Huawei Digital Technologies (chengdu) Co., Ltd. et al. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Patentability filed 24 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 7 Jun 2023, with US10027693B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10027693B2
- Application no.
- US15/081018
- Case no.
- 22-1574
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Mar 2022 – 7 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 440 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Method, device and system for alerting against unknown malicious codes within a network environment
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method, device and system for alerting against unknown malicious codes within a network environment
A method, a device, and a system for alerting against unknown malicious codes includes judging whether any suspicious code exists in the packet, recording a source path of the suspicious code and sending alert information that carries the source path to a monitoring device. The embodiments of the present disclosure report the source paths of suspicious codes proactively at the earliest possible time, which lays a foundation for shortening the time required for overcoming virus threats, and avoids the trouble of installing software on the terminal.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Jul 2018
- Earliest priority
- 26 Nov 2009
- Est. expiry
- 15 Aug 2031
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2020-01131 · filed by Juniper Networks, Inc.IPR2020-01130 · Other · filed by Juniper Networks, Inc.IPR2020-01130 · Patentability · filed by JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JIANG, WU
- Classification
- H04L29/06G06F21/55
- Prosecution counsel
- Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
- Examiner
- WRIGHT, BRYAN
Parties of record
Huawei Digital Technologies (chengdu) Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Juniper Networks, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jonathan M. Lindsay
- Firm
- Irell & Manella, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan M. Lindsay | Juniper Networks, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1574 · Fed. Cir. · closed 7 June 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1574?
22-1574 is a patent patentability brought by Huawei Digital Technologies (chengdu) Co., Ltd. against Juniper Networks, Inc., filed on 24 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 7 June 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1574?
US10027693B2 (“Method, device and system for alerting against unknown malicious codes within a network environment”), assigned to HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., currently active. The record also lists Method, device and system for alerting against unknown malicious codes within a network environment.
How was case 22-1574 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1574 take?
440 calendar days, from filing on 24 Mar 2022 to closure on 7 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1574?
Jonathan M. Lindsay appears for defendant Juniper Networks.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1574 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.