Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 29
`Entered: November 22, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BITGLASS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2022
`
`
`Before JAMES J. MAYBERRY, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper # 29
`Entered: November 22, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`NETSKOPE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BITGLASS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 19, 2022
`
`
`Before JAMES J. MAYBERRY, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`
`
`
`
`BEN YORKS, ESQUIRE
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`Dion Messer, Chad Hanson
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`September 19, 2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`TOM MILLIKAN, ESQUIRE
`BABAK TEHRANCHI, ESQUIRE
`ANDREW N. KLEIN, ESQUIRE
`KYLE R. CANAVERA, ESQUIRE
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE TROCK: So good day, everyone. I'm
`Judge Trock. With me on the panel today are Judges Mayberry
`and McShane.
` We're here today in a consolidated hearing for
`IPR2021-01045, U.S. Patent No. 10,757,090, and PGR2021-00091,
`U.S. Patent No. 10,855,671. The case is Netskope,
`Incorporated, versus Bitglass, Incorporated.
` Counsel, if you are here today, will you, please,
`make your appearances, starting with Petitioner.
` MR. MILLIKAN: Good day, everyone. My name's
`Tom Millikan. I represent Netskope, the Petitioner. Along
`with me are Babak Tehranchi, Andrew Klein, and Kyle Canavera.
`Also with us on the public line is Dion Messer, in-house
`counsel for Netskope.
` Andrew -- our intention, Your Honor, is for
`Andrew Klein to present on the '671, Kyle Canavera to present
`on the '090.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Good day, Counsel. Glad to have
`you all here.
` Patent Owner, could you make your appearances.
` MR. YORKS: Yeah. This is Ben Yorks of
`Irell & Manella for Patent Owner Bitglass, and I believe
`Chad Hanson, in-house counsel for Bitglass, is on the public
`line.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Good day, Mr. Yorks.
` All right. We have a court reporter today. She'll
`be taking down the hearing for the transcript. She may have
`some questions with respect to some spellings. So if that's
`the case, at the end of the hearing today, if counsel could
`all just stay on the line for a while so that the court
`reporter can have that discussion with you and get
`that information, that'd be really helpful.
` So with this telephone conference today, thank you
`for appearing and thank you for your flexibility.
` We first want to let you know that our primary
`concern here is your right to be heard. If at any time
`during the proceeding you have a technical or other
`difficulty that's undermining your ability to represent your
`client, let us know right away, for example, contacting one
`of the team members who gave you the connection information.
` Second, when you're not speaking, if you could mute
`yourself, that would be very helpful to the others here so
`that we don't have any interference.
` Third, every time you speak, if you could identify
`yourself for the record. That helps the court reporter
`prepare an accurate transcript.
` And, fourth, we've got your record. We've got all
`your demonstratives. So when you refer to the papers, the
`exhibits, the demonstratives, please do so clearly,
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`explicitly by either slide number, page number. Also, give
`us a few seconds after you identify it so that we can find it
`and we can follow along with you. That'll help also prepare
`for the transcript.
` Please also be aware that members of the public may
`be listening to this oral hearing.
` Does counsel have any questions before we get
`started?
` MR. MILLIKAN: No, Your Honors.
` MR. YORKS: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Thank you. All right.
` So for the hearing order today, we had a total of one
`hour per side to represent your cases.
` Counsel for Petitioner, you're going to go first,
`followed by counsel for Patent Owner. Would you like to
`reserve any time, Petitioner, for rebuttal?
` MR. MILLIKAN: Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to reserve
`30 minutes for rebuttal. And we were planning to present the
`'671 and '090 and then allow Patent Owner to respond, but
`we'd be happy to proceed in whatever order the Board prefers.
` JUDGE TROCK: Patent Owner, is that okay with you?
` MR. YORKS: Sure. We'd like to reserve 15 minutes,
`sur-rebuttal.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. All right.
` MR. YORKS: Thank you.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` JUDGE TROCK: So -- thank you.
