October 22, 2019

October 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

How Selecting The Wrong Prior Art References Will Doom An IPR

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. 2017-2059, holding that the PTAB did not err in concluding that a person of ordinary skill would not have combined certain prior art identified by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) in a way that would teach a claim limitation common to the challenged claims.   The Federal Circuit’s opinion underscores that the prior art references selected for assertion by an IPR petitioner are the key to any IPR petition’s ultimate success.

As related in the opinion, on September 30, 2015, PAN petitioned the PTAB for an IPR of claims 1, 2–7, 9, 12–16, 19–23, 29 and 35 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 patent”) issued to Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”).  The ‘408 patent relates to “methods and systems for detecting malware in data streamed from a network onto a computer,” by building “a parse tree data structure” from the “incoming content” that is evaluated for “specific patterns of content that indicate malware.” The following limitation is common to the challenged claims:

dynamically building, by the computer while said receiving receives the incoming stream, a parse tree whose nodes represent tokens and patterns in accordance with the parser rules

After institution, the PTAB adopted PAN’s unopposed construction for “dynamically building” based on the plain claim language, to mean “requires that a time period for dynamically building overlap with a time period during which the incoming stream is being received.” PAN had alleged that the challenged claims were invalid on two grounds: (1)that the claims would have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,636,945 issued to Chandani (“Chandnani”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,860,011 issued to Kolawa (“Kolawa”); and (2) that the claims would have been obvious over Chandnani, Kolawa, and U.S. Patent No. 7,284,274 issued to Walls (“Walls”).

The Chandnani patent was the focus of the PTAB’s decision.  Chandnani teaches a method of “detecting malware in a data stream, including determining the programming language of the data stream and detecting viral code.”  Chandani also “teaches tokenizing the incoming data stream by breaking it into smaller pieces known as tokens.” Chandani summarizes its tokenizing procedure as follows:

To tokenize the data stream, a script language used in the data stream is determined using the language check data. The data stream is analyzed using the language check data to select the language definition data to use for the detection process. Next, the selected language definition data and the data stream are supplied to the lexical analyzer. The data stream is lexically analyzed again, this time using the language definition data, to generate a stream of tokens. As mentioned above, each generated token corresponds to a specific language construct, and may be a corresponding unique number or character.

The PTAB determined that the dispositive issue was whether PAN demonstrated that the prior art teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code as required by its construction of “dynamically building.” The PTAB found that Chandnani did not teach the “dynamically building” limitation of the ’408 patent because it does not demand or even imply that the data stream is being received while being tokenized.

On appeal, PAN challenged the PTAB’s interpretation of the Chandnani reference.  The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding was “supported by substantial evidence because the reference itself, by using the word ‘again,’ indicates that the data stream is lexically analyzed more than once and not simultaneously.” The Federal Circuit also found that the PTAB did not err by relying on Finjan’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, who opined that:

simply because Chandnani’s tokenizer operates on a data stream does not demand or even imply that the data stream is being received while being tokenized…

Chandnani would still temporarily store the entire data stream in memory at least between the first and second lexical analyses.

PAN also argued that the PTAB erred by “analogizing Walls to Chandnani and by not meaningfully reviewing Walls as a separate reference that discloses the dynamically building limitation.” In response, the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB “did not fail to meaningfully consider the teachings of Walls” because the PTAB “considered the disclosure of Walls and the expert testimony regarding Walls from both parties” and “performed its own review of Walls” before reaching its decision.

PAN further argued that the PTAB “erred by not considering particular cross-examination testimony from Finjan’s expert witnesses when analyzing whether the prior art taught ‘dynamically building’.”  In response, the Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB “acknowledged Dr. Medvidovic’s cross-examination testimony and explained its reasoning for why Chandnani does not disclose the required claim limitation.”  In reaching its decision, the Federal Circuit relied on its prior decision in PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, where it held that “we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given, [but] we will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.”

TAKEAWAY:  This case presents a further example of the Federal Circuit’s deference to the PTAB’s evaluation of substantive evidence in IPR proceedings and to the PTAB’s decision-making processes around such evaluations.  Further, practitioners who anticipate challenging a patent via an inter partes review should exercise great care in ensuring that identified prior art in their petition is consistent with their claim constructions.

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Christopher W. Adams, Squire Patton, Patent Litigation Lawyer, information technology Attorney
Of Counsel

Christopher Adams combines more than a decade of certified information technology industry experience with his legal training and skills to assist clients in a broad range of industries with patent prosecution, intellectual property licensing and litigation, technology transfer and related matters. He brings to clients the rare ability to translate information gained in communication with hardware, software and internet developers into a legal context.  

Christopher’s clients include companies in the gaming and e-sports, software development, medical device, telecom, chemical...

202-457-6326
Jeremy W Dutra Lawyer Squire Patton Boggs
Of Counsel

Jeremy Dutra is a member of the Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, antitrust litigation and complex commercial business disputes.

Jeremy represents clients before federal district courts throughout the country and the International Trade Commission, as well as courts of appeals and numerous state courts. He has litigated cases involving a diverse array of technologies, including automation, stainless steel processing, software, automotive products and consumer electronics. He has also litigated cases involving trade secret misappropriation, false advertising and unfair competition. Jeremy has been involved in multiple trials, hearings and oral arguments in his 13 years of practicing law.

In addition to his litigation experience, Jeremy counsels clients concerning trademark, trade dress and intellectual property license agreements. He also guides clients concerning government contracts, teaming agreements and subcontracts, bid protests before the Court of Federal Claims, and internal audits and investigations.

Experience

  • Successfully challenged, before the US Court of Federal Claims and US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a competition conducted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for failure to comply with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act.
  • Successfully defended a network services company against a protest filed at the US Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 15-1541) and appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2012-1655) against an information technology services contract.
  • Successfully defended major US metals distributor in a trade secrets-based Section 337 unfair imports dispute before the US International Trade Commission involving stainless steel, resulting in termination of distributor from the investigation and no remedy issued against it.
  • Successfully defended power management company in patent infringement suit involving electronic power distribution units.
  • Representing the manufacturer of a high-performance blending system in appeal to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision in inter partes reexamination. Successfully defended a network services company against multiple protests filed at the US Court of Federal Claims (Case Nos. 11-400C & 11-416C) and appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2012-5039) against a US$500 million information technology services contract. In securing complete victory for our client, we made new law clarifying the requirements for timely filing protests challenging the terms of a solicitation.
  • Successfully defended a GAO protest of an award to a client by the US Agency for International Development.
  • Obtained a favorable jury verdict on behalf of an employer defending against breach of a sales commission agreement.
  • Representing a multifamily real estate investment firm before the Virginia Supreme Court, securing reversal of a lower court decision, which resulted in a vacatur of a multimillion-dollar arbitration award. In securing complete victory for our client, we made new law in Virginia clarifying that the court, not an arbitrator, has jurisdiction in the first instance to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
    202-626-6237
    Rachael Harris, Squire Patton Boggs Law Firm, Washington DC, Intellectual Property and Litigation Law Attorney
    Senior Associate

    Rachael Harris focuses her practice on litigation, with a particular focus on appellate litigation and intellectual property disputes. Rachael’s practice includes civil and appellate litigation before both federal and state courts, as well as representing clients in arbitration proceedings.

    Rachael has experience representing and counseling clients in a wide range of matters including healthcare, administrative law, patent and intellectual property disputes. She has been named a Washington DC Super Lawyers – Rising Star, among the top up-and-...

    202-626-6206