Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`____________
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Held: January 9, 2020
`____________
`
`Before J. JOHN LEE, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA,
`and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JEFFREY D. BLAKE, ESQUIRE
`Merchant & Gould
`191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`and
`DANIEL M. MCDONALD, ESQUIRE
`Merchant & Gould
`150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JEFFREY PRICE, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY ENG, ESQUIRE
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, January
`
`9, 2020, commencing at 10:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`MR. EASTON: All rise.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Good morning. Take your seats. Give us a moment to
`
`power up and all of that. You know, I don't see Judge Pinkerton. I think
`Judge Pinkerton's been delayed for a couple of minutes, so let's give him a
`moment here. There he is. Judge Pinkerton, can you hear us okay?
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: I can.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Fantastic.
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: Can you hear me?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, we can.
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: Okay. Good morning.
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right; I think we can begin. This is the oral hearing
`for IPR2018-01513, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,560,077. We'll start with appearances by
`Counsel. Petitioner?
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Daniel
`McDonald. I'll be arguing today; with me is Jeffrey Blake.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Good morning.
`
`MR. PRICE: Good morning, Your Honor. Jeffrey Price; I will be
`arguing for the Patent Owner, and with me is Jeffrey Eng.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Just a few reminders before we start. Of
`course, Judge Pinkerton is attending remotely, so please make sure to speak
`into the microphone at the lectern to make sure he can hear you. And to the
`extent that you use visual aids, other than the demonstratives, please make
`sure to identify what you're talking about to make sure that he has the
`materials, he can follow along with you. Even with the demonstratives, we
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`would appreciate it for clarity of the record if you could identify the slide
`number or page number so that we can all follow along. So with that, unless
`there are any preliminary matters anyone wants to raise, Mr. McDonald, you
`can proceed when you're ready.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Thank you, Judge Lee. Good morning, Judge
`McNamara and Judge Pinkerton. I've got three copies of our demonstrative
`exhibits. Would you like me to hand those out?
`
`JUDGE LEE: Have you provided one to the court reporter?
`
`MR. MCDONALD: No, I have not.
`
`JUDGE LEE: I would ask that you'd provide one to the court
`reporter. I, personally, don't need a copy.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: I'll comply with that. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: Judge Lee, I'm not sure his microphone is on.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Can you make sure your microphone light is on.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: I didn't see a light.
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: Because I can't hear him either.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: How's that? Is that better?
`
`JUDGE PINKERTON: Much better. Thank you very much.
`
`JUDGE LEE: And also, Mr. McDonald, before we proceed, are you
`going to be reserving time for rebuttal?
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Ten minutes, please. Our understanding is we've
`got 45, total, is that right?
`
`JUDGE LEE: That's right. Both sides have 45 minutes of total
`argument time.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: All right; thank you. So I'll be referring to the
`Petitioner's slides, and then for the actual exhibits, the evidence, I'll refer to
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`Exhibit 1001, which is the '077 Patent; Exhibit 1008, which is the -- I'll call
`it the Jungck reference at the risk of self-deprivation, we'll pronounce the J;
`and some reference to the Rogers declaration, Exhibit 2016, as well. Those
`will be the ones we'll be putting up on the screen anyway.
`
`So here we have, with the '077 Patent, a little different claiming than
`in some of the other ones we've been talking about over the last few weeks.
`So we'll put up slide 1 which is the first several elements of claim 1 of the
`'077. That claim, everyone has agreed, is representative here. There's a
`claims 1, 7, and 13 that are all independent but are different forms of,
`essentially, the same substantive claim elements. And so we'll be talking, as
`did the briefing, primarily, about claim 1 today.
`
`So here we've got a method about provisioning each of a plurality of
`devices with one or more rules generated based on a boundary, basically,
`between networks. I'll talk about the details more a little later; but, certainly,
`the rules generated based on a boundary is an issue either we maybe have
`not talked about as much in some of the other matters. Also, this indicates
`that the devices configured to be located at that boundary area, essentially.