` So before we begin, I just wanted to address
`the counsel for a second on an issue that we've been
`considering with respect to the cases, and I'd like you each
`to address this during the time period of your hearing, and
`that is the issue of either claim construction or plain and
`ordinary meaning.
` You can correct me if I'm mistaken with respect to
`the record, but it appears from the record that neither party
`believes that claim construction is necessary in these two
`cases and that you're both relying on the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the terms that are in the claims. Is that
`correct, Counsel?
` MR. MILLIKAN: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. YORKS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. With respect to that, then,
`there does still appear to be some disagreement amongst the
`parties as to what certain terms in the claims mean or what
`their scope may be.
` So with respect to that, I'd like both sides to
`address the issue of claim construction and whether it's
`necessary, and if it's not necessary, if we're going to rely
`on plain and ordinary meaning, what is the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the terms in the claims that appear to be in
`dispute with respect to their scope or their meaning?
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` Specifically, the terms that I've come across that
`there does not appear to be agreement on are, what is
`a single-sign-on with respect to a single-sign-on request and
`a single-sign-on validation? And then also, what is the
`cloud?
` So if you could address those terms with respect to
`construction or plain and ordinary meaning and provide for us
`what the parties believe are the meanings of
`these terms and also cite to the evidence that you have for
`that during you presentations, that would be most helpful to
`the panel.
` Any questions on that, Counsel, before we start the
`hearing?
` MR. MILLIKAN: No, Your Honor. Thank you for the
`guidance.
` MR. YORKS: No, Your Honor. We'll address those in
`our presentation.
` JUDGE TROCK: Okay. Great. So then we're going to
`start with Petitioner first. And you've reserved 30 minutes
`for rebuttal, so you have 30 minutes to make your
`presentation. You may begin.
` ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
` MR. KLEIN: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it
`please the Court. Andrew Klein on behalf of Petitioner
`Netskope, Inc. I'm going to be talking about the '671 patent
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`today.
` Rather than go through each element of each ground,
`we wanted to focus on the primary disputes between the
`parties.
` And I will go ahead and share our demonstratives.
`Can Your Honors see that?
` JUDGE TROCK: Yes.
` MR. KLEIN: Wonderful.
` So here's an overview of the three grounds I'm going
`to address today. So the first is Kahol and Parla. The
`second ground is Sarukkai and Rowley, and the third ground is
`Cronk and Woelfel.
` And for each of these grounds, there's really only
`one or two disputes between the parties, and those are what
`I'm going to focus on today, starting with Kahol and Parla.
` Kahol and Parla is really a ground about written
`description, whether Kahol, which is the parent of the '671
`patent, and Parla are prior art to the '671 patent because of
`a written description issue such that the '671 patent can't
`rightfully claim priority to its parent application. And
`there's no dispute that if the Board finds Kahol and Parla as
`prior art that they satisfy all claim limitations of the
`challenged claims. Patent Owner does not dispute the merits
`of whether those limitations are disclosed from Kahol and
`Parla.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` And on the written description issue, I'd like to
`make three points.
` The first is that there is no dispute that there is
`no single embodiment that discloses all elements of Claims 1
`or 9. And for purposes of this presentation today, I'm going
`to focus on Claim 1 just for simplicity, but the arguments
`would apply equally to Claim 9.
` And there's also no dispute that there is no
`disclosure in the specification that the inventor's
`contemplating -- contemplating combining various disclosures
`to form the challenged claims. And here from the
`presentation on slide number 4, we have Claim 1, and we've
`got the elements highlighted here: Element 1[a][ii],
`Element 1[a][iii], Element 1[b][ii], and Element 1[c][ii].
`And in the Petition, we explained that those four elements
`lack written description support in Figure 11.
` Now, transition to slide 5, and we see Claim 1
`juxtaposed to Figure 11, and we explained how Figure 11 is
`the Figure that maps closest to the claims because of the
`terminology used and the process flow. And so a person of
`ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 11, because it
`maps closest to the claims, would see that these four
`elements that we've highlighted here on slide 5 lack written
`description support. And there's no dispute that those four
`elements lack written description support in Figure 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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` And this brings me to --
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: Excuse me, Counsel.
