Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 82 PageID #:
`4936
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff and
` Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant and
` Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF FOR ORCA ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`farnan@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
`Wiz, Inc
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 82 PageID #:
`4937
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .....................................................................................1
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position .............................................................................2
`
`1.
`
`Recent IPR History of the Orca Asserted Patents ........................................2
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .........................................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`Recent IPR Proceedings Fail to Support Wiz’s Arguments and
`Proposed Constructions ...............................................................................4
`
`D.
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ..............................................................................5
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`“(i) Taking at Least One Snapshot, and (ii) Requesting Taking at Least
`One Snapshot of the Virtual Machine at Rest” (’031 Patent, claims 1, 9,
`16) ............................................................................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .........................................................................6
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................10
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................13
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................16
`
`B.
`
`“Snapshot” (’031 Patent, claims 1, 5-9, 13-16; ’032 Patent, claims 1, 7-10,
`13-25; ’685 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 8-14, 16; ’809 Patent, claims 1, 6-9, 12-
`23; ’926 Patent, claims 1, 5, 8, 12-15 ; ’326 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10,
`13, 14) ....................................................................................................................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................18
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................21
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................27
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................31
`
`C.
`
`“Alert(s)” (’031 Patent, claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 16; ’032 Patent, claims 1, 18,
`22; ’685 Patent, claims 1, 5, 13, 17, 22; ’809 Patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19;
`’926 Patent, claims 1, 14, 15 ..................................................................................34
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 3 of 82 PageID #:
`4938
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................34
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................38
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................39
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................42
`
`D.
`
`“Virtual Machine” (’031 Patent, claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 16; ’685 Patent,
`claims 1-4, 7, 8, 13-16, 19, 20, 22) ........................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................43
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................45
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................46
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................47
`
`E.
`
`“Remedial Action” (’031 Patent, claims 3, 11; ’685 Patent, claims 6, 18) ...........47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................47
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................50
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................50
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................51
`
`F.
`
`“Determining Whether the Matching Installed Applications are Used By
`the Protected Virtual Cloud Asset” (’032 Patent, claims 1-5, 18, 22; ’326
`Patent, claim 8) ......................................................................................................52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................52
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................54
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................55
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................57
`
`G.
`
`“Sensitive Data” (’685 Patent, claims 1, 5, 6, 13, 17, 18, 22) ...............................58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................58
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................59
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................61
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 4 of 82 PageID #:
`4939
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................62
`
`H.
`
`“Analyz[e/ing] the (At Least One) Snapshot” (all asserted claims of the
`Orca Asserted Patents) ...........................................................................................64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position .......................................................................64
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...............................................................65
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position ...........................................................................67
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ................................................................68
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................70
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ...................................................................................70
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position ...........................................................................70
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position .......................................................................................70
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position ............................................................................70
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 5 of 82 PageID #:
`4940
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`3form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`2017 WL 443652 (Fed. Cir. 2017)...........................................................................................62
`
`Acco Brands v. Micro Sec. Devices,
`346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................15, 17
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................2, 6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F. 3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................16
`
`Artec Eur. S.À.R.L. v. Shenzhen Creality 3D Tech. Co.,
`No. 22-cv-1676, 2024 WL 4479810 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2024) ..........................................6, 32
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................26, 42, 67
`
`Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`972 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................37
`
`Bd. of Regents v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................29, 30, 40
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2023 WL 4115909 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2023) ..............................................................37, 40, 49
`
`CallWave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`2014 WL 7205657 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014).................................................................29, 30, 40
`
`Cap. Sec. Sys., Inc. v. NCR Corp.,
`725 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................61
`
`Chalumeau Power Sys. LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent,
`2013 WL 5913849 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2013) .............................................................................41
`
`ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.,
`35 F.4th 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................59, 61
`
`Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
`543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................31
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 6 of 82 PageID #:
`4941
`
`
`
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. OmniVision Techs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 3670661 (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2017) ............................................................................31
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co.,
`838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................58
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................60, 61, 63
`
`Digital-Vending Servs. v. Univ. of Phoenix,
`672 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................30
`
`DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.,
`537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................16
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................16
`
`Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................42, 46
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................44
`
`Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`847 F. App’x 901 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................44, 46
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................11
`
`Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v.
