Dell Inc v. Realtime Data LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00972
• Patent #: 7,415,530
• Filed: April 29, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Dell Inc.; Riverbed Technology, Inc.; SAP America, Inc.; Sybase, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; Teradata Operations, Inc.; Echostar Corporation; and Hughes Network Systems, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Compression Systems and Methods
• Brief Description: The ’530 patent relates to data compression and decompression techniques for data storage systems. The invention describes a "data storage accelerator" that allegedly improves performance by ensuring the combined process of data compression and storage occurs faster than storing the same data in its original, uncompressed form.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 18 over Franaszek in view of Osterlund

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036) and Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Franaszek taught nearly all limitations of independent claim 1, including a system for compressing and decompressing data using a plurality of mechanisms, a memory device, and a compressor/decompressor (the claimed "data accelerator"). Franaszek's system analyzes data blocks and selects an appropriate compression technique from several available options, applying different techniques to different blocks. Petitioner contended the only key element not explicitly taught by Franaszek was the limitation requiring that "compression and storage occurs faster than" storing the data uncompressed. This limitation, Petitioner asserted, was expressly taught by Osterlund, which describes a data compression device interposed in a data stream to permit storage and retrieval "to occur at a faster rate than would otherwise be possible."
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Franaszek's adaptive compression system with Osterlund's teachings on accelerating data storage to achieve the predictable result of improved system performance. The desire to speed up data storage was a well-known problem, and Osterlund provided a known solution that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply to a system like Franaszek's.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the art of data compression was predictable, and the performance of such a combination could be easily modeled and tested.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2-5 over Franaszek, Osterlund, and Fall

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036), Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646), and Fall (Patent 5,991,515).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Franaszek and Osterlund. For the additional limitations of dependent claims 2-5, Petitioner introduced Fall. Specifically, claim 2 requires the data accelerator to store a "first descriptor" (indicating the compression technique used) to the memory device. To the extent Franaszek was found not to teach this, Petitioner argued Fall explicitly did. Fall teaches a compressor that stores not only the compressed data but also the "type of compression used to process the object data" in memory.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to look to Fall because it addressed similar problems in data compression and storage. Modifying the Franaszek/Osterlund system to incorporate Fall's method of storing a descriptor with the compressed data was presented as a predictable design choice to simplify the system and ensure the decompressor could correctly identify and process the data.

Ground 5: Obviousness of Claim 24 over Franaszek, Osterlund, Clark, and Rynderman

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036), Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646), Clark (Patent 5,319,682), and Rynderman (Patent 5,563,961).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged independent claim 24 by augmenting the Franaszek/Osterlund combination with Clark and Rynderman. Claim 24 adds requirements for determining the bandwidth of the received data stream and adjusting the data rate of the compressed stream to be compatible with the memory device's bandwidth. Petitioner argued Clark taught determining bandwidth by measuring the data rate at the input of an encoder to optimize performance. Petitioner further argued Rynderman taught "adaptive control of the bandwidth of processed data output" by adjusting a system parameter (the compression rate) to ensure the data transfer is compatible with any desired storage device.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these known optimization techniques to improve the Franaszek/Osterlund system. Clark's bandwidth monitoring would be used to manage processor load more efficiently, while Rynderman's adaptive output control would increase the system's flexibility and compatibility with different memory devices. Petitioner contended this was a combination of known elements for their intended purposes to yield predictable results.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Franaszek and Osterlund combination, further combined with Assar (Patent 5,479,638) for claim 12 (teaching solid-state mass storage) and Crawford (Patent 5,771,354) for claim 19 (teaching a data stream comprising multiple files).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "bandwidth" as recited in claim 24.
• Based on its usage in the ’530 patent specification, Petitioner argued the term should be construed as "the speed at which data is or can be transmitted or stored, and may be quantified as a certain number of bits per second." This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Clark's teaching of measuring "data rate" and Rynderman's teaching of controlling output "bandwidth" directly mapped onto the limitations of claim 24.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• The petition acknowledged that other IPRs had been filed against the ’530 patent by a different party (Oracle America, Inc.).
• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because this petition presented "different prior art and different evidence," making the arguments "substantially different" from those in the other proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 of the ’530 patent and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.