Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 5928

2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 5928

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

December 9, 2022, Decided

        PGR2021-00091, Paper 30 ; Patent 10,855,671 B2

USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.

Opinion

MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

  JUDGMENT

  Final Written Decision

  Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable

         35 U.S.C. § 328(a)      

  ORDER

  Dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Strike

         37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)      

  Dismissing Patent Owner's Motion to Strike

         37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)      

  Dismissing Petitioner's Motion to Exclude

         37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)      

  I. INTRODUCTION

  Netskope, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed a Petition ("Pet." or "Petition") requesting a post-grant review of claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 (the "Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 10,855,671 B2 (Ex. 1001, the " '671 patent "). Paper 2, 1. The '671 patent is owned by Bitglass, Inc. ("Patent Owner"). Paper 5, 2.

  For the reasons provided below, we conclude that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 of the '671 patent are unpatentable.

         A. Procedural History      

  Upon review of the arguments and supporting evidence in the Petition and in Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 6), we instituted a post-grant review of all claims and grounds asserted in the Petition.

  Paper 11 ("Institution Decision" or "Inst. Dec."). Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. Paper 16 ("PO Resp."). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner [*2]  Response. Paper 18 ("Pet. Reply"). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply to Petitioner's Reply. Paper 19 ("PO Sur-reply").

  With our authorization (Ex. 3001), Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike. Paper 20. Patent Owner filed a "Response to Petitioner's Motion to Strike and Counter Motion to Strike Petitioner's Reply." Paper 23 1. Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 25. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 26), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Opposition (Paper 27).

  A consolidated oral hearing for this proceeding and IPR2021-01045 was held on September 19, 2022, and the transcript for that hearing is entered in the record. Paper 29 ("Tr.").

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 Pat. App. LEXIS 5928 *

        NETSKOPE, INC.,   Petitioner,   v.   BITGLASS, INC.,   Patent Owner.

Notice:

  ROUTINE OPINION. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2, the opinion below has been designated a routine opinion.

CORE TERMS

proxy, user, patent, server, embodiment, network, teach, subject matter, authenticate, redirect, ordinary skill, service provider, invent, modify, cloud, recite, rewritten, disclosure, cloud-based, directory, monitor, traffic, preponderance of evidence, trial record, credential, login, log, unpatentable, reply, target