`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`NORFOLK DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`PLAINTIFF CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.’S MEMORANDUM
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES INC.’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`vs.
`
`
`KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 34 PageID# 1346
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Centripetal’s Background ....................................................................................... 2
`
`The Parties’ Relationship Over the Years ............................................................... 2
`
`Centripetal’s Allegations Regarding the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents ............................. 3
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`’917 and ’062 Patents are Patent Eligible ............................................................... 4
`
`
`
`The ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are Not Abstract ................................................5
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Defendant’s purported abstract idea is not tethered to the
`claims. ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Defendant failed to do the appropriate representative claim
`analysis. ........................................................................................... 7
`
`The ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are rooted in computer
`technology. ...................................................................................... 9
`
`The relevant case law supports finding the claims are patent
`eligible........................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`The Claims of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents Contain Inventive
`Concepts .....................................................................................................12
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Preemption does not apply. ........................................................... 14
`
`Defendant misapplies the law. ...................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Centripetal Pled Direct Infringement with Sufficient Factual Allegations ........... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Centripetal’s Direct Infringement Allegations Identify the
`Infringing Accused Products and Technology ...........................................16
`
`Centripetal Describes a Plausible Case for Infringement ..........................19
`
`Centripetal Pled Sufficient Facts Supporting Willful Infringement and Indirect
`Infringement .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`Defendant Knew of the Asserted Patents Because It Had License to
`the Patents ..................................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 34 PageID# 1347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Centripetal Properly Pled Inducing Infringement ......................................23
`
`Centripetal Properly Pled Contributory Infringement ...............................24
`
`Centripetal Properly Pled Willful Infringement ........................................25
`
`
`
`In the Alternative, Centripetal Requests Leave to Amend ................................... 26
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 34 PageID# 1348
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................13
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................12, 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .......................................................................................................4, 14, 15
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as amended (Nov. 20, 2018) ................................................11
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................23
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................16
`
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK, 2016 WL 7010947 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016) ..........4, 20, 23, 26
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................7
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................16, 21
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................4, 13
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., ,
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................20
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`492 F. Supp. 3d 495 (E.D. Va. 2020) ......................................................................................22
`
`Chan Soo Kim v. Green Tea Ideas, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-00449-JAG, Dkt. No. 21 (E.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2017) ..............................................26
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 34 PageID# 1349
`
`
`
`Cherdak v. Vock,
`No. 1:11-cv-1311, 2012 WL 1427847 (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2012) ............................................25
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`142 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .....................................................................................12
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`142 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .....................................................................................12
`
`Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc.,
`No. 13-1538-LPS, 2015 WL 5234040 (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2015) .................................................8
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................15
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters.,
`946 F.3d 1367, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................25
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................6, 7, 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................11, 15
`
`Glasswall Sols., Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................11, 15
`
`Intell. Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. 13–cv–3777 (AKH), 2015 WL 1941331 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2015).................................12
`
`iSource Loans, LLC v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc.,
`No. 2:13cv521, 2014 WL 3730289 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014) ..........................................24, 25
`
`Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co.,
`785 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................26
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ....................................................................................19, 20
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ......................................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 34 PageID# 1350
`
`
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Mentone Sols. LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc.,
`No. 21-1202, 2021 WL 5291802 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .................................................4, 5
`
`Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkari,
`7 F.3d 1130 (4th Cir. 1993) .........................................................................................................4
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................20, 21
`
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
`827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................7, 15
`
`SRI Int’l., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................10, 11
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:10-cv-115, 2017 WL 2269035 (E.D. Va. May 23, 2017) ..............................................14
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns., LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................12
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................22
`
`WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp.,
`721 F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................22, 25
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................................................1, 4, 7, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ..............................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 34 PageID# 1351
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 26, the “Motion”) based on 35 U.S.C. § 101
`(“Section 101”) fails at the most fundamental level––it does not identify an abstract idea that is
`tethered to the claimed inventions or take into account the improvements to network security that
`are detailed in the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,193,917 (the “‘917 Patent”) and 10,609,062 (the
`“‘062 Patent”). Further, Centripetal’s Complaint alleges sufficient facts in support of its claims
`for direct, indirect, and willful infringement.
