EN (June 2019); ACX500, ACX1000, ACX2000, and ACX4000 Universal Metro Routers,

JUNIPER DATA SHEET NO. 1000397-015-EN (January 20190); ACX5000 Line Of Universal 

Metro Routers, JUNIPER DATA SHEET NO. 1000644-005-EN (January 2020); Junos OS Class of 

Service User Guide (Routers and EX9200 Switches), JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 18, 

2020); Junos OS Routing Policies, Firewall Filters, and Traffic Policers User Guide, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION (April 6, 2020); Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User 

Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 25, 2020); Application-Level 

Session Tracking and QoS Control, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (June 21, 2019); Guy Davies, 

Day One: Deploying Basic QoS, JUNIPER FUNDAMENTALS SERIES (July 2011); Satish 

Surapaneni and Dmitry Shokarev, Juniper 400G Portfolio, JUNIPER PRESENTATION (2018); and 

Ragal Jan Szarecki, Strategies of Packet Buffering Inside Routers, JUNIPER SOLUTION 

ARCHITECT PRESENTATION (2015).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 27 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 28 of 65

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘431 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘431 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘431 patent.

110. The ‘431 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘431 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘431 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘431 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

111. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘431 patent.

112. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘431 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT II

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,977,932

113. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

114. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services utilizing a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information. 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 28 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 29 of 65

115. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Juniper devices for 

utilizing flow state information in network tunneling, including SRX Series devices running Junos 

OS version 15.1 and later, which include at least the following SRX Series device models: 

SRX300, SRX320, SRX340, SRX345, SRX380, SRX550, SRX1500, SRX4100, SRX4200, 

SRX4600, SRX5400, SRX5600, and SRX5800 (collectively, the “Juniper ‘932 Product(s)”).

116. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘932 Products in 

regular business operations.

117. One or more of the Juniper ‘932 Products perform the step of creating a flow block 

having flow state information for a receive first data packet on a micro-flow. Specifically, the 

flow block (session table) is created when a first packet is received by the Juniper ‘932 Products 

based on comparing a 5-tuple hash value against existing hash values that correspond to other 

micro-flows. The below excerpt from Juniper’s documentation describes the creation of the flow 

block.

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 45 (March 25, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 29 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 30 of 65

118. The Juniper ‘932 Products process packets of data that are received using flowbased processing. A flow is a stream of related packets that meet the same matching criteria and 

share the same characteristics. The Juniper ‘932 Products treat packets belonging to the same flow 

in the same manner. To determine if a flow exists for a packet, the Juniper ‘932 Products attempt 

to match the packet’s information to that of an existing session based on criteria including “source 

address,” “destination address,” “source port,” “destination port,” “protocol,” etc. The below 

excerpt from Juniper documentation shows “flow-based processing” conducted by the Juniper 

‘932 Products. 

Alexandre S. Cezar, DAY ONE: SRX SERIES UP AND RUNNING WITH ADVANCED SECURITY 

SERVICES AT 13 (March 2018).

119. When a first packet is received by the Juniper ‘932 Products, a flow block is created 

that has flow state information (flow session entries). The below excerpt shows that the flow block 

has information including: “session-identifier, source-port, source-prefix and tunnel.”

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 30 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 31 of 65

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 191 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

120. The Juniper ‘932 Products store a tunnel identifier in the session table. The tunnel 

associated with the micro-flow is associated with a “tunnel ID.” The below excerpt from Juniper 

documentation shows the use of a Tunnel ID that is stored in the session table to identify the tunnel 

associated with the flow. 

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 661 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

121. The Juniper ‘932 Products transmit the data packet that is part of the flow using the 

network tunnel and the associated logical address that is identified in the routing table. The below 

excerpt from Juniper documentation describes that “packets for the same flow are forwarded onto 

the same interface” including “VPN tunnels.”

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 31 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 32 of 65

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 87 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

122. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘932 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology utilizing flow state 

information to perform a method of network tunneling. 

123. One or more of the Juniper ‘932 Products utilize an aggregate flow block having 

tunnel specific information for a particular network tunnel. For example, the “Route Table” 

contains the logical interface address as described in Juniper documentation describing the 

aggregated flow block.

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 520 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 32 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 33 of 65

124. One or more of the Juniper ‘932 Products store a tunnel identifier for the microflow in the flow block, the tunnel identifier identifying a selected network tunnel to be used to 

transmit the data packet. 