` MR. KLEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: This is Judge Mayberry. Could I ask
`you a question.
` MR. KLEIN: Please.
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: Can -- setting aside the precise
`terminology, can you map the subject matter of Claim 1 to
`Figure 3B of the '671 patent?
` MR. KLEIN: 3B standing alone to all of the elements
`of Claim 1?
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: That's correct.
` MR. KLEIN: No, Your Honor. And that's because there
`are, for example, a couple of terms -- here I'll just
`highlight a couple of things, for example -- that are not
`found in Figure 3B.
` And, for example, we have an assertion, and this is
`identified in Element 1[b][ii], where the identity provider
`needs to provide a valid identification assertion back to the
`user device. There's no disclosure in Figure 3B about a
`valid identification assertion.
` And there are other elements in Figure 3B that don't
`map to the claim elements, and Patent Owner has not asserted
`that Figure 3B maps to the other elements that we haven't
`highlighted in the Petition. So, for example, 1[a][i],
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`1[b][i], or 1[c][i], Patent Owner hasn't shown those elements
`are in Figure 3B.
` So because Figure 11 is missing these particular
`elements -- this brings me to my second point here and
`turning to slide 6 -- Patent Owner then transitions to
`instead of applying a written description analysis into
`applying an obviousness analysis.
` And this is an example of an excerpt from
`Patent Owner's papers where Patent Owner states, a POSITA
`would have understood, and then it goes on to state that, The
`embodiments within the proxy routing section could be
`combined into various embodiments because they're -- because
`they're purportedly related.
` But this is a tell. There's nothing in the
`disclosure, nothing in the written description about the
`named inventors contemplating picking and pulling disclosures
`about Figure 11 and Figure 3B into a jigsaw puzzle of a claim
`element.
` And Patent Owner's papers are littered with other
`tells to show when they are about to start filling in gaps
`using the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`and here are just a few exemplary snippets from
`Patent Owner's papers about a POSITA having understood that
`things could be combined, that things could be pulled from
`this figure and that figure. And, again, that's obviousness;
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`that's not written description.
` JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, this is Judge Trock.
` So you've changed slides. So just to remind you,
`when you are going to address a different slide, please state
`the slide number for the record.
` MR. KLEIN: Apologies, Your Honor. I'll do that.
` JUDGE TROCK: It's okay.
` MR. KLEIN: So now we're on slide 7. This is the
`slide I've been talking about.
` And we cited case law in our papers that repeatedly
`denounced doing this exact thing. Written description is
`looking at what the inventors disclosed as their invention,
`not what a person of ordinary skill in the art would find
`obvious. And this isn't a case where there's maybe a single
`embodiment and an alternate embodiment being combined to form
`the challenged claims.
` If we turn here now to slide 8, Patent Owner combines
`disclosures from at least five different embodiments into a
`jigsaw puzzle. It's not as if these embodiments are being
`combined seriatim where you've got one embodiment, then the
`other one tags along, or combining them in a way that makes
`sense timing-wise.
` Patent Owner is picking and pulling different
`disclosures from different figures and gluing them together
`into a jigsaw puzzle to form the challenged claim. And,
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`again, that's obviousness. There's nothing in the written
`description that the named inventor's contemplating --
`contemplated making that combination.
` And this brings me to my third point -- and
`transitioning now to slide 9 -- is Patent Owner's lone
`justification for combining disclosures is that an identity
`provider, which is a term used in connection with Figure 11,
`and a central directory, which is a term used in connection
`with Figure 3B, are basically the same, but that's flawed.
` So, for starters, again, this is written description,
`so we look at what the inventors contemplated as their
`invention, and this is from here on slide 9. We're looking
`at paragraph 6 from the '989 application, which is the parent
`to the '671, and this particular excerpt says that like
`reference numerals refer to similar elements.
