Riverbed Technology Inc v. Realtime Data LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00978
• Patent #: 8,643,513
• Filed: April 29, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Riverbed Technology, Inc.; Dell 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
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6, 10-16, 18-20, and 22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Compression Systems and Methods
• Brief Description: The ’513 patent relates to systems and methods for data compression that utilize a combination of content-dependent and content-independent algorithms. The core inventive concept, as identified during prosecution, involves analyzing data blocks to select an appropriate compression algorithm by methods that exclude relying solely on a data descriptor (e.g., a file extension).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek - Claims 1-4, 6, 10-16, 18-20, and 22 are obvious over Wang in view of Matsubara and Franaszek.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (WO 00/46688), Matsubara (Patent 5,838,821), and Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wang discloses the foundational method for the challenged claims. Wang teaches a system that analyzes a file's format (via extension name and control information) to determine whether it is known. If known, the system recognizes the data type (e.g., text, image) and applies a suitable content-dependent algorithm (like JPEG for images). If the file format is not known, Wang applies a default, content-independent lossless algorithm (like LZW). Petitioner argued this combination of analyses and applications meets most claim limitations.

    To meet the key limitation of "excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor," Petitioner relied on Matsubara. While Wang teaches identifying data type, it does not specify how. Matsubara teaches a known method for doing so by analyzing the actual content of the data—specifically, by constructing and analyzing a histogram of a file's byte patterns. Petitioner argued that incorporating Matsubara’s content-based analysis into Wang’s system directly satisfies the patent’s distinguishing feature.

    Finally, Franaszek was used to supplement the combination. Franaszek explicitly teaches applying a default (content-independent) compression algorithm when a data type is not identified, reinforcing the logic for such a step in the combined system. Franaszek also teaches appending a "recognizable data token" to the compressed data to identify the algorithm used, mapping to dependent claim limitations.

  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references for several reasons. A POSITA would combine Wang with Matsubara because Wang’s method requires automatically recognizing a data type, and Matsubara provides a known, effective technique (byte-pattern analysis) to improve that specific function. The combination would be a predictable implementation of a known technique to improve a similar system. A POSITA would also incorporate Franaszek’s teachings to add a logical failure-path process to Wang’s method—applying a default algorithm when the data type is unrecognized, just as Wang does for unrecognized file formats—to ensure all data is compressed.

  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination involved applying known compression and data analysis techniques for their intended purposes, which would predictably result in an improved, more robust automatic compression system without requiring any undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "content independent compression algorithm": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a compression algorithm that is applied when the data type or content of the data block is not identified, recognized, or associated with a specific data compression algorithm." This construction aligns the term with the use of default algorithms in Wang and Franaszek when data characteristics are unknown.
• "content dependent compression algorithm": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a compression algorithm that is applied when the data type or content of the data block is identified, recognized, or associated with a specific data compression algorithm." This construction covers the specific algorithms (e.g., JPEG, LZW for text) that Wang selects after successfully identifying the data type.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) with respect to a previously-filed petition (IPR2016-00374) challenging the same patent. Petitioner contended that the instant petition presented different arguments, relied on different expert testimony, and asserted a different prior art combination than the earlier petition, thereby falling outside the scope of issues that would warrant denial under § 325(d).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 10-16, 18-20, and 22 of the ’513 patent as unpatentable.