Short Summary
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
In Request for Director Review IPR2024-00678, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Fortinet, Inc. challenge the PTAB’s Preliminary Decision that denied institution of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,117,645, which claims a method for formulating an audit request in a security policy audit. Petitioners argue the Board erred by restricting the Krantz prior‑art reference to user authentication, ignoring disclosures of device information, operating‑system credentials, and encryption protocols that fall within the “audit request” limitation. They cite dependent claims of the related ’350 continuation patent to support a broader reading and request the Director vacate the decision and institute the IPR. The petition includes expert testimony from Dr. Henry Houh and references the Krantz reference as prior art.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. vs InfoExpress Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Red Hat, Inc.vsCompetitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLCvsBrodTi Inc.
Google’s expert Mark Crovella files a reply declaration defending the ’898 patent against Dr. Myler’s claim constructions. He contends the terms are plain, the prior art discloses all claim elements, and the obviousness position should not change.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al.vsCollabo Innovations Inc.
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC
The Board instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's petition covering claims 1‑5 of patent 8,968,924 and granted Samsung’s motion to join an existing IPR, terminating the separate proceeding.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.