` Well, if we turn to Figure 10 -- or, sorry, to
`slide 10, we've juxtaposed Figure 3B and Figure 11. And the
`central directory has a completely different reference
`numeral from the identity provider. The centralized
`directory is assigned numeral 308, while the identity
`provider is given numeral 1105; those are entirely reference
`numerals. And there are other --
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: Excuse me, Counsel. Judge Mayberry,
`again, if I may interrupt you.
` I do understand the point you're making here, but
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`wouldn't you agree that the role that the central directory
`plays in the embodiment of Figure 3B and the role that the
`identity provider plays in the embodiment of Figure 11 are
`essentially the same? Aren't they authenticating
`credentials?
` MR. KLEIN: No, Your Honor. They're completely
`different architectures. I mean, if we abstract out the role
`as simply authenticating a user, then possibly, but that's
`not exactly what the role is of the central directory and
`identity provider even as disclosed in the specification. So
`the roles are different, and I'll turn to that right now.
` Sorry, Your Honor. Going back to slide 10, a couple
`other differences here between Figure 3B and Figure 11 is if
`you look in step three, it says that the user logs in to the
`directory. Okay?
` JUDGE TROCK: Counsel, before you start down this, I
`just had a question.
` You're comparing here Figures 3B and Figure 11. So
`you point out that the central directory has a number
`associated with it, 308, and that the identity provider has a
`number associated with it, which is 1105 from
`Figure 11. Aren't those different numbers just an artifact
`of the figure that's being discussed here?
` The numbers being used on Figure 3 all
`start mostly with a 3 when they're describing the different
`
`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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`-- whether it's a centralized directory as 308, or step four
`as 312, step three as 311, and so on, and then when you get
`to Figure 11, we have these different entities up at the top,
`1101, 1102, 1103, and then 1105. Isn't that just an artifact
`of the numbering on the figures?
` MR. KLEIN: Well, no, Your Honor, for a few reasons.
` The first is, as some patents do and as Figure 3B
`does, you make related figures that are just very based on
`having a letter attached. So this is Figure 3B. There could
`be a Figure 3C for an alternative embodiment, Figure 3D,
`etcetera. But these are light -- are light years apart.
`There's Figure 3B, and then there's eight figures in between
`them going all the way to Figure 11.
` And I'll also point out, Your Honor, that the
`terminology is different. This isn't just the reference
`numerals being different. One says centralized directory;
`the other one says identity provider. One says content
`browser 307; the other one says user agent. So the
`terminology is entirely different, and this goes to the
`second point is that the architectures for centralized
`directory and IdP are completely different.
` And going back to Figure 11, for example,
`Your Honors, in the process diagram, when the user is going
`to the IdP, it says that the IdP authenticates the user.
`That's very specific terminology for SAML-type
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`authentication. That is not used in connection with
`Figure 3B. An assertion is created in Figure 11, which,
`again, relates to SAML authentication. That term does not
`appear in connection with Figure 3B. Those show that these
`are completely different architectures, and the specification
`has additional statements.
` So this is from paragraph 39 in the specification
`where the inventors are describing a central directory being
`related to a company: And delegation -- and we're talking
`about slide 11 here -- and delegation to a central directory
`is useful in a corporation.
` So a central directory is really used for solo
`enterprises; whereas, an identity provider is for two or more
`autonomous organizations. And this is the Patent Owner's --
`the applicant himself describing that fact.
` And then if we look at -- sorry, Your Honors -- if we
`look at the next slide, slide 12, this is a statement from
`Patent Owner recognizing that the company started with a
`central directory, and then they migrated to a federated SSO,
`showing again that the architectures are different.
` Dr. Franz, Netskope's expert, emphasizes that these
`are completely different architectures, that two or more
`autonomous organizations wouldn't use a centralized directory
`because if you use a centralized directory for two or more
`organizations, you have one place where both companies are
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`housing their user names and passwords, so Netflix and Hulu,
`for example, would basically be sharing their confidential
`user information with each other and both would have access
`to that information. So that's why when you're using two or
`more autonomous organizations, you use SAML or an IdP
`architecture, not necessarily a centralized directory.