`
`And then the configuring step, each device receives packets via a
`communication interface on the device that does not have a network layer
`address; and this one also has a provision that's responsive to a
`determination drop. The packets, which is something we've talked about a
`fair amount in the other matters; and then if we go to slide 5, which has the
`final element of this claim, this is the modifying a switching matrix of a
`Local Area Network switch associated with the device that's configured to
`drop the portion of the packets there indicated that should be dropped which,
`again, dropping packets we've talked about before but not in the context of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`this LAN switch and switching matrix configuration. So, we'll be zeroing a
`lot on those unique elements here.
`
`And we rely, of course, on the Jungck reference as we have for many
`of the other IPRs in this family of patents as our reference for obviousness
`under 103. But before getting into the element-by-element analysis, and
`based on the prehearing conference we had a few days ago, I'll start with the
`objective indicia issue on the effect of the Fox Factory case on the analysis
`here, given our specific situation with the many patents involved.
`
`So, Fox Factory, in essence, that was a case that somewhat good
`timing, the prior hearing we were at was on December 18th with the 2018-
`01512 IPR matter regarding the '213 Patent; and I believe there were some
`specific questions at that hearing about what should we do if there are
`multiple patents. Is there some guidance in the case law as to how we
`should approach that? And somebody must have rubbed a genie bottle
`because on December 18th, that same day is the day that Fox Factory case
`came out, which does answer a lot of these questions.
`
`And so in looking at Fox Factory and the prior briefing, I think it fully
`reinforces what we already showed way back in the prior briefing that there's
`a glaring omission in all of the Patent Owner's objective evidence, and that's
`the lack of a nexus between the claims and the evidence. The Fox Factory
`case -- I'll give a cite here. It's 2019 U.S. App LEXUS 37. It's a Federal
`Circuit precedential opinion that involved two patents in that case. Here
`we've got several more than that, but the principles will still apply with
`multiple patents being involved in both situations.
`
`So we've always contended that the Patent Owner needed to show
`more than it did to establish the nexus, especially because multiple patents
`were involved. And we had actually cited the Brown & Williamson case in
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`our reply brief at page 23 for requiring both that there's a showing by the
`Patent Owner that the product at issue embodies the claimed invention,
`number (1); and number (2), that the product is coextensive with the claim.
`And the Patent Owner disagreed that they really had to show element-by-
`element that it was embodied in the claim invention; and they really ignore
`that second element about coextensive completely in their sur-reply.
`
`So Fox Factory not only cited Brown & Williamson, but it really
`embraced what it taught there, and further shed more light on this
`coextensive requirement, especially in the context where you have multiple
`patents involved. Here, there's certainly the primary analysis and the
`relevant analysis because the Patent Owner, in its response at page 38, did
`contend that they get the benefit of a presumption of the nexus. That's what
`these cases are about. What are the circumstances under which you would
`get that presumption of a nexus?
`
`And so, Fox Factory states that the nexus cannot be presumed unless
`the evidence is tied to a specific product and the patentee (1) demonstrates
`the product is essentially the claimed invention -- that's at Star 15 of the
`case; and then in addition to that, if the product has additional unclaimed
`features that are more than insignificant -- I can shorthand that to just
`significant features -- then, again, the nexus cannot be presumed even if
`there is a showing of an element-by-element analysis that the invention is
`embodied by the product. So you need two things. One is show that it's the
`claimed invention, and two, show that there aren't other important features
`that would defeat that presumption because those could have been the
`alternative reasons why there was commercial success or why there was
`licensing, and so forth.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`So, we show that Patent Owner didn't even attempt the element-by-
`element analysis for prong #1, and they didn't attempt anything with respect
`to the co-extensivity (phonetic) requirements. So for either of those reasons,
`you find a lack of nexus here, and really should disregard all of the
`purported objective evidence.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. McDonald the coextensive requirement in Fox
`Factory, it, certainly, seems clear to me that it applies to whether or not the
`presumption of a nexus applies, but what about after that? It states in that
`case that even when there is no presumption of nexus, an opportunity is
`afforded the Patent Owner to prove the nexus, nonetheless. So what about
`that?
