Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 76 PageID #:
`4634
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`WIZ, INC.
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C.A. No. 23- 0758-JLH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`REGARDING WIZ’S ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-6541
`cottrell@rlf.com
`farnan@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe
`Catherine Lacey
`Alex Miller
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 947-2000
`
`Lisa D. Zang
`Callie Davidson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 328-4600
`
`Blake R. Davis
`Peter Hoffman
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 76 PageID #:
`4635
`
`(424) 466-6900
`
`Praatika Prasad
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`1301 Ave. of the Americas, 40th Fl.
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 453-2803
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-
`Plaintiff Wiz, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Christopher W. Henry
`Kristina D. McKenna
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 948-6000
`
`Ryan T. Banks
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`(714) 540-1235
`
`Gabriel K. Bell
`Nicole E. Bruner
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C., 20004
`(202) 637-2200
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 3 of 76 PageID #:
`4636
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTIONS ............................................................................................................ 1
`A. Wiz’s Opening Introduction ................................................................................... 1
`1.
`Wiz’s Technology and Asserted IP............................................................. 1
`2.
`REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS .................................................................. 2
`a. ’896 patent claim 1...................................................................................... 2
`b. ’693 patent claim 1...................................................................................... 2
`c. ’549 patent claim 1...................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Orca’s Answering Introduction............................................................................... 3
`C. Wiz’s Reply Introduction ........................................................................................ 5
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Introduction ................................................................................ 6
`D.
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................. 7
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................................... 7
`A.
`“actively inspect[ing] the network path” / “initiat[e/ing] active inspection” .......... 7
`1.
`Wiz’s Opening Position .............................................................................. 8
`2.
`Orca’s Answering Position ......................................................................... 9
`a. The Specification Implicitly Defines “Active Inspection” As Being
`Distinct From “Static Analysis”............................................................ 9
`b. The Prosecution History Confirms Orca’s Construction of “Active
`Inspection” .......................................................................................... 13
`c. The Claim Language Supports Orca’s Construction And Refutes Wiz’s. 14
`d. Wiz’s Arguments Against Orca’s Construction Fail ................................ 16
`Wiz’s Reply Position ................................................................................ 19
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Position ........................................................................ 26
`a. Orca’s Proposed Construction Should Be Adopted .................................. 26
`b. Wiz’s Proposed Construction Should Be Rejected ................................... 29
`
`3.
`4.
`
`i
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 4 of 76 PageID #:
`4637
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“valid path” ........................................................................................................... 30
`1.
`Wiz’s Opening Position ............................................................................ 30
`2.
`Orca’s Answering Position ....................................................................... 32
`3.
`Wiz’s Reply Position ................................................................................ 38
`4.
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Position ........................................................................ 40
`“wherein each scenario is associated with an incidence response” ...................... 42
`1.
`Wiz’s Opening Position ............................................................................ 42
`2.
`Orca’s Answering Position ....................................................................... 44
`3.
`Wiz’s Reply Position ................................................................................ 47
`4.
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Position ........................................................................ 52
`“based on” ............................................................................................................. 54
`1.
`Wiz’s Opening Position ............................................................................ 54
`2.
`Orca’s Answering Position ....................................................................... 55
`3.
`Wiz’s Reply Position ................................................................................ 60
`4.
