Amazon.com Inc v. Ac Technologies SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-01803
• 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 Management System as Well as a Method
• Brief Description: The ’680 patent relates to data access and management systems for client-server networks. The technology aims to address network bottlenecks and service lag by using multiple servers with replicated data, where data is stored or copied based on data transmission parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rabinovich and Carter - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Rabinovich in view of Carter.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rabinovich (a 1998 AT&T technical memorandum titled “Dynamic Replication on the Internet”) and Carter (a 1997 IEEE article titled “Server Selection using Dynamic Path Characterization in Wide-Area Networks”).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rabinovich disclosed a client-server system with multiple hosts (data storage units) that dynamically replicate and migrate data objects to optimize service for clients (computer units). This system selected servers based on parameters like network proximity and server load. Carter was argued to supplement this by teaching dynamic server selection based on more sophisticated, measured transmission parameters, including round-trip latency and available network bandwidth, to improve performance. Together, Petitioner asserted the references taught all limitations of the independent claims, such as having at least two data storage units, a computer unit, and a network (controller) enabling communication.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references because both addressed the same problem: dynamically selecting the best server from a plurality of replicated servers to quickly service a client request. A POSITA would have integrated Carter's superior performance measurement techniques (latency, bandwidth) into Rabinovich’s dynamic replication system to improve the server selection algorithm and achieve better performance, a predictable outcome.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be a straightforward application of known techniques to improve a known system. Using Carter’s measured parameters to enhance Rabinovich's server selection would have been a predictable improvement with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rabinovich, Carter, and Akizawa - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Rabinovich and Carter in view of Akizawa.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rabinovich, Carter, and Akizawa (Patent 5,548,724).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the arguments from Ground 1 and added Akizawa to explicitly address selecting a server for data uploads (write requests) based on performance metrics. Petitioner argued that Akizawa taught a system for dynamically selecting a server to service both read and write requests based on server load measurements. Akizawa further disclosed that files could be stored in pieces (data blocks) across one or more servers. The addition of Akizawa was argued to explicitly show that using performance metrics to select a server for storing data from a client was a known technique in the art.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Akizawa with Rabinovich and Carter to create a more comprehensive and efficient data management system. Akizawa’s explicit teachings on handling write requests based on server load would have been a natural and obvious addition to the download-focused system of Rabinovich and Carter. The combination would allow for optimized server selection for both uploading and downloading data, addressing a well-known problem with a known solution.
  • Key Aspects: This ground preemptively addressed a potential argument that the primary combination of Rabinovich and Carter only taught optimizing data downloads. Akizawa was introduced to demonstrate that optimizing data uploads based on similar performance metrics was also well within the knowledge of a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner asserted that several claim terms required construction under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, which was central to its obviousness arguments.

• "A Controller To Enable Data Transmission...": Petitioner argued this term, which does not use the word "means," is nonetheless a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "controller" is a nonce word lacking sufficiently definite structure. The recited function is enabling data transmission, and Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the specification as "a network between the data storage units and the computer unit(s)."
• "Data Transmission Performance": Based on the specification and prosecution history, Petitioner proposed this term be construed broadly to include a range of performance metrics. The proposed construction was "the duration of transmission, fault rate, duration of data processing operations prior to transmission, transmission quality, transmission rate, load, computing performance, network performance, or other performance measures."
• "Data Storage [Unit/Device]": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "memory for storing data," arguing the patent used the term interchangeably with "memory" and "cluster of memory cells."
• "Computer Unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a client computer," asserting the specification used "computer unit" and "client" interchangeably.

5. Relief Requested

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