`MR. MCDONALD: Yeah. They could have come in with direct
`
`evidence -- I think is how Fox Factory talks about it in terms of here are the
`reasons why this was commercially successful. Those reasons tied to this
`specific claim of this specific patent, and that other patent has other features;
`and so, that other patent doesn't have that feature X in its claims. So, you
`know, we can meet the requirements here embodied by the claims in
`showing that there aren't other factors that could be responsible for the
`success.
`
`And there's just no effort here though on the Patent Owner's behalf to
`make that alternative showing. They relied entirely on a presumption, and
`even there was a very conclusory analysis both in their supporting
`declarations and in their briefings. So there's really, I don't think they're
`even contending that they have made any sort of effort to show. They
`certainly didn't go on record trying to show that they were using an
`alternative path to nexus from the presumption.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`So, when we look at those alternative features here in the context of
`other patents, another key finding in the Fox Factory case is when the
`product at issue is the subject of other patents, and if there're different
`features that are claimed in those other patents, those other features are,
`essentially, presumed to be significant that could be alternative reasons for
`the excess, etc. So, if there are other patents that have other claim elements
`not in the claims at issue here, again, that presumption of nexus would be
`defeated.
`
`And so, here, it's pretty easy to see how that presumption is defeated
`by the other patents. If we even take a look at the last patent -- at least I was
`in the room with Your Honors to talk about the Patent No. 9,565,213 that we
`talked about back on December 18th of last year. Let's take a look at, you
`know, the evidence we've got here, actually, for the '077 Patent that purports
`to provide some evidence of the nexus and the success, is the Rogers
`declaration, which is Exhibit 2016 in this matter; and I want to make that
`really clear. This was Exhibit 2016 in the present matter here, which is IPR
`No. 2018-01513. But Exhibit 2016, you'll see here on the cover page, it
`doesn't refer to IPR 1513. It doesn't refer to the '077 Patent.
`
`We've double-checked here, actually, when we noticed this. Was
`there some accident here? There was no accident. This was simply a
`declaration that Mr. Rogers, one of the inventors, provided for another
`patent, the '213 Patent. But they just photocopied it and submitted it again
`for the '077 without even mentioning the '077 on the cover page. So that's a
`telltale sign number (1), but when we look into the substance of it, if we
`looked, for example, in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, the only patent, Exhibit 2016,
`in this IPR talks about is the '213 Patent, that talks about how that
`RuleGATE System that's the subject of the purported success embodies the
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`technology disclosed in the '213 Patent. And they've sold systems
`embodying the '213 Patent, etc.
`
`And so, it's all about the '213 Patent. So what this declaration actually
`does is that it does the exact opposite of what the Patent Owner wanted it to
`do. It actually establishes the lack of a nexus and, in fact, that the success or
`whatever evidence they have is presumptively not attributed to the '077
`Patent. But there are, certainly, some differences in the claims. The '213
`Patent, you may recall, recites very specific aspects of a patent digest
`logging function that's nowhere to be found in the '077 claims; and it also
`talks about routing packets to a monitoring device. Again, which is nowhere
`to be found in the '077 Patent.
`
`And so, we've got these additional elements so there's no co-
`extensivity there. And these additional elements, they're in a patent, and
`they're presumptively then defeating the nexus right there. But, moreover,
`their own inventor admits that it's actually that other patent that's the reason
`for the success, etc. So really there's far short of a presumption of a nexus
`here; and, in fact, it's completely defeated by all of the Patent Owner's own
`evidence here.