`Sirus XM Radio Inc.,
`2020 WL 549801 (D. Del. Feb. 4, 2020) .................................................................................31
`
`Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`29 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................41, 42
`
`Geodynamics, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics US, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6217181 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016) .............................................................29, 30, 40
`
`IDB Ventures, LLC v. Charlotte Russe Hldgs.,
`2018 WL 5629620 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2018) .........................................................................41
`
`In re Sang Su Lee,
`277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................43
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................21, 38
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 7 of 82 PageID #:
`4942
`
`
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................63
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................63
`
`IQASR LLC v. Wendt Corp.,
`825 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................63
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`No. 16-01003, 2017 WL 3033400 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017), aff'd, 933 F.3d
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................................10, 14
`
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co.,
`203 F. 3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000).........................................................................................24, 31
`
`Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp.,
`29 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................41
`
`Mantissa Corp. v. First Fin. Corp.,
`No. 2022-1963, 2024 WL 607717 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2024) ..................................................54
`
`Mantissa Corp. v. First Financial Corp.,
`346 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................57
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
`395 F. 3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................38
`
`Monaghan Med. Corp. v. Smiths Med. ASD, Inc.,
`2018 WL 3323823 (D. Del. July 6, 2018) ...............................................................................31
`
`Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir.1998).................................................................................................24
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...............................................................................................52, 55, 57, 62
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................55, 61
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical SC, Inc.,
`30 F. 4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ...............................................................................................63
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................39, 42
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................44
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 8 of 82 PageID #:
`4943
`
`
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................40
`
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd.,
`2023 WL 5928313 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2023) ............................................................................28
`
`Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 1056276 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2019) ........................................................................65, 68
`
`PageMelding, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc.,
`2013 WL 431600 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) .............................................................................40
`
`Paroline v. United States,
`572 U.S. 434 (2014) .......................................................................................................8, 11, 14
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`952 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................10, 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................46, 48
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................55, 57
`
`ProMOS Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F. App'x 825 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................24, 31
`
`S.I.SV.EL. Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo dell’Elettronica S.p.A. v. Rhapsody
`Int’l, Inc.,
`2020 WL 4584355 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2020) ............................................................................30
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................20
`
`Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft & Putzmeister,
`305 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................13
`
`Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`2021 WL 1966406 (D. Del. May 17, 2021) .............................................................................42
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................8, 14
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................53, 56, 59, 61
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................42
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 9 of 82 PageID #:
`4944
`
`
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................20, 65, 68
`
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`733 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................53, 56
`
`TIP Sys. v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc.,
`529 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................15, 17
`
`United States v. Telectronics, Inc.,
`857 F.2d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................13
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................36
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................33, 46
`
`Wastow Enters., LLC v. Truckmovers.com, Inc.,
`855 F. App’x 748 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................8
`
`Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp.,
`122 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................37, 64
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c)(2) ..................................................................................................................12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Ed. (2012) ..............................................................................48
`
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2016) .............................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 10 of 82 PageID
`#: 4945
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Description
`Orca Security Ltd.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Wiz, Inc.’s Answering Claim Construction Brief
`Orca Security Ltd.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief
`Wiz, Inc.’s Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`Short Cite
`
`OOBr.
`WABr.
`ORBr.
`WSBr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 11 of 82 PageID
`#: 4946
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position
`
`Orca’s patented technology revolutionized cloud security. Before Orca’s inventions
`
`conventional wisdom led those in the field to adapt for the cloud environment traditional security
`
`tools designed for on-premise physical computers. In particular, these earlier efforts at cloud
`
`security used agents or network scanners extensively, leading to more expensive, less efficient,
`
`and less effective security in the cloud. Orca’s inventions introduced a new, ingenious approach
`
`that analyzed virtual cloud assets using their snapshots, which vastly improved visibility into a
`
`cloud environment, provided deeper and better results, and improved speed.
`
`After learning about Orca’s innovative new approach to cloud security, Wiz aggressively
`
`copied it. Unsurprisingly, Wiz’s copycat products infringe upon at least Orca’s six asserted patents
`
`in this action: U.S. Patent Numbers 11,663,031 (Ex. 1), 11,663,032 (Ex. 2), 11,693,685 (Ex. 3),
`
`11,726,809 (Ex. 4), 11,740,926 (Ex. 5), 11,775,326 (Ex. 6) (“Orca’s Asserted Patents”). Orca’s
`
`Asserted Patents each claim priority to the same provisional patent application filed in January
`
`2019, and share substantially similar specifications.
`
`Orca’s asserted claims1 use terminology with well-accepted meanings in the context of
`
`cloud security. Orca’s proposed constructions reflect those plain and ordinary meanings in the
`
`context of the specification and the prosecution history. Wiz, by contrast, attempts to contort the
`
`claims, interpreting them inconsistently with the intrinsic record to manufacture indefiniteness and
`
`transparent noninfringement positions in an effort to escape the consequences of infringing Orca’s
`
`patented inventions. The Court should reject Wiz’s constructions and adopt Orca’s.
