Centripetal Networks, Inc.,

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2022

IPR2021-01270 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2022)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Date: January 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. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 Before BRYAN F. MOORE, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314 IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 2 I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 2-5, 11-14, 22, 23, and 26-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,380 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’380 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Centripetal Networks, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 8) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 9) to address Board discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. II. BACKGROUND A. Real Parties-in-Interest Petitioner identifies Palo Alto Networks, Inc. as the real party-in- interest. Pet. 2. Patent Owner identifies Centripetal Networks, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). B. Related Matters Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following as matters that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. See Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1; Paper 6, 2 (Petitioner’s Updated Mandatory Notices).  Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., filed Mar. 12, 2021) (involving the ’380 patent)  Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01051 (E.D. Va., filed Sept. 14, 2021) (involving the ’380 patent)  Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 847 F. App’x 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (decision on appeal of final decisions in IPR2018-01436 and IPR2018-01437 involving patents related to the ’380 patent), cert. denied, No. 21-193 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2021) IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 3  Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2021-01156 (challenging claims 1, 6-10, 15-21, 24, 25, 29, and 30 of the ’380 patent)  Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2021-01155 (challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343 (“the ’343 patent”), the parent of the ’380 patent) C. Overview of the ’380 Patent The ’380 patent is titled “Filtering Network Data Transfers” and describes a system receiving multiple packets and determining whether their packet header field values correspond to a packet filtering rule. Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57). A network packet filter located at the boundary between a secured network and an unsecured network may be used to compare certain information in packet headers to packet filtering rules. Id. at 2:14-23. A packet filtering rule may be associated with an operator that may be applied to a packet that matches criteria specified by the packet filtering rule. Id. at 2:23-26. For example, an operator may determine whether a packet contains an application-level header that specifies a particular method associated with a data transfer protocol. Id. at 2:31-35. The operator may allow the packet or block the packet according to a Web usage policy. Id. at 2:47-56. Such functionality may be used to prevent exfiltrations (e.g., transfers of sensitive data or login credentials to a destination outside of a protected network). See id. at 1:31-34, 2:56-60. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 4 Figure 1 of the ’380 patent is reproduced below: Figure 1 above shows network environment 100 with packet security gateways (PSGs) 110, 112, and security policy management server 114. Id. at 4:17-21. Networks 104, 106 may be local area networks (LANs) protected by security policy management server 114, and network 102 may be a public interconnect network. Id. at 4:23-43. An enterprise may locate PSGs 110, 112 to prevent exfiltration of data from networks 104, 106 to public interconnect network 102 and network 108 according to a policy established by security policy management server 114. Id. at 4:27-51. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 5 Figure 2 of the ’380 patent is reproduced below: Figure 2 above shows further detail PSG 110 including one or more processors 204, memory 206, network interfaces 208, 210, packet filter 212, operators 220, 222, 224, and management interface 214. Id. at 4:61-5:52. Packet filter 212 receives dynamic security policy 218 from security policy management server 114 via management interface 214 or network interface 208. Id. at 5:11-17. Dynamic security policy 218 may include one or more rules to forward packets containing specified information to corresponding operators 220, 222, 224. Id. at 5:36-41. Operators 220, 222, 224 perform respective functions on packets, such as forwarding them to network 102, forwarding them to an Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) stack (not shown), or dropping them. Id. at 5:41-52. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 6 Figure 3 of the ’380 patent is reproduced below: Figure 3 above shows dynamic security policy 218 including rules specifying criteria and operators. Id. at 5:53-67. For example, Rule 6 specifies that packets originating from a source IP address that begins with 140.210, having any source port, destined for an IP address that begins with 200.2141, and destined for port 80 should have the HTTP-EXFIL operator applied to them. Id. at 7:7-12. The HTTP-EXFIL operator may allow HTTP packets containing a GET method, but block HTTP packets containing other HTTP methods (e.g., PUT, POST, CONNECT, etc.). Id. at 7:12-26. 1 Figure 3 shows the destination IP address as “214.*” whereas the text of the ’380 patent identifies it as beginning with “200.214.” IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 7 D. Illustrative Claim The Petition in this case challenges dependent claims 2-5, 11-14, 22, 23, and 26-28 of the ’380 patent. Challenged claims 2-5 and 11-14 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, claims 22 and 23 depend directly from independent claim 16, and claims 26-28 depend directly from independent claim 25. Independent claims 1, 16, and 25 are challenged in IPR2021-01156 but are not challenged in this proceeding. See Pet. 3. Nevertheless, the Petition here includes an unpatentability analysis of the independent claims because their limitations necessarily are part of the challenged dependent claims. See id. at 33-60. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A method of detecting a potential network exfiltration comprising: receiving, by a packet security gateway that interfaces at a boundary of a protected network, a plurality of outbound in- transit packets departing the protected network, wherein the plurality of outbound in-transit packets comprises first packets destined for a first destination; determining, by the packet security gateway and based on one or more packet-filtering rules, that the first destination comprises a destination outside of the protected network; identifying, based on a determination that the first destination comprises a destination outside of the protected network, at least one application packet contained in the first packets; determining that the identified at least one application packet is associated with a data transfer protocol associated with the one or more packet-filtering rules; identifying a data transfer request field within a header region of the identified at least one application packet; determining whether a value of the identified data transfer request field indicates that the data transfer protocol IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 8 comprises one or more network exfiltration methods associated with the one or more packet-filtering rules; and applying one or more operators, specified by the one or more packet-filtering rules and based on a determination that the identified data transfer request field indicates one or more network exfiltration methods, to the first packets, wherein applying the one or more operators causes the first packets to be dropped. Ex. 1001, 11:34-65. E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 7): Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) 2-5, 11, 12, 22, 26 103(a)2 Sourcefire3 13, 14, 23, 27, 28 103(a) Sourcefire, Li4 III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner contends that we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition reuses the same art and arguments that were previously presented to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 2, 29. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the Office issued the ’380 patent over Sourcefire, the primary prior art reference asserted in the Petition, and that Petitioner has not shown any material error in the Office’s prior 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285-88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’380 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 3 Sourcefire 3D System User Guide, Ver. 4.10, Mar. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1004, “Sourcefire”). 4 U.S. Patent No. 9,503,529 B2, filed Sept. 22, 2011, issued Nov. 22, 2016 (Ex. 1052, “Li”). IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 9 consideration of Sourcefire. Id. at 30. Petitioner argues that we should not exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution because the grounds raised in the Petition do not involve the same or substantially the same art and arguments raised during prosecution, and, to the extent there is overlap, the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Pet. 9. A. Applicable Framework Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Director may elect not to institute a proceeding if the challenge to the patent is based on matters previously presented to the Office. Section 325(d) states, in relevant part, “[in] determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying the two-part framework, we consider the following non-exclusive factors: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 10 (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. If a condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error under the second part of the framework, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. B. Relevant Procedural History The ’380 patent is a continuation of the ’343 patent (Ex. 2021), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,686,193 (Ex. 2008, “the ’193 patent”), which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,124,552 (Ex. 1040, “the ’552 patent”). Ex. 1001, code (63). IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 11 The first two patents in the chain-the ’552 patent and the ’193 patent-have been the subject of petitions for inter partes review based on Sourcefire, the primary prior art reference asserted in the Petition. In IPR2018-01436, based on a petition filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., the Board determined all claims of the ’552 patent were unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire. Ex. 1042, 70 (final written decision). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 847 F. App’x 869 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-193 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2021); see Ex. 1043. In IPR2018-01559, Cisco challenged all claims of the ’193 patent. Ex. 1045. The Board denied institution after determining that the petition did not explain adequately how Sourcefire teaches or suggests “a first operator, specified by the one or more packet-filtering rules, configured to drop packets associated with the particular type of data transfer,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’193 patent. Id. at 8-13. The ’193 patent also was the subject of an ex parte reexamination requested by Cisco. Ex. 2010, 4-100. The Office granted the request for reexamination on May 1, 2020, determining that Sourcefire raised a substantial new question of patentability. Id. at 180-91. The Office confirmed the patentability of all claims of the ’193 patent over Sourcefire because they recite a filtering process applying a first operator to drop packets associated with a particular type of data transfer from a first network to a second network (i.e., preventing data exfiltration), and a second operator to forward packets not associated with the particular type of data transfer toward a third network. See id. at 584-86, 595-96, 604-05. The ’380 patent issued on August 4, 2020, from an application filed on February 14, 2020. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45). The Examiner of the IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 12 ’380 patent previously had examined its parent, the ’343 patent, and its grandparent, the ’193 patent. Ex. 1001 (cover); Ex. 1002, 130 (’193 patent notice of allowance); Ex. 2021 (cover); Ex. 2022, 1638-40 (’343 patent notice of allowance); Ex. 2008 (cover). After the ’343 patent issued following a substantive examination, the application leading to the ’380 patent was granted prioritized examination. See Ex. 1002, 119; see also Ex. 2022, 1323-43, 1424-31, 1549-72, 1602-14, 1638-40 (office actions, amendments, responses, and notice of allowance in ’343 patent prosecution history). The applicant for the ’380 patent submitted an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that included Sourcefire and several papers from IPR2018- 01436 (petition, expert declaration, institution decision, and final written decision) and IPR2018-01559 (petition and expert declaration). Ex. 1002, 39, 52, 55, 121. The prosecution history indicates that the Examiner considered all of these submissions. Id. at 146, 151, 154, 224. The Examiner allowed the claims of the ’380 patent without issuing any rejections. Id. at 130-35. In the Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner stated that the cited prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose “determining whether a value of the identified data transfer request field indicates that the data transfer protocol comprises one or more network exfiltration methods associated with the one or more packet-filtering rules; and applying one or more operators, specified by the one or more packet-filtering rules and based on a determination that the identified data transfer request field indicates one or more network exfiltration methods, to the first packets, wherein applying the one or more operators causes the first packets to be dropped,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 133 (emphasis added). IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 13 C. Part One of Advanced Bionics Framework In the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we consider whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) inform the analysis. Id. at 9-10. Patent Owner contends that Sourcefire was expressly considered during prosecution of the ’380 patent. Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner correctly points out that Sourcefire was submitted in an IDS (Ex. 1002, 52), the Examiner acknowledged by signature that Sourcefire was considered (Ex. 1002, 151, 155), and the ’380 patent lists Sourcefire as a cited reference (Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing Sourcefire on page 4)). Prelim. Resp. 30-31. Patent Owner also contends the Office considered arguments regarding Sourcefire that were substantially similar to those raised in the Petition because the Examiner had access to papers from IPR2018-01436 and IPR2018-01559, including the Board’s application of Sourcefire to claims of the related ’552 patent in a final written decision and the petitioner’s mapping of Sourcefire to claims of the related ’193 patent. Id. at 31. Petitioner acknowledges that Sourcefire and several IPR papers addressing the applicability of Sourcefire to claims of the related ’552 patent and ’193 patent were cited in an IDS, but Petitioner argues that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met because Sourcefire and the IPR papers were not substantively discussed or applied in a rejection during prosecution of the ’380 patent. Pet. 9-10 (citing Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-00551, Paper 9 at 7-8 (PTAB July 7, 2017); Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks, LLC, IPR2015-00486, Paper 10 at 14-15 (PTAB July 15, 2015)). Under the Board’s precedent in Advanced Bionics, however, “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 14 applicant, such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7-8. Because it was submitted in an IDS during prosecution of the ’380 patent, Sourcefire qualifies as art that was “previously presented” to the Office. Petitioner also asserts that Li was not cited or considered during prosecution of the ’380 patent, its teachings are not similar to any reference of record, and it was not considered in combination with Sourcefire. Pet. 9. Although the record does not reflect that Li previously was presented to the Office, Petitioner relies primarily on Sourcefire in its unpatentability contentions, citing Li only for limitations in a few dependent claims relating to a messaging protocol. See id. at 64-67. Moreover, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for the same reasons that the Board found similar claims of the ’552 patent to be unpatentable-i.e., that the claims would have been obvious over Sourcefire. See id. at 1, 11-12. Under these circumstances, we find that, for purposes of our analysis under Advanced Bionics in this proceeding, substantially the same prior art asserted in the Petition previously was presented to the Office. For these reasons, we find that “the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office,” which satisfies the first condition of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework. Accordingly, we need not evaluate whether the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 20. D. Part Two of Advanced Bionics Framework Having determined that the same or substantially the same prior art previously was presented to the Office, we now consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) are relevant to this inquiry. Id. at 9-10. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 15 Beginning with factor (c), we consider the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether it was the basis for rejection. Although the Examiner did not apply Sourcefire in a rejection, the Examiner’s signature on an IDS indicates that the Examiner considered Sourcefire as well as various IPR papers and decisions addressing the application of Sourcefire to claims of the related ’552 patent and ’193 patent. Ex. 1002, 146, 151, 154, 224; see Prelim. Resp. 36. Thus, the prosecution history includes some evaluation of Sourcefire, including evaluation by the Board, with respect to claim limitations in related patents that are similar to those in the ’380 patent claims. See Ex. 1042 (final written decision in IPR2018-01436 determining all challenged claims of the ’552 patent unpatentable); Ex. 2023 (institution decision in IPR2018-01436). Under factor (e), we consider whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in evaluating the asserted prior art. Petitioner contends that, even if the same or substantially the same art and arguments were previously presented, the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims “by failing to understand Sourcefire and failing to apply it in a rejection.” Pet. 10-11. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims recite subject matter overlapping with the claims of the ’552 patent, which, at the time the Examiner allowed the claims of the ’380 patent, the Board had already determined to be unpatentable over Sourcefire in a decision later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1042, 70; Ex. 1043). Petitioner contends that, like the claims of the ’552 patent, the challenged claims of the ’380 patent recite “two-stage packet filtering,” which Petitioner alleges the Examiner found missing from the prior art during prosecution of the ’380 patent. Id. at 10-12. Petitioner contends that Sourcefire teaches IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 16 two-stage packet filtering and, therefore, the claims of the ’380 patent are unpatentable based on the same Sourcefire ground as the claims of the ’552 patent. Id. at 11-12. Thus, Petitioner contends, the Examiner erred in a manner material to the challenged claims “by failing to identify or discuss, let alone sufficiently consider, the Board’s analysis of Sourcefire [in IPR2018-01436], which explained how multiple limitations of the [c]hallenged [c]laims are met.” Id. at 12. We are not persuaded Petitioner has shown that the Examiner so erred. Although there are some similarities between the claims of the ’380 patent and those of the ’552 patent previously determined to be unpatentable, there are also material differences that Petitioner does not address. See Ex. 1044 (claim chart comparing claims of the ’380 patent and the ’552 patent). For example, claim 1 of the ’380 patent recites “determining whether a value of the identified data transfer request field indicates that the data transfer protocol comprises . . . network exfiltration methods associated with the . . . packet-filtering rules” and, based on that determination, “applying . . . operators . . . caus[ing] . . . packets to be dropped.” Ex. 1001, 11:55-65 (emphasis added). The Examiner specifically referred to these “network exfiltration” limitations in the reasons for allowing the claims of the ’380 patent. Ex. 1002, 133. The claims of the ’552 patent do not include similar limitations. See Ex. 1040, 11:5-16:48; Ex. 1044. Indeed, the Board determined in the IPR2018-01436 institution decision that the claims of the ’552 patent do not recite protecting against data exfiltrations. Ex. 2023, 31 (institution decision). Furthermore, Petitioner does not indicate where in the prosecution history the Examiner found the two-stage packet filtering missing from the prior art, or that this feature was relevant to allowance of the claims of the ’380 patent. See IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 17 Pet. 10. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has identified any material error by the Examiner of the ’380 patent claims in not discussing the Board’s application of Sourcefire to the claims of the ’552 patent. Our determination that Petitioner has not shown the Examiner erred in a material manner in evaluating the asserted prior art is bolstered by the Office’s reexamination of the ’193 patent, which, as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner does not mention at all. See Prelim. Resp. 34. First, during the reexamination the Office acknowledged differences between the claims of the ’193 patent and those of the ’552 patent, such as the ’193 patent’s claimed “operator” configured to drop packets associated with a particular type of data transfer from a first network to a second network, which was referred to during reexamination as preventing exfiltration. See Ex. 2010, 582, 584-86. More importantly, the Office extensively considered Sourcefire during reexamination of the ’193 patent, and one of the reasons the claims ultimately were confirmed over Sourcefire is that they recite, in essence, preventing data exfiltration. See id. at 584-86, 595-96, 604-05. Hence, the Examiner’s allowance of the ’380 patent claims, which are directed to detecting and preventing potential exfiltrations, was consistent with the Office’s confirmation of the ’193 patent claims’ patentability in reexamination. The last consideration in the second part of the framework is factor (f), which looks at the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Petitioner contends that the Office has not previously considered the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Robert Akl, submitted with the Petition. Pet. 10. Petitioner, however, does not identify specific testimony that is IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 18 material to any particular issue or claim limitation or explain how the testimony shows the Examiner erred. See id. For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework. E. Conclusion After evaluating the Becton, Dickinson factors within the Advanced Bionics framework, and based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude that the same or substantially the same prior art as in the Petition was presented previously to the Office, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted. IPR2021-01270 Patent 10,735,380 B2 19 PETITIONER: Scott A. McKeown Mark Rowland Christopher M. Bonny ROPES & GRAY LLP scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com mark.rowland@ropesgray.com christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com PATENT OWNER: James Hannah Jeffrey H. Price KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP jhannah@kramerlevin.com jprice@kramerlevin.com Bradley C. Wright Scott M. Kelly Blair A. Silver BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. bwright@bannerwitcoff.com skelly@bannerwitcoff.com bsilver@bannerwitcoff.com