`
`And there's no other showing to your question, Judge Lee, there's no
`other showing of a direct link of any sort between the products involved, or
`the licenses and the claimed features. There was some reference to a
`license; but their own quote of the annual report from Keysight, who took
`the license, talks about a worldwide license for the entire portfolio having
`Centripetal patents. That would include the '213 Patent that we just talked
`about. It would include the '205 Patent that's been involved with some other
`IPRs as well, but there's many other patents in that portfolio; and it's a very
`conclusory -- they just cite an annual report.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`There's no declaration, no expert declaration that even purports to, at a
`conclusory level, tie any of the claims of the '077 Patent to the success of the
`license. They simply cited the Keysight Annual Report which says we took
`a license to this whole portfolio. Well, all that certainly fails this two-
`pronged test that the Fox Factory case really developed in the situation of
`multiple patents. So, with that, I think, that answers most of these new
`questions. I guess I'll call them on what's the impact of Fox Factory and
`also pretty much deals with the objective evidence.
`
`So, I'm now going to turn to the specific element arguments. I'm
`going to use kind of as my structure here the sur-reply of the Patent Owner.
`They had six points regarding the elements, and I'm going to take 1 and 2
`and put those together; then 3 and 4 and put those together; and 5 and 6 and
`put those together because they pair up pretty well that way because I say
`pretty much the same things about each of those individual members of
`those pairs anyway.
`
`So, if we start with the first pair, it goes to whether Jungck describes a
`network protected by a plurality of devices; it does; and whether the devices
`in Jungck are at the boundaries between the protected network and the other
`networks. So if we put up slide 2, this relates to the provisioning element
`that we've got up on the screen now of claim 1 of the '077 Patent that talks
`about the provisioning each device of a plurality of devices with rules based
`on a boundary of a network protected by the plurality of devices. So, that's
`part of the language we're talking about right now in the third line here; and
`then at the end it talks about the network and the other networks that were
`the boundaries between at which the device is configured to be located.
`
`So, with respect to this, we showed in our petition and continue to rely
`on this in our reply, that what is Jungck really talking about is it protecting;
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`and that's in figure 1 that's in our slide 10 -- if we can put that up there.
`Figure 1 of Jungck shows you this network. You have a pretty big black
`oval drawing there in the upper-right portion of figure 1, and it's got the
`word network in it; and that network has got that 100 web-like series of dots,
`and then Servers 108, 110, and then 112 is server N, which I think indicates
`it could be any number of servers, you know, one, two, more than two
`within that oval. And then around that oval you've got a cloud-like area
`which Jungck calls the Edge 124, which is kind of puffy looking; and then in
`the upper-left at about 10 o'clock there you have an example of where the
`client end is at the Point of Presence or POPs, 116, 118, with a circle there;
`and that circle overlaps then with the edge of this network that's in this big
`oval that includes both 100 and the servers.
`
`And Jungck states that this figure 1 is applicable to all of the
`embodiments that are in Jungck. So it certainly applies to 3, 4, and 5 that we
`have talked about throughout our papers; and the key thing here is that it
`shows that the servers, 108, 110, etc. and the Network 100 make up the
`network that has that edge or boundary -- edge and boundary are pretty
`much synonymous here.
`
`So then if we go to slide 11, we'll look at the third embodiment of
`Jungck which places the edge servers, which are what we're contending
`correspond to the claimed devices, right in that same area. You don't have
`the puffy cloud here anymore, but if you see to the right, it's smaller here,
`but you still have that Network 100 on the right that connects with Server 1
`and Server 2, at 108 and 110. Those three things together correspond to
`what we just saw in figure 1 as the network that has that edge.
`
`And so, if you draw that puffy cloud around those three things, it
`shows up right where that Edge Server, 602A, and Edge Server 602B are
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`located. They are at that boundary between the network that combine 100,
`108, and 110, and then other networks such as these clients. So, the patent
`does indicate that these clients can include things like a private network.
`That's at paragraph, I believe, it's 39 of Jungck. So, it's between slides 10
`and 11. You can really see how the edge server is placed right at the
`boundary between the protected network and other networks.
