Packet Intelligence LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Cross-Appellants KATHERINE K.…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
Appellant
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., PALO ALTO
NETWORKS, INC.,
Cross-Appellants
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2022-1398, 2022-1400, 2022-1401, 2022-1403, 2022-1404,
2022-1405, 2022-1406
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
00336, IPR2020-00337, IPR2020-00338, IPR2020-00339,
IPR2020-00486.
______________________
Decided: May 2, 2024
______________________
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 1 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 2
ROBERT ALLAN B ULLWINKEL , Heim Payne & Chorush
LLP, Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented
by CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL F IRST , MICHAEL F. HEIM .
R. WILLIAM SIGLER, Fisch Sigler, LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for cross-appellant Juniper Networks, Inc.
Also represented by ALAN M. F ISCH , J EFFREY MATTHEW
SALTMAN.
D OUGLAS HALLWARD-D RIEMEIER , Ropes & Gray LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant Palo Alto Net-
works, Inc. Also represented by J AMES RICHARD
BATCHELDER , A NDREW T. RADSCH , East Palo Alto, CA.
O MAR F AROOQ A MIN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
intervenor. Also represented by P ETER J. AYERS , ROBERT
MCBRIDE, F ARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
Packet Intelligence LLC (“Packet”) appeals the final
written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“Board”) in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings finding
certain claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (“’725 pa-
tent”), 6,771,646 (“’646 patent”), 6,839,751 (“’751 patent”),
and 6,954,789 (“’789 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious.1
1 Specifically, in IPR2020-00336, the Board found
claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 patent unpatenta-
ble. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC,
IPR2020-00336, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5456, at *3
(P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2021). In IPR2020-00337, the Board
found claims 1, 2, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 patent unpatent-
able and claim 3 of the ’646 patent not unpatentable. See
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 2 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 3
Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (col-
lectively, “Juniper”) cross-appeal the Board’s final written
decisions finding claim 3 of the ’646 patent and claim 34 of
the ’789 patent are not unpatentable as obvious. We affirm
in all respects.2
Regarding Packet’s appeals, on de novo review we
agree with the Board that the correct construction of “con-
versational flow” in all challenged claims across all patents
is a “sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direc-
tion as a result of an activity.”3 E.g., J.A. 22. The intrinsic
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-
00337, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5517, at *1-2 (P.T.A.B. Sept.
8, 2021). In IPR2020-00338, the Board found claims 1, 2,
5, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’751 patent unpatentable. See
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-
00338, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5520, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8,
2021). In IPR2020-00339, the Board found claims 1, 2, 13-
17, 19, 20, 42, 44, 48, and 49 of the ’789 patent unpatenta-
ble. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC,
IPR2020-00339, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5525, at *1-2
(P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2021). In IPR2020-00486, the Board
found claims 31 and 33 of the ’789 patent unpatentable and
claim 34 of that same patent not unpatentable. See Juni-
per Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intel. LLC, IPR2020-00486,
2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5468, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2021).
2 The Board had jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 316(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319.
3 See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43
F.4th 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We review the Board’s
claim constructions de novo and review any underlying fac-
tual determinations for substantial evidence.”).
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 3 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 4
evidence on which Packet would have us base a narrower
construction – including statements following “for in-
stance” and “some” in the specification – is exemplary and
not definitional. J.A. 1318 at 2:39-45. These statements
do not justify limiting the scope of the “conversational flow”
to specific network endpoints or a specific client or user.
Based on the correct construction, substantial evidence
supports the Board’s finding that prior art U.S. Patent No.
6,412,000 (“Riddle”) discloses the claimed “conversational
flow.”4 Exchanging packets “in any direction,” as permit-
ted under the Board’s construction, means that the chal-
lenged claims encompass bidirectional packet flows as well
as unidirectional flows (in any direction). It is undisputed
that Riddle discloses unidirectional flows. Additionally,
the Board found that Riddle discloses bidirectional packet
flows as well, see, e.g., J.A. 39, and this finding is supported
by substantial evidence, see, e.g., J.A. 1910 at 13:54-59
(Riddle disclosing “flow that is used to exchange commands
and responses”).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding
that Riddle discloses the claimed state-based analysis of
“conversational flow.” During the IPR proceedings, Packet
contended that “Riddle relates to classifying traffic based
on an individual packet in the flow, rather than on a state
of the flow (i.e., evaluation across multiple packets).” J.A.
17353 (internal emphasis omitted). Relying on expert tes-
timony and prior art disclosures, the Board found, how-
ever, that Riddle discloses classifying service aggregates
based on a plurality of indicators across multiple packets.
See, e.g., J.A. 1909 at 12:53-57 (Riddle disclosing
4 See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th
1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“What the prior art discloses
and whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine prior art references are both fact
questions that we review for substantial evidence.”).
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 4 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 5
suppressing duplicate packets “in favor of keeping a count
of the duplicates and a most recent time traffic with these
identifying characteristics [that] was encountered”); J.A.
1554 ¶ 357 (Dr. Weissman testifying that “with flows in-
volving FTP applications, Riddle teaches performing state
operations to determine if the flow belongs to a service ag-
gregate”). This is sufficient to allow us to affirm the
Board’s findings.
Turning to Juniper’s cross-appeals, substantial evi-
dence supports the Board’s finding that Juniper failed to
show that prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,740,175 (“Wakeman”)
discloses an associative cache.5 Regardless, even assuming
Wakeman discloses an associative cache, the Board’s find-
ing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to implement Wakeman’s content address-
able memory (“CAM”) cache as an associative cache is sup-
ported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., J.A. 17678-79
¶¶ 89-90 (Ms. Quigley testifying “associative caches are not
an obvious solution to all caching needs – they tend to be
reserved for situations where the need for flexibility and
performance exceeds the need for cost efficiency. . . . Wake-
man’s focus on balancing cost and performance would not
lead a POSITA to select an associative cache”).
5 Juniper directs our attention to a statement in U.S.
Provisional Application No. 60/141,903, which was incorpo-
rated by reference in the ’646 and ’789 patents, explaining
that “CAM is the same as associative storage.” J.A. 2680.
Juniper did not present this contention to the Board, so we
do not consider it. See Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Net-
worked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 5 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. 6
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.6 Thus, for the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm the Board’s final written decisions.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
6 Packet argues that former Commissioner Hirshfeld
lacked authority to rule on its requests for Director review.
We have rejected this argument in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2022), and
must do so again here.
Case: 22-1398 Document: 81 Page: 6 Filed: 05/02/2024

-- 6 of 6 --