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Position ........................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`ii
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 5 of 76 PageID #:
`4638
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
`323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................33
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................54
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`923 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir.)...................................................................................................14
`
`Astrazeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................13
`
`AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.,
`633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................17
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................58
`
`B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter Inc., C.A. No. 20-621,
`2024 WL 579076 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2024) .......................................................48, 49, 51, 52
`
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................43, 46
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................44
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................9, 10, 12, 22, 28
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Bev. Can Co.,
`486 F. Supp. 2d 366 (D. Del. 2007) .............................................................................31, 36
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................49
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................31
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................33, 39, 41
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 6 of 76 PageID #:
`4639
`
`
`
`Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................58
`
`Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................16
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................18, 29
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................52
`
`Groove Digital, Inc. v. United Bank,
`825 F. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................12
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands v. f'real Foods,
`908 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................40
`
`Hytera Commc’ns Co. v. Motorola Sols., Inc.,
`841 F. App’x 210 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................55, 56, 58, 60, 61
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................22
`
`Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc.,
`99 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................58
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................25, 36
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................................52, 53
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................45, 50
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2020) .........................................................45, 49, 51
`
`Mallinckrodt LLC v. Actavis Lab'ys Fl., Inc., No. 15-cv-3800,
`2017 WL 1882493 (D.N.J. May 9, 2017) ..........................................................................49
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd., No. 2022-1605,
`2024 WL 1208642 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2024) ....................................................................55
`
`
`Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd.,
`764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 7 of 76 PageID #:
`4640
`
`
`
`Microchip Tech., Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US, LLC, C.A. No. 1:23-CV-00778-JDW,
`2024 WL 3444616 (D. Del. July 15, 2024) ...................................................................8, 17
`
`
`Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..........................................................................................43
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................................43, 51
`
`Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 23-2304,
`2024 WL 3873566 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2024) ........................................................47, 48, 51
`
`
`Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................................48
`
`O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................29
`
`ON Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 17-247-LPS-CJB,
`2018 WL 4905591 (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018) .............................................................31, 35, 36
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................31
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................56
`
`Pilot Energy Sols., L.L.C. v. OXY USA Inc., No. A-16-CA-00687-SS,
`2017 WL 3726432 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2017) .................................................................49
`
`
`Plastipak Packaging v. Niagara Bottling, LLC, No. 17-cv-1463,
`2018 WL 10483856 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2018) ..................................................................49
`
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................30
`
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos Corp., No. 16 C 4496,
`2017 WL 2264347 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2017) .....................................................................49
`
`
`SimpleAir v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................27, 40
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-CV-116 (RGA),
`2017 WL 2221177 (D. Del. May 19, 2017) .......................................................................58
`
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................15
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 8 of 76 PageID #:
`4641
`
`
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................43
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................9, 52
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................31
`
`Trackthings LLC v. Netgear, Inc., C.A. No. 22-981-RGA,
`2023 WL 4926184 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023) ..................................................................30, 31
`
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA Inc.,
`No. 07-2392, 2008 WL 6071708 (S.D. Tx. Oct. 22, 2008) ...............................................49
`
`Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................10, 12, 13, 23, 28
`
`Varentec, Inc. v. Gridco, Inc., C.A. No. 16-217-RGA,
`2017 WL 3731243 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017) ......................................................................55
`
`
`Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 9 of 76 PageID #:
`4642
`
`
`
`JOINT APPENDIX EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`A. U.S. Patent No. 11,929,896
`B. U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693
`C. U.S. Patent No. 12,001,549
`D. U.S. Patent No. 11,722,554
`E. U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529
`F. U.S. Patent No. 11,431,735
`G. U.S. Patent No. 11,374,982
`H. NIST Computer Security Resource Center, “Active Security Testing”
` New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (Stevenson & Lindberg Eds.), pp. 136-
`I.
`137, 466-467 (Oxford Univ. Press 2010)
` Excerpts from U.S. Patent No. 11,936,693 File History
`J.
`K. U.S. Patent No. 11,374,982
`J.C. Luna, “What is BERT? An Intro to BERT Models,” available at:
`L.
`https://www.datacamp.com/blog/what-is-bert-an-intro-to-bert-models
`(Nov.
`2,
`2023)
`“What is GPT?,” available at https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/gpt/
`
`M.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 10 of 76 PageID
`#: 4643
`
`
`
`Short Cite
`WOBr.
`OABr.
`WRBr.
`OSBr.
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Description
`Wiz, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Orca Security Ltd.’s Answering Claim Construction Brief
`Wiz, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief
`Orca Security Ltd.’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 11 of 76 PageID
`#: 4644
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTIONS
`
`A. Wiz’s Opening Introduction
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Wiz, Inc. (“Wiz”) asserts counterclaims for Orca’s
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,722,554 (the “’554 patent”), 11,929,896 (the “’896 patent”),
`
`11,936,693 (the “’693 patent”), 12,001,549 (the “’549 patent”), and 12,003,529 (the “’529 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Wiz Asserted Patents”). For the Wiz Asserted Patents, the parties dispute the
`
`construction of five claim terms that, in the aggregate, arise in the context of the ’896 patent, the
`
`’693 patent, and the ’549 patent. Wiz’s clear, common-sense constructions should be adopted as
`
`they are anchored firmly in the intrinsic record, including the claim language itself and the patent
`
`specifications.
