BSP Software LLC v. Motio Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00307
• Patent #: 8,285,678
• Filed: May 24, 2013
• Petitioner(s): BSP Software LLC, Brightstar Partners LLP, and Avnet, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Motio, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Continuous Integration of Business Intelligence Software
• Brief Description: The ’678 patent discloses a method for providing automatic version control in a business intelligence (BI) system. The method uses an "automated agent" to monitor BI artifacts, such as report specifications and analysis cubes, for changes, store new versions in a source control system, and test the artifacts for errors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Gentner - Claims 1-10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Gentner.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gentner (Application # 2002/0107886).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gentner anticipated every limitation of claims 1-10. Gentner disclosed an automatic electronic versioning system for any "electronic document," which Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand to encompass BI artifacts like report specifications or analysis cubes. Petitioner contended that Gentner’s system, which saves document versions based on "memorable events" such as the passage of a predetermined time interval (e.g., 30 minutes of inactivity), directly taught the claimed "automated agent" that monitors for modifications and stores subsequent versions. The disclosure of creating an initial version and then automatically saving subsequent versions in response to modifications was argued to meet the core steps of independent claims 1 and 4 and their dependents.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Dixon and Gentner - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Dixon in view of Gentner.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Dixon (Application # 2007/0038683) and Gentner (Application # 2002/0107886).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Dixon disclosed the foundational elements of a BI system with integrated version control. Dixon’s "BI Workbench" allowed users to create and modify BI artifacts (reports, analysis models) which were stored in a version control system like CVS. Petitioner argued Dixon taught the creation of user-authored BI artifacts that produce output, as recited in the claims. However, Petitioner contended Dixon’s versioning was user-initiated (e.g., a user requesting to save a version). Gentner was argued to supply the missing automation element by teaching an agent that automatically saves document versions based on predetermined time intervals or periods of user inactivity, mapping directly to the "predetermined interval" limitation of claim 4.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Dixon and Gentner to improve the functionality of Dixon’s system. Dixon taught the desirability of version control for BI objects but did not specify an automated triggering mechanism. Gentner provided a known and simple method for automating version creation based on time. Combining Gentner’s automated, time-based saving mechanism with Dixon’s BI-specific development environment was presented as a predictable solution to enhance data integrity and ease of use.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as integrating a time-based, automated saving feature into a software system that already utilized version control was a routine and well-understood task in the field of software engineering at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Gentner and EQM - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Gentner in view of EQM.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gentner (Application # 2002/0107886) and EQM (a 2004 technical brochure from Noad Business Intelligence BV).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the EQM technical brochure disclosed a commercial quality assurance product that provided version control specifically for BI systems, including support for BusinessObjects "documents and universes." EQM was asserted to teach real-time monitoring of user activity and the storage of "each and every version" of an object, thus disclosing an "automated agent" that interfaces with a BI system for version control. Petitioner argued that Gentner supplemented EQM by teaching a specific, common mechanism for triggering automated versioning: the passage of a predetermined amount of time. The combination therefore taught all elements of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because EQM described a comprehensive version control system for BI but did not detail the specific event that would trigger the saving of a new version. Gentner disclosed a common and effective trigger for such systems (a predetermined time interval). A POSITA seeking to implement the system described in EQM would have found it obvious to use a standard, time-based trigger as taught by Gentner to provide a fully automated versioning solution.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Dixon and McCauley (Application # 2006/0041558), and obviousness challenges combining Dixon with Cohen (Application # 2003/0050886) and McCauley with Gentner, but these relied on similar arguments regarding version control in BI systems.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "automated agent": Petitioner argued that because the patent provided no specific definition or structure for this term, it should be given its broadest reasonable construction: "any software that actively performs version control of business artifacts." This broad construction was central to applying prior art systems that performed automated versioning functions without explicitly using the term "automated agent."
• "detecting a request to modify": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed to include not only direct user commands but also passive detection methods like "polling the artifacts to detect that changes have been made." This construction was necessary to map prior art like Gentner, which automatically saved versions based on time-based triggers or inactivity, not an explicit user request to modify or save.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of Patent 8,285,678 as unpatentable.