throbber
Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 28 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 34 PageID# 1345
`
`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.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket