Amazon.com Inc v. Ac Technologies SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01802
• Patent #: 7,904,680
• Filed: August 24, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Amazon.com, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): AC Technologies S.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Access and Management System and Method
• Brief Description: The ’680 patent describes a client-server network system designed to reduce data transmission delays ("lag"), particularly in applications like interactive computer games. The system utilizes multiple data storage units (servers) that store replicated data, and data is stored, copied, or shifted between these units based on "predetermined data transmission parameters" to optimize performance for connected computer units (clients).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-15 over Rabinovich

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rabinovich (an AT&T Labs Research Technical Memorandum, "Dynamic Replication on the Internet," March 5, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rabinovich disclosed all elements of the challenged claims. Rabinovich taught a classic client-server network with multiple hosts/servers (the claimed "data storage units") storing replicated data objects for clients (the claimed "computer units"). To address network bottlenecks, Rabinovich’s system dynamically selected servers and replicated data based on performance metrics, including network proximity and server load. Petitioner contended these metrics were equivalent to the ’680 patent’s "predetermined data transmission parameters." The system’s periodic evaluation of these parameters to decide whether to move or create a new data replica (redundantly storing it) was alleged to teach the claimed functionality of copying data between storage units based on performance.
  • Motivation to Combine: This ground was based on a single reference, so no motivation to combine was necessary. Petitioner asserted that Rabinovich alone, as understood by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), rendered the claimed invention obvious. The motivations described within Rabinovich—to optimize service, balance load, and reduce latency for clients—were the same as the stated goals of the ’680 patent.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying the teachings of Rabinovich to build the claimed system, as Rabinovich provided a detailed framework, algorithms, and pseudocode for implementing a dynamic data replication system to improve network performance.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-15 over Rabinovich (under Patent Owner's Apparent Construction)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rabinovich
• Core Argument for this Ground: This ground was presented as an alternative based on the broad claim constructions Petitioner alleged Patent Owner asserted in related district court litigation.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that if the term "computer unit" was construed broadly to mean any computing device (rather than just a client), then Rabinovich’s description of server-to-server data replication anticipated the claims. In this scenario, a source server in Rabinovich that initiates a replication acts as the "computer unit," while the destination servers are the "data storage units." When this source server measures performance parameters (e.g., load, proximity to clients) to determine that data should be copied to another server, it directly reads on the claim limitations. The subsequent copying of the data object from the source server to the destination server constituted the claimed methods and systems, with the determination being made independently of a client request, as taught by Rabinovich.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted a third ground that claims 2, 4, and 6 are obvious over Rabinovich in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA. This argument piggybacked on Ground 2, contending that if Rabinovich anticipated the base claims under the Patent Owner's broad construction, adding a well-known wireless network connection—a notorious and common feature in 1999—would have been a simple and obvious modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Computer Unit": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a client computer," arguing the specification consistently used "computer unit" and "client" interchangeably and in a manner distinct from the data-hosting servers. This construction was central to its primary obviousness argument (Ground 1), which maintained the client-server architecture.
• "Controller to Enable Data Transmission": Petitioner argued this term, which did not appear in the specification, was a "nonce word" lacking sufficiently definite structure and should be construed as a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The recited function was "to enable data transmission between the data storage units and the computer unit." Petitioner identified the only corresponding structure in the specification as "a network," such as the Internet or a local network.
• "Data Transmission Performance": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the duration of transmission, fault rate, duration of data processing operations prior to transmission, transmission quality, transmission rate, computing performance/load, network performance, or other performance measures." This construction was based on explicit examples in the specification and arguments made during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’680 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.