`The Federal Circuit has held that the threshold issue in a Section 101 analysis is the
`identification of an abstract idea that properly captures the invention as claimed. Here,
`Defendant’s identification of “filtering data” as the purported abstract idea does not account for
`the specific attributes of the packet filtering devices, including their packet flow analysis or their
`use of network-threat indicators. Because the claims of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are not
`directed simply to “filtering data,” but rather to the specific components of packet filtering
`devices, Defendant’s Motion should be denied.
`Centripetal alleged sufficient facts and details regarding its claims of direct, indirect, and
`willful infringement, easily satisfying the pleading requirements. In the Complaint, Centripetal
`identified the Accused Products and the infringing technologies they contain and also cited to
`Defendant’s own documentation that are attached to the Complaint, which also detailed the
`functionalities of the Accused Products and the infringing technologies. Thus, Defendant has
`notice of what is at issue. Further, Defendant’s claims that it did not have knowledge of the
`Asserted Patents1 ignore Centripetal’s allegations. For example, Centripetal alleged that
`Defendant had a license to Centripetal’s patent portfolio and as a result, knew of the eleven
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,264,370 (“the ‘370
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,284,526 (“the ‘526 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,511,572 (“the ‘572
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343 (“the ‘343 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,659,573 (“the ‘573
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 (“the ‘009 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,924,456 (“the ‘456
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 11,012,474 (“the ‘474 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 (“the
`‘266 Patent”). Dkt. Nos. 1-2–1-12.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 34 PageID# 1352
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 57, 59. Further, the totality of Centripetal’s allegations
`regarding Defendant’s knowledge of Centripetal include Defendant’s monitoring of Centripetal
`and its website, and its knowledge of Centripetal and its products. Thus, Defendant’s Motion
`should be denied.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Centripetal’s Background
`
`Founded in 2009, Centripetal’s core mission is to create innovative security technologies
`to protect computer networks from advanced threats. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 9. In particular, Centripetal
`invented specialized core networking technologies to operationalize threat intelligence from
`multiple sources. Id. Centripetal was able to do this at a scale and speed that could address the
`rapid growth of cyber threats. Id. Centripetal’s technologies protect organizations from cyber
`threats by extrapolating threat intelligence feeds and applying advanced packet filtering at the
`network edge to prevent unwanted traffic from hitting an organization’s network and prevent
`compromised internal hosts from further damaging the organization’s network. Id.
`Centripetal builds and sells software and appliances for network security, including
`Centripetal’s CleanINTERNET® solutions which allow organizations to catch and eradicate
`unknown threats based on threat intelligence enforcement. Id. at ¶ 10. Centripetal practices the
`Asserted Patents and marks its products and services with the Asserted Patents. Id. at ¶ 56.
`
`The Parties’ Relationship Over the Years
`
`For years, Defendant has been well aware of Centripetal, its patent portfolio which
`includes the Asserted Patents, and Centripetal’s products that are marked with the Asserted
`Patents. As Centripetal’s Complaint alleges, Defendant “should have knowledge of the Asserted
`Patents” due to the events stemming from a 2017 patent litigation between the parties that
`settled. Id. at ¶ 57. On July 20, 2017, Centripetal sued Defendant for patent infringement,
`including one of the Asserted Patents, the ‘370 Patent. Id. In the middle of trial, on October 9,
`2018, Defendant agreed to a limited term license agreement (“Term License Agreement”) that
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 9 of 34 PageID# 1353
`
`
`
`expired on December 31, 2021, for Centripetal’s patent portfolio. Id. at ¶¶ 57, 59. When the
`parties executed the Term License Agreement, nine of the Asserted Patents had either issued or
`the patent applications were published and thus publicly available, and “[a]ll of the Asserted
`Patents issued before” the Term License expired. Id. at ¶ 57. Centripetal specifically alleged
`that “[Defendant] was aware of the patents and published applications that it was licensing,
`which included the Asserted Patents.” Id. at ¶ 58.