`
`
`1 Orca asserts the following claims in this action: ’031 patent, cls. 1-16; ’032 patent, cls. 1-25;
`’685 patent, cls. 1-22; ’809 patent, cls. 1-23; ’926 patent, cls. 1-15; ’326 patent, cls. 1-28.
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 12 of 82 PageID
`#: 4947
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Defendant’s Answering Position
`
`Orca Security Ltd. (“Orca”) claims infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,663,031 (the “’031
`
`Patent”), 11,663,032 (the “’032 Patent”), 11,693,685 (the “’685 Patent”), 11,726,809 (the “’809
`
`Patent”), 11,740,926 (the “’926 Patent”), and 11,775,326 (the “’326 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Orca Asserted Patents”). All patents claim priority to the same application and are in the same
`
`patent family.2 Wiz Inc.’s (“Wiz”) clear, common-sense constructions should be adopted as they
`
`are anchored firmly in the intrinsic record, including the claim language itself.
`
`By contrast, Orca’s proposals are contrary to the understanding of one of ordinary skill and
`
`the intrinsic record. Moreover, all of Orca Asserted Patents are subject to petitions for inter partes
`
`review (IPR) at the PTO. In its recent preliminary patent owner responses (POPRs) to three IPR
`
`petitions, Orca has staked out fundamentally different views from those it asserts in this litigation.
`
`Put simply, Orca is attempting to have it both ways. Orca’s attempt to argue one thing to the Patent
`
`Office while arguing the opposite to this Court should be rejected. Amazon.com, Inc. v.
`
`Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose
`
`of wax,’ be twisted one way [for validity] and another to find infringement.”).3
`
`1.
`
`Recent IPR History of the Orca Asserted Patents
`
`Wiz has filed IPRs against each of the Orca Asserted Patents. See D.I. 80 (IPR2024-00863,
`
`IPR2024-00864, and IPR2024-00865), D.I. 110 (IPR2024-01109), D.I. 126 (IPR2024-01190 and
`
`IPR2024-01191). Because it informs many of the parties’ claim construction disputes, it is helpful
`
`
`2 While all of the Orca Asserted Patents claim priority to the same US Provisional Application
`62/797,718, there are two different base patent applications within the family. The ’031 Patent is
`a continuation of abandoned Application No. 16/750,556, while all the other Asserted Patents are
`continuations of Application No. 16/585,967. Therefore, the ’031 Patent has additional content
`in its specification than the other Orca Asserted Patents, which share a common specification.
`3 Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added and internal quotations and citations are omitted.
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 13 of 82 PageID
`#: 4948
`
`
`
`to review representations that Orca has affirmatively made as the Patent Owner to the Patent Office
`
`regarding the same terms of the Orca Asserted Patents at issue here.
`
`Wiz filed IPRs that included as a primary prior art reference a patent assigned to Amazon,
`
`filed on May 19, 2017 with the first named inventor Veselov (U.S. Patent No. 11,216,563
`
`(hereafter “Veselov”)). The petition explained how Veselov disclosed the same “agentless”
`
`security solution as that described in Orca’s Asserted Patents. Ex. 27. Faced with this invalidating
`
`prior art, which directly contradicts Orca’s narrative in this litigation, Orca filed POPRs arguing
`
`the scope of its claims narrowly. Orca made three arguments that are directly relevant to pending
`
`claim construction disputes.
`
`First, Orca argues at length as to what is—and is not—a snapshot in the context of the
`
`claims. E.g., Ex. 28 at 13 (an “instantiated VM is not a ‘snapshot’[.]”); see also id. at 44 (“POSAs
`
`would have known that VM images and VM snapshots are not the same”). All of Orca’s statements
`
`support Wiz’s proposed construction for “snapshot.” By contrast, Orca argues before this Court
`
`that snapshot is simply a “a copy of data,” which contradicts it prior arguments.
