PTAB

IPR2016-00976

Talari Networks Inc v. Fatpipe Networks India Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets Over Disparate Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’235 patent discloses systems and methods for data transmission by directing packets over multiple disparate, parallel networks. The technology allows a controller to select paths for data packets across different network types, such as an internet-based network and a private network, to improve performance and reliability.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Karol

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karol (Patent 6,628,617).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Karol discloses every element of the challenged claims. Karol teaches a system for internetworking parallel connectionless (CL) and connection-oriented (CO) networks. Petitioner mapped Karol’s “CL-CO gateway” to the claimed “controller,” arguing it controls access to the multiple networks. Karol’s CL network (typically IP-based) and CO network (e.g., MPLS or telephony) were mapped to the claimed “Internet-based networks” and “private networks,” respectively, from different providers. The gateway processor in Karol, which uses forwarding and flow databases to route packets, was identified as the claimed “packet path selector.” This selector operates on a per-packet basis to choose between the CL and CO networks based on criteria including the packet’s destination address and network conditions, such as congestion, which Petitioner argued meets the limitations for path selection based on specified criteria. For the method claims, Petitioner asserted Karol’s use of routing tables to store address ranges and network topology inherently taught the steps of obtaining this information to select paths and forward packets.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 5, 11-15, and 19 over Karol in view of Stallings

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karol (Patent 6,628,617) and Stallings (a 1997 textbook, "Data and Computer Communications").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, asserting that if any claim elements were not explicitly disclosed in Karol, they would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) by combining Karol with the teachings of Stallings. Karol provided the fundamental architecture of routing over parallel, disparate networks. Stallings, a foundational networking text cited by Karol, provided well-known details on IP routing protocols. Petitioner argued Stallings explicitly teaches using dynamic routing tables to maintain network topology, manage congestion, and equalize loads—disclosures that directly map to claim limitations requiring path selection based on "dynamic load-balancing," "reliability," or "security" criteria. For example, Stallings’ teaching on dynamic routing tables that update based on network status would supply the "obtaining topology information" step of claim 5.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Karol and Stallings for several reasons. First, it would amount to applying a known technique (Stallings’ advanced routing criteria) to a known system (Karol’s parallel network gateway) to achieve the predictable result of improved routing performance. Second, Karol’s own citation to Stallings confirms they are in the same field and that a POSITA would look to Stallings for implementing routing functionalities. Third, given the limited number of conventional methods for IP routing, combining these foundational teachings was obvious to try.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have pursued the combination with a high likelihood of success because it involved implementing standard, well-understood networking principles with predictable outcomes.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 over Karol

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karol (Patent 6,628,617).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As a further alternative, Petitioner argued that even without a secondary reference, the challenged claims are obvious over Karol alone when viewed with the knowledge of a POSITA. This ground contended that any minor gaps in Karol’s express disclosure would be bridged by obvious design choices or substitutions. For example, if the Board determined Karol’s CO "telephony network" was not explicitly a "private network," a POSITA would have recognized it as such or found it obvious to substitute a known private network type (like frame relay) into Karol’s system to achieve predictable results. Similarly, if Karol’s path selection was viewed as session-based, it would have been an obvious modification to implement a stricter per-packet selection mechanism, as this was a known design choice for routing independent of specific flows.
    • Motivation to Combine (with POSITA knowledge): The motivation was to apply common, well-understood networking principles to Karol's system. Substituting one known type of network for another (e.g., frame relay for MPLS) or modifying a selection algorithm were simple substitutions of known elements that would yield predictable improvements in routing functionality.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4, 5, 7-15, and 19 of the ’235 patent as unpatentable.