`Additionally, Defendant has to this day monitored Centripetal and its product and service
`offerings by regularly visiting Centripetal’s website. As alleged in Centripetal’s Complaint,
`Defendant has, since 2014, visited Centripetal’s website, reviewing Centripetal’s webpages
`regarding its business, products, and patents and downloaded datasheets and white papers
`regarding Centripetal’s patented products. Id. at ¶ 56.
`
`Centripetal’s Allegations Regarding the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents
`
`The ’917 and ’062 Patents disclose systems for protecting against cyber threats using
`cyber threat intelligence. Dkt. No. 1-3 (“‘917 Patent”) at Title Page; Dkt. No. 1-7 (“‘062
`Patent”) at Title Page. In one example, the ’917 and ’062 Patents identify cyber threats using
`different packet filtering devices that have specific components to selectively prevent malicious
`packets2 from reaching their destinations. ‘917 Patent at Abstract. These packet filtering
`devices use rules which include network-threat indicators from network threat intelligence
`reports. Id. at 4:32-5:39; id. at Fig. 4A. A network-threat indicator includes specific information
`that can identify cyber threats, such as network addresses, ports, FQDNs, URLs, and URIs,
`which are examples of specific network criteria relevant for packet analysis. Id. at 4:32-43.
`Both the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents have independent claims that cover these detailed
`implementations, as well as dependent claims that require additional components for packet
`analysis.
`
`2 A packet is a particular unit of data that travels over the Internet which is later reassembled
`with other packets from the same file to permit a file to transfer from one point on the Internet to
`another. Packet level refers to the network layer that deals with the transmission and receipt of
`packets.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 34 PageID# 1354
`
`
`
`In its Complaint, Centripetal detailed factual allegations supporting the patent eligibility
`of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents. First, Centripetal described basic facts about these patents, which
`are incorporated into the Complaint. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 14, 18; Dkt. Nos. 1-3, 1-7 (Complaint Exs.
`2, 6). Next, Centripetal described how the inventions of these patents improved techniques to
`combat constantly evolving cyber threats in computer networks through their unique packet flow
`analysis and use of network-threat identifiers. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 31.
`
` ARGUMENT
`“In considering a motion to dismiss, [the Court] accept[s] as true all well-pleaded
`allegations and view[s] the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Audio MPEG,
`Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK, 2016 WL 7010947, at *3 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016)
`(citing Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)) (in accepting all
`allegations as true, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on patent eligibility and
`direct, indirect and willful infringement).
`
`’917 and ’062 Patents are Patent Eligible
`
`In analyzing patent eligibility pursuant to Section 101, the Supreme Court’s two-part
`framework from the case, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), governs
`the analysis. The court first considers whether the patent claims under scrutiny involve an
`underlying abstract idea. See id. at 217. If there is no abstract idea, then the court does not need
`to do any further analysis and the patent claims at issue are patent eligible. Mentone Sols. LLC v.
`Digi Int’l Inc., No. 21-1202, 2021 WL 5291802, at *5-6 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021). Otherwise,
`the court then considers whether the claims “contain[] an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to
`‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. 221
`(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 79-80
`(2012)). Importantly, Defendant must establish patent ineligibility by clear and convincing
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 34 PageID# 1355
`
`
`
`(any facts underlying a finding of patent ineligibility must be proven by clear and convincing
`evidence and district court erred in determining there were no underlying facts).
`Here, as explained below, the ‘917 and ’062 Patents are patent eligible because they
`describe packet filtering devices that provide specific improvements in computer capabilities,
`namely the ability to analyze network traffic at the packet level and provide an analysis of the
`traffic based on flow or log analysis, as claimed in the ‘917 Patent, or analyze packets,
`manipulate operators, and correlate network-threat indicators, as claimed in the ‘062 Patent. At
`the very least, the claims of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents solve long-standing issues that plagued
`network security for rule-based network threat detection, such as generating logs with regard to
`network-threat indicators while dealing with “continuously evolving” threats. See, e.g., ‘917
`Patent at 1:14-33. In using unconventional techniques that are not routine or well-understood,
`Centripetal’s patent claims present a novel inventive concept that is patent eligible.