`
`Now, they contend that it's not at the edge server boundary because
`they're not at Server 108, and that presumes that the network, I believe, just
`ends at 108 like 108, itself, is the sole protected network; but as we just
`showed from figure 1 here that's not the case. It also includes that
`infrastructure that's represented by 100. Moreover, when you read Jungck in
`its words, as well, that certainly supports the visuals here where it talks
`throughout that these packet interceptor devices like that edge server are
`located at boundaries or edges of the network. And we see that, for
`example, in Jungck at paragraph 0127 where it's talking about the system
`700, which is the fourth embodiment. And we'll put up the figure for that
`one as well at some point; but, at 127, it talks about how that system
`includes a router and a packet interceptor adapter, 720. That's what is
`corresponding to the device as claimed for the fourth embodiment, coupled
`with the router. It says here that router, 702, may be located within an ISP
`located at the edge of a Network 100. So, that's really the exact same place I
`was showing from the prior two slides, from the figure 1 and then figure 6.
`
`Now, it talks about how, here in that paragraph as well, if you go
`down about six lines, alternatively the Network 100 can be a private intranet
`or extranet as described above. This really talked throughout Jungck that the
`Network 100 does not have to be the Internet.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`
`Also, if we could go to 116, it talks about how those edge servers can
`be located at every major network intersection. So, this -- I'm putting this up
`because really -- that's 116, again, from Jungck -- Jungck doesn't teach
`limitations on where you would use these edge servers. Really throughout
`Jungck, what it teaches one of ordinary skill is that these devices are very
`versatile devices and they can perform a variety of functions that could be
`beneficial at a variety of locations. And so, the Patent Owner contends that
`there's some direction in Jungck -- oh, it only use these devices in certain
`places; but that's not really what Jungck teaches at all. This 116 is a good
`example of that. So, Jungck does, going back to their sur-reply brief and
`number (1), we've got Jungck teaches a plurality of devices located at a
`boundary between the protected network and other networks.
`
`So, now, we'll turn to the second issue which they tie to the first one
`which is do those edge devices protect networks. But, basically, because it
`doesn't, it doesn't meet either that second point because that's a requirement
`of the claims and, also, it can't be at a boundary because how can it be at a
`boundary of a protected network if there isn't a protected network. So, they
`make that argument twice in a sense; so, I'll deal with it once.
`
`So, their contention, really at its core, they're saying Jungck protects
`only individual servers and not networks. And so, as they put in their sur-
`reply at page 3, it's vulnerable to attacks by non-subscribing servers located
`within the same network as the subscribing servers. But Jungck doesn't
`teach that. It, actually, has other examples that clearly indicate it's going to
`be protecting all the subscribers in a network.
`
`If we return to slide 11, for example, that's this figure 6 embodiment
`which, again, has that 100 with Server 108 and 110 to the right; and we saw
`before with figure 1 in the depiction 1-1, that that's a network right there.
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`That can be a network when you have -- you can have up to N servers but,
`certainly, it's going to include at least a version where you have two servers,
`such as 108 and 110, and then that network infrastructure 100.
`
`And if we look at paragraph 112 of Jungck, it teaches in the context of
`this figure what's really going on here. So, it starts off about it's enhancing
`security. So, obviously, we're talking about some form of protecting
`something anyway. And it refers to both of those Edge Servers 602A and
`604A in the first couple of lines, and then if you go to the second sense --
`that begins in the fifth line of 112 -- it says "in this way only trusted
`communications over secured communication links can reach the Servers
`108 and 110." So, this is referring in that figure 6 embodiment, you've only
`got two servers in there. And these edge servers are providing secure links
`to both of those servers. All servers in that particular example network are
`being protected by the edge devices. And then you go on, it continues to
`talk about security with these multiple edge servers, ensures that the
`subscribing servers, 108 and 110 -- again, both of them in this example, all
`of them -- will be able to serve their content under high demand and despite
`security threats. So, certainly, Jungck is teaching that these edge servers are
`protecting not just the single server but a network of devices that will
`include all servers, at least as one option, all servers in a network.
`
`So, this parallels pretty nicely here what the claims talk about because
`to the extent the Patent Owner suggested well, no, you have to show that one
`device all by itself protects the whole network, that's not really what the
`claims are talking about. So, if we go to -- actually, let's go to slide 2 which
`has the provisioning element of our demonstratives.
