This disclosure relates generally to load balancing among servers. More particularly but not exclusively, the present disclosure relates to techniques to configure geographic information, such as geographic prefixes and geographic region designations for network addresses, for use in load balancing to determine a geographically optimum server to receive a client request.
Under the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), when a client provides a symbolic name (a Uniform Resource Locator or URL) to request access to an application program or another type of resource, the host name portion of the URL needs to be resolved into an IP address of a server for that application program or resource. For example, the URL (e.g., http://www.foundrynet.com/index.htm) includes a host name portion www.foundrynet.com that needs to be resolved into an IP address. The client first provides the host name portion to a local name resolver, which then queries a local Domain Name System (DNS) server to obtain a corresponding IP address. If a corresponding IP address is not locally cached at the time of the query, or if the time-to-live (TTL) of a corresponding IP address cached locally has expired, the DNS server then acts as a resolver and dispatches a recursive query to another DNS server. This process is repeated until an authoritative DNS server for the domain (e.g., foundrynet.com, in this example) is reached. The authoritative DNS server returns one or more IP addresses, each corresponding to an address at which a server hosting the application (“host server”) under the host name can be reached. These IP addresses are propagated back via the local DNS server to the original resolver. The application at the client then uses one of the IP addresses to establish a TCP connection with the corresponding host server. Each DNS server caches the list of IP addresses received from the authoritative DNS server for responding to future queries regarding the same host name, until the TTL of the IP addresses expires.
To provide some load sharing among the host servers, global server load balancing (GSLB) switches are sometimes used as proxies for authoritative DNS servers, together with one or more site switches each associated with one or more host servers. Each site switch provides the GSLB switch with current site-specific information (“metrics”) regarding access conditions to the host servers associated with the site switches. The GSLB switch then processes the addresses returned by the DNS server using the metrics compiled from the site switches and provides an ordered address list having the optimum address for access listed at the top. An example of a GSLB system and description of associated metrics are disclosed in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/376,903, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Feb. 28, 2003, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
A criterion that is sometimes used for load balancing purposes is geographic location. That is, where there are multiple geographically located servers, load balancing systems attempt to direct client requests to a server that is geographically the closest to the client. The geographic location of the client and the servers is determined using a static table containing Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)-allocated IP address prefixes and the associated geographic locations. However, such load balancing systems that are based on static mappings between the IP address prefixes and the geographic locations have drawbacks that lead to less-than optimum performance.
For instance, load balancing systems generally maintain only a static table of some IANA-allocated IP address prefixes and the associated geographic designation. This table may be in the form of a database having IP address prefixes (e.g., IP address/prefix length) and the corresponding geographic locations (e.g., the country and region designation) for the respective IP address prefixes. There are several shortcomings to just having such a static geographic database.
First, a load balancing system maintains only some, and generally not all, of the IANA-allocated entries in its statically generated database. This is because IP address allocation by the IANA is an ongoing process, and so the load balancing software will have to be updated each time a new IP address and/or address prefix is allocated, in order to keep up with the latest IANA allocations. Since constant updating of the load balancing software and static geographic database is not practical, the load balancing system would be missing many IP address prefixes and associated geographic location information in its geographic database, and hence would not be able to determine the geographic location of many clients correctly.
Additionally, users (such as system administrators) generally cannot override the geographic region for a prefix. For instance, a prefix 149.204.0.0/16 may be specified as being in the geographic region EUROPE in a load balancing switch's internal static geographic prefix database. If the user has a client with an address of 149.204.11.1, which actually resides in ASIA, there is currently no suitable technique in which the user can override the geographic region for the prefix specified in the database. This means that the load balancing switch will always treat the client at 149.204.11.1 as being in the geographic region EUROPE, even though the user wants the prefix to be associated with ASIA.
One aspect provides a method that includes storing first geographic settings associated with network addresses, including storing first address prefix information and corresponding first geographic region information. The method stores second geographic settings associated with network addresses, including storing second address prefix information and corresponding second geographic region information. The method overrides the first geographic settings with respective second geographic settings for network addresses that have first prefix information that matches the second prefix information, to associate these network addresses to the second geographic region information. Using at least the second geographic settings as a metric, the method load balances traffic, from a client having a network address associated with the second geographic information, to a domain represented by the network addresses associated with the second geographic information.
Non-limiting and non-exhaustive embodiments are described with reference to the following figures, wherein like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the various views unless otherwise specified.
Embodiments of techniques to provide configurable geographic prefixes for GSLB are described herein. In the following description, numerous specific details are given to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects.
Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment. Thus, the appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places throughout this specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments.
As an overview, one embodiment provides “user-configurable geographic prefixes” features that overcome the above-described shortcomings and provides several other advantages. With the user-configurable geographic prefix feature(s), the prefix (or other address portion) and the associated geographic region for that prefix can be specified. For instance, “region” could be defined based on a continent, country, state, city, or other user-defined area. In an embodiment, the user-configurable geographic prefixes can be implemented for a GSLB system, where a load balancing switch or other network device maintains a separate user-configured geographic prefix database to store the various entries. If a prefix also exists in a static internal geographic database maintained by the load balancing switch, then the user-configured entry will override it (e.g., if the prefix 200.0.0.0/8 is SOUTH AMERICA in the internal geographic database and if the user configures a geographic prefix 200.0.0.0/8 to be in the region NORTH AMERICA, then the user-configured entry will override the earlier entry, and any IP address that matches the prefix 200.0.0.0/8 will deemed to reside in NORTH AMERICA).
As described above, the user-configurable geographic prefix feature(s) can be implemented in a GSLB system. In the GSLB system, a set of metrics are used by the load balancing switch to evaluate IP addresses in the DNS replies from the DNS server for which the load balancing switch is providing GSLB. The load balancing switch may initially generate the static internal database of geographic prefixes using the IANA-allocated IP address prefixes and the associated geographic location information. These, static database entries (including any default static geographic region specifications) may be overridden with user-configured entries, as needed, in accordance with an embodiment. The geographic location of a server (e.g., a server that is geographically close to a client) can then be used as one of the metrics in the GSLB policy to determine the best IP address to receive a request from the client.