`
`1. Wiz’s Technology and Asserted IP
`
`Founded in January 2020, Wiz’s products secure their customers’ use of the “cloud”—i.e.,
`
`the now ubiquitous software running on servers provided by Amazon Web Services, Google
`
`Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and others. With cloud computing, a user does not need to have a local
`
`or personal computer capable of doing all of their tasks; instead, a computing “workload” can be
`
`hosted on remote servers in the “cloud.” Wiz’s business is protecting those cloud assets from
`
`cybersecurity threats.
`
`Wiz’s research and development of new cloud security technology and features has led to
`
`Wiz being one of the most innovative cybersecurity companies in the industry. See generally ’896
`
`patent (Ex. A); ’693 patent (Ex. B); ’549 patent (Ex. C); ’554 patent (Ex. D); ’529 patent (Ex. E).
`
`The Wiz Asserted Patents relate to different aspects of cloud cybersecurity, including the use of
`
`network graph models, detection of cybersecurity risks from AI models, and utilization of Large
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 12 of 76 PageID
`#: 4645
`
`
`
`Language Models (“LLMs”) to assist in responding to cybersecurity incidents. See ’549 patent at
`
`Abstract, 1:14-18; ’529 patent at Abstract, 1:6-11.
`
`2.
`
`REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
`
`a.
`
`’896 patent claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’896 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for generation of unified graph models for network entities, comprising:
`collecting, for each network entity of a plurality of network entities, network
`entity data, wherein the network entity data collected for a network entity
`includes at least a network entity property, wherein the plurality of network
`entities are deployed in a plurality of cloud computing platforms;
`genericizing each of the network entities based on the respective collected
`network entity data to generate a plurality of generic network entities,
`wherein a generic network entity includes a generic representation of
`respective network entities from different cloud computing platforms of the
`plurality of cloud computing platforms;
`generating at least a network graph, wherein the generated network graph is
`a multi-dimensional data structure providing a representation of the
`plurality of generic network entities and relations between the generic
`network entities of the plurality of network entities; and
`creating at least one imputed entity, wherein the at least one imputed entity
`is a generic network entity representing an executed platform functionality,
`and wherein the executed platform functionality is different than a network
`entity; and
`storing the generated network graph.
`
`b.
`
`’693 patent claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’693 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for applying a policy on a network path, comprising:
`selecting a reachable resource having a network path to access the reachable
`resource, wherein the reachable resource is a cloud object deployed in a
`cloud computing environment, having access to an external network which
`is external to the cloud computing environment;
`actively inspecting the network path to determine if the network path of the
`reachable resource is accessible from the external network;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 13 of 76 PageID
`#: 4646
`
`
`
`storing an indicator to indicate that the network path is a valid path, in
`response to determining that the reachable resource is accessible from the
`external network;
`applying a policy on the valid path, wherein the policy includes a
`conditional rule; initiating a mitigation action, in response to determining
`that the conditional rule is not met; and
`applying the policy on another network path, in response to determining that
`the conditional rule is met.
`
`c.
`
`’549 patent claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’549 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for providing cybersecurity incident response, comprising:
`receiving an incident input based on a cybersecurity event;
`generating a prompt for a large language model (LLM) based on the
`received incident input;
`configuring the LLM to generate an output based on the generated prompt;
`mapping the received incident input into a scenario of a plurality of
`scenarios based on the output of the LLM, wherein each scenario is
`associated with an incidence response;
`generating a query based on the received incident input and the mapped
`scenario;
`executing the query on a security database, the security database including
`a representation of a computing environment; and
`initiating a mitigation action based on a result of the executed query.
`
`Orca’s Answering Introduction
`
`B.
