Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 34257
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:21-CV-00137 (EWH)
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court on Centripetal Networks LLC’s (“Centripetal”) Motion for
`
`Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity. ECF No. 463. Centripetal asserts the undisputed
`
`evidence establishes that claim 8 of the ’437 Patent1 is not invalid for a lack of written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) filed its response in opposition, and
`
`Centripetal replied. Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 523; Reply, ECF No. 571. The Court held a hearing
`
`on this matter on January 4, 2024. For the reasons stated below, Centripetal’s motion for summary
`
`judgment that claim 8 of ’437 Patent is not invalid for lack of written description is DENIED. 2
`
`
`1
`U.S. Patent No. 10,567,437. The other Asserted Patents in this matter include U.S. Patent
`Nos. 10,735,380 (the “’380 Patent”), 10,530,903 (the “’903 Patent”), 10,659,573 (the “’573
`Patent”), and 10,931,797 (the “’797 Patent”).
`
`Much of Centripetal’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment has already been addressed
`
`by the Court or become moot. Centripetal moved for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 related to the ’903 Patent, ’573 Patent, and ’797 Patent. At the January 4, 2024
`hearing the Court found genuine issues of material fact existed and, on that basis, DENIED
`Centripetal’s motion. On January 13, 2024, the Court granted PAN’s motion for summary
`judgment of non-infringement of the ’380 Patent. Therefore, Centripetal’s motions related to the
`’380 Patent are DENIED AS MOOT. Centripetal also contends that the Asserted Patents are not
`invalid as obvious or anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because PAN does not intend
`to proceed on a § 102 or § 103 defense at trial, ECF No. 763, Centripetal’s motion as to those
`issues is DENIED AS MOOT. Lastly, Centripetal also contends that the ’903 Patent, ’573 Patent,
`and ’797 Patent are not invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because
`PAN does not intend to proceed on a § 112 defense at trial as to those patents, ECF No. 764,
`Centripetal’s motion as to those issues is DENIED AS MOOT.
`1
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 34258
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A. Summary Judgment
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a party may move for summary judgment on a
`
`claim or defense, or part of a claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The district court will “grant
`
`summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
`
`the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. A fact is material if “its existence or
`
`non-existence would affect disposition of the case under applicable law.” Wai Man Tom v. Hosp.
`
`Ventures LLC, 980 F.3d 1027, 1037 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
`
`U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “A genuine question of material fact exists where, after reviewing the record
`
`as a whole, a court finds that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
`
`Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of
`
`material fact. Wai Man Tom, 980 F.3d at 1037 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
`
`(1986)). The nonmoving party must then establish that specific, material facts exist that would
`
`give rise to a genuine issue. Id. In reaching its decision, “the court must draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or
`
`weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`B. Written Description
`
`A patent’s specification must “contain a written description of the invention . . . in such
`
`full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it
`
`pertains . . . to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The test regarding the sufficiency of
`
`a written description “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 34259
`
`to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the
`
`filing date.” Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(quoting Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).
`
`The specification does not need to describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms
`
`as used in the claims, but instead “the written description requirement can be satisfied by words,
`
`structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.” Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d
`
`1142, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). It is the burden of the party challenging validity to prove
`
`invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Vasudevan Software, Inc., 782 F.3d at 682 (citation
`
`omitted). “Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact but is
`
`amenable to summary judgment in cases where no reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for
`
`the non-moving party.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (citing Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab’ys, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Centripetal asserts it is entitled to summary judgment that claim 8 of the ’437 Patent is not
`
`invalid for lack of written description. Mem. in Supp. at 27–30, ECF No. 464. Dr. Nielson opines
`
`that the ’437 Patent fails to adequately describe (1) “modify[ing] a switching matrix of a local area
`
`network (LAN)” (the “LAN switch element”) and (2) a “‘rule’ that comprises only matching
`
`criteria.” Nielson Opening Report ¶¶ 958–62, ECF No. 525. After reviewing the expert opinions
`
`of Dr. Nielson and Dr. Goodrich, as well as the patent specification, the Court finds that there is a
`
`genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the LAN switch element is adequately described in
`
`the specification and summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 34260
`
`A. LAN Switch Element
`
`Dr. Nielson opines that the ’437 Patent does not adequately describe the LAN switch
`
`element. Id. ¶ 961. That element requires a system comprising “at least one processor” and
`
`“memory storing instructions that when executed by the . . . processor cause the system to,” among
`
`other things, configure a packet security gateway to “modify a switching matrix of a local area
`
`network (LAN) switch associated with the packet security gateway such that the LAN switch is
`
`configured to drop the portion of the received packets responsive to the determination by the packet
`
`security gateway.” ’437 Patent at 22:26–23:4. The Court denied PAN’s motion for summary
`
`judgment as to this same element, finding that Centripetal’s expert, Dr. Goodrich, provided
`
`opinions which created a genuine dispute of material fact. Mem. Op. & Order at 14–16, ECF No.
