Oracle Corp v. CLoudIng IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,918,014
• Filed: December 21, 2012
• Petitioner(s): Oracle Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Clouding IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 18, 22, and 24-27

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dynamic Distributed Data System and Method
• Brief Description: The ’014 patent discloses a system and method for maintaining storage object consistency across a distributed storage network. The system uses routing tables stored at each network node to efficiently route requests, with a central "Repository of Last Resort" (RLR) acting as a coherency hub to manage data replicas through publish and subscribe processes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Inventor's Own Prior Publication - Claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 18, and 24-26 are anticipated by the 1994 Borrill Article under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: 1994 Borrill Article (a Dec. 1994 IEEE conference paper co-authored by the ’014 patent’s inventor).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the 1994 Borrill Article, published six years before the patent’s priority date, discloses every element of the challenged claims. It described a "Unified Solution" for cache coherency in a system of connected nodes (called "clusters") that maintained consistency for storage objects (called "data blocks"). Petitioner asserted that the article explicitly taught using a "Repository of Last Resort" (RLR) and RLR Routing Tables at each node to maintain a forward routing path for each resource. The article’s publish process, where an RLR announces a resource's availability to its neighbors which then create routing table entries, was alleged to directly map to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18. Dependent claims were allegedly met by the article's disclosure of spanning trees, data blocks, and clusters of connected devices (e.g., workstations).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Alternative Distributed System Art - Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 18, 22, and 25 are obvious over Herlihy in view of Raymond under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Herlihy (a 1998 publication on distributed directory protocols) and Raymond (a Feb. 1989 ACM journal article on distributed mutual exclusion).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Herlihy taught a distributed directory service for tracking mobile objects (e.g., files) across connected nodes, where each node maintains a directory entry (link) pointing toward the object, which is analogous to the claimed "storage object routing table." However, Herlihy’s initialization was "lazy." Petitioner asserted that Raymond taught a solution to this by disclosing an algorithm where an initial privileged node sends an "Initialize" message to its neighbors in a spanning tree. Upon receipt, each neighbor node sets a "HOLDER" variable pointing back to the message sender, thereby creating an entry indicating a path to the privileged node, as claimed.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Raymond’s efficient, proactive spanning tree initialization algorithm with Herlihy's directory protocol. This would provide a more robust and predictable method for establishing the initial directory state in Herlihy’s system, which was a known design choice to improve performance and reliability in distributed systems.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as both references address fundamental problems of coordination and data location in distributed computer networks using compatible, well-understood tree-based logical structures.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Borrill and Hennessy - Claims 11 and 27 are obvious over the 1994 Borrill Article in view of Hennessy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: 1994 Borrill Article (a Dec. 1994 IEEE conference paper) and Hennessy (a 1996 computer architecture textbook).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: The 1994 Borrill Article was asserted to teach the core distributed system of claim 1, which utilizes "general interconnection networks" to send messages between nodes. The challenged dependent claims further require this message to be sent over a "TCP/IP packet-switched network." Petitioner argued Hennessy explicitly taught that TCP/IP was the most popular and standard protocol for internetworking, used even for local communication.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the general network described in the 1994 Borrill Article would be motivated to use the TCP/IP standard taught by Hennessy. Using a ubiquitous, well-documented, and standardized protocol like TCP/IP was a common and logical design choice to ensure interoperability, compatibility, and leverage existing infrastructure.
  • Expectation of Success: The integration would be straightforward and predictable, as TCP/IP was designed precisely for the type of internetworking of computer clusters (nodes) described in the 1994 Borrill Article.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 6 and 22 are obvious over the 1994 Borrill Article in view of Herlihy (to show storage objects could be files); that claims 8, 10, 24, and 26 are obvious over Herlihy and Raymond in view of the 1994 Borrill Article; and that claims 11 and 27 are obvious over Herlihy and Raymond in view of Hennessy.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 18, 22, and 24-27 of the ’014 patent as unpatentable.