Oracle Corp v. CLoudIng IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00094 (Referenced as a related proceeding)
• Patent #: 7,596,784
• Filed: May 9, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Oracle Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Clouding IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: On-Demand Provision of Computational Resources
• Brief Description: The ’784 patent describes methods and systems for providing on-demand, scalable computational resources to application providers over a distributed network. The technology is directed to solving problems of dynamic resource management and capacity planning by allowing providers to access additional processing capabilities without needing to predict demand.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aziz, which was not before the examiner, discloses every limitation of claim 9. Aziz describes a method for providing on-demand application processing using a distributed "computing grid" and "Virtual Server Farms" (VSFs). Petitioner contended that the "Control Plane" in Aziz provides the claimed "conduit" giving an application provider (a VSF customer) access to the distributed network. The Control Plane allows the customer to specify the configuration of a VSF (e.g., number and type of servers), which constitutes "dictating" a portion of the network to receive an application. The subsequent ability for the customer to upload master copies of applications for execution on the newly configured VSF meets the limitation of "distributing the application."

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 9 over Aziz in view of Karpovich

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016), Karpovich ("Support for Object Placement in Wide Area Heterogeneous Distributed Systems," a 1996 technical report)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Aziz provides the foundational system for on-demand distributed computing. Karpovich, which addresses the challenge of determining how and where to place software tasks onto processors in a distributed system, was argued to supply the missing element of intelligent placement. Karpovich teaches a "placement mapper" that resolves object placement decisions based on constraints, system status (load, hardware capabilities), and available resources, which it determines by gathering data from the distributed system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Aziz and Karpovich to improve the application placement capabilities of the Aziz system. While Aziz allows a customer to provision resources, Karpovich provides a sophisticated, automated method for deciding which specific resources to allocate based on real-time factors. This combination would give VSF customers in Aziz more granular control and optimization over their application distribution, a known goal in distributed computing.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Karpovich's placement mapper into Aziz’s Control Plane to enhance its provisioning logic, as both references operate in the same field of distributed computing and address complementary problems.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 9 over Aziz in view of Kotov

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016), Kotov ("Optimization of E-Service Solutions with the Systems of Servers Library," a 2000 symposium proceeding)

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used Aziz as the primary reference. Petitioner introduced Kotov for its teachings on optimizing distributed service systems by intelligently partitioning services to improve traffic efficiency and minimize communication costs. Kotov explicitly discusses mapping services to specific servers or clusters based on their proximity to reduce bandwidth usage and latency.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to modify the provisioning system of Aziz with the optimization strategies from Kotov. Specifically, when a VSF's resources are geographically distributed (as disclosed in Aziz), a POSITA would look to Kotov’s teachings to implement application distribution that specifies the geographic location of compute resources to minimize network costs. For example, a POSITA would provision resources from a single, geographically close Idle Pool rather than from several disparate ones to enhance performance.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining Kotov’s network-aware service placement logic with Aziz’s on-demand resource provisioning framework was presented as a straightforward application of known optimization principles to achieve the predictable result of a more efficient distributed system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103. These grounds relied on combining Aziz with Rabinovich (a 1998 technical bulletin), Lumelsky (Patent 6,516,350), or Berman (a 1996 conference proceeding). These combinations similarly argued that a POSITA would have modified Aziz’s system to incorporate known techniques for dynamic resource selection and application placement based on factors like load, proximity, geography, and user-defined specifications taught in the secondary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "dictating at least a first portion of the distributed network to receive at least one application": Petitioner argued this term should be interpreted as "specifying compute resources in the distributed network to receive any collection of computer program instructions." This construction was central to countering the Patent Owner's prosecution argument that prior art systems were "bottom-up" (user-pull) whereas the invention was "top-down" (provider-push). Petitioner contended that an application provider in Aziz "dictates" by specifying the parameters (number of servers, hardware type) for the VSF it is creating.
• "application provider": Petitioner proposed this term should include entities that have deployed any collection of computer program instructions, effectively equating it with providers of application content. This broader construction was aimed at encompassing the "VSF customer" in Aziz, which uploads and executes applications, and to prevent a narrower interpretation that might require the entity to be a formal "service provider."
• "at least one application": Petitioner argued for a broad construction including any collection of computer program instructions, without regard to arbitrary organizational divisions between "modules" and "applications." This was intended to ensure that prior art disclosing the distribution of software components or modules would read on the claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 9 of the ’784 patent as unpatentable.