Unified PaTents LLC v. C CatION Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: Not Yet Assigned (Associated with pending IPR2014-00746 and IPR2014-00454)
• 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: Method and Apparatus for Facilitating Two-Way Multi-Media Communication
• Brief Description: The ’883 patent discloses methods for dynamically allocating signalling data channels in a multiple access communication system, such as a coaxial cable-TV network. The invention claims to adjust the number of signalling channels to meet varying traffic demands and provide redundancy against interference or component failure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over MPT Specifications - Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over MPT 1343 in view of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: MPT 1343 (Performance Specification for radio units), MPT 1347 (Radio interface specification), and MPT 1327 (A Signalling Standard for Trunked Private Land Mobile Radio Systems).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of the MPT Specifications, which are interrelated standards for building a trunked radio network, discloses all elements of independent claim 1. The MPT system's Trunking System Controller (TSC) is the claimed "central controller," radio units are the "remote terminals," and the RF airwaves are the "shared transmission means." The core method steps are taught through two primary operational modes in the MPT specifications:
    • (1) Channel Hunt Sequence: A radio unit establishes communication by tuning to a "predetermined" channel number retained from a previous session. The unit monitors the channel's usability by checking the codeword error rate. If errors are excessive, it determines a need to reassign and hunts for a different, suitable channel, which the TSC then confirms via a registration process.
    • (2) Fall-back Procedure: In a network failure, units establish communication on a "pre-programmed" fall-back channel. The system monitors this channel's usability via timeouts on access requests. A unit can be reassigned by the TSC (via a MOVE command) or can independently determine to hunt for a better channel if the fall-back channel quality degrades.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the MPT specifications because they explicitly cross-reference one another and were published by the British Ministry of Post and Telecommunications as a set of associated documents for designing a single, standards-compliant trunked radio system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining the teachings was the intended purpose of the standards for creating a functional trunked radio network.

Ground 2: Obviousness over MPT Specifications, Zdunek, and Dufresne - Claim 3 is obvious over the combination for Ground 1, further 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: This ground builds on the MPT system from Ground 1, arguing that the additional limitations of dependent claim 3 would have been obvious additions. Claim 3 adds steps for monitoring channel status by "calculating the aggregate traffic load" and "monitoring the past collision count."
    • The MPT specifications teach load sharing between control channels but do not specify the algorithm. Zdunek, which is cited in the ’883 patent’s background, explicitly teaches a network controller that performs "overall data traffic monitoring" to calculate traffic load and reassigns subscriber units to balance the load, addressing the exact problem of optimizing a multi-channel system.
    • The MPT specifications teach that the TSC can detect "clashing" (collisions) and adjust system parameters (framelength) to minimize access delays. To the extent this is not an explicit collision count, Dufresne teaches a central controller that detects collisions on a shared channel and sends a status byte, allowing remote terminals to count collisions and adjust system parameters.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA building a system based on the MPT specifications would be motivated to optimize its performance. The MPT specifications expressly state that system designers should choose an appropriate control algorithm. A POSITA would look to known solutions like Zdunek for load balancing and Dufresne for collision management—both well-understood problems in shared-medium networks—to implement and improve the load sharing and anti-clashing functionalities described in the MPT standards.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing known load balancing and collision detection techniques to optimize a communication network was a conventional practice, leading to a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that for the purposes of the proceeding, the Board should adopt the construction for "said predetermined signalling data channel" and "said predetermined channel" from a prior district court litigation involving the ’883 patent. That court construed the terms to mean "one of the pair of predetermined signalling data channels." Petitioner adopted this construction to address potential antecedent basis issues while maintaining its obviousness arguments.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner acknowledged that a prior IPR petition on the ’883 patent filed by another party (Cisco, IPR2014-00454), which also relied on the MPT Specifications, was denied institution. Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), contending that this petition is materially different because it provides "sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning" that the Board found lacking in the prior petition. This petition focuses on new details and arguments concerning the MPT specifications that were not previously addressed on the merits by the Patent Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of Patent 5,563,883 as unpatentable.