A suitable switch for implementing either the GSLB switch 12 or any of the site switches 18A, 18B, 22A and 22B is the ServerIron® (SI) product available from Foundry Networks, Inc. of San Jose, Calif. Throughout this description and in the figures, the SI switch will be described as the network device that can provide and implement the various geographic features of an embodiment. It is understood that this use of the SI switch is merely for purposes of illustration and explanation. Any suitable non-SI switch or non-SI network device can be used to implement the various geographic features and functions described herein.
In the remainder of this detailed description, for the purpose of illustrating embodiments only and except where indicated, the list of IP addresses returned are assumed to be the virtual IP addresses configured on the proxy servers at switches 18A, 18B, 22A and 22B (sites 20 and 24). In one embodiment when the authoritative DNS server 16 resolves a host name in a query and returns one or more IP addresses, the GSLB switch 12 determines (using the performance metrics) which site switch would provide the best expected performance (e.g., response time) for the client program 28 and returns the IP address list with a virtual IP address configured at that site switch placed at the top. (Other forms of ranking or weighting the IP addresses in the list can also be possible.) The client program 28 can receive the ordered list of IP addresses, and typically selects the first IP address on the list to access the corresponding host server.
The routing metric collector 205 collects routing information from routers (e.g., topological distances between nodes on the Internet).
In one embodiment, the GSLB switch controller 201 can be programmed with and/or can access data to be used for geographic metrics and also for at least one of weighted site, weighted IP, active bindings, or other metrics described in the co-pending applications identified above. For instance, the GSLB switch controller 201 can be communicatively coupled to a first storage unit 212 that contains IANA-allocated geographic prefixes and the associated geographic designation, or default geographic-related settings. The GSLB switch controller 201 can also be communicatively coupled to a second storage unit 210 that contains user-configured geographic settings. In an embodiment, the first storage unit 212 and the second storage unit 210 can be in the form of databases having tables. It is appreciated, however, that either or both of these storage units can be embodied by any suitable data structure (including file systems, directory structures, variables, static or dynamic code, and so forth). Additionally, the first and second storage units need not necessarily be separate, and may be integrated in whole or in part into a single storage unit, for instance.
When the geographic metric is used by the GSLB switch 12 to select the best IP address for the client then:
Thus, the GSLB switch 12 of an embodiment uses the geographic metric to select the IP address that is geographically the closest to the querying client. Geographical “closeness” can be specified in multiple non-exhaustive ways. The user can specify the following, for example:
In an embodiment, the GSLB switch 12 deduces the geographic region of a client or server based on its IP address. The IANA assigns the IP addresses, and the GSLB switch 12 generates the static table (e.g., in the first storage unit 212) of the mappings between an IP address prefix and the corresponding geographic location. Either or both the IANA allocations or other geographic settings (including user-configured settings) may be used to deduce the geographic region of a client or server.
As an example, in the statically generated table in the first storage unit 212, the geographic region for the prefix 149.204.0.0/16 is EUROPE. Therefore, if Client-1 has an IP address 149.204.10.1, then the GSLB switch 12 refers to this static table and determines that Client-1 is in the region EUROPE. The GSLB switch 12 determines the geographic location of a real server 306 similarly based on the IP address. The GSLB switch 12 determines the geographic location of a VIP based on the management IP address of the site switch (e.g., the site switches 18A, 18B, 22A, 22B, 300-304, etc.) on which this VIP is configured. Thus, if the site switch 300 has an IP address of 149.204.53.1, then the GSLB switch 12 determines that the site switch 300 is in the region EUROPE. Therefore, VIP-1, which is configured on the site switch 300, will be deemed to be in the region EUROPE.
As additional examples and details, an embodiment of the GSLB switch 12 determines the geographic region of a server IP address in its DNS database (not shown) in the following ways:
An embodiment of the GSLB switch 12 determines the geographic location of the client as follows:
For each client query, the GSLB switch 12 can determine the geographic location from which the client query came based on the client's IP address (or other address of a client terminal on which the client program 28 resides). If the IP address prefix of a user-configured geographic prefix entry in the second storage unit 210 matches that of the client, then the geographic location of the client will be determined from that user-configured geographic prefix entry.
If multiple server IP addresses compare equally based on at least some of the GSLB metrics in the GSLB policy, then the GSLB switch 12 uses the geographic metric to select the server IP addresses within the same geographic region as the client query. The flowcharts of
In the flowcharts of
At a block 404, the GSLB switch 12 maintains the user-configured geographic region for the prefix in a user-configurable geographic prefix database (referred to in the flowcharts as the database “DY-GEO-DB”). The DY-GEO-DB database contains the information that can be dynamically provided or changed by the user, and is maintained in the second storage unit 210 in one embodiment.
At a block 406, if the above prefix already exists in the static internal geographic database (referred to in the flowcharts as the database “ST-GEO-DB”) maintained in the first storage unit 212, then the above user configuration takes precedence over that static entry. At a block 408, the GSLB switch 12 updates the geographic region for all the IP addresses (for the domains for which the GSLB switch 12 is providing GSLB) that match the above IP address prefix, so as to reflect the new geographic region configured by the user for this prefix. The operations at the block 408 are shown in further detail in
As an example, the user configures a prefix P1 to be in a geographic region G1. Then, for each of the IP addresses in the domains for which the GSLB switch 12 is providing GSLB, the GSLB switch 12 (or more specifically the GSLB switch controller 201 in an embodiment) determines at a block 502 whether the IP address corresponds to a real server. If the IP address corresponds to a real server, then the GSLB switch 12 determines at a block 504 whether the IP address matches the prefix P1. If there is a match, then the GSLB switch 12 updates the geographic location of that IP address as the geographic region G1 at a block 506. If there is no match at the block 504, then no updates are made to the geographic location of this IP address (as depicted at a block 508).
Back at the block 502, if the IP address is determined by the GSLB switch 12 as not corresponding to a real server, then the IP address is deemed to be a VIP address at a block 510. The GSLB switch 12 then finds the management IP address of the site switch on which this VIP is configured. The IP address of the site switch may be found in a table or other address records maintained by or accessible to the GSLB switch 12. The IP address of this site switch is referred to as “SIP” address in
At a block 514, the GSLB switch 12 finds the GSLB site at which the site switch resides. This GSLB site is referred to as “Site-1” in
At the block 518, the GSLB switch 12 determines whether the SIP address matches the prefix P1. If there is a match, then the GSLB switch 12 updates the geographic location of that VIP address as the geographic region G1 at the block 506. Else if there is no match at the block 518, then no updates are made to the geographic location of the VIP address (as indicated at a block 520).