125. One or more of the Juniper ‘932 Products index an aggregate flow block using the 

tunnel identifier.

126. One or more of the Juniper ‘932 Products utilize an aggregate flow block with 

tunnel specific information for the selected network tunnel and that stores statistics for the selected 

network tunnel.

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 399 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

127. The Juniper ‘932 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

128. The Juniper ‘932 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

129. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products utilizing a 

router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state information, including but not limited to 

the Juniper ‘932 Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs for directly 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 33 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 34 of 65

infringing one or more claims of the ‘932 patent, including at least claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(a).

130. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘932 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

131. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘932 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘932 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

132. Alternatively, Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘932 patent since at least October 

12, 2010, based on its citation of the ‘932 patent as relevant prior art in 17 patents that are assigned 

to and owned by Juniper. These patents include:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,813,346 (assigned to Juniper and issued on October 12, 2010)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,593,970 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 26, 2013)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,717,889 (assigned to Juniper and issued on May 6, 2014)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,811,163 (assigned to Juniper and issued on August 19, 2014)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,811,183 (assigned to Juniper and issued on August 19, 2014)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,964,556 (assigned to Juniper and issued on February 24, 2015)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,032,089 (assigned to Juniper and issued on May 12, 2015)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,065,773 (assigned to Juniper and issued on June 23, 2015)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,106,506 (assigned to Juniper and issued on August 11, 2015)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,264,321 (assigned to Juniper and issued on February 16, 2016)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,426,085 (assigned to Juniper and issued on August 23, 2016)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,660,940 (assigned to Juniper and issued on May 23, 2017)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,705,827 (assigned to Juniper and issued on July 11, 2017)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,716,661 (assigned to Juniper and issued on July 25, 2017)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,876,725 (assigned to Juniper and issued on January 23, 2018)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,967,167 (assigned to Juniper and issued on May 8, 2018)

• U.S. Patent No. 10,554,528 (assigned to Juniper and issued on February 4, 2020)

133. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘932 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 34 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 35 of 65

would infringe the ‘932 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘932 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘932 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘932 patent, including at least claim 1, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘932 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘932 patent.20 By 

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘932

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘932 patent, including at 

least claim 1, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘932 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘932 Products, e.g., through 

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘932 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘932 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘932 patent.

134. The ‘932 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘932 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘932 patent 

 20 See, e.g., Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices,

JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 25, 2020); Junos OS Routing Policies, Firewall Filters, and 

Traffic Policers User Guide, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (April 6, 2020); Junos OS MPLA 

Applications User Guide, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 30, 2020); Alexandre S. Cezar, 

DAY ONE: SRX SERIES UP AND RUNNING WITH ADVANCED SECURITY SERVICES (Mar. 2018); 

QoS Configuration for SRX Series for the Branch with Integrated Convergence Services, 

JUNIPER NETWORKS APPLICATION NOTE (Nov. 2010); and JUNIPER ADVANCED THREAT 

PREVENTION APPLIANCE INTEGRATION WITH THE SRX SERIES DEVICE (Jan. 19, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 35 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 36 of 65

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘932 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

135. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘932 patent.

136. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘932 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT III

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,358

137. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

138. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services for implementing multiple logical routers within a single physical router.

139. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Junos OS Release 

14.1 and later running on an MX Series Router and Junos OS Release 15.1 and later running on 

EX9200 switches (collectively, the “Juniper ‘358 Products”).

140. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘358 Products in 

regular business operations.

141. One or more of the Juniper ‘358 Products include technology for implementing 

multiple logical routers within a single physical router. Specifically, the Juniper ‘358 Products are 

routers that contain the logical systems feature wherein one or more logical routers can be 

configured on the device.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 36 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 37 of 65

MX Series 5G Universal Routing Platforms, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION AT 5 (February 2020) 

(emphasis added).

142. One or more of the Juniper ‘358 Products include a router with a first set of one or 

more components capable of being figured to implement a first logical router within the router. 

Specifically, Juniper documentation states, “using Junos OS, you can partition a single router or 

switch into multiple logical devices that perform independent routing or switching tasks.”

Junos OS Logical Systems User Guide for Routers and Switches, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION AT 

30 (March 27, 2020).