`
`702. In the hearing on this motion, Centripetal argued that Dr. Nielson’s opinion regarding this
`
`element consists of “basically a single sentence,” and thus is so “deficient” that it fails to create a
`
`sufficient factual dispute. Tr. at 109:12–17, ECF No. 712.
`
`Much like Dr. Goodrich’s opinion on this topic, Dr. Nielson’s testimony could certainly be
`
`more thorough. However, Dr. Nielson’s opinion is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material
`
`fact regarding whether the ’437 Patent discloses the LAN switch element. Dr. Nielson points to
`
`the portion of the specification that he asserts describes the LAN switch element. Nielson Opening
`
`Report ¶ 961, ECF No. 525 (citing ’437 Patent at 19:5–47). Dr. Nielson then opines as to what he
`
`believes is lacking, namely that “nowhere does [the specification] describe the switching matrix
`
`being ‘configured to drop the portion of the received packets responsive to the determination by
`
`the packet security gateway,’ as recited by claim 8.” Id. ¶ 962. The Court finds that Dr. Nielson’s
`
`report is more than merely conclusory, and review of the relevant portions of the specification
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 34261
`
`leads it to find that there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the ’437 Patent
`
`discloses the LAN switch element.
`
`Centripetal’s motion for summary judgment that the ’437 Patent is not invalid for lack of
`
`written description is DENIED.
`
`B. A Rule that Comprises Only Matching Criteria
`
`Dr. Nielson also opines that “[t]o the extent that Centripetal contends or argues that the
`
`’437 . . . Asserted Claim[] [is] met by a so-called ‘rule’ that comprises only criteria and not the
`
`corresponding function to be performed, . . . [that claim] would be invalid for lack of adequate
`
`written description.” Id. ¶ 958. More specifically, to the extent that Centripetal contends the claim
`
`limitations regarding creating or altering rules “encompass updating dynamic objects referenced
`
`in a firewall security policy or firewall rule,” Dr. Nielson asserts that claim 8 is invalid because
`
`“nowhere do the patents describe the use of dynamic objects in a firewall security policy.” Id.
`
`¶ 959.
`
`Because Dr. Nielson’s opinion regarding the § 112 defense is premised on what Plaintiff
`
`intends to argue in its infringement case-in-chief, the Court finds that it is premature to rule on
`
`whether Dr. Nielson’s opinion as to this element creates a genuine issue of material fact. That
`
`being said, the Court is skeptical that Dr. Cole’s infringement opinion and the functionality of the
`
`Accused Products are material to the written description inquiry. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
`
`U.S. Steel Corp., 673 F. Supp. 1278, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“The focus of [the written description]
`
`inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter is adequately described.” (emphasis in original));
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc., 598 F.3d at 1351 (explaining that written description test “requires an objective
`
`inquiry into the four corners of the specification”); AstraZeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, No. 11–760,
`
`2012 WL 3779381, at *10–11 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2012) (explaining that the court was “not
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL Document 792 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 34262
`
`convinced” that qualities of the accused products “are material to the written description or
`
`enablement inquiry”). However, the Court need not decide these issues at this time, as the Court
`
`has already found a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the claim 8 of the ’437
`
`Patent is invalid for lack of written description. The Court will take up the issue of whether these
`
`particular opinions of Dr. Nielson are relevant to the written description inquiry after the close of
`
`Centripetal’s case-in-chief, if necessary.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Centripetal’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No
`
`Invalidity, ECF No. 463, is DENIED.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Norfolk, Virginia
`Date: January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`
`Elizabeth W. Hanes
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`