NetApp Inc v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00276
• Patent #: 6,633,945
• Filed: November 18, 2016
• Petitioner(s): NetApp, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Intellectual Ventures II, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1 and 6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Symmetric Shared-Memory Multiprocessor System
• Brief Description: The ’945 patent discloses a multi-processor computer architecture comprising multiple symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) nodes. Each node contains processors, memory, and a flow control unit (FCU) with a data switch, all interconnected via a first set of point-to-point connections, while the nodes themselves are linked by a distinct, third point-to-point connection between their respective FCU data switches to enable shared memory access.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ekanadham and Hagersten - Claims 1 and 6 are obvious over Ekanadham in view of Hagersten.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ekanadham (Patent 6,085,295) and Hagersten (Patent 5,754,877).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ekanadham disclosed a multi-node SMP system where each node contained the core components recited in the claims: a plurality of processors, a memory module, and an adapter, all interconnected by an intra-node switch. Ekanadham explicitly taught that communications within each node were "point to point." Ekanadham further taught that nodes were connected to each other via their adapters, and that communications "between... the adapters are made point to point," thereby disclosing the claimed inter-node "third point-to-point connection."
  • Motivation to Combine: Hagersten taught connecting SMP nodes with dedicated, direct point-to-point links to reduce latency and avoid arbitration delays associated with other network topologies. Petitioner asserted that to the extent Ekanadham’s inter-adapter connection was considered ambiguous, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Hagersten’s explicit point-to-point linking scheme with Ekanadham’s node architecture. The motivation was to achieve the well-understood benefits of improved performance and reduced latency for inter-node communications, a known problem in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known, advantageous interconnection technique (Hagersten's links) to a standard multi-node system (Ekanadham) to achieve predictable improvements in performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sharma and Hagersten - Claims 1 and 6 are obvious over Sharma in view of Hagersten.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sharma (Patent 6,055,605) and Hagersten (Patent 5,754,877).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Sharma disclosed a multi-node SMP system that met the limitations for a first and second node. Each Sharma node comprised processors and shared memory interconnected by a local switch. For inter-node communication, Sharma taught connecting the local switches of multiple nodes to a central hierarchical switch, which established statically configured point-to-point data paths between any two nodes. Petitioner argued this hierarchical, statically-configured link satisfied the "third point-to-point connection" limitation.
  • Motivation to Combine: If Sharma’s hierarchical switch was not deemed to teach the claimed connection, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Sharma by replacing its centralized switch topology with the direct, individual point-to-point links taught by Hagersten. This modification represented a simple substitution of one known inter-node connection architecture for another to achieve Hagersten’s stated benefits of lower latency and elimination of arbitration delays.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was a predictable design choice, swapping one networking solution for another well-known alternative to optimize for speed and efficiency.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Ekanadham alone and Sharma alone. These grounds argued that under a potentially broader construction of "point-to-point connection," the inter-node network links already disclosed in those references would inherently satisfy the claim limitations without needing modification by Hagersten.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Term: "point-to-point connection"
• Petitioner's Proposed Construction: "a statically configured communications link between two devices."
• Relevance: This construction was central to all grounds. Petitioner argued this construction encompassed not only direct physical links but also connections that may pass through interface components like adapters or a pre-configured switch, as found in the prior art. This interpretation was crucial for arguing that both the intra-node and, most critically, the inter-node connections taught by Ekanadham and Sharma met the claim limitations.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Entitlement: Petitioner contended the ’945 patent was not entitled to a priority date earlier than its July 8, 1999 filing date. It was argued that the critical "third point-to-point connection" limitation linking the two nodes was new matter first introduced in that application and was not supported by the parent applications' specifications. This assertion was critical for establishing Hagersten, filed in 1996, as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) rather than §102(e).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 6 of Patent 6,633,945 as unpatentable.