PTAB

IPR2014-00425

Juniper Networks Inc v. Brixham Solutions Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Providing Protection to Network Traffic
  • Brief Description: The ’652 patent discloses a technique for protecting network traffic transmitted on a Pseudowire (PW). The method involves assigning a "priority" to a standby PW and using that priority to determine whether to preempt existing traffic on the standby PW during a network switchover.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Hofmeister - Claims 1, 9, and 14 are anticipated by Hofmeister under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hofmeister (Application # 2004/0156313).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hofmeister, a publication co-authored by the ’652 patent’s inventor, discloses every element of the challenged independent claims. Hofmeister teaches establishing primary and "backup" PWs between provider edge nodes by exchanging control messages. These messages contain protection configuration parameters, including "Setup Priority" and "Holding Priority," which are used to determine whether a new PW request can preempt an existing PW. Hofmeister also discloses acknowledging the configuration request and, upon acceptance, using the backup PW. The determination to preempt is based on the relative priorities, thus meeting all limitations of the independent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens - Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 17 are obvious over Hofmeister in view of RFC 3386 and Owens under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hofmeister (Application # 2004/0156313), RFC 3386 (Request for Comments 3386), and Owens (Patent 7,804,767).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: To the extent Hofmeister is found not to disclose every element, Petitioner contended the combination with RFC 3386 and Owens renders the claims obvious. Hofmeister provides the foundational teaching of setting up and managing PWs with priority-based preemption. RFC 3386 and Owens supplement this by explicitly teaching the application of various protection schemes (e.g., 1+1, 1:1, 1:N), as recited in the dependent claims. They also detail the use of "relative priorities" and "preemption" specifically in the context of network failure and survivability, rather than just during initial setup. Owens, for example, teaches that when a protection switch is initiated, low-priority traffic on the backup path is "discarded to free resources for the working traffic."
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to enhance the PW protection system of Hofmeister. Hofmeister explicitly states it "leverages [] conventional technologies" from IETF standards. RFC 3386 and Owens describe such widely known protection and survivability techniques. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the established protection schemes from RFC 3386 and Owens to the PW environment of Hofmeister to achieve the predictable result of more robust network traffic protection.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known protection techniques to a known type of network (PWs) to achieve the expected benefit of improved reliability, presenting a clear expectation of success.

Ground 3: Anticipation over RFC 3386 - Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 17 are anticipated by RFC 3386 under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: RFC 3386 (Request for Comments 3386).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that RFC 3386, an IETF standard, anticipates all challenged claims. RFC 3386 explicitly applies to PW environments and describes network survivability using "working" and "protection" entities (i.e., primary and standby PWs). It teaches signaling between nodes to establish these connections using parameters that include "relative restoration priorities" and "preemption priority." It further discloses using these priorities to manage traffic, such as preempting "extra traffic" on a protection entity when it is needed to restore a failed working entity. RFC 3386 also describes various protection architectures, including the 1+1, 1:1, 1:N, and M:N schemes recited in the dependent claims.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations based on RFC 3386 and RFC 3209; Halabi alone or in combination with RFC 3386 and Owens; and Chen in view of Voit and Blanchet, which was the combination used by the Examiner during prosecution.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "priority": Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner argued in concurrent litigation that "priority" simply means "preference" and can be satisfied by the mere designation of a PW as "primary" or "standby." Petitioner argued that even under this broad construction, the claims are unpatentable. However, Petitioner contended the correct construction, based on prosecution history where the applicant distinguished prior art, requires "a preference level...that is different from its designation as a primary or standby Pseudowire."
  • "determining whether to preempt existing traffic": Petitioner highlighted that the Patent Owner construed this term to include dropping duplicative traffic on a standby path in a 1+1 protection scheme during normal operation. Petitioner argued this construction was adopted to read on the accused products but was inconsistent with positions taken during prosecution to overcome prior art. Petitioner asserted the claims are unpatentable under either the Patent Owner's broad construction or a narrower construction where "existing traffic" means non-duplicative, lower-priority traffic.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 17 of the ’652 patent as unpatentable.