Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Palo Alto IPR Decision re 612 patent

Palo Alto IPR Decision re 612 patent

|Views: 93|Likes:
Published by Markman Advisors
IPR instituted against Juniper's '612 patent
IPR instituted against Juniper's '612 patent

More info:

Published by: Markman Advisors on Feb 07, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: December 19, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE  ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD  ____________ PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Patent Owner.  ____________ Case IPR2013-00369 Patent 7,107,612 B1  ____________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES A. TARTAL, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
 Administrative Patent Judges.
 Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION Institution of
 Inter Partes
C.F.R. § 42.108
Case IPR2013-00369 Patent 7,107,612 B1 2 Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (
) filed a Petition (Paper 3,
inter partes
 review of claims 1-13 and 22-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,107,612 B1 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’
). Juniper Networks, Inc. (
Patent Owner 
) timely filed a
Patent Owner’s P
reliminary Response
(Paper 14, “
Prelim. Resp.
. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. I. INTRODUCTION The standard for instituting an
inter partes
 review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides: THRESHOLD.
The Director may not authorize an inter  partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information  presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in challenging as unpatentable claims 1-13 and 22-27 of
the ’612 patent
. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize
inter partes
 review to be instituted as to claims 1-13 and 22-27
of the ’
612  patent.
 Related Matters
Petitioner states t
hat the ’612 patent was asserted against it in a
complaint served on September 25, 2012, in
 Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo
Case IPR2013-00369 Patent 7,107,612 B1 3
 Alto Networks, Inc
., No. 11-1258-SLR (D. Del.)
(the “Concurrent Litigation”)
. Pet. 10.
612 Patent
The application for the ’612 patent
, filed July 19, 2004, was a continuation of an application, filed March 15, 2000, that issued as U.S.
Patent No. 6,772,347 (“the ’347 patent”)
. The application that issued as the
’347 patent
was a continuation-in-part of an application, filed April 1, 1999,
that issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,701,432 (“the ’432 patent”).
asserts that because claims of the ’612 patent are directed to
new matter added to the continuation-in-
 part application for the ’347 patent, the earliest
 priority date for the
’612 patent is March 15, 2000. Pet. 1.
Patent Owner has not contended
that the ’612 patent is entitled to a
n earlier priority date. Prelim. Resp. 4. T
he ’612 patent, titled “Method, Apparatus and Computer Program Product for a Network Firewall,”
 relates to methods and network devices for  providing network security, and describes an improved firewall that includes  both conventional fixed rules and dynamic rule generation. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:16-19.
The ’612 patent states “a firewall is a device that can be coupled in
-line between a public network and a private network for screening packets
received from the public network.”
. at 1:59-61. A packet is the fundamental unit of transfer in a packet switch communication system.
. at 1:25-26.
“A packet switch communication system includes a network of one or more routers connecting a plurality of users.”
. at 1:23-24. In a

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->