143. One or more of the Juniper ‘358 Products include a router with a second set of one 

or more components capable of being configured to implement a second logical router within the 

router. For example, the Juniper ‘358 Products enable the setting up of a second (or more) logical 

router that is located within the same physical device. The below excerpt shows a Juniper ‘358 

Product where a first and second logical router can be setup within the same device.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 37 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 38 of 65

Junos OS Logical Systems User Guide for Routers and Switches, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION AT 17

(March 27, 2020).

144. One or more of the Juniper ‘358 Products include a router with a forwarding routing 

table that comprises an identifier that indicates an internal link is internal rather than an external 

link. The below excerpt from Juniper documentation shows the Forwarding Table for the Juniper 

‘358 Products in which a forwarding table is created for the LS1 and LSN logical routers.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 38 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 39 of 65

Junos OS Logical Systems Configuration Guide Release 12.3, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION at 5 

(2012).

145. The forwarding table in the Juniper ‘358 Products contains functionality wherein 

the links in the forwarding table are identified as being local links (links within the physical router 

to other logical routers) and external links that link to devices outside of the physical router 

containing the logical routers.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 39 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 40 of 65

Junos OS Logical Systems Configuration Guide Release 12.3, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION at 5 

(2012).

146. One or more of the Juniper ‘358 Products include a router wherein the first and 

second sets of components comprise functionality for establishing the internal link between the 

first logical router and the second logical router and advertising the internal link to other routers 

external to the router such that the first and second logical routers appear to the other routers as 

interconnected standalone routers, wherein the internal link is a logical, non-physical entity.

147. The Juniper ‘358 Products support creating a link between a first and second logical 

router and advertising the links to these interconnected routers as standalone routers.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 40 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 41 of 65

Junos OS Logical Systems User Guide for Routers and Switches, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION AT 39

(March 27, 2020) (emphasis added).

148. The Juniper ‘358 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

149. The Juniper ‘358 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas. 

150. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘358 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling routers implementing multiple 

logical routers within a single physical router, including but not limited to the Juniper ‘358

Products.

151. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling routers implementing 

multiple logical routers within a single physical router, including but not limited to the Juniper

‘358 Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for directly infringing one or more claims 

of the ‘358 patent, including at least claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

152. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘358 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 41 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 42 of 65

153. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘358 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘358 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

154. Alternatively, Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘358 patent since at least 

November 2, 2010, based on its citation of the ‘358 patent as relevant prior art in seven patents 

that are assigned to and owned by Juniper. These patents include:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,826,375 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 2, 2010)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,069,023 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 29, 2011)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,254,270 (assigned to Juniper and issued on August 28, 2012)

• U.S. Patent No. 8,867,408 (assigned to Juniper and issued on October 21, 2014)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,444,768 (assigned to Juniper and issued on September 13, 2016)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,485,149 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 1, 2016)

• U.S. Patent No. 9,832,099 (assigned to Juniper and issued on November 28, 2017)

155. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘358 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

would infringe the ‘358 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘358 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘358 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘358 patent, including at least claim 1, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘358 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘358 patent.21 By 

 21 See, e.g., Junos OS Logical Systems and Tenant Systems User Guide for Security Devices, 

JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 24, 2020); Junos OS Logical Systems Configuration Guide 

Release 12.3, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (December 10, 2012); Junos OS Logical Systems User 

Guide for Routers and Switches, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 27, 2020); EX9200 Ethernet 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 42 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 43 of 65

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘358

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘358 patent, including at 

least claim 1, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘358 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘358 Products, e.g., through 

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘358 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘358 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘358 patent.

156. The ‘358 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘358 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘358 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘358 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

157. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘358 patent.

 

Switch Data Sheet, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (December 2019); MX2000 Universal Routing 

Platforms, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (January 2020); Junos OS Interfaces Fundamentals for 

Routing Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 23, 2020); Matt Dinham, Day One: vMX 

Up and Running, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (2016); and MX Series 5G Universal Routing 

Platforms, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (February 2020); Steven Wong, DDOS IMPLEMENTATION 

ON MX PLATFORM (May 2, 2014); Eric Sandoval, MX Edge Security Solution for Cloud, Mobility 

& Wireline Providers, NXTWORK 2017 JUNIPER CUSTOMER SUMMIT; Frequently Asked 

Questions: MX Series 3D Universal Edge Routers Quality of Service, JUNIPER NETWORKS 

TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW RELEASE 11.2 (April 21, 2011); Pepe (Joseph) Garcia, Juniper’s MX 

3D Product Overview Next Generation Access (May 2010); MX Series Overview and Roadmap

(April 1, 2014); Dmitry Shokarev, MX Trio Load Balancing, v. 1.4 (April 2014); EX9200 

Ethernet Switch, JUNIPER NETWORKS DATASHEET, 1000430-017-EN (Dec. 2019); and Junos OS 

Class of Service User Guide (Routers and EX9200 Switches) (March 18, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 43 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 44 of 65

158. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘358 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seeks recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT IV

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,085,775

159. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

160. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services for identifying and handling a single application flow of a plurality of 

information packets. 

161. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Juniper devices 

that enable the identification of a flow based on the behavior of the flow, including the NFX150 

and SRX300, SRX320, SRX340, SRX345, SRX550 HM, SRX1500, SRX4100, SRX4200, 

SRX4600, SRX5400, SRX5600, and SRX5800 devices with Junos OS 18.2 Release 1 and later 

installed; SRX380 devices with Junos OS 20.1 Release 1 and later installed; and vSRX devices 

with vSRX 12.1X46-D10 and later installed (collectively, the “Juniper ‘775 Products(s)”).

162. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘775 Products in 

regular business operations.

163. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products include technology for identifying and 

handling a single application flow of a plurality of information packets. Specifically, the Juniper

‘775 Products perform the step of creating a flow block as the first packet of a flow is processed 

by a router.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 44 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 45 of 65

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 265 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

164. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘775 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology for identifying and 

handling a single application flow of a plurality of information packets, including but not limited 

to the Juniper ‘775 Products. 

165. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products creates a flow block as the first packet of 

a flow is processed by a router. 

166. The Flow information is stored in a flow block or session table that contains 

statistics about the flow that are updated as each packet in the flow is categorized.

Barny Sanchez, Day One: Deploying SRX Series Services Gateway, JUNOS DYNAMIC SERVICES 

SERIES at 58 (2011) (emphasis added).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 45 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 46 of 65

167. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products utilize a flow block adapted to store 

payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics about the flow. 

168. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products update the flow block with the flow’s 

payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics as packets belonging to the flow are processed by 

the router. This information includes the number of packets received, the size of the packet 

received for a flow, etc. Juniper documentation states that the Juniper ‘775 Products perform flowbased packet processing “which is stateful, requires the creation of Sessions” and includes logging 

and counting information (statistics) for each flow.

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 27 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

169. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products utilize a flow incapable of being 

identified by header information alone. For example, the Juniper ‘775 Products support the 

creation of a flow block and tracking of statistics relating to a flow where the flow cannot be 

identified by the header data.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 46 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 47 of 65

Brad Woodberg and Rob Cameron, JUNIPER SRX SERIES: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SECURITY 

SERVICES ON SRX SERIES at 705 (2013) (emphasis added).

170. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products heuristically determine whether at least 

one user-specified policy is satisfied by the payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics stored 

in the flow block. For example, the following documentation from Juniper shows the use of 

heuristic methods to identify a flow based on the behavior of the flow.

Juniper IDP Series Administration Guide Release 5.1rX, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION at 327 

(December 19, 2013) (emphasis added).

171. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products apply to at least one packet belonging to 

at least one user-specified action that is mapped to the user-specified policy that is satisfied by the 

payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics upon determining that the user-specified policy is 

satisfied by the payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 47 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 48 of 65

172. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products include functionality wherein the 

payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics for the flow are calculated by the router. For 

example, the payload content agnostic behavioral statistics that are calculated by the Juniper ‘775 

Products when a packet is ingested include the total byte count accumulated for a flow as shown 

in the below excerpt from Juniper documentation.

Advanced Junos Security Version 12.b Student Guide Vol. 1, JUNIPER COURSE MATERIALS EDUJUN-AJSEC at Chapter 7-28 (June 2013) (emphasis added).

173. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products include functionality wherein the 

payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics reflect the empirical behavior of the flow. For 

example, statistics calculated by the Juniper ‘775 Products include the duration of the flow as 

shown in the below excerpt from Juniper documentation.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 48 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 49 of 65

Junos OS Application Security User Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION at 194 

(March 18, 2020) (emphasis added).

