Veritas Technologies LLC v. Realtime Data LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00365
• Patent #: 7,415,530
• Filed: November 30, 2016
• Petitioner(s): Veritas Technologies LLC
• Patent Owner(s): REALTIME DATA LLC d/b/a IXO
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Compression and Decompression Techniques
• Brief Description: The ’530 patent relates to a "data storage accelerator" system that uses various data compression techniques to improve the performance of data storage systems. A key feature is that the compression and subsequent storage of a data stream occur faster than storing the data stream in its original, uncompressed form.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Franaszek and Osterlund - Claims 1, 9-11, 14, and 18 are obvious over Franaszek in view of Osterlund.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036) and Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Franaszek taught nearly all limitations of independent claim 1, including a system that compresses data blocks using a plurality of selectable compression techniques and stores the compressed blocks with descriptors indicating the method used. The one key limitation Franaszek did not explicitly teach—that "compression and storage occurs faster than" storing the uncompressed data—was the central teaching of Osterlund. Osterlund disclosed a data compression device interposed between a host and a storage controller specifically "to permit data storage and retrieval operations... to occur at a faster rate than would otherwise be possible."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify Franaszek's adaptive compression system with Osterlund's speed-enhancing architecture. Both patents address improving data storage applications, an analogous field. The motivation was to achieve the well-known and desirable result of faster data storage, a predictable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the field of data compression was predictable, and algorithms and transfer times could be readily modeled and tested.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Franaszek, Osterlund, and Fall - Claims 2-5 are obvious over Franaszek and Osterlund in view of Fall.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036), Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646), and Fall (Patent 5,991,515).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 2-5, which add limitations related to the "data accelerator" storing the descriptor and retrieving data from memory. While arguing Franaszek taught these features, Petitioner asserted that, to the extent it did not, Fall explicitly disclosed them. Fall taught a compressor that stores compressed data in a buffer and also stores the "type of compression used to process the object data," thereby teaching the storage of a descriptor by the accelerator itself. Fall further taught a decoder that retrieves both the data and the object descriptors from memory.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the Franaszek/Osterlund system would have looked to analogous art like Fall for teachings on how a compressor/decompressor operates within a data storage system. Combining Fall's explicit disclosure of an accelerator handling its own storage and retrieval of descriptors would have been an obvious design choice to simplify the system architecture and resulted in the predictable function of storing and retrieving data.

Ground 5: Obviousness over Franaszek, Osterlund, Clark, and Rynderman - Claim 24 is obvious over Franaszek, Osterlund, Clark, and Rynderman.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Franaszek (Patent 5,870,036), Osterlund (Patent 5,247,646), Clark (Patent 5,319,682), and Rynderman (Patent 5,563,961).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted independent claim 24, which, like claim 1, requires faster-than-native storage but adds limitations for performance optimization. Specifically, claim 24 requires that a "bandwidth of the received data stream is determined" and a "data rate of the compressed data stream is adjusted... to make a bandwidth of the compressed data stream compatible with a bandwidth of the memory device." Petitioner argued Clark taught determining the input data rate (bandwidth) to optimize encoder performance. Rynderman taught "adaptive control of the bandwidth of processed data output to a storage device" to maintain optimal transfer to any desired device by adjusting the compression rate.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these known, routine optimization techniques to improve the Franaszek/Osterlund system. Clark's bandwidth measurement would allow for more efficient use of processing power, while Rynderman's adaptive output rate would make the system more flexible and compatible with a variety of memory devices. This combination represented the application of known solutions to solve known problems (processor optimization and device compatibility) to achieve predictable results.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claim 12 over Franaszek, Osterlund, and Assar (Patent 5,479,638) to teach a solid-state mass storage device, and for claim 19 over Franaszek, Osterlund, and Crawford (Patent 5,771,354) to teach that the data stream comprises multiple files.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "bandwidth" recited in independent claim 24.
• The proposed construction was "the speed at which data is or can be transmitted or stored, and may be quantified as a certain number of bits per second." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and was critical for mapping the teachings of Clark (measuring input data rate) and Rynderman (adjusting output data rate) to the limitations of claim 24.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner acknowledged other pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by a different party (Oracle) against the ’530 patent.
• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because this petition presented different prior art combinations and substantially different arguments and evidence compared to those presented in the other IPR proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 9-12, 14, 18, 19, and 24 of the ’530 patent as unpatentable.