At a block 604, the GSLB switch 12 checks its user-configured geographic prefix database (e.g., the DY-GEO-DB database) to determine if there is any prefix configured therein that matches the CIP. If a match is found at a block 606 and the user-configured prefix has a geographic region G1, then the CIP is deemed to be in the geographic region G1 at a block 608.
At a block 610, the GSLB switch 12 makes a selection of the best IP address to provide to the client program 28 based at least in part on the geographic metric. That is, the GSLB switch 12 of one embodiment compares the geographic location of the candidate IP addresses with that for CIP, and selects the candidate IP address that lies in the same geographic location as CIP (i.e., the region G1) as the best IP address for this client.
Back at the block 606, if no match is found between the CIP and the prefixes in the user-configured geographic prefix database, then the GSLB switch 12 checks the static geographic prefix database (e.g., ST-GEO-DB database) at a block 612 to determine if there is any prefix configured therein that matches the CIP. If no match is found at a block 614, then the GSLB switch 12 assigns some default geographic location to the client, for example the region D1, at a block 616. The GSLB switch 12 makes a selection based on the geographic metric at a block 618. The GSLB switch 12 selects the IP address that lies in the same geographic location as the CIP (e.g., the region D1 in this example) as the best IP address for this client
Back at the block 614, if a prefix configured in the ST-GEO-DB database matches the CIP and the static prefix that is found has a geographic region G2 (for instance), then the CIP is deemed to be in the geographic region G2 at a block 620. The GSLB switch 12 makes a selection of the best IP address to provide to the client program 28 based at least in part on the geographic metric at a block 622. The GSLB switch 12 compares the geographic location of the candidate IP addresses with that for the CIP, and selects the candidate IP address that lies in the same geographic location as the CIP (e.g., the region G2) as the best IP address for this client.
An example can assist in further illustrating the operations depicted in the previous figures. Consider an example where the GSLB switch 12 is providing GSLB for the domain www.gslb1.com. The IP addresses for the domain www.gslb1.com are as follows:
10.10.10.200—This is a real server IP address; and
151.3.1.76—This is a VIP on a site switch having a management IP address of 151.3.1.102.
Initially, the user-configured geographic database (e.g., the DY-GEO-DB database in the second storage unit 210) is empty, as the user has not yet configured any geographic prefixes. Assume that there is an entry for the prefix 151.3.0.0/16 in the static geographic database (e.g., the ST-GEO-DB database in the first storage unit 212) where the geographic region for the prefix is specified as EUROPE. This means that the geographic location for 151.3.1.76 is EUROPE. Assume also that there is no entry in the static geographic database that matches the IP address 10.10.10.200; hence this IP address is assigned a default geographic location of NORTH AMERICA.
Now, the user wants the prefix 151.3.0.0/16 to be associated with ASIA instead of EUROPE. So, the user configures the geographic prefix 151.3.0.0/16 with a geographic region ASIA. This ASIA setting gets stored in the user-configured geographic prefix database, and will override the original EUROPE setting.
Once the user configures a geographic location for a prefix, the geographic location for the IP addresses in the GSLB domain gets updated as explained with respect to the flowchart 500 of
10.10.10.200—NORTH AMERICA (unchanged as this IP address does not match a user-configured prefix); and
151.3.1.76—ASIA.
Now, the user also wants a prefix 175.6.0.0/16 to be associated with ASIA. So, the user configures the geographic prefix 175.6.0.0/16 with a geographic region ASIA. This information also gets stored in the user-configured geographic prefix database. The GSLB switch 12 does not update the geographic location for any IP addresses in the domain www.gslb1.com, since the prefix 175.6.0.0/16 does not match any IP address.
If a client at the IP address 175.6.10.1 makes a query to access the domain www.gslb1.com, the GSLB switch 12 refers to the user-configured geographic prefix database and determines the geographic location of the client to be ASIA. The GSLB switch 12 then selects 151.3.1.76 as the best IP address for the client since they both lie in the same geographic region of ASIA.
All of the above U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, U.S. patent applications, foreign patents, foreign patent applications and non-patent publications referred to in this specification and/or listed in the Application Data Sheet, are incorporated herein by reference, in their entirety.
The above description of illustrated embodiments, including what is described in the Abstract, is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. While specific embodiments and examples are described herein for illustrative purposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scope of the invention and can be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention.
For example, various embodiments have been described above in terms of IP addresses. It is appreciated that other embodiments for providing configurable geographic settings can be implemented for systems that use an addressing scheme that is not necessarily IP-address based.
These and other modifications can be made to the invention in light of the above detailed description. The terms used in the following claims should not be construed to limit the invention to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification and the claims. Rather, the scope of the invention is to be determined entirely by the following claims, which are to be construed in accordance with established doctrines of claim interpretation.
