Riverbed Technology Inc v. Realtime Data LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-00980
• Patent #: 7,378,992
• 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: 48 and 49

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Content Independent Data Compression Method and System
• Brief Description: The ’992 patent discloses methods for compressing data by first analyzing a data block to identify its data type. If the data type is recognized, a corresponding content-dependent compression technique is used; if not, a default content-independent compression technique is applied.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wang, Matsubara, and Franaszek - Claims 48 and 49 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 argued that the prior art combination teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Wang discloses the foundational method of analyzing a computer file to identify its format (e.g., via file extension) and then selecting an appropriate compression algorithm (lossy or lossless) based on its data type (e.g., text, image). Wang also teaches using a default lossless compression algorithm if the file format is not recognized. However, Wang does not explicitly describe how to analyze the data within the file to identify its type, nor does it explicitly address using a default encoder when the data type (as opposed to the file format) is unrecognized.
  • Petitioner asserted that Matsubara remedies Wang’s first omission. Matsubara teaches a method for automatically selecting a compression algorithm by analyzing the file's content—specifically, by evaluating a histogram of its byte patterns to identify the data type (e.g., image file, text file). This provides the specific technique for the "analyzing data within the data block" limitation that Wang describes conceptually.
  • Petitioner further contended that Franaszek remedies Wang’s second omission and provides additional claimed features. Franaszek explicitly teaches compressing a data block with a preselected algorithm if its data type is identified, but using a default compression algorithm if the data type is not identified. This directly maps to the claims' bifurcation between compressing with a type-specific encoder and a default encoder. Additionally, for dependent claim 49, Franaszek teaches including a "data compression type descriptor" (a Compression Method Description area) with the compressed data to identify the technique used, which facilitates proper decompression.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Wang with Matsubara because Wang expressly teaches automatically recognizing a file's data type but does not specify how. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement this function using a known technique like Matsubara's byte-pattern analysis to improve the system's automation and efficiency. A POSITA would further combine this with Franaszek to make the resulting system more robust and practical. Franaszek addresses the known problem of what to do when a data type is not recognized, providing an obvious solution (use a default encoder) that complements Wang's framework. The motivation to add Franaszek's compression descriptor is to achieve Wang’s stated goal of ensuring a file can be decompressed, as the descriptor simplifies and ensures the correct decompression technique is selected.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involves applying known techniques (Matsubara's data analysis, Franaszek's default compression and data descriptors) to a known system (Wang's compression framework) to perform their conventional functions, leading to the predictable result of a more automated and robust data compression system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "data block(s)": Petitioner argued for a broad construction to include "a block of data or blocks of data ranging in size from a single bit through complete files or collections of multiple files." This broad interpretation was asserted to be consistent with the specification.
• "default encoder": Petitioner proposed this term means "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 was based on the specification's description of applying default compression when a data type is not recognized.
• "data compression type descriptor": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "any recognizable data token or descriptor that indicates which data encoding technique has been applied to the data," based on an explicit definition provided in the ’992 patent's specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate, even though another inter partes review (IPR) petition (IPR2016-00373) was pending against the ’992 patent. Petitioner contended that the instant petition presented different prior art combinations, different arguments, and was supported by different expert declaration testimony than the previously filed petition. Therefore, Petitioner argued the current challenge falls outside the scope of a duplicative petition that §325(d) is intended to prevent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 48 and 49 of the ’992 patent as unpatentable.