Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2022

IPR2021-01521 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2022)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: March 24, 2022 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner v. CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC., Patent Owner. ____________ Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 ____________ Before BRYAN F. MOORE, STACEY G. WHITE, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 2 I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, and 29-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,560,176 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’176 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our permission, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Addressing the Issue of Discretionary Denial Under § 314(a) (Paper 17) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply (Paper19). We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Having considered the parties’ submissions, and for the reasons explained below, we do not institute inter partes review. A. Related Matters The ’176 patent was at issue in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00094 (E.D.Va.), which is on appeal as Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case 21-1888 (Fed. Cir.), but does not involve Petitioner. See Pet. 2. Petitioner asserts that “Patent Owner in a different suit has asserted against Petitioner three related patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 10,530,903, 10,659,573, and 10,931,797” and that “Patent Owner has also amended its infringement allegations in that suit against Petitioner to, among other things, expand the scope of what Patent Owner originally asserted against Petitioner.” Id. at 2-3. Petitioner also asserts that several “continuation patents that share the same disclosure as the ’176 patent are currently the subject of district court litigation” in Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 3 Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv- 00137 (E.D.Va). Id. at 3. B. The ’176 Patent The ’176 patent concerns “correlating packets in communications networks.” Ex. 1001, 1:36-37. Figure 1, reproduced below with added coloring, shows the architecture of a system for performing the claimed technique: “FIG. 1 depicts an illustrative environment for correlating packets in communications networks.” Ex. 1001, 2:5-7. The system includes network device 122, in green, that communicates with packet correlator 128. The packet correlator includes rules 140 and logs 142, shown in pink. Taps 124 and 126, in orange, are located on either Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 4 side of the network device and also communicate with the packet correlator. The components are arranged such that network traffic between, for example, host A-H1 in Network A and host B-H1 in Network B, would pass through a tap, then the network device, then the other tap. The ’176 patent explains that, in the case of packets moving from Network B to Network A, the network device “may include one or more devices that alter one or more aspects of the packets . . . in a way that obfuscates the association of” the packets received from the Network B host and the corresponding packets generated by the network device and sent to the Network A host. See Ex. 1001, 5:13-20. For example, the network device “may be configured to perform network address translation (NAT) for network addresses associated with [Network B],” such that “the packets received from host [B-H1] . . . may comprise network- or transport-layer header information identifying their source as a network address associated with host [B-H1],” but the corresponding packets generated by the network device “may comprise network- or transport-layer header information identifying their source as a network address associated with [the network device].” Id. at 5:21-35. The ’176 patent’s method is described in connection with Figures 2A- D. At step 1, the packet correlator generates rules that are supplied to the taps at steps 2 and 3. See Ex. 1001, 3:35-49. At step 4, host B-H1 transmits data (packets P1, P2, and P3) destined for host A-H1. See id. at 3:50-60. At steps 5 and 6, if the packets match the rules provided to tap 126, that tap sends log data to the packet correlator. See id. at 3:60-4:8. At step 7, the network device 122 receives packets P1, P2, and P3, modifies them, and sends the modified packets on towards host A-H1 as packets P1’, P2’, and Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 5 P3’. See id. at 5:1-6. Those packets may have new address information. As modified packets matching the rules pass though tap 124, that tap sends log data to the packet correlator. See id. at 6:24-28. Steps 10-15 repeat that process, where data is being sent from host B-H2 to host A-H1. See id. at 6:60-8:18. At step 16, the packet correlator “may utilize log(s) 142 to correlate the packets transmitted by network device(s) 122 with the packets received by network device(s) 122.” Ex. 1001, 8:46-48. This may be done by comparing “network-layer information, transport-layer information, application-layer information, or environmental variable(s)” and/or “timestamps” of the log entries. See id. at 8:64-9:43. Steps 17 and 18 show data sent from host B-H2 to host A-H2 that does not match rules in the taps and that thus is not logged. See Ex. 1001, 9:44-10:12. Steps 19-24 show data being sent from host B-H1 to host A- H1 that does match rules and is logged. See id. at 10:13-11:59. Step 25 is another correlation, in which network-layer information, transport-layer information, application-layer information, environmental variables, and/or time stamps are used to correlate packet P10’ with packet P10. See Ex. 1001, 11:60-12:54. Then, in step 26, “[r]esponsive to correlating the packets,” the packet correlator “may determine, based on one or more of the entries in log(s) 142, a network address associated with a host located in network [B] that is associated with a packet transmitted by network device(s) 122.” Id. at 12:55-62. For example, “responsive to correlating P10’ with P10,” the packet correlator “may determine . . . that the network address associated with host [B-H1] is associated with P10’ (e.g., a communication with host [A-H1]).” Id. at 12:62-66. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 6 At step 27, the packet correlator “may generate one or more messages identifying [host B-H1].” Ex. 1001, 12:66-13:1. “For example, host [A- H1] may be associated with a malicious entity,” and the messages “may indicate that host [B-H1] communicated with host [A-H1] (e.g., the malicious entity).” Id. at 13:1-6. The messages are sent to a user and an administrator at steps 28 and 29. See id. at 13:6-13. At step 30, the packet correlator generates and updates the rules, for example, “to configure tap devices 124 and 126 to identify and drop packets received from host [B-H1].” Ex. 1001, 13:14-18. The packet correlator provisions the tap devices with the rules at steps 31 and 32. See id. at 13:18-20. Then, at step 33, host B-H1 communicates one or more packets but, at step 34, tap 126 identifies and drops the packets to prevent the spread of the malware. See id. at 13:21-33. C. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 11, and 21 of the ’176 patent are independent. Claim 1 is to a method, claim 11 is to a system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions for performing a method corresponding to that of claim 1, and claim 21 is to computer-readable media with instructions for causing a computing device to perform steps corresponding to the method of claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is thus representative of the subject matter at issue: 1. A method comprising: identifying, by a computing system, a plurality of packets received by a network device from a host located in a first network; Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 7 generating, by the computing system, a plurality of log entries corresponding to the plurality of packets received by the network device; identifying, by the computing system, a plurality of packets transmitted by the network device to a host located in a second network; generating, by the computing system, a plurality of log entries corresponding to the plurality of packets transmitted by the network device; correlating, by the computing system and based on the plurality of log entries corresponding to the plurality of packets received by the network device and the plurality of log entries corresponding to the plurality of packets transmitted by the network device, the plurality of packets transmitted by the network device with the plurality of packets received by the network device; and responsive to correlating the plurality of packets transmitted by the network device with the plurality of packets received by the network device: generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network; and provisioning a packet-filtering device with the one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network. Ex. 1001, 15:21-51. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 8 D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability Petitioner asserts (see Pet. 6) that claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, and 29-30 are unpatentable on the following ground: References Basis Claims Paxton,1 Sutton2 § 103 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-30 Petitioner also relies on a declaration by Dr. Robert Akl, filed as Exhibit 1003. II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)). The level of skill in the art also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim construction seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim term “in the context of the specific patent claim”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” 1 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0280778 (Ex. 1004). 2 U.S. Patent No. 8,413,238 (Ex. 1007). Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 9 and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18-20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’176 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. B. Claim Construction The parties do not dispute any claim constructions (see Pet. 14-15; Prelim. Resp. 41), we find no terms that need to be construed to resolve any issues, and, accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C. The Prior Art 1. Paxton Paxton is a published patent application that “relates generally to identifying network packets, and more particularly, to determining the identity of network packets as they traverse boundaries that perform Network Address Translation (NAT).” Ex. 1004 ¶ 2. It explains that a network boundary “alters the source IP address, the source application ports and their associated checksums within each packet header” and that “a need remains in the art to develop a system and method to determine the identity of network packets as they traverse boundaries that perform NAT.” Id. ¶ 4. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 10 Paxton further explains that “analyzing the application layer payload from two different perspectives, before and after the boundary 110, can be beneficial in matching an observed packet before and after it is modified by a translational boundary” and that “[e]ssentially, the application layer payload can be a used as an unique identifier.” Id. ¶ 15. Paxton’s Figure 1 depicts a system “for tracking packets across translation boundaries”: “FIG. 1 is a system diagram for tracking packets across translation boundaries, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 11. “[A]s a packet is transmitted from the client 105, the inside sensor 120 can calculate a hash, e.g., a MD5 algorithm hash, of the application layer payload and store it alongside network layer header” and “[a]fter the packet traverses the boundary 110, the outside sensor 125 can calculate a hash e.g., a MD5 algorithm hash, of the payload along with the header data of the packet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. “When an identical hash is observed on the outside sensor 125 and inside sensor 120, there is a high probability that the hashes belong to the same payload.” Id. ¶ 21. Paxton states that “[t]he ability to identify the true source of packet transmission through a boundary can provide significant benefits to network Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 11 security” and that its technique “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content, which can allow the network administrator to better identify the scope of the malicious incident.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. Paxton further explains that its methods “can provide a stable foundation for building tiered enterprise network architectures with an inherent capability for attribution of malicious activity” and that “[e]nterprises with significant visibility and monitoring investments into the network backbone can utilize this technique to attribute malicious activity sensed at the edge of a network back to its original source.” Id. 2. Sutton Sutton is a United States patent that discloses methods for addressing malicious code. See Ex. 1007 1:6-13. It explains that “malicious code often attempts to access a ‘darknet,’” where darknets are “IP addresses which are either unassigned or unused.” Id. at 1:23-25. Sutton states that “darknets typically only receive traffic for one of three reasons: accident/mistake, backscatter, and malicious scanning.” Id. at 1:25-27. “Backscatter generally indicates malicious activity using various spoofing techniques” and “[a]utomated scanning, such as used by malicious code, provides the origin of the majority of traffic to darknets.” Id. at 1:37-38, 52-53. Sutton describes “identifying a list of darknet addresses,” “monitoring communications originating from a protected network,” “comparing destination addresses of the monitored communications originating from the protected network to the list of darknet addresses,” and “if a match is found . . . providing notification of potential malicious activity originating from the protected network.” Ex. 1007, 2:7-19. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 12 Sutton explains that the system can monitor outgoing communications “for inclusion of a destination address that is included in the list of darknet addresses” and incoming communications “that purport to originate from the darknet address space.” Ex. 1007, 10:39-51. “The determination that a destination or origination address is a darknet address can be made by comparing the destination and/or origination address . . . to the list of darknet addresses” and “if a match is found, the communication . . . is either destined to, or falsely originates from a darknet address.” Id. at 10:53-57. Sutton explains that the communications “can be processed to identify devices which are likely associated with malicious activity,” that “[i]f such devices reside within the enterprise network, a notification . . . can be provided to the enterprise network (e.g., a network administrator) indicating that such devices are potentially infected with malicious software code,” and that “[i]f such devices are outside of the enterprise network,” it can “implement a rule preventing such devices from communicating with devices within the protected enterprise network.” Id. at 10:61-11:3. D. Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 13 of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.3 As noted, Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, and 29-30 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 16-56. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. 1. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 21 In relevant part, independent claim 1 recites “generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network” and “provisioning a packet-filtering device with the one or more rules.” Petitioner contends the combination of Paxton with Sutton teaches these steps. See Pet. 31-37. Independent claims 11 and 21 recite substantially identical language4 and Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence for these portions of claims 11 and 21. See id. at 48-49 (claim chart for limitation [11g] directing us to the chart for limitation [1f]); id. at 54-55 (claim chart for limitation [21f] directing us to the chart for limitation [1f]); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 126, 136 (Dr. Akl’s testimony that limitations [11g] and [21f] are “substantially similar to limitation [1f]” and are obvious for “substantially the same reasons”). 3 As Patent Owner does not offer objective evidence of non-obviousness or argue any secondary considerations, our analysis is based upon the first three of the four Graham factors. 4 Petitioner refers to these substantially identical claim terms as [1f], [11g], [21f]. See Pet. 31-37, 48-50, 53-54. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 14 Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Sutton discloses generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network (based on communications to a darknet address and identifying potential malicious code, filtering, blocking, analyzing, inspecting further communications from the host; preventing communications using rules; taking action to make such rules available) Pet. 32. Petitioner directs us to Sutton’s disclosure of “corrective action” that can be taken in the event of “potentially malicious activity.” Id. at 33. (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract). Petitioner cites several examples of corrective action in Sutton including a disclosure of sending notifications to indicate that a device on the network is potentially infected with malicious code and “implement[ing] a rule preventing such devices from communicating with devices within the protected enterprise network.” See e.g., id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1007, 10:60-11:3). Sutton also describes that In some implementations, the threat classification can be reduced to a subset of categories e.g., violating, nonviolating, neutral, unknown. Based on the subset classification, a processing node 110 may allow distribution of the content item, preclude distribution of the content item, allow distribution of the content item after a cleaning process, or perform threat detection on the content item. Id. at 34 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:1-23) (emphasis added). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton’s computing system to, after the correlating, notify administrators of devices involved with the malicious activity . . . and generate rules to be provisioned to network devices, such as taps and packet- filtering devices . . . and used for identifying, filtering, and/or blocking host devices’ future packet communications . . . , as taught by Sutton. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 15 Id. at 21-22. As such, Petitioner relies on Paxton’s teaching of a correlation that “is useful for network security,” but argues that “Paxton leaves, to a POSITA, remedial steps (e.g., uses of the correlation results), which are taught by Sutton.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how or why its proposed Paxton-Sutton combination would generate rules and provision the rules ‘responsive to correlating,’ as required by the Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 43. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the correlating, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the host located in the first network.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation. Patent Owner directs us to an example in the ’176 specification in which a host obscures received packets before transmitting them on to the destination. See Prelim. Resp. 43-44. According to Patent Owner, in this circumstance “correlating the packets received and transmitted by a network device can permit the discovery that a particular first host is communicating with a particular second host, a fact that may otherwise be obscured by an interposed network device.” Id. at 44. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]ccordingly, the ’176 Patent discloses, in one example, de-obfuscating the fact that two hosts are communicating with one another by correlating packets received and transmitted by a network device and then based on the determined correlation generating rules to identify packets received from one of the hosts, and provisioning a packet-filtering device with the rule(s)” Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 16 and that “[n]either Paxton nor Sutton identify this problem or provide a solution.” Id. at 45. This example shows one way in which the generation of rules may be based on the recited packet correlation. Petitioner’s arguments, however, do not persuade us that the proposed combination would have this relationship or any other relationship in which the rules would be generated based on the correlation. Petitioner argues that Sutton describes how “filtering or blocking further communications from the host” may be done “based on communications to a darknet address and identifying potential malicious code.” Pet. 32. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and evidence is how the relationship between Paxton’s asserted correlation and Sutton’s asserted rule generation would have been the same as the relationship contemplated by the claims. Sutton describes implementing rules to prevent certain malicious devices from communicating within a network (Ex. 1007, 11:1-3) and it discusses “filter[ing] based on predefined rules” (id. at 13:5- 9). It is unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have based such rules on Paxton’s correlation rather than on Sutton’s list of darknet addresses. Dr. Akl’s testimony is insufficient to remedy this deficiency. Dr. Akl opines that A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, based on Sutton’s disclosure, that for a computing system to filter, block, or otherwise inspect communications from a device (e.g., blocking a device within a network from communicating to an outside darknet address), when the device had not been previously identified as having malicious communications and/or not previously blocked, data/rules would have been generated and provisioned on a boundary or Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 17 other monitoring device to identify those communications from the blocked device[.] Ex. 1003 ¶ 106. This testimony, however, is insufficient to establish that the rules would have been generated based on the correlation. We understand Dr. Akl’s testimony to be that rules are generated because a device is communicating with an outside darknet address. Here again, the relationship between the correlation and the rule generation is not sufficiently explained. Dr. Akl testifies that “Paxton discloses that, as a result of a successful correlation, the identity of a packet (e.g., a source address) is determined.” Id. ¶ 102. As noted by Dr. Akl, Paxton discloses that finding the identity of a node “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 30). Dr. Akl agrees with Petitioner’s assertion that Paxton does not describe “specific usage or remedial steps with respect to those correlations.” Id. ¶ 103. Dr. Akl attempts to combine the teachings of Paxton with Sutton by opining that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Paxton’s correlation functions with Sutton’s functions related to malicious activities, including Sutton’s generating one or more rules.” Id. We are left, however, with the question of what use would one of ordinary skill in the art have for Paxton’s correlation in Sutton’s rule generation. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and evidence we are presented with a scenario in which Paxton identifies the relationship between certain packets and Sutton develops rules for certain addresses. As pointed out by Patent Owner, the ’176 patent explains that in the case where a packet’s path may be obscured by a device a particular correlation may give rise to the need for a particular rule. As described by Petitioner, the combination before us does not explain why or how Paxton’s correlation would be the Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 18 basis for any particular rule that may be created by Sutton. See Prelim. Resp. 46-47. Petitioner and Dr. Akl do not specifically address the claims’ requirement that the rule generation be “based on the determined correlation.” As such, they have not provided us with sufficient argument or evidence to demonstrate that Sutton’s rules would be based on the correlation and not on the detection of malicious activity. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 3:1-23 (discussing taking corrective actions based on threat classifications such as violating, nonviolating, neutral, and unknown). Thus, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the teachings of Paxton and Sutton would have taught or at least suggested the disputed limitation. Therefore, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the combination of Paxton and Sutton would have rendered obvious independent claims 1, 11, and 21. 2. Dependent Claims Petitioner further contends that dependent claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 29-30 would have been obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See, e.g., Pet. 37-45. Because claims 9, 10, 19, 20, and 29-30 all depend from claims 1, 11, or 21, Petitioner also has not shown, for the same reasons identified above, that they would have been obvious. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”). E. Discretionary Denial and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) Because we deny institution upon consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s challenges, Patent Owner’s arguments that we should exercise Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 19 our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or § 325(d) to deny institution are moot. III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, and 29-30 of the ’176 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that an inter partes review is not instituted in this proceeding. Case IPR2021-01521 Patent 9,560,176 B2 20 FOR PETITIONER: Scott McKeown Mark D. Rowland James Batchelder Andrew Radsch Victor Cheung ROPES & GRAY LLP scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com mark.rowland@ropesgray.com james.batchelder@ropesgray.com andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com victor.cheung@ropesgray.com FOR PATENT OWNER: James Hannah Jeffrey Price KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP jhannah@kramerlevin.com jprice@kramerlevin.com Bradley Wright Scott Kelly Blair Silver BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. bwright@bannerwitcoff.com skelly@bannerwitcoff.com bsilver@bannerwitcoff.com