The present application is a continuation of and claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/023,292, entitled “CONFIGURABLE GEOGRAPHIC PREFIXES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Feb. 28, 2011 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,280,998), which in turn is a continuation of and claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/787,779, entitled “CONFIGURABLE GEOGRAPHIC PREFIXES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed May 26, 2010 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,899,899), which in turn is a continuation of and claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/353,701, entitled “CONFIGURABLE GEOGRAPHIC PREFIXES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Jan. 14, 2009 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,756,965), which in turn is a continuation of and claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/840,496, entitled “CONFIGURABLE GEOGRAPHIC PREFIXES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed May 6, 2004 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,651), all of which are assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5031094 | Toegel et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5359593 | Derby et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5867706 | Martin et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5918017 | Attanasio et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5951634 | Sitbon et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6006269 | Phaal | Dec 1999 | A |
6006333 | Nielsen | Dec 1999 | A |
6012088 | Li et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6078956 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092178 | Jindal et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6112239 | Kenner et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115752 | Chauhan | Sep 2000 | A |
6119143 | Dias et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128279 | O'Neil et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6128642 | Doraswamy et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6148410 | Baskey et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157649 | Peirce et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167445 | Gai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167446 | Lister et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6178160 | Bolton et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182139 | Brendel | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185619 | Joffe et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195691 | Brown | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6205477 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233604 | Van Horne et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6260070 | Shah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6262976 | McNamara | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6286039 | Van Horne et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6286047 | Ramanathan et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304913 | Rune | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317775 | Coile et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324177 | Howes et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324580 | Jindal et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327622 | Jindal et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336137 | Lee et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6381627 | Kwan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389462 | Cohen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393473 | Chu | May 2002 | B1 |
6405252 | Gupta et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411998 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6427170 | Sitaraman et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434118 | Kirschenbaum | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438652 | Jordan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446121 | Shah et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449657 | Stanbach, Jr. et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6470389 | Chung et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473802 | Masters | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6480508 | Mwikalo et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487555 | Bharat et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490624 | Sampson et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513061 | Ebata et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6542964 | Scharber | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549944 | Weinberg et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6578066 | Logan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6578077 | Rakoshitz et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6601084 | Bhaskaran et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606643 | Emens et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611861 | Schairer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6647009 | Kubota et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665702 | Zisapel et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6681232 | Sistanizadeh et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6681323 | Fontanesi et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684250 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6691165 | Bruck et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6725253 | Okano et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6745241 | French et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748416 | Carpenter et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6754699 | Swildens et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6760775 | Anerousis | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772211 | Lu et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6779017 | Lamberton et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785704 | McCanne | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6789125 | Aviani et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795434 | Kumar et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795858 | Jain et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795860 | Shah | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6801949 | Bruck et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6810411 | Coughlin et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6826198 | Turina et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839700 | Doyle et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6850984 | Kalkunte et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862627 | Cheshire | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6874152 | Vermeire et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6879995 | Chinta et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6880000 | Tominaga et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6883028 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6898633 | Lyndersay et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901081 | Ludwig | May 2005 | B1 |
6920498 | Gourlay | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928485 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6950848 | Yousefi'zadeh | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6963914 | Breibart et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6963917 | Callis et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6985956 | Luke et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6987763 | Rochberger et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996615 | McGuire | Feb 2006 | B1 |
6996616 | Leighton et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7000007 | Valenti | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7020698 | Andrews et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7020714 | Kalyanaraman et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7028083 | Levine et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7032010 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7032031 | Jungck et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7036039 | Holland | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7047300 | Oehrke et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7058706 | Iyer | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7058717 | Chao et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7062562 | Baker et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7062642 | Langrind et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7080138 | Baker et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7082102 | Wright | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7086061 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7089293 | Grosner et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7099915 | Tenereillo et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7114008 | Jungck et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117269 | Lu et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117530 | Lin | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7124188 | Mangipudi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7127713 | Davis et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7136932 | Schneider et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7139242 | Bays | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7177933 | Foth | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7185052 | Day | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197547 | Miller et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7206806 | Pineau | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213068 | Kohli et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7225272 | Kelley et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7240015 | Karmouch et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7240100 | Wein et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7254626 | Kommula et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7257642 | Bridger et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7260645 | Bays | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7277954 | Stewart et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7289519 | Liskov | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7296088 | Padmanabhan et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7321926 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7330908 | Jungck | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7383288 | Miloushev et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7423977 | Joshi et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7441045 | Skene et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7454500 | Hsu et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7478148 | Neerdaels | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7496651 | Joshi | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7523181 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7573886 | Ono | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7574508 | Kommula | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7581006 | Lara et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7581009 | Hsu et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7584262 | Wang et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7584301 | Joshi | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7653700 | Bahl et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7657629 | Kommula | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7676576 | Kommula | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7756965 | Joshi | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7840678 | Joshi | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7860964 | Brady et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7885188 | Joshi | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7899899 | Joshi | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7925713 | Day et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7949757 | Joshi | May 2011 | B2 |