`
`Second, Orca argued that Veselov does not teach “analysis of snapshots.” This is a critical
`
`phrase that appears in every asserted claim in some form. Orca repeatedly argued that “‘analyzing
`
`the at least one snapshot’ encompass[es] analyzing the snapshot itself, but not VMs instantiated
`
`from a snapshot.” See Ex. 28 at 13 (citing to Kaeli Decl. (Ex. 29), ¶¶ 29-30); see also id. at 45
`
`(“analysis of a VM instantiated from a snapshot is not an analysis of a snapshot”). This directly
`
`supports Wiz’s proposed construction, which quotes Orca’s own statement to the PTO. But Orca
`
`now argues to this Court that the phrase can cover indirectly analyzing any “data about the
`
`snapshot,” again contrary to its own arguments. See infra at 64-65 (OOBr.).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 14 of 82 PageID
`#: 4949
`
`
`
`
`Third, certain claims require reporting results as alerts. Orca, in its POPRs, argued that
`
`reporting results and alerts are different. “[R]eporting results and reporting results ‘as alerts’ are
`
`different.” Ex. 28 at 47; see also id. (“reporting ‘assessment results’ and reporting detected
`
`vulnerabilities ‘as alerts’” are not equivalent). Orca now argues here that an “alert” can simply be
`
`a “report”—i.e., that reports and alerts are not different. See infra at 37 (OOBr.) (arguing “alerts”
`
`includes “reporting detected vulnerabilities to SIEM”).
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Position
`
`Wiz proposes constructions for terms in Orca’s asserted patents that deviate from the
`
`meanings persons of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe, improperly attempting to rewrite the
`
`claims to conjure non-infringement and indefiniteness positions and inviting legal error. Orca, in
`
`contrast, proposes constructions that are supported by the plain language of the asserted claims,
`
`consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic records, and faithful to the meanings skilled artisans
`
`would attribute to them. Orca respectfully requests that the Court adopt its proposed constructions.
`
`1.
`
`Recent IPR Proceedings Fail to Support Wiz’s Arguments and
`Proposed Constructions
`
`In much of its responsive brief, including its lead argument, Wiz eschews proper claim
`
`construction analysis. Instead, Wiz incorrectly characterizes statements Orca made to the USPTO
`
`while opposing Wiz’s petitions for inter partes review of Orca’s asserted patents, and then attacks
`
`those mischaracterizations. See, e.g., supra at 2-4 (WABr.); infra at 25-26, 38-39, 65-67 (WABr.).
`
`But Wiz’s assertions that Orca “staked out fundamentally different views” before the USPTO and
`
`thus is “attempting to have it both ways” are meritless.
`
`Specifically, Orca has not “contradict[ed] it[s] prior arguments” by “argu[ing] before this
`
`Court that [a] snapshot is simply [] ‘a copy of data.’” Supra at 3 (WABr.). That is not Orca’s
`
`position. As the asserted patents’ claims and specifications demonstrate, a “snapshot” is “a copy
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 202 Filed 11/22/24 Page 15 of 82 PageID
`#: 4950
`
`
`
`of data on a virtual disk (or disk file) at a given point in time.” Infra at 18-21 (OOBr.); infra
`
`Section II.B.3 (ORBr.). Similarly, there is no inconsistency between (i) Orca’s correct explanation
`
`in the IPR proceedings that skilled artisans would know an evaluation of a virtual machine is not
`
`an analysis of a snapshot just because that virtual machine was instantiated from a snapshot and
`
`(ii) Orca’s equally correct explanation that “indirect analysis of a snapshot,” for example, the
`
`analysis of “a copy of the snapshot or data about the snapshot,” may be an analysis of a snapshot.
`
`Infra at 64-65 (OOBr.). Indeed, the latter point comes directly from the claims. Id.; see also, e.g.,
`
`’809 patent at cl. 23 (“analyzing the snapshot … comprises analyzing the copy of the snapshot”);
`
`infra Section II.H.3 (ORBr.). And, Orca has not taken inconsistent positions on what constitutes
`
`an “alert”; it does not “now argue[] that an ‘alert’ can simply be a ‘report.’” Supra at 4 (WABr.).
`
`Rather, as Orca explained in IPR proceedings, and maintains here, “reporting results and reporting
`
`results ‘as alerts’ are different.” Ex. 28 (Orca’s Preliminary Response) at 47; Infra at 34-37
`
`(OOBr.); infra Section II.C.3 (ORBr.). The Court should reject Wiz’s attempts to manufacture
`
`inconsistencies in Orca’s positions before the USPTO and this Court where none exist.
`
`D.
`
`Defendant’s Sur-Reply Position
`
`Wiz demonstrated in its Answering Brief why its clear, common-sense constructions,
`
`which are anchored firmly in the intrinsic record, should be adopted. Orca’s Reply Brief, on the
`
`other hand, is notable for what it omits. In its Answering Brief, Wiz identified how Orca’s own
`
`cited evidence supported Wiz’s cons