NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,

Appellant

v.

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., PALO ALTO 

NETWORKS, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2022-1398, 2022-1400, 2022-1401, 2022-1403, 2022-1404, 

2022-1405, 2022-1406

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

00336, IPR2020-00337, IPR2020-00338, IPR2020-00339, 

IPR2020-00486.

______________________ 

Decided: May 2, 2024

______________________ 

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 05/02/2024
2 PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 

ROBERT ALLAN BULLWINKEL, Heim Payne & Chorush 

LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FIRST, MICHAEL F. HEIM. 

 R. WILLIAM SIGLER, Fisch Sigler, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for cross-appellant Juniper Networks, Inc. 

Also represented by ALAN M. FISCH, JEFFREY MATTHEW 

SALTMAN. 

 DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER, Ropes & Gray LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Also represented by JAMES RICHARD 

BATCHELDER, ANDREW T. RADSCH, East Palo Alto, CA.

 OMAR FAROOQ AMIN, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS, ROBERT 

MCBRIDE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

STARK, Circuit Judge. 

Packet Intelligence LLC (“Packet”) appeals the final 

written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(“Board”) in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings finding 

certain claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (“’725 patent”), 6,771,646 (“’646 patent”), 6,839,751 (“’751 patent”), 

and 6,954,789 (“’789 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious.1 

1 Specifically, in IPR2020-00336, the Board found 

claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent unpatentable. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, 

IPR2020-00336, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5456, at *3

(P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2021). In IPR2020-00337, the Board 

found claims 1, 2, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 patent unpatentable and claim 3 of the ’646 patent not unpatentable. See 

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 2 Filed: 05/02/2024
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 3

Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (collectively, “Juniper”) cross-appeal the Board’s final written 

decisions finding claim 3 of the ’646 patent and claim 34 of 

the ’789 patent are not unpatentable as obvious. We affirm 

in all respects.2

Regarding Packet’s appeals, on de novo review we 

agree with the Board that the correct construction of “conversational flow” in all challenged claims across all patents 

is a “sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity.”3 E.g., J.A. 22. The intrinsic 

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-

00337, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5517, at *1-2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 

8, 2021). In IPR2020-00338, the Board found claims 1, 2, 

5, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’751 patent unpatentable. See 

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-

00338, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5520, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 

2021). In IPR2020-00339, the Board found claims 1, 2, 13-

17, 19, 20, 42, 44, 48, and 49 of the ’789 patent unpatentable. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, 

IPR2020-00339, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5525, at *1-2 

(P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2021). In IPR2020-00486, the Board 

found claims 31 and 33 of the ’789 patent unpatentable and 

claim 34 of that same patent not unpatentable. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-00486, 

2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5468, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2021).

2 The Board had jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 316(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319.

3 See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 

F.4th 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We review the Board’s 

claim constructions de novo and review any underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence.”).

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 3 Filed: 05/02/2024
4 PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 

evidence on which Packet would have us base a narrower 

construction – including statements following “for instance” and “some” in the specification – is exemplary and 

not definitional. J.A. 1318 at 2:39-45. These statements 

do not justify limiting the scope of the “conversational flow” 

to specific network endpoints or a specific client or user.

Based on the correct construction, substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that prior art U.S. Patent No. 

6,412,000 (“Riddle”) discloses the claimed “conversational 

flow.”4 Exchanging packets “in any direction,” as permitted under the Board’s construction, means that the challenged claims encompass bidirectional packet flows as well 

as unidirectional flows (in any direction). It is undisputed 

that Riddle discloses unidirectional flows. Additionally, 

the Board found that Riddle discloses bidirectional packet 

flows as well, see, e.g., J.A. 39, and this finding is supported 

by substantial evidence, see, e.g., J.A. 1910 at 13:54-59 

(Riddle disclosing “flow that is used to exchange commands 

and responses”).

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding 

that Riddle discloses the claimed state-based analysis of 

“conversational flow.” During the IPR proceedings, Packet 

contended that “Riddle relates to classifying traffic based 

on an individual packet in the flow, rather than on a state 

of the flow (i.e., evaluation across multiple packets).” J.A. 

17353 (internal emphasis omitted). Relying on expert testimony and prior art disclosures, the Board found, however, that Riddle discloses classifying service aggregates 

based on a plurality of indicators across multiple packets. 

See, e.g., J.A. 1909 at 12:53-57 (Riddle disclosing 

4 See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“What the prior art discloses 

and whether a person of ordinary skill would have been 

motivated to combine prior art references are both fact 

questions that we review for substantial evidence.”).

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 4 Filed: 05/02/2024
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 5

suppressing duplicate packets “in favor of keeping a count 

of the duplicates and a most recent time traffic with these 

identifying characteristics [that] was encountered”); J.A. 

1554 ¶ 357 (Dr. Weissman testifying that “with flows involving FTP applications, Riddle teaches performing state 

operations to determine if the flow belongs to a service aggregate”). This is sufficient to allow us to affirm the 

Board’s findings.

Turning to Juniper’s cross-appeals, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Juniper failed to 

show that prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,740,175 (“Wakeman”) 

discloses an associative cache.5 Regardless, even assuming 

Wakeman discloses an associative cache, the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have 

been motivated to implement Wakeman’s content addressable memory (“CAM”) cache as an associative cache is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., J.A. 17678-79 

¶¶ 89-90 (Ms. Quigley testifying “associative caches are not 

an obvious solution to all caching needs – they tend to be 

reserved for situations where the need for flexibility and 

performance exceeds the need for cost efficiency. . . . Wakeman’s focus on balancing cost and performance would not 

lead a POSITA to select an associative cache”).

5 Juniper directs our attention to a statement in U.S. 

Provisional Application No. 60/141,903, which was incorporated by reference in the ’646 and ’789 patents, explaining

that “CAM is the same as associative storage.” J.A. 2680. 

Juniper did not present this contention to the Board, so we 

do not consider it. See Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 5 Filed: 05/02/2024
6 PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.6 Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decisions.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

6 Packet argues that former Commissioner Hirshfeld 

lacked authority to rule on its requests for Director review. 

We have rejected this argument in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & 

Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2022), and 

must do so again here.

Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 6 Filed: 05/02/2024