8024441 | Kommula et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
20010049741 | Skene et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010052016 | Skene et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020026551 | Kamimaki et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038360 | Andrews et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020055939 | Nardone et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059170 | Vange | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059464 | Hata et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062372 | Hong et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078233 | Biliris et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087722 | Datta et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091840 | Pulier et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020112036 | Bohannon et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120743 | Shabtay et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120763 | Miloushev et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020124096 | Loguinov et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133601 | Kennamer et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020150048 | Ha et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020154600 | Ido et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020188862 | Trethewey et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194324 | Guha | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194335 | Maynard | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030018796 | Chou et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030031185 | Kikuchi et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030035430 | Islam et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065711 | Acharya et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030065762 | Stolorz et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030065763 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030105797 | Dolev et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115283 | Barbir et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135509 | Davis et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154239 | Davis et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030210686 | Terrell et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030210694 | Jayaraman et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229697 | Borella | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040019680 | Chao et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024872 | Kelley et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039798 | Hotz et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039847 | Persson et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040064577 | Dahlin et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040194102 | Neerdaels | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040249939 | Amini et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040249971 | Klinker | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040259565 | Lucidarme | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050002410 | Chao et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021883 | Shishizuka et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033858 | Swildens et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050086295 | Cunningham et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050149531 | Srivastava | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050169180 | Ludwig | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050286416 | Shimonishi et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020715 | Jungck | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036743 | Deng et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060167894 | Wunner | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060209689 | Nakano et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070168448 | Garbow et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168547 | Krywaniuk | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070180113 | Van Bemmel | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208877 | Kelley et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080016233 | Schneider | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080037420 | Tang | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080123597 | Arbol et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080144784 | Limberg | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147866 | Stolorz et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20100010991 | Joshi | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011120 | Kommula | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011126 | Hsu et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100061236 | Joshi | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082787 | Kommula et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100095008 | Joshi | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115133 | Joshi | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121932 | Joshi et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153558 | Kommula | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100223621 | Joshi | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100293296 | Hsu et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299427 | Joshi | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110099261 | Joshi | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110122771 | Joshi | May 2011 | A1 |
20110264798 | Joshi | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120096166 | Devarapalli et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1128613 | Aug 2001 | EP |
0139003 | May 2001 | WO |
0193530 | Dec 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Joshi et al., U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, filed May 5, 2006. |
Hsu et al., U,S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, filed Nov. 17, 2008. |
Albitz, P., et al., “DNS and BIND in a Nutshell,” O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, 1992, pp. 214-215. |
Alteon Systems, “Alteon WebSystems Introduces New Layer 4+ Switching Technology that Speeds User Access to Internet Servers,” Dec. 7, 1998. |
Alteon WebSystems, Inc.,“Enhancing Web User Experience with Global Server Load Balancing,” Jun. 1999, 8 pages. |
Krapf, E., “Alteon's Global Server Load Balancing,” Business Communications Review, Jan. 1999, p. 60. |
Nortel Networks, “Alteon Personal Content Director,” © 2001, can be retrieved from http://www.nortelnetworks.com/personalinternet, 4 pages. |
IBM Corp., IBM WebSphere Performance Pack: Load Balancing with IBM SecureWay Network Dispatcher, First Edition, Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 8, Oct. 1999. |
IBM Corp., SecureWay® Network Dispatcher: User's Guide—Version 2.1 for AIX, Solaris, and Windows NT, Third Edition, Chapters 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and Appendices C & E, Mar. 1999. |
Yerxa, G., “ACElerate on Fast Track for Load-Balancing,” Mar. 8, 1999, retrieved Nov. 5, 2002, from http://www.networkcomputing.com/1005/1005sp2.html, pp. 1-4. |
Bestavros, Azer, “WWW Traffic Reduction and Load Balancing through Server-Based Caching,” IEEE Concurrency, Jan.-Mar. 1997, pp. 56-67. |
Paul, Arindam et al, “Balancing Web Server Load for Adaptable Video Distribution,” IEEE, 2000, pp. 469-476. |
AlteonWebSystems, “PCD White Paper,” AlteonWebSystems, pp. 1-8, Mar. 2001. |
Cardellini, V., et al., “Dynamic Load Balancing on Web-server Systems,” IEEE Internet Computing, 3(3):28-39, May-Jun. 1999. |
Foundry Networks, Inc., “Server Load Balancing in Today's Web-enabled Enterprises,” White Pater, pp. 1-10, Apr. 2002. |
Genova, Z., et al., “Challenges in URL Switching for Implementing Globally Distributed Web Sites,” IEEE, pp. 89-94, 2000. |
Genova, Z., et al, “Challenges to URL Switching for Implementing Globally Distributed Web Sites,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Florida, pp. 1-9, Aug. 11, 2000. |
Venkataramani, A., et al., “TCP Nice: A Mechanism for Background Transfer,” Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium of Operationg Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI'02), ISBN:1-931971-06-4, 329-343, 2002. |
Doeringer et al., “Routing on Longest-Matching Prefixes,” IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking, vol. 4, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp. 86-97. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Dec. 31, 2003, 24 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Sep. 21, 2004, 22 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Mar. 15, 2005, 18 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Nov. 3, 2005, 18 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed May 3, 2006, 21 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Nov. 17, 2006, 11 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Oct. 30, 2007, 14 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Jul. 22, 2008, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, Mailed Sep. 18, 2008, 7 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, Mailed Nov. 27, 2007, 12 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, Mailed Apr. 29, 2008, 10 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741 480, Mailed Oct. 31, 2008, 15 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, Mailed Apr. 10, 2009, 7 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/211,822, Mailed Aug. 19, 2005, 16 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/211,822, Mailed Mar. 7, 2006, 8 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Sep. 22, 2006, 18 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Mar. 26, 2007, 14 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Sep. 4, 2007, 13 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Apr. 9, 2008, 15 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Nov. 24, 2008, 19 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Aug. 31, 2009, 25 pages. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Nov. 23, 2009, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Jan. 12, 2010, 5 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Aug. 15, 2005, 14 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Mar. 9, 2006, 12 pages. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Jun. 6, 2006, 3 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Jul. 12, 2006, 12 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Jan. 11, 2007, 17 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Jul. 17, 2006, 7 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Jan. 12, 2007, 8 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Jun. 5, 2007, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Feb. 20, 2008, 10 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Oct. 16, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Mar. 4, 2009, 8 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, Mailed Mar. 3, 2009, 41 pages. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Sep. 17, 2009, 6 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Jan. 12, 2010, 22 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Feb. 7, 2006, 7 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Aug. 9, 2006, pp. 10 pages. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Sep. 21, 2006, 3 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Dec. 7, 2006, 11 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Aug. 13, 2007, 20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Nov. 15, 2007, 23 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Jun. 12, 2008, 21 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Oct. 6, 2008, 33 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed on Apr. 3, 2009, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, Mailed Jan. 12, 2006, 16 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Jul. 3, 2006, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Jan. 3, 2007, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Sep. 10, 2007, 17 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Mar. 24, 2008, 18 pages. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Jul. 9, 2008, 4 pages. |