`Wiz asserts five patents in this case, from five distinct patent families.1 Each patent was
`
`prosecuted during the pendency of this lawsuit and asserted against Orca almost immediately upon
`
`issuance. Wiz represents these patents reflect “Wiz’s research and development of new cloud
`
`security technology.” Supra at 1 (WOBr.). In truth, Wiz’s five asserted patents are merely another
`
`manifestation of Wiz’s cynical scheme to copy virtually every aspect of Orca’s business and
`
`
`1 Ex. A (hereinafter, “’896 patent”); Ex. B (hereinafter, “’693 patent”); Ex. C (hereinafter, “’549
`patent”); Ex. D (hereinafter, “’554 patent”); Ex. E (hereinafter, “’529 patent”).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 14 of 76 PageID
`#: 4647
`
`
`
`deprive Orca of its intellectual property. Indeed, all five of Wiz’s patents were prosecuted by
`
`Orca’s original patent prosecutor and include near identical Figures from Orca’s patents.
`
`Compare, e.g., ’896 patent at Field 74, Fig. 6, with Ex. F (U.S. Pat. No. 11,431,735 patent) at Field
`
`74, Fig. 3; see also Dkt. 15 (Orca’s Second Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 23-24 (describing Wiz’s
`
`hiring of Orca’s prosecution counsel and copying of text and figures).
`
`Considering Wiz’s aggressive copying of Orca’s revolutionary inventions, it comes as little
`
`surprise that Wiz’s patents largely recite technology that Orca invented first. It also follows that
`
`there are few terms that require construction across Wiz’s Asserted Patents, with Orca proposing
`
`to construe just two terms in the claims of Wiz’s ’896 patent and two terms in the ’549 patent, and
`
`Wiz proposing to construe one additional term from the ’693 patent. For each term, summarized
`
`briefly below, Orca’s construction follows from the intrinsic evidence and should be adopted.
`
`First, Wiz proposed construing the term “imputed entity” in the ’896 patent, which the
`
`parties agree is a coined term defined in the specification. Wiz’s opening brief now concedes that
`
`Orca’s construction is correct, and that the dispute between the parties as to that term is “moot.”
`
`Second, Orca’s construction of the term “actively inspect[ing] the network path” in the
`
`’693 patent should be adopted because the term is defined by implication and consistent usage in
`
`the specification. Wiz’s construction, in contrast, should be rejected because it would expand
`
`“actively inspecting” to include “static analysis,” which are distinct concepts set forth in the ’693
`
`patent.
`
`Third, the parties dispute the construction of “valid path” in the ’693 patent, which is
`
`closely related to the “actively inspecting” term. Orca’s construction comes definitionally from the
`
`specification and is consistent with how the term is used in the claims and specification. Wiz, in
`
`contrast, attempts to improperly broaden “valid path” to encompass static analysis of network
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 15 of 76 PageID
`#: 4648
`
`
`
`paths, which the specification expressly states cannot determine when paths are “valid.”
`
`Fourth, the claims of the ’549 patent should be found invalid as indefinite because each
`
`claim recites “wherein each scenario is associated with an incidence response,” the bounds of
`
`which cannot be understood with reasonable certainty.
`
`Finally, to the extent the claims of the ’549 patent are not found indefinite, the independent
`
`claims 1, 11 and 12 should be construed to require that each step is performed in the recited order.
`
`Indeed, this is already required by the express claim language: each step includes phrases that take
`
`their antecedent from one or more precedent steps, and six of the seven steps expressly recite that
`
`the steps are “based on” the output of the prior step.
`
`C. Wiz’s Reply Introduction
`
`Wiz asserts five patents from five different patent families in this case. Wiz’s breadth of
`
`innovation demonstrates Wiz’s desire to improve and advance all aspects of cloud cyber security,
`
`not simply focus on a single aspect like Orca, which asserts only one patent family. Wiz’s asserted
`
`patents further demonstrate its innovation on the very cutting edge of technology, including cloud
`
`cybersecurity relating to artificial intelligence and large language models. While Orca somehow
`
`claims that these facts indicate copying of Orca, in actuality they illustrate Wiz’s vision and
`
`investment in advancing cloud security.
`
`Orca again strangely insists that Wiz’s use of the same prosecution counsel as Orca and
`
`inclusion of similar figures in patent applications are evidence of Wiz copying Orca. As previously
`
`explained,2 Wiz’s founders began using this prosecution counsel in 2014, years before Orca even
`
`existed. If anything, Orca copied Wiz’s founders by hiring the same prosecution counsel later.