`As shown below, Defendant’s Motion fails as a matter of law because Defendant cannot
`meet its clear and convincing burden of proof for its patent eligibility challenge of these two
`patents. Indeed, Defendant, in breathtaking fashion, ignores large sections of the patent claims
`for both the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents, and does so in an attempt to somehow suggest that these
`complex patents are directed to simple functionality.
`
`
`
`The ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are Not Abstract
`
`Defendant’s purported abstract idea is not tethered to the claims.
`a)
`Defendant’s Motion should be denied because Defendant failed to identify an abstract
`idea that is tethered to the claims of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents. Mentone Sols. LLC, 2021 WL
`5291802, at *5-6 (reversing dismissal where the proposed abstract idea failed to mention or
`capture certain aspects of the claims and thus was “untethered to the invention as claimed”). In
`its Motion, Defendant seeks to oversimplify the claims of the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents, claiming
`that they are merely directed to “filtering data.” Motion at 9, 11, 13, 18. Such a description is a
`distortion of the actual claim language, wholesale ignoring substantial portions of the claims that
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 34 PageID# 1356
`
`
`
`recite a specific system for protecting computer networks from unwanted attacks using packet
`analysis.
`The ‘917 Patent and ‘062 Patents are not abstract because they provide specific structure
`for their operation. For example, the ‘917 Patent requires a packet-filtering device with multiple
`components, such as packet-filtering rules, operators, packet logging functionality, packet flow
`analysis functionality, network-threat identifiers, among others. Similarly, the ‘062 Patent
`recites a packet filtering device with operators and modified operators, packet filtering rules,
`network-threat indicators, and even the ability to display security information and the ability to
`react to selections from a user. These patent claim elements are indicative of all the claims of
`these patents respectively. They are significant because for the ‘917 Patent, these claim elements
`are directed toward how packets are analyzed and logged, as well as how the functionality flows
`through this novel packet filtering technology. For the ‘062 Patent, the modified operators,
`display and interface components provide the ability to quickly address cyber threats in a
`computer network using network-threat indicators. Thus, Defendant’s proposed abstract idea of
`merely “filtering data” is detached from the detailed and lengthy patent claims of the ‘917 and
`‘062 Patents.
`Further, because Defendant’s proposed abstract idea of “filtering data” is so overbroad, it
`captures concepts that have nothing to do with the claimed inventions. For example,
`Defendant’s proposal is so untethered to the claims that it could cover digital music selection or
`filtering email in Outlook. Such a result demonstrates how Defendant has constructed an
`abstract idea that crosses a line that the Federal Circuit has expressly rejected. Enfish, LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (asserted claims not abstract where “the
`district court oversimplified the self-referential component of the claims and downplayed the
`invention’s benefits.”). Thus, Defendant has not presented any purported abstract idea that is
`tethered to the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents, which alone, is sufficient grounds to deny its Motion.
`Setting aside the fact that Defendant only addresses two claims out of the 40 patent
`claims in the ‘917 and ‘062 Patents, Defendant ignores the eleven detailed elements set forth in
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 13 of 34 PageID# 1357
`
`
`
`Claim 11 of the ‘917 Patent and the thirteen detailed elements set forth in Claim 15 of the ‘062
`Patent. Furthermore, Defendant failed to consider the claims in their entirety to determine
`whether their character as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., McRo, Inc. v. Bandai
`Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd.
`v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (merely identifying “a patent-
`ineligible concept underlying the claim” is not enough; the Court “must determine whether that
`patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is ‘directed to’”).