174. One or more of the Juniper ‘775 Products include functionality wherein at least one 

of the payload-content agnostic behavioral statistics is chosen from the group consisting of: (1) 

total byte count accumulated for the flow, (2) flow life duration, (3) average rate of flow, (4) 

average packet size, (5) average packet rate, (6) average inter-packet gap, (7) instantaneous flow 

rate, and (8) moving average flow rate.

175. The Juniper ‘775 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

176. The Juniper ‘775 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

177. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

identifying and handling a single application flow of a plurality of information packets, including 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 49 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 50 of 65

but not limited to the Juniper ‘775 Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs

for directly infringing one or more claims of the ‘775 patent, including at least claim 1 pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

178. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘775 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

179. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘775 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘775 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

180. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘775 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

would infringe the ‘775 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘775 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘775 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘775 patent, including at least claim 1, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘775 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘775 patent.22 By 

 22 See, e.g., Juniper vSRX – Technical Overview for X47D20, JUNIPER PRESENTATION (2015);

Junos OS Application Security User Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION 

(March 18, 2020); Advanced Junos Security Version 12.b Student Guide Vol. 1, JUNIPER 

COURSE MATERIALS EDU-JUN-AJSEC (June 2013); Learn About Application Visibility and 

Control, JUNIPER NETWORKS DOCUMENTATION (September 2016); Juniper IDP Series 

Administration Guide Release 5.1rX, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (December 19, 2013); Junos 

OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION (March 25, 2020); Alexandre S. Cezar, DAY ONE: SRX SERIES UP AND 

RUNNING WITH ADVANCED SECURITY SERVICES (Mar. 2018); QoS Configuration for SRX Series 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 50 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 51 of 65

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘775

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘775 patent, including at 

least claim 1, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘775 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘775 Products, e.g., through 

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘775 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘775 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘775 patent.

181. The ‘775 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘775 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘775 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘775 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

182. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘775 patent.

183. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘775 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

 

for the Branch with Integrated Convergence Services, JUNIPER NETWORKS APPLICATION NOTE

(Nov. 2010); and JUNIPER ADVANCED THREAT PREVENTION APPLIANCE INTEGRATION WITH THE 

SRX SERIES DEVICE (Jan. 19, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 51 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 52 of 65

COUNT V

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,593

184. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

185. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services for processing a flow of a series of information packets.

186. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Juniper security 

devices that enable the identification and penalization of data flows based on the behavior of the 

data flow, including the Juniper SRX5400, SRX5600, and SRX5800 Series devices (collectively, 

the “Juniper ‘593 Products(s)”).

187. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘593 Products in 

regular business operations.

188. One or more of the Juniper ‘593 Products include technology for processing a flow 

of a series of information packets. Specifically, the Juniper ‘593 Products maintain a set of 

behavioral statistics based on each and every information packet belonging to a flow. 

189. The Juniper ‘593 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

190. The Juniper ‘593 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

191. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘593 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for

processing a flow of a series of information packets. 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 52 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 53 of 65

192. The Juniper ‘593 Products maintain a set of behavioral statistics for the flow, 

wherein the set of behavioral statistics is updated based on each information packet belonging to 

the flow, as each information packet is processed. 

Junos OS Flow-Based And Packet-Based Processing User Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 299 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

193. The Juniper ‘593 Products enable the generation of behavioral statistics based on 

each packet that is processed. 

Junos OS Intrusion Detection And Prevention Feature Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 208 (June 18, 2018) (emphasis added).

194. The Juniper ‘593 Products determine, based at least partially upon the set of 

behavioral statistics, whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 53 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 54 of 65

Junos OS Intrusion Detection And Prevention Feature Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 594 (June 18, 2018) (emphasis added).

195. The Juniper ‘593 Products determine whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable 

behavior regardless of the presence or absence of congestion. 

Juniper OS Intrusion Detection and Prevention User Guide, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION AT 89

(April 24, 2020) (emphasis added).

196. The Juniper ‘593 Products enforce a penalty on the flow in response to a 

determination that the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 54 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 55 of 65

197. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

processing a flow of a series of information packets, including but not limited to the Juniper ‘593

Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for directly infringing one or more claims of 

the ‘593 patent, including at least claim 4, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

198. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘593 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

199. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘593 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘593 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

200. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘593 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

would infringe the ‘593 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘593 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘593 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘593 patent, including at least claim 4, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘593 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘593 patent.23 By 

 23 See, e.g., Juniper OS Intrusion Detection and Prevention User Guide, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION (April 24, 2020); Keerthi Latha, Learn About Intrusion Detection and 

Prevention, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (2016); Junos OS Flow-Based And Packet-Based 

Processing User Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (March 25, 2020); 

Juniper Sky Advanced Threat Prevention CLI Reference Guide, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION

(March 29, 2020); Junos OS Intrusion Detection And Prevention Feature Guide For Security 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 55 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 56 of 65

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘593

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘593 patent, including at 

least claim 4, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘593 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘593 Products, e.g., through 

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘593 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘593 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘593 patent.

