PTAB

IPR2015-00052

Actifio Inc v. Delphix Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: De-Deduplication Based Backup of File Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’944 patent relates to "storage efficient backup" systems that reduce data restoration time. The invention addresses problems with conventional backups by creating "virtual restored file system" (VRFS) structures, which are virtual copies of a file system that use pointers to existing backup data, allowing a client to access the backup almost instantly without a full data copy.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over SM Guide, Edwards, and Patterson - Claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are obvious over SM Guide in view of Edwards and Patterson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon:
    • SM Guide (SnapManager® 5.0 for Microsoft® SQL Server® Installation and Administration Guide, Oct. 2008)
    • Edwards (FlexVol: Flexible, Efficient File Volume Virtualization in WAFL, USENIX Conference, June 2008)
    • Patterson (SnapMirror®: File System Based Asynchronous Mirroring for Disaster Recovery, FAST Conference, Jan. 2002)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these three NetApp-related references taught every limitation of the challenged claims. SM Guide disclosed a high-level method for rapid backup and restoration of databases using NetApp's SnapManager software, including creating cloned databases from snapshots. However, SM Guide lacked technical specifics on how its underlying "SnapMirror" and "FlexClone" technologies worked. Patterson allegedly supplied the missing details for SnapMirror, teaching how to create a baseline backup and then transfer only "incremental" or changed data blocks for subsequent point-in-time copies. Edwards allegedly supplied the missing details for FlexClone, teaching how to create a writable, virtual copy of a file system (a "clone volume," analogous to the ’944 patent’s VRFS) by creating a new root block (vol_info block) that inherits pointers to the complete file system image stored in a pre-existing snapshot. This combination allegedly taught receiving and storing multiple point-in-time copies and creating a virtual file system by linking files to data blocks from different snapshots.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references for several reasons. First, all three references originated from the same company (NetApp) and described features of the same commercial product ecosystem (Data ONTAP, SnapManager, SnapMirror, FlexClone). Second, the references addressed the identical problem as the ’944 patent: slow and inefficient restoration of large file systems. Third, a POSITA implementing the system in SM Guide would have naturally consulted technical papers like Edwards and Patterson to understand the underlying mechanics of the technologies SM Guide utilized.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the technologies were not only compatible but were designed and sold by NetApp to work together seamlessly within its Data ONTAP operating system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over SM Guide, Edwards, Patterson, and Fair - Claim 16 is obvious over SM Guide, in view of Edwards, Patterson, and Fair.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon:
    • SM Guide (SnapManager® 5.0 for Microsoft® SQL Server® Installation and Administration Guide, Oct. 2008)
    • Edwards (FlexVol: Flexible, Efficient File Volume Virtualization in WAFL, USENIX Conference, June 2008)
    • Patterson (SnapMirror®: File System Based Asynchronous Mirroring for Disaster Recovery, FAST Conference, Jan. 2002)
    • Fair (Patent 7,334,095)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address the specific limitations of claim 16, which recited a copy-on-write (COW) procedure. Claim 16 requires that when a write request is received for a data block shared by two different virtual restored file systems, a copy of that block is created and linked to the first file system, preserving the original block for the second. Petitioner argued that the base combination of SM Guide, Edwards, and Patterson established a system where multiple clones could be created that share underlying data blocks. Fair, another NetApp patent, allegedly provided the explicit teaching of NetApp’s COW mechanism. Fair described that when a "dirtied" (modified) data block is written, the file system writes the new data to a new location on disk and changes the active file system pointers to the new block, rather than overwriting the original. This preserves the original data block for any other clones that point to it.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Fair to the primary combination was strong because Fair provided the specific implementation details for the write operations in the WAFL file system that Edwards described at a higher level. Fair's inventors were also NetApp employees and co-authors on the Edwards paper, making it a natural source for a POSITA to consult for a deeper understanding of the system's operation.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was merely an explanation of how NetApp’s own existing, integrated technologies functioned, ensuring a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "data blocks": Petitioner proposed the construction "a unit of data used by a file system." This broad construction was based on the specification and intended to encompass the general-purpose data storage units described in the NetApp prior art.
  • "virtual restored file system": Petitioner proposed the construction "a set of files pointing to already-stored data blocks associated with a point-in-time copy of the source file system." This construction emphasized the pointer-based nature of the system, which Petitioner argued was the core concept disclosed in the Edwards and Fair prior art for creating space-efficient clones.
  • "mounting": Petitioner proposed the construction "making accessible." This functional definition was argued to be consistent with the specification and the manner in which the SM Guide disclosed making a cloned database available to a target server.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 8, 11, 14-16, 18, and 20 of the ’944 patent as unpatentable.