Examiner's Response to Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Mar. 4, 2009, 26 pages. |
Office Communication Regarding Prior Art Relied Upon in the Rejection of Claims Under Appeal, for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Apr. 13, 2009 2 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Jun. 5, 2006. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Nov. 3, 2000, 16 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Jul. 30, 2007, 9 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Apr. 11, 2008, 17 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Dec. 23, 2008, 18 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Aug. 3, 2009, 17 pages. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Oct. 16, 2009, 3 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed on Mar. 5, 2008, 17 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed on Jun. 18, 2008, 15 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed on Dec. 9, 2008, 22 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed on May 14, 2009, 19 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed on Oct. 18, 2007, 22 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed Aug. 1, 2008, 13 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for the U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed on Oct. 15, 2008, 6 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, Mailed Feb. 27, 2008, 30 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, Mailed May 30, 2008, 20 pages. |
Cisco Document, “Configuring the CSS Domain New Service,” posted on Dec. 2000, Cisco Systems Inc., http://www.ciscosystems.com, pp. 1-13. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Sep. 29, 2009, 16 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Feb. 4, 2010, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Jul. 6, 2007, 5 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Oct. 19, 2009, 4 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/353,701, mailed on Nov. 4, 2009, 22 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/353,701, mailed on Apr. 9, 2010, 5 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Jan. 29, 2010, 8 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Aug. 12, 2010, 20 pages. |
F5 Networks, Inc., “Keeping Up with Multi-Service Applications,” A F5 Networks, Inc. White Paper Document, Jan. 2006, 8 pages, Seattle, WA. |
Citrix Systems, Inc,, “NetScaler Global Server Load Balancing for Presentation Server and Access Gateway (All Editions) Deployments,” Design Consideration NetScaler 8.0, 2007, 16 pages, Fort Lauderdale, FL. |
F5 Networks, Inc., “Optimize Application Delivery Across Your Globally Distributed Data Centers,” BIG-IP Global Traffic Manager Datasheet, 2009, 8 pages, Seattle WA. |
Stalvig P., “Disaster Recovery: Not Just Planning for the Worst,” A F5 Networks, Inc. White Paper Document, 2008 16 pages, F6 Networks, Inc., Seattle, WA. |
Cisco Systems, Inc., “The Global Server Load Balancing Primer,” A Cisco Systems, Inc. White Paper Document, 1992-2004, 20 pages, San Jose, CA. |
Civil Action 10-332, Complaint for Patent Infringement with Exhibits A-G, filed on Apr. 23, 2010, 131 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Patent Infringement with Exhibits H-I, filed on Jul. 16, 2010, 41 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03443, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment with Exhibits A-I, filed on Aug. 6, 2010, 153 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No 10/674,627, mailed on Aug. 19, 2010, 4 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,130, mailed on Oct. 12, 2010, 49 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Oct. 7, 2010, 44 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Oct. 7, 2010, 26 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Nov. 26, 2010, 19 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Nov. 22, 2010, 24 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Dec. 10, 2010, 20 pages. |
A10 Networks, Inc., “A10 Networks Announces Unique and Wide Ranging Customer-Driven Functionality of AX Series Application Delivery Controllers,” News Release, Oct. 18, 2010, from http://www.a10networks.com/news/2010/101018-AX—Series—2.6.php, 2 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,779, mailed Dec. 20, 2010, 45 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,779, mailed Jan. 12, 2011, 48 pages. |
Devarapalli et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/393,796, filed Oct. 15, 2010. |
Devarapalli et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,390, filed Oct. 29, 2010. |
Joshi et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,380, filed Sep. 9, 2011. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 29 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, mailed Aug. 12, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, 11 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Contol No. 99/011,772, mailed Oct. 13, 2011, 8 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 58 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 157 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, mailed Dec. 16, 2011, 43 pages. |
Terminal Disclaimer for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, filed Jan. 29, 2008, 1 page. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 58 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, mailed Sep. 21, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 14 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 197 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Sep. 17, 2010, 27 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,650, mailed on Jan. 28, 2011, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on May 16, 2011, 11 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. 12/272,618, mailed on Jun. 14, 2011, 13 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, mailed May 19, 2011, 87 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, mailed Oct. 18, 2011, 25 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 36 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, Jul. 14, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629, mailed Jul. 30, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 10 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, mailed on Oct. 4, 2011, 7 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629 B1, filed Nov. 17, 2011, 238 pages. |
Order Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexmaination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, mailed Jan. 12, 2012, 33 pages. |
Final Office Action of U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Apr. 20, 2011, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Aug. 5, 2011, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Aug. 12, 2011, 6 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Mar. 16, 2011, 7 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Jun. 8, 2011, 9 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 21 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, mailed Jul. 22, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, 15 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,794, mailed on Nov. 14, 2011, 18 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Nov. 18, 2011, 18 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Jan. 6, 2012, 52 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 70 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/001,804, mailed Dec. 8, 2011, 20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Nov. 23, 2011, 63 pages. |
Decision on Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Jul. 11, 2011, 10 pages. |
Decision on Request for Rehearing for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Nov. 1, 2011, 5 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584 301, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 36 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301, mailed Aug. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 10 pages. |
Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination for Control No. 90/011,765, mailed on Oct. 13, 2011, 7 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301, filed Nov. 8, 2011, 194 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, mailed Dec. 28, 2011, 25 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 25 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed Jul. 5, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S Patent No, 7,840,678, mailed Jul. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 10 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed Oct. 4, 2011, 7 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678, mailed on Nov. 17, 2011, 164 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, mailed Jan. 12, 2012, 21 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,232, mailed on Apr. 7, 2011, 51 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/101,398, mailed on Nov. 10, 2011, 58 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,756965, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 38 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7.756,965, mailed Aug. 19, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, 9 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, 12 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No, 7,756,965 B1, filed Nov. 18, 2011, 189 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 24 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899, mailed Aug. 19, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 9 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, 8 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899 B1, filed Nov. 18, 2011, 153 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4033, “DNS Security Introduction and Requirements,” Mar. 2005, 22 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4034, “Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions,” Mar. 2005, 31 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4035, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” Mar. 2005, 55 pages. |
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide,” Special Publication 800-81, May 2006, 103 pages. |
CMP Media LLC, “VeriSign DNSSEC Interop Lab Adds Brocade, A10 Networks, BlueCat Networks,” Jun. 29, 2010, can be retrieved from http://www.darkreading.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225701776, 3 pages. |
Meyer, Nathan et al., “F5 and Infoblox DNS Integrated Architecture: Offering a Complete Scalable, Secure DNS Solution,” A F5 Networks, Inc. Technical Brief, 2010, 18 pages, Seattle, WA. |
Silva, Peter, “DNSSEC: The Antidote to DNS Cache Poisoning and Other DNS Attacks,” A F5 Networks, Inc. Technical Brief, 2009, 10 pages, Seattle, WA. |
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., “Domain Name Security Extensions,” retrieved Oct. 22, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain—System—Security—Extensions, 17 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Report on the Filing or Deetermination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark, filed on Aug. 5, 2010, 2 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, filed on Aug. 5, 2010, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Complaint for Patent Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Inteference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq., filed on Aug. 4, 2010, with Exhibits A-M, 196 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Cod §§17200 et seq., filed on Oct. 29, 2010, 38 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., with Exhibits A-P, filed on Apr. 13, 2011, 238 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of the Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq., filed on Apr. 29, 2011, 42 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Answer to Third Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, filed on May 16, 2011, 40 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Answer to Defendant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Counterclaims, filed on May 27, 2011, 12 pages. |