201. The ‘593 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘593 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘593 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘593 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

202. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘593 patent.

203. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘593 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

 

Devices, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (June 18, 2018); Juniper vSRX Technical Overview for 

X47D20 Release, JUNIPER PRESENTATION at 23 (2015); Alexandre S. Cezar, DAY ONE: SRX

SERIES UP AND RUNNING WITH ADVANCED SECURITY SERVICES (March 2018); and JUNIPER 

ADVANCED THREAT PREVENTION APPLIANCE INTEGRATION WITH THE SRX SERIES DEVICE

(January 19, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 56 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 57 of 65

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT VI

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,817,790

204. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

205. Juniper designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States 

products and/or services for handling a flow of information packets.

206. Juniper designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Juniper devices 

that enable the identification of a flow based on the behavior of the flow, including the NFX150 

SRX300, SRX320, SRX340, SRX345, SRX550 HM, SRX1500, SRX4100, SRX4200, SRX4600, 

SRX5400, SRX5600, and SRX5800 devices with Junos OS 18.2 Release 1 and later installed; the 

SRX380 devices with Junos OS 20.1 Release 1 and later installed; and the vSRX devices with 

vSRX 12.1X46-D10 and later installed (collectively, the “Juniper ‘790 Products(s)”).

207. One or more Juniper subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Juniper ‘790 Products in 

regular business operations.

208. One or more of the Juniper ‘790 Products include technology for handling a flow 

of information packets. Specifically, the Juniper ‘790 Product process information packets that 

have the same header information. Specifically, the Juniper ‘790 Products perform the step of 

creating a flow block as the first packet of a flow is processed by a router.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 57 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 58 of 65

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION at 265 (March 25, 2020) (emphasis added).

209. The Juniper ‘790 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout 

the United States.

210. The Juniper ‘790 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

211. Juniper has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘790 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology for handling a flow 

of information packets, including but not limited to the Juniper ‘790 Products. 

212. The Juniper ‘790 Products process a flow comprised of two or more information 

packets having header information in common. Further, the Juniper ‘790 Products use headerindependent statistics for traffic classification. These statistics include bit rate, packet counts, and 

byte counts that are used to identify a particular traffic type. The flow information is stored in a 

flow block or session table that contains statistics about the flow that are updated as each packet 

in the flow is categorized.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 58 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 59 of 65

Barny Sanchez, Day One: Deploying SRX Series Services Gateway, JUNOS DYNAMIC SERVICES 

SERIES at 58 (2011) (emphasis added).

213. The Juniper ‘790 Products store header-independent statistics about the flow in a 

flow block associated with the flow. 

214. The Juniper ‘790 Products perform traffic matching using header-independent 

statistics such as: total number of input packets, total number of output packets, input bit rates, and 

output bit rates. 

Brad Woodberg & Rob Cameron, JUNIPER SRX SERIES: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SECURITY 

SERVICES ON SRX SERIES at Chapter 1:16 (2013) (emphasis added).

215. The Juniper ‘790 Products update the header-independent statistics in the flow 

block as each information packet belonging to the flow is processed. The header-independent 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 59 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 60 of 65

statistics are stored in a flow block associated with the flow. Specifically, the payload content 

agnostic behavioral statistics that are calculated by the Juniper ‘790 Products when a packet is 

ingested include the total byte count accumulated for a flow as shown in the below excerpt from 

Juniper documentation.

Advanced Junos Security Version 12.b Student Guide Vol. 1, JUNIPER COURSE MATERIALS EDU- JUN-AJSEC at Chapter 7-28 (June 2013) (emphasis added).

216. The Juniper ‘790 Products categorize the flow as one or more traffic types by 

determining whether the header-independent statistics match one or more profiles corresponding 

to a traffic type. 

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 60 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 61 of 65

Juniper IDP Series Administration Guide Release 5.1rX, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION at 327 

(December 19, 2013) (emphasis added).

