Court Opinion

ID: 9965374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 15:00:59.424913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:56.069096
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1398   Document: 81     Page: 1   Filed: 05/02/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2    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 Net-
 works, 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 pa-
 tent”), 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 unpatenta-
 ble. 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 unpatent-
 able and claim 3 of the ’646 patent not unpatentable. See
Case: 22-1398     Document: 81      Page: 3     Filed: 05/02/2024

 PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.             3

 Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (col-
 lectively, “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 “con-
 versational flow” in all challenged claims across all patents
 is a “sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direc-
 tion 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 unpatenta-
 ble. 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 Juni-
 per 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 fac-
 tual determinations for substantial evidence.”).
Case: 22-1398     Document: 81      Page: 4     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 in-
 stance” 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 permit-
 ted under the Board’s construction, means that the chal-
 lenged 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 tes-
 timony and prior art disclosures, the Board found, how-
 ever, 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: 5    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 in-
 volving FTP applications, Riddle teaches performing state
 operations to determine if the flow belongs to a service ag-
 gregate”). This is sufficient to allow us to affirm the
 Board’s findings.
     Turning to Juniper’s cross-appeals, substantial evi-
 dence 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 find-
 ing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
 been motivated to implement Wakeman’s content address-
 able memory (“CAM”) cache as an associative cache is sup-
 ported 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. . . . Wake-
 man’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 incorpo-
 rated 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 Net-
 worked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Case: 22-1398    Document: 81       Page: 6   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 rea-
 sons, 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.