Delgadillo, K., “Cisco Distributed Director.” Cisco White Pate, 1999, 19 pages. |
Table of Contents for 2nd Conference on Telecommunications (ConfTele'99), Apr. 15-16, 1999, 9 pages. |
Bernardo, L. et al., “Scalability Issues in Telecommunication Services,” In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Telecommunications (ConfTele'99), Apr. 15-16, 1999, pp. 409-413. |
Lin, “VPN Tunnel Balancer,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/169,502, filed Dec. 7, 1999, 7 pages. |
Cisco Systems, Inc., “Cisco LocalDirector Version 1.6.3 Release Notes,” Oct. 1997, 52 pages, San Jose, CA. |
Foundry Networks, Inc., “Foundry ServerIron Installation and Configuration Guide,” May 2000, 784 pages. |
Dell Computer Corporation, “3-DNS Reference Guide, Version 4.2,” 2002, 261 pages. |
Schemers III, “Ibnamed: A Load Balancing Name Server in Perl,” 1995 LISA IX, Sep. 17-22, 1995, Monterey, CA, 13 pages. |
Goldszmidt, “Load Distribution for Scalable Web Servers: Summer Olympics 1996,” In Proceedings of the 8th IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 1997, 10 pages. |
“Use F5 Networks' 3DNS Controller to Supercharge Standard DNS Capabilities,” Jul. 1999, F5 White Paper, Seattle, WA. |
Buyya, “High Performance Cluster Computing: Architectures and Systems,” vol. 1, copyright 1999, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, http://www.phptr.com. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—A10 Networks, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC's Counterclaims, Filed Jun. 17, 2011, 4 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,547,508 and 7,270,977, Filed Aug. 1, 2011, 31 pages, including Exhibits A and B. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,558,195, 7,657,629, 7,840,678, Filed Aug. 5, 2011, 316 pages. |
Civil Action CV:10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patent 7,584,301, Filed Aug. 12, 2011, 14 pages, including Exhibit A. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Joint Claim Construction, Filed Aug. 26, 2011, 29 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,774,833; 7,454,500; 7,899,899; 7,754,965; 7,647,427; and 7,716,370, Filed Sep. 6, 2011, 72 pages, including Exhibits A through F. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant's A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's, David Cheung's, Liang Han's, and Steven Hwang's Invalidity Contentions, Filed Jun. 27, 2011, 779 pages, Including Exhibits A through M. |
Skene et al., “Method and System for Balancing Load Distribution on a Wide Area Network,” U.S. Appl. No. 09/459,815, filed Dec. 13, 1999, 59 pages. |
Skene at al., “Method and System for Name Server Load Balancing,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/182,812, filed Feb. 16, 2000, 16 pages. |
Tsimelzon et al., “Java application framework for an internet content delivery network,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/347,481, filed Jan. 11, 2002, 26 pages. |
“Foundry Networks Announces Application Aware Layer 7 Switching on ServerIron Platform,” Mar. 1999, 4 pages. |
Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; 7,840,678; and 5,875,185, issued Jan. 6, 2012, 33 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332—Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.—Civil Cover Sheet, filed on Apr. 23, 2010, 1 page. |
Civil Action—Case No. CV10-03443—Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, filed on Aug. 6, 2010, with Exhibits A through I, 153 pages. |
Civil Action—Case No. CV10-03443—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, filed on Aug. 16, 2010, 2 pages. |
Civil Action—CV10-03428—Order Reassigning Case. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh for all further proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case, filed Aug. 16, 2010, 1 page. |
Civil Action—CV10-03428—Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Oct. 11 2010, 30 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant, David Cheung's Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed Nov. 11, 2010, 32 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed on A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 12, 2010, 34 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 12, 2010, 56 pages. Included: Exhibits A and B. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaine, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jan. 27, 2011, 33 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply to Oppostion re Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Liang Han, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Feb. 3, 2011, 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed Mar. 23, 2011, 19 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Motion to Stay Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Liang Han, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Jul. 1, 2011, 26 pages. Included: Affidavit Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Motion; Proposed Order, Exhibits 1 and 2. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 15, 2011, 20 pages. Included: Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Siddhartha M. Venkatesan in Support of Opposition/Response to Motion, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings, filed Brocade Communciations Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 15, 2011, 70 pages. Included: Exhibits A through E. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply to Plaintiffs' Oppositon to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Jul. 22, 2011, 34 pages. Included: Declaration of Scott R. Mosko, Exhibits A, C, and D. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 34 pages. Included: Proposed Order for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause and Proposed Preliminary Injunction. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Andrew (Andy) Guerrero in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiff's Memorandum In Support of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Andrew (Andy) Guerrero ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Fabio E. Marino in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injuction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Keith Stewart in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Mani Prasad Kancherla in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed Brocaded Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Prasad Aluri in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version ] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Robert D. Young in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version ] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 46 pages. Included: Redacted Exhibits 1 through 8. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Lisa McGill in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version ] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion For TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 506 pages. Included: Exhibits 1 through 30. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum In Further Support of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction[Redacted Version] filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 4, 2011, 22 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notife of Errata re Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion for Temporaray Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 5, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying Motion to Stay; finding as moot Motion to Compel; denying Motion to Qualify Expert Kevin Jeffay Under the Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part Motion for Sanctions; granting Motion to Order A10 to File Confidential Information Under Seal; granting Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority, filed Aug. 12, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injuction, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 16, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Sep. 27, 2011, 18 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Redacted Declaration of David Klausner in Support to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Sep. 28, 2011, 9 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Redacted Declaration of Dr. Chi Zhang in Support to Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Sep. 28, 2011, 4 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 21 pages. |
Civii Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Teri H.P. Nguyen in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 259 pages. Included: Exhibits A through R. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Initial Claim Construction Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 31 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; 7,840,678; 7,716,370; 7,647,427; and 7,558,195 filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC., filed Oct. 11, 2011, 251 pages. Included: Exhibitis A through H and Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC's Adminstrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Notice of Errata and Submission of Corrected Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 13, 2011, 8 pages. Included: Proposed Order and Declaration. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and Striking Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement, filed Oct. 18, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Brocade Communications, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; and 7,840,678, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 21, 2011, 162 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Assignor Estoppel Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s, and Defendant Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, and Ron Szeto's Oppostion to Plaintiffs Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Assignor Estoppel, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 8, 2011, 17 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Responsive Claim-Construction Brief (PLR 4-5(b)) by A10 Networks, inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 28 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendant Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (PLF 4-5(b)) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 70 pages. Included: Exhibits A through F. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of J. Douglas Tygar, Ph.D. in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (PLR 4-5(b)) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 77 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition re Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,875,185; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7584,301; and 7,840,678, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.s, and Defendants Lee Chens And Rajkumar Jalans Opposition to Plaintiffs Brocade Commu ications, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; and 7,840,678 filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 16 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 21, 2011, 8 pages. Included: Declaration and Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply Claim Construction Brief filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 22, 2011, 22 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Reply Claims Construction Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 22, 2011, 12 pages. Included: Exhibit A. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Motion to Stay Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Renewed Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexamination (All Patents Asserted by Plaintiffs) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 23, 2011, 15 pages. Included: Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott A. Herbst Declaration of Scott A. Herbst In Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.s and Defendants Lee Chens, Rajkumar Jalans, Ron Szetos, and Steve Hwangs Renewed Motion To Stay All Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexamination (All Patents Asserted By Plaintiffs) filed byA10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 23, 2011, 25 pages. Included: Exhibits 1 through 6. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Litigation Docket, printed on Nov. 26, 2011, 44 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, 6 pages. |