217. The Juniper ‘790 Products perform an operation that is determined according to the 

one or more traffic types on one or more information packets belonging to the flow if the one or 

more traffic types match one or more particular traffic types designated by a user.

218. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services, 

including but not limited to the Juniper ‘790 Products, Juniper has injured Plaintiffs and is liable 

for directly infringing one or more claims of the ‘790 patent, including at least claim 1, pursuant 

to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

219. Juniper also indirectly infringes the ‘790 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

220. Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘790 patent since at least service of this 

Complaint or shortly thereafter, and Juniper knew of the ‘790 patent and knew of its infringement, 

including by way of this lawsuit.

221. Alternatively, Juniper has had knowledge of the ‘790 patent since at least April 2, 

2020, when U.S. Patent Appl. 16/145,682, which is owned by Juniper and cites the ‘790 patent as 

relevant prior art, was published.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 61 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 62 of 65

222. Juniper intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users 

of the Juniper ‘790 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement 

or was willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Juniper

specifically intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products 

would infringe the ‘790 patent. Juniper performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, 

and would induce actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘790 patent and with the knowledge 

that the induced acts would constitute infringement. For example, Juniper provides the Juniper

‘790 Products that have the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the 

claims of the ‘790 patent, including at least claim 1, and Juniper further provides documentation 

and training materials that cause customers and end users of the Juniper ‘790 Products to utilize 

the products in a manner that directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘790 patent.24 By 

providing instruction and training to customers and end-users on how to use the Juniper ‘790

Products in a manner that directly infringes one or more claims of the ‘790 patent, including at 

least claim 1, Juniper specifically intended to induce infringement of the ‘790 patent. Juniper

engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of the Juniper ‘790 Products, e.g., through 

Juniper user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively 

induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘790 patent. Accordingly, Juniper has 

 24 See, e.g., See, e.g., Juniper vSRX – Technical Overview for X47D20, JUNIPER PRESENTATION

(2015); Junos OS Application Security User Guide For Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION (March 18, 2020); Advanced Junos Security Version 12.b Student Guide Vol. 

1, JUNIPER COURSE MATERIALS EDU-JUN-AJSEC (June 2013); Learn About Application 

Visibility and Control, JUNIPER NETWORKS DOCUMENTATION (September 2016); Juniper IDP 

Series Administration Guide Release 5.1rX, JUNIPER DOCUMENTATION (December 19, 2013); 

Junos OS Flow-Based and Packet-Based Processing User Guide for Security Devices, JUNIPER 

DOCUMENTATION (March 25, 2020); Alexandre S. Cezar, DAY ONE: SRX SERIES UP AND 

RUNNING WITH ADVANCED SECURITY SERVICES (Mar. 2018); QoS Configuration for SRX Series 

for the Branch with Integrated Convergence Services, JUNIPER NETWORKS APPLICATION NOTE

(Nov. 2010); and JUNIPER ADVANCED THREAT PREVENTION APPLIANCE INTEGRATION WITH THE 

SRX SERIES DEVICE (Jan. 19, 2020).

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 62 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 63 of 65

induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the accused products in their 

ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘790 patent, knowing that such use constitutes 

infringement of the ‘790 patent.

223. The ‘790 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘790 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Juniper is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘790 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Juniper is infringing the ‘790 patent in a manner best 

described as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

224. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘790 patent.

225. As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ‘790 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Juniper’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Juniper together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sable IP, LLC and Sable Networks, Inc. respectfully request that this 

Court enter:

A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Juniper has infringed, either literally 

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘431, ‘932, ‘358, ‘775, ‘593, 

and ‘790 patents;

B. An award of damages resulting from Juniper’s acts of infringement in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 63 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 64 of 65

C. A judgment and order finding that Juniper’s infringement was willful, 

wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 

awarding to Plaintiffs enhanced damages.

D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the 

meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable 

attorneys’ fees against Juniper.

E. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be 

entitled. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Sable IP, LLC and 

Sable Networks, Inc. request a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 64 of 65
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 65 of 65

Dated: June 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424)

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763)

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: 323-886-3430

Facsimile: 323-978-5508

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

114 E. Commerce Ave.

Gladewater, TX 75647

Telephone: 903-845-5770

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for Sable Networks, Inc. and 

Sable IP, LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00524 Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 65 of 65