PTAB

IPR2016-00977

Talari Networks, Inc. v. FatPipe Networks India Limited

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets Over Disparate Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’048 patent discloses systems and methods for data transmission over a computer network using multiple disparate, parallel networks. The invention describes a controller that selects a path for data packets from among at least two networks, such as a private network and an internet-based network, based on various criteria.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are anticipated 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 "CL-CO gateway" that serves as the claimed "controller," managing access to parallel connectionless (CL) and connection-oriented (CO) networks, which correspond to the claimed "Internet-based" and "private" networks. This gateway selects routing paths for IP datagrams using routing tables and criteria including destination address and network conditions. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted Karol discloses selecting paths based on load-balancing criteria (claim 3) by dynamically allocating bandwidth to divert traffic from congested links, and based on reliability criteria (claim 4) by guaranteeing quality of service for specific flows. Karol also describes its CO network as potentially comprising "point-to-point links," satisfying the private network connection of claim 6.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (Anticipation ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (Anticipation ground).

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Karol in view of Stallings.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karol (Patent 6,628,617) and Stallings ("Data and Computer Communications," 5th Edition, 1997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent Karol is found not to explicitly disclose certain limitations, the combination with Stallings renders the claims obvious. Stallings, a foundational networking textbook, was argued to teach the use of "known location address ranges" by disclosing that IP routers maintain routing tables to direct packets based on the network identifier portion of a destination address. Stallings also explicitly teaches using dynamic routing protocols like Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) to "equalize loads over multiple equal-cost paths" (load-balancing, claim 3) and to avoid failed or congested network portions, providing reliability (claim 4). Further, Stallings discloses frame relay as a common private network technology and VPNs for secure transport over the internet, teaching the limitations of claims 2 and 5 respectively.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the standard, fundamental routing techniques from Stallings with Karol’s parallel network architecture. This combination represents applying a known technique (Stallings' dynamic routing) to a known system (Karol's gateway) to improve its function, a recognized motivation for obviousness. Petitioner noted that Karol itself cites Stallings, directing a POSITA to the reference to understand underlying network attributes.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying well-understood, predictable networking principles (from Stallings) to achieve improved routing, load-balancing, and reliability in Karol's disclosed system.

Ground 3: Claims 1-24 are obvious under §103 over Karol alone.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karol (Patent 6,628,617).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Karol’s system to arrive at the claimed invention. For instance, Karol discloses its CO network can be a "telephony network" which a POSITA would understand includes point-to-point connections like T1/T3. The ’048 patent itself identifies T1/T3 as a type of "private network." Therefore, it would have been obvious that Karol's CO network is the claimed "private network." Similarly, Karol discloses various CO network types (ATM, MPLS), and substituting another known type like frame relay would have been a simple and obvious design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation stemmed from using known elements for their known purposes to achieve predictable results. A POSITA reading Karol would have been motivated to implement its parallel network architecture using any of a number of well-known and interchangeable CO network technologies (like frame relay or point-to-point links) to achieve the goal of efficient, multi-path routing.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high because it would involve the simple substitution of one known network element (e.g., frame relay) for another (e.g., ATM) within Karol’s established framework to achieve the predictable function of data transport.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner submitted that the claim terms of the ’048 patent should be given their ordinary and customary meaning and that no special construction was necessary.
  • However, Petitioner noted that should the Board require construction, the Patent Owner's proposed constructions from related district court litigation would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation standard used in an inter partes review (IPR). Petitioner reserved the right to argue for different constructions in the district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an IPR for claims 1-24 of the ’048 patent and cancel all challenged claims as unpatentable.