` And I want to just bring up one other point quickly,
`Your Honors, before I transition to the next round is that
`Patent Owner itself can't even keep straight what's the
`relationship between a centralized directory and an IdP.
`These are three different statements from Patent Owner's
`papers showing, in one example, an IdP is an example of
`centralized directory; centralized directory is an example of
`an identity provider; and then a centralized directory and an
`IdP are the same thing.
` Those all can't magically be true at the same -- and
`it shows that there's no established relationship between
`these two things and they're not the same. And this is even
`exemplified in Exhibits 2004 and 2005 to -- submitted with
`Patent Owner's papers.
` And then I just want to quickly turn to address
`Your Honor's question about cloud network location, and this
`is in connection with the Woelfel ground, Your Honor. And so
`I'll skip ahead to address that now.
` So, first, I want to level set before getting into
`
`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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`the construction of cloud network location just to talk about
`what Woelfel does disclose.
` In paragraph 155 -- and we're talking about slide 22
`here -- paragraph 155 of Woelfel discloses that the IdP gives
`a return URL that reflects the domain of the reverse proxy.
` If you go down to paragraph 202 of Woelfel, Woelfel
`gives its own definition of a URL, and it states that, in
`computing a uniform resource locator, or a universal resource
`locator, is a specific character string that constitutes a
`reference to an internet resource.
` So a URL is basically a way of finding an internet
`resource. So we have the reverse proxy or we have the IdP
`giving the user device a way to find an internet resource.
`That's a cloud network location.
` And for -- in terms of the construction for cloud
`network location, Your Honor, we don't think a construction
`is necessary. We think the plain and ordinary meaning of
`cloud network is fine.
` And if we turn to slide 23, we see that the
`specification is completely aligned with how Petitioner has
`been interpreting cloud network location, and it's very
`broad. It basically means that you have a resource that is
`accessible over a remote network because, for example, here
`in the specification, the specification gives examples of
`local area networks, wide-area networks, intra-networks,
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`private networks. And here we're looking at slide 23. So
`the scope of what's a cloud network location is broad and
`can encapsulate both private and public networks.
` And that's what we have --
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: Excuse me, Counsel. Judge Mayberry
`here.
` If we don't agree with what you just said, that
`the '671 patent's disclosure defines a cloud network broadly,
`would Woelfel still disclose a cloud network location because
`it -- it provides this URL?
` MR. KLEIN: Absolutely, Your Honor, and just briefly
`I'll touch on this looking at slide 24.
` We have Figure 1 of the patent next to Woelfel
`Figure 1. And the element that Patent Owner is disputing is
`the identity provider providing a cloud network location of
`the reverse proxy to the client device, and we again
`mentioned in Woelfel Figure 155 -- or paragraph 155, the
`identity provider gives the client device a URL of the
`reverse proxy.
` We see that the identity provider is communicating
`with the client device and the reverse proxy over the
`internet, which is depicted as a cloud. That is perfectly
`consistent with a cloud network location as was used in the
`specification.
` And if Your Honors don't have any further questions,
`
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`I'll pass over to my colleague Mr. Canavera.
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: Yes, Counsel. I'm sorry.
`Judge Mayberry here. I did have one additional question.
` I know you didn't touch on the Sarukkai-Rowley
`ground, but is there any evidence that would support a
`finding that Exhibit 1012 reflects the understanding of a
`person having ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the
`earliest possible filing date of the '671 patent?
` MR. KLEIN: Yes, Your Honor. And if we go to
`Figure 1012 -- let me just pull it up quickly here,
`Your Honor.
` So going to Figure -- to Exhibit 1012, which is the
`blog post from Patent Owner, and if Your Honor scrolls down
`and looks at the last paragraph in that blog post, which
`starts that, “A primary cause of recent high-profile breaches
`of proxy phishing,” so, this paragraph is describing
`high-profile phishing attempts because of man-in-the-middle
`attacks as that they were -- because they were well known.
