Unified Patents LLC v. C Cation Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01045
• Patent #: 5,563,883
• Filed: April 13, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Unified Patents Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): C-Cation Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3, and 4

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Signalling Channel Management and Protocol for Shared Transmission Media
• Brief Description: The ’883 patent relates to methods and apparatus for facilitating two-way multi-media communication over a shared medium, such as a coaxial cable network. The invention claims a dynamic process for allocating and managing signalling data channels to adjust to varying traffic demands and system conditions like interference or component failure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over the combined MPT Specifications

• Prior Art Relied Upon: MPT 1343 (Performance Specification), MPT 1347 (Radio Interface Specification), and MPT 1327 (Signalling Standard for Trunked Private Land Mobile Radio Systems).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the MPT Specifications, a collection of interrelated British telecommunications standards, collectively disclose a complete trunked radio system that meets every limitation of claims 1 and 4. For independent claim 1, the specifications describe a system with a central controller (Trunking System Controller or TSC), remote terminals (radio units), and a shared transmission medium (airwaves). The system establishes communication by having radio units perform a "channel hunt sequence" to find and confirm a control channel. Upon power-on, units are "initially assigned" to a predetermined channel based on stored information from prior activity. The system monitors channel usability by checking codeword error rates; if the error rate is too high, the unit determines it must be reassigned and hunts for a new, suitable channel. The TSC then reassigns the unit by managing the registration process on the new channel. For dependent claim 4, the MPT specifications teach sensing for channel "overloading" via an "overload; message rejected" message (ACKX QUAL='1') and sensing for "failure" via a timeout after a maximum number of unacknowledged access attempts.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the MPT specifications because they were explicitly designed and published as a suite of "associated documents" intended to be used together to create a standards-compliant trunked radio network. The documents extensively cross-reference one another, making their combination a matter of routine design rather than invention.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the teachings of published, interrelated technical standards to build a functional, standards-compliant network.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over the MPT Specifications in view of Zdunek and Dufresne

• Prior Art Relied Upon: MPT 1343, MPT 1347, MPT 1327, Zdunek (Patent 4,870,408), and Dufresne (Patent 4,920,533).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds steps for monitoring channel usability, including "calculating the aggregate traffic load requirements" and "monitoring the past collision count." While the MPT specifications teach the concept of "load sharing" and avoiding "clashing" (collisions), Petitioner argued that Zdunek and Dufresne provide the well-known implementation details. Zdunek teaches calculating aggregate traffic load to perform load leveling and balance traffic between channels, a known technique a POSITA would apply to implement the MPT system's disclosed load sharing functionality. Dufresne teaches a central controller that detects collisions on a shared channel and uses a collision count to adjust system parameters for improved performance. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Dufresne's conventional collision monitoring technique to optimize the MPT system's performance, as suggested by the specifications themselves.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, tasked with implementing the load sharing and performance optimization features described in the MPT standards, would naturally look to well-known prior art solutions for the specific algorithms. Zdunek provided a known method for load calculation, and Dufresne provided a known method for collision monitoring. Combining these known techniques to implement the functionalities of the MPT base system was merely the application of established principles to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing the known and compatible traffic calculation and collision detection methods of Zdunek and Dufresne into the MPT standards-based system to enhance its performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed adopting a construction from prior litigation for the phrases "said predetermined signalling data channel" and "said predetermined channel."
• The proposed construction is: "one of the pair of predetermined signalling data channels." Petitioner argued this construction should be used for the purposes of the IPR proceeding.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner preemptively argued against discretionary denial under §325(d) by distinguishing this petition from prior, unsuccessful petitions challenging the ’883 patent (IPR2014-00454 and IPR2014-00746).
• Petitioner contended that: (1) the MPT Specifications are materially different prior art from the McNamara patent relied upon in a previous denial, as they contain no alleged "teaching away" from a central controller, and (2) this petition focuses on technical details of the MPT Specifications, alone and in combination, that have never been addressed on the merits by the Patent Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the final cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of Patent 5,563,883 as unpatentable.