Notice of Allowance of U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Feb. 13, 2012, 85 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Feb. 23, 2012, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed May 18, 2012, 25 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jun. 4, 2012. 22 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jul. 2, 2012, 7 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292; mailed Aug. 24, 2012, 8 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Assignor Estoppel, filed Nov. 30, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Brocade's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed Dec. 7, 2011, 18 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's, and Steve Hwang's Reply in Support of its Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexaminations (All Patents Asserted by Plaintiffs), Filed Dec. 14, 2011, 11 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Requestes for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent Nos. 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,574,508; and 7,720,977, filed Dec. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent No. 7,581,301, filed Dec. 29, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent Nos. 7,657,629 and 7,840,678, filed Jan. 20, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice regarding Inter Partes Reexaminations of Plaintiffs' Asserted Patents: (i) Four Newly-Granted Requests (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,833; 7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,581,009); and (ii) Status Updated for Eleven Already-Instituted Reexaminations (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,833;7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,840,678; 7,584,301; 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,720,977; and 7,574,508), filed Feb. 6, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965 and Status Update, filed Feb. 16, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 1, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, 2 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed Jul. 21, 2011, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Nov. 17, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,722, 3 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed Apr. 10, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request and Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, 2 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Vacate, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 1, 2012, 15 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Oppositon to Petition to Suspend Reexamination for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 2, 2012, 14 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 19, 2012, 36 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Patent Owner's Petition to “Supplement,” for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Apr. 19, 2012, 21 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 2 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary, for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Jul. 18, 2011, 2 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Feb. 16, 2012, 35 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary, for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Mar. 27, 2012, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 28, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 3 pages. |
Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request and Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date, mailed Nov. 10, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S Patent No. 7,581,009 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, mailed Jan. 31, 2012, 23 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 30, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Vacate, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Apr. 16, 2012, 17 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Jun. 14, 2011, 5 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Feb. 18, 2012, 12 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 7, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 2 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Dec. 2, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 3 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Dec. 5, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,624, 2 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C, § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, filed Apr. 11, 2012, 21 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Mar. 24, 2011, 29 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Feb. 15, 2012, 10 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jun. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,7964, 2 pages. |
Ex Partes Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, Jul. 21, 2011, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 3, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, 3 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, 2 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(0)(2) and 37 C.F.R, § 1.947, with Exhibits A-E, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, filed Mar. 9, 2012, 79 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 6, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, Jul. 6, 2011, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Dec. 9, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 3 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination i Request, mailed Nov. 21, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, 2 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F,R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, filed Mar. 29, 2012, 33 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 1, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 2 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Nov. 17, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Apr. 25, 2012, 51 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date of Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 23, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, 2 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, filed Apr. 11, 2012, 37 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, mailed May 5, 2012, 45 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination, mailed Jun. 30, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed Jul. 6, 2011, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 3, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/1011,761, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed on Mar. 26, 2012, 17 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965, mailed Feb. 13, 2012, 18 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 30, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, 3 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Jul. 18, 2011, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 5, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 3 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter partes, Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, mailed Feb. 7, 2012, 10 pages. |
Decision of Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Apr. 4, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, 3 pages. |
Information Disclosure Statement filed on Apr. 4, 2004, for U.S. Patent No. 7,308,475, 5 pages. |
Release Note: 3-DNS Controller, version 4.5, Mar. 5, 2007, 19 pages. |
F5 Networks' Newest Wide Area Traffic Management Solution Enables Enterprises to Meet Global e-Business Objectives, Business Wire, Feb. 19, 2002, 4 pages. |
Release Note: 3-DNS Controller, version 4.2, Feb. 13, 2002, 23 pages. |
Huang et al., “A DNS Reflection Method for Global Traffic Management,” Proceedings USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC'10), 2010, 7 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, mailed Jun. 2, 2012, 49 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed May 17, 2012, 53 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) C.F.R. § 1.947, with Exhibits 1-7, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed May 30, 2012, 145 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Jun. 15, 2012, 30 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/001,765, mailed May 16, 2012, 59 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/101,398, mailed on Jun. 11, 2012, 56 pages. |
Third Party Requester's comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jun. 13, 2012, 40 pages. |
Final Office Action and Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Mar. 21, 2012, 14 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(20) and C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 6, 2012, 46 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed on Jun. 29, 2012, 6 pages. |
Ex Partes Reexamination Interview Summary, for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Jul. 20, 2012, 3 pages. |
Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed on Jul. 30, 2012, 21 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Patent Application No. 11/429,177, mated Jun. 20, 2012, 47 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766; mailed on Jul. 17, 2012, 76 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, mailed Jul. 17, 2012, 35 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Jul. 13, 2012, 10 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Jul. 25, 2012, 42 pages. |
Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Jun. 21, 2012, 56 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, mailed Jun. 21, 2012, 74 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Jul. 20, 2012, 46 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, mailed Jul. 20, 2012, 12 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812 filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, filed Aug. 1, 2012, 29 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Jul. 13, 2012, 14 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314)B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, filed Jul. 5, 2012, 27 pages. |
Right of Appeal Notice, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, mailed Aug. 9, 2012, 26 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed on Jul. 17, 2012, 11 pages |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Jul. 17, 2012, 10 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,390, mailed on Jul. 30, 2012, 45 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Aug. 14, 2012, 2 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120324089 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13023292 | Feb 2011 | US |
Child | 13595952 | US | |
Parent | 12787779 | May 2010 | US |
Child | 13023292 | US | |
Parent | 12353701 | Jan 2009 | US |
Child | 12787779 | US | |
Parent | 10840496 | May 2004 | US |
Child | 12353701 | US |