` These weren't things that were cutting edge, things
`that were being invented. These were events that were
`happening around the time of the '671 patent's priority date
`about J.P. Morgan having a data breach and other companies
`having data breaches. So this was a well-known problem, and
`that's what this particular blog post shows.
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: All right. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` MR. KLEIN: And with that, I'll hand it over to
`Mr. Canavera.
` MR. CANAVERA: Good morning, Your Honors.
`Kyle Canavera on behalf of the Petitioner, Netskope. I'm
`going to be discussing the '090 patent.
` Is everyone able to see those slides I have
`presented?
` All right. So the '090 IPR is -- has four grounds,
`but only two are in dispute here: the Guccione and Woelfel
`ground, the Gemmill and Woelfel ground.
` The dispute is actually even narrower. Patent Owner
`only disputes features in the independent Claims 1 and 9, and
`they parallel each other, so I'll just discuss Claim 1 today.
` The issues are even simpler than that. For the
`Guccione and Woelfel ground, we relied on Woelfel as an
`alternative basis for the cloud network location as opposed
`to just a network location. In the Institution Decision,
`Your Honors found that Guccione on its own disclosed a cloud
`network location and that in subsequent briefing the
`Patent Owner did not dispute that fact, so the Board does not
`need to reach Woelfel for Ground 1.
` For Ground 2, the Board -- Your Honors did not reach
`that ground -- that ground for the Institution Decision, and
`the Patent Owner does dispute whether Gemmill has a cloud
`network location.
`
`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
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
` Because this might flow better with what my colleague
`was just discussing on cloud, I will -- I'll actually take
`this out of order briefly, and then -- and address Gemmill,
`given that the cloud network location is an issue there.
` So for the Gemmill and Woelfel ground, as shown on
`slide 12 of our demonstratives, there are two issues, and the
`first one is this question of whether Gemmill discloses a
`cloud network location.
` The nature of the dispute is shown on slide 13.
`Patent Owner has not -- has said that they do not need a
`construction. We agree with that. We want to apply the
`plain and ordinary meaning. The Patent Owner, though, has
`inserted some descriptors of cloud in a sort of implied
`construction.
` Slide 13 shows an excerpt from their expert report,
`which is where this content originates. You can see the
`descriptors are things like "on-demand self service" and
`"broad network access," "resource pooling," "rapid
`elasticity." This comes from, as shown here, the definition
`for a different term, cloud computing, from this NIST
`definition, which is not actually of record in this case.
` That construction is far too narrow. My colleague
`already discussed the disclosure of the patent -- this is on
`slide 15 of our demonstratives, so I won't readdress that --
`but there's -- there's plenty of other evidence showing that
`
`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
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01045 (Patent 10,757,090 B2)
`PGR2021-00091 (Patent 10,855,671 B2)
`that is too narrow of a construction the Patent Owner is
`seeking.
` Slides 16 and 17 of our demonstratives have
`dictionary definitions. They show that, for instance, cloud
`is as broad as the internet, that even cloud computing has a
`broader definition that Patent Owner proposed.
` Gemmill definitely has this feature as shown on
`slide 18 of our demonstratives. The myVocs proxy in pink is
`the proxy server that by the claims needs a cloud network
`location. Gemmill discusses this as being built from
`internet services, being -- providing services to multiple
`organizations, being distributed across the network. This is
`descriptive well within the bounds of the plain and ordinary
`meaning of cloud based on the evidence I just showed you.
` In addition, to respond to Your Honor's question on
`the construction, my colleague gave the construction that, if
`one were needed, we think as the plain and ordinary meaning
`of this term.
` I'll note that in the record for the '090, there are
`other discussions of why that is the right construction.
`We've shown the portion of the '090 patent itself, Figure 1,
`as compared to the spec at column 3, lines 45 to 67. Also,
`Dr. Franz, Netskope's expert, discussed the meaning of this
`term in both declarations. It's Exhibit 1002 at paragraph 95
`to 97 and Exhibit 1017 at paragraphs 33 to 36 an
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