`The Federal Circuit’s guidance in Enfish is instructive, as it directs courts to ignore the
`exact type of oversimplification that Defendant made here. In Enfish, in rejecting an
`oversimplification of the claims, the Federal Circuit held that claims “directed to an innovative
`logical model for a computer database” were patent eligible because the claims covered a
`specific way of organizing data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330. Similarly here, the ‘917 and ‘062
`Patents cover an innovative techniques analyzing packet level network traffic.
`Further Defendant does not consider any claim construction issue, which is fatal to its
`Motion. For example, the term “operator” should be construed as “an instruction that modifies
`or reconfigures the packet-filtering device to either prevent or allow a packet to continue to a
`destination.” This construction involves modifying or reconfiguring a packet filtering device
`demonstrating that it is not merely an abstract idea. Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance
`Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]it will ordinarily be desirable—
`and often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the
`determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the
`claimed subject matter.”). Without considering claim construction, there are no grounds to grant
`Defendant’s motion.
`
`b)
`
`Defendant failed to do the appropriate representative claim
`analysis.
`A proper representative claim analysis required Defendant to address how the purported
`“representative claims” adequately represents all the other claims contained in the same patent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 14 of 34 PageID# 1358
`
`
`
`Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., No. 13-1538-LPS, 2015 WL 5234040, at *2 (D. Del. Sept.
`8, 2015) (noting that defendants must articulate why each claim is related to the same abstract
`idea and why each claim fails to include an inventive concept). Here, Defendant failed to do
`such an analysis. Defendant simply concluded that certain claims are representative without
`providing any reasoning or basis. See Motion at 11 (identifying Claim 11 of the ‘917 Patent and
`Claim 15 of the ‘062 Patent as representative claims while limiting the substance of the
`dependent claims and other independent claims to a footnote).
`Defendant also hand-waves over patent claim elements that are provided in the dependent
`claims, which recite numerous additional technical details. For example, for the ‘917 Patent,
`Claim 12 recites further requirements for how a log is generated for the packets. ‘917 Patent at
`Claim 12. Claim 13 of this patent has unique requirements placed on the packet flow analysis.
`Id. at Claim 13. Claim 14 requires specific modification of the packet flow log entries, unlike
`the other claims of the ‘917 Patent. Id. at Claim 14. Similarly, Claim 15 requires threat
`identifiers correlated to the packet flow and Claim 16 requires the determination of scores based
`on the packet flow entries. Id. at Claim 15, Claim 16. Other dependent claims of the ‘917 Patent
`provide further limitations that are patentably distinct. See id. at Claim 17, Claim 18, Claim 19
`(Claim 17 requiring the modification of the scores based on logged packets, Claim 18 requires
`the modification of the scores based on the network-threat intelligence providers, and Claim 19
`requires the modification of the scores based on the destination of the packet).
`Defendant also does not substantively address the dependent claims for the ‘062 Patent.
`For the ‘062 Patent, Claims 3, 4, and 5 require the packet-filtering device that is on the boundary
`to perform specific steps. ‘062 Patent at Claim 3, Claim 4, Claim 5. Claim 6 requires updating
`the packet log entry to indicate whether subsequent packets were allowed to its destination. Id.
`at Claim 6. Claim 7 requires generating packet log entries and flow-log entries and modifying
`the flow-log entries. Id. at Claim 7. Other dependent claims of the ‘062 Patent provide further
`limitations that are patentably distinct. See id. at Claim 16, Claim 17 (Claim 16 requires
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 34 PageID# 1359
`
`
`
`updating of the user interface to display additional information and Claim 17 requires generating
`a packet log entry).
`These examples are just a sampling of the concrete aspects that Defendant did not address
`because it failed to do a proper representative claim analysis and is sufficient grounds to deny
`Defendant’s Motion.
`
`The ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are rooted in computer technology.
`c)
`The ‘917 and ‘062 Patents are not abstract because they are “necessarily rooted in
`computer technology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm of computer networks.”
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For example,
`Claim 1 of the ‘917 Patent requires a packet filtering device that performs packet flow analysis
`that uses packet log entries that correspond to network-threat identifiers. These components
`provide specific functionality that only apply to computer networking security.