`
`So, here it's got provisioning each device of a plurality with one or
`more generally based on a boundary of a network protected by the plurality
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`of devices. So, claim 1 contemplates and, in fact, requires a plurality. It
`requires multiple devices to be protecting the network. So, there's certainly
`this indication that one devices does not have to do it all by itself. So, what
`Jungck teaches is very consistent with claim 1 of the '077.
`
`There's other teachings in Jungck that teach that you have a
`multiplicity of edge servers which work together to protect the network. Dr.
`Jeffay cites a number of those. I'll cite just one example, in 116 of Jungck,
`paragraph 0116.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Mr. McDonald.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Yes.
`
`JUDGE LEE: It seems to me that although neither party's submitted
`an explicit claim construction of what exactly means to be protected by a
`plurality of devices, what is your position? What is Petitioner's position on
`what is required to be protected by the plurality of devices? It just seems to
`me that perhaps the parties have different views on that.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: You know, I'm not sure which definition of that
`wouldn't be included with why I just start with Jungck because it's complete.
`I mean because I because it's -- at least, everybody agrees it's got to be
`multiple devices in claim 1 -- I think I've shown complete protection of a
`network with at least two devices in that figure 6 embodiment. So, I'll start
`there; but if we go from there and just what does protected mean. I think
`protected means, you know -- I don't know if I can do it quite on the fly --
`but, I think, it provides security, you know, in terms of limiting traffic into
`the device that could be malicious. That's at its core. I'm not sure of my
`wording, but that's the concept, I think, that's involved here.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Do you understand Patent Owner's position to be same
`or different from that? It seems to me that they may have a narrower view -
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`- and, of course, I'm going to ask Mr. Price this when he's up at the podium -
`- but they seem to have a narrower view of what exactly protection of a
`network involves. Do you understand that as well?
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Well, I guess, I would see a presumption or
`implicit in their argument that there is a narrowing aspect of that that would
`be, for example, that one device has to provide complete protection of the
`entire network. I, certainly, see some of their arguments anyway seem to
`presume that; and that I don't think is commensurate with the claims.
`Regardless of how you define protected, you've got that plurality issue
`clearly in claim 1. But even protected, I don't think it means that the devices
`can't be protected, perhaps, in other ways. I think, you know, it provides
`protection, but it doesn't have to be the sole means of protection of the
`network.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Is there anything in the intrinsic record of the '077
`Patent that can give us some guideposts on that as to what exactly these
`plurality of devices have to do to "protect" a network.
`
`MR. MCDONALD: Well, it does talk about implementing rules; and
`so, it's got that concept of looking for criterion packets; but I don't think
`there's any indication that there might not be alternative ways that the
`devices in the network that's being protected could be protected. This is a
`specific form of protection, certainly, evaluating packets that come through
`looking at whether they meet certain criteria, and either letting them come
`through or not letting them through, or taking other action depending on
`what criteria are met. So, that's certainly a form of protection, but I don't
`think it's teaching that is the sole form of protection.
`
`So, what we have is 116 up there. So, this, again, talks about a
`network of edge servers, so a multiple devices corresponding to claim 1, and
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2018-01513
`Patent 9,560,077 B2
`then at about the fourth line, that network forms a security barrier which
`isolates the core infrastructure and servers. And so, isolates is a nice word --
`it related to your question, Your Honor, because even if we assumed a very
`restricted definition of protected, a network protected by the plurality of
`devices, isolation seems to be pretty far at the one end of the absolute
`spectrum on your protection level here. You know, they say isolation isn't
`about that, but you can see here it forms a security barrier which isolates the
`core infrastructure and servers. So, obviously, it is tied to protection and
`security. Those two words are essentially synonymous in this context. It's a
`security barrier that isolates that.
`
`And by isolates, what it's talking about is we're not letting any other
`traffic get in any other way. It's got to go through our gatekeeper, sort to
`speak. So, that way we know there is no traffic that's reaching that core
`infrastructure and servers that does not pass through our web or network of
`edge servers. And so, that's very comprehensive protection, I think, in the
`form of at least evaluating packets for possible malicious i