Renewed invalidity motion is denied due to material issues of fact
Robinson, J. Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment that three of the four patents in suit are invalid is denied.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants charging infringement of four patents (‘203, ‘212, ‘338 and the ‘615 patents). The patents in suit relate to the monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. In particular the patents teach a computer-automated method of hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network that allows for real-time detection of intruders. Upon detecting any suspicious activity, the network monitors generate reports of such activity. The Court’s initial summary judgment determination was affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded –in-part by the Federal Circuit. With respect to anticipation, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that the JiNao Report (issued as part of a collaborative project aimed at protecting certain network infrastructure) anticipates independent claims 1 and 24 of the ‘338 patent. Although plaintiff concedes that there are some similarities, the Court finds that the scale of the JiNao Report is arguably different than that of the ‘338 patent and declines to find through motion practice that the functions of the two systems are exactly the same. With respect to obviousness, in October 1997, the Emerald 1997 (an overview of the Event Monitoring Enabling Responses to Anomalous Live Disturbances) was published on plaintiff’s behalf and was before the patent examiner during the prosecution of the ‘338 patent from which the remaining patents in suit were derived. The Emerald 1997 lists twenty-four citations to outside references including the Intrusive Activity 1991 reference (a publication entitled “A Method to Detect Intrusive Activity in a Networked Environment). Defendants argue that Emerald 1997, in combination with an internally cited reference to Intrusive Activity 1991, renders obvious the asserted claims of the ‘203 and ‘615 patents. According to defendants, it would have been obvious in light of the express teaching in Emerald 1997 to analyze particular network traffic categories based upon the citation to Intrusive Activity 1991. The Court denies defendants’ motion having found that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding what a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosures in Intrusive Activity 1991 to convey.
