PTAB

IPR2017-02145

AirWatch LLC v. Route1 Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Accessing Host Computer Via Remote Computer
  • Brief Description: The ’216 patent discloses a system where a central controller authenticates a remote device and a host computer. After authentication, the controller instructs the host to initiate a direct peer-to-peer connection back to the remote device, a technique designed to traverse firewalls protecting the host. Once connected, the controller refrains from involvement in data transport.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Dingman, Buch, and Cook - Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are obvious over Dingman in view of Buch and Cook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dingman (Application # 2004/0024879), Buch (Application # 2003/0217165), and Cook (Patent 7,424,736).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Dingman, taught the core invention of the ’216 patent. Dingman disclosed a "communication bridge" (controller) that uses a "reversal" technique to establish a connection between a remote device and a host protected by a firewall, wherein the controller instructs the host to initiate the connection