`
`Orca’s assertions as to the figures in the patent have previously been debunked as well. D.I 12 at
`
`2 D.I. 12 at 1-2.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 16 of 76 PageID
`#: 4649
`
`
`
`10-12. Orca’s reference to prosecution of Wiz’s patents during the pendency of this lawsuit is
`
`another red herring. Three of the five asserted patents claim priority to applications filed long
`
`before this litigation began—indeed before any of Orca’s asserted patents even issued. Orca’s
`
`focus on assertions like Wiz “copying” the idea to serve coffee at a conference (id. at 13),
`
`demonstrate the lack of strength in its claims and defenses to Wiz’s counterclaims.
`
`Now having to face Wiz’s counterclaims, Orca attempts to invalidate or narrow the claims
`
`of Wiz’s patents. There are five claim terms from Wiz’s patents that are the subject of this briefing.
`
`First, from the ’896 patent, “imputed entity.” The parties have come to an agreement on this term
`
`during the course of briefing. Second, two terms from the ’693 patent: “actively inspect[ing] the
`
`network path” and “valid path.” Orca makes effectively the same argument for both terms, trying
`
`to limit the claims to a single embodiment in the specification. Orca’s attempt to rewrite the
`
`language of the claims should be rejected. Third, for the ’549 patent relating to artificial
`
`intelligence and cybersecurity, Orca argues the term “wherein each scenario is associated with an
`
`incidence response” is indefinite. But Orca’s own brief proves the opposite, describing where and
`
`how the patent fully describes the term, and provides reasonable certainty to one of ordinary skill.
`
`Finally, Orca claims that the term “based on” requires strict ordering of the steps in the method
`
`claim when no such requirement exists in the claim or the specification.
`
`D.
`
`Orca’s Sur-Reply Introduction
`
`For Wiz’s patents-in-suit, Wiz’s constructions should be rejected, and Orca’s adopted.
`
`In the ’693 patent, a continuation-in-part filed one month after Orca initiated this case, Wiz
`
`drafted the claims narrowly to be directed to “actively inspect[ing] the network path” and using
`
`active inspection to determine which network paths are “valid.” Having gotten the claims past the
`
`Patent Office by relying on these narrow limitations, Wiz now tries to reverse course and broaden
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 17 of 76 PageID
`#: 4650
`
`
`
`the claims in litigation by wrongly interpreting them to encompass “static analysis,” a distinct
`
`concept in the ’693 patent (and one that Orca invented and Wiz copied). Orca’s constructions of
`
`“active inspection” and “valid path” come directly from the intrinsic evidence and should be
`
`adopted, whereas Wiz’s litigation-driven constructions lack proper support in the evidence.
`
`The claims of the ’549 patent family, filed two months after this case began, include a
`
`number of terms—“scenario,” “incident input,” and “incidence response”—which have unclear,
`
`overlapping, and seemingly identical meanings. As such, the claim scope cannot be determined
`
`with reasonable certainty, and the claims with these terms are indefinite. And, should the Court
`
`construe the claims further, they should be interpreted to require each step be performed in their
`
`recited order, as both grammar and logic dictate.
`
`II.
`
`AGREED-UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree on the following construction.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Joint Proposed Construction
`
`“imputed entity”
`
`’896 patent, claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 14,
`15, 21, 23
`
`“generic entity representing a network entity that is
`integrated into one or more host platforms, or a network
`entity that is shielded from, or not otherwise exposed to, a
`system configured to execute network analysis processes
`and methods”
`
`
`III. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`“actively inspect[ing] the network path” / “initiat[e/ing] active inspection”
`
`Orca’s
`Proposed Construction
`“sending a data packet over the
`network path”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“actively
`inspect[ing] the
`network path” /
`“initiat[e/ing]
`active inspection”
`
`
`Wiz’s
`Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`“gathering information regarding
`the network path” not limited to
`sending a data packet.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 200 Filed 11/22/24 Page 18 of 76 PageID
`#: 4651
`
`
`
`’693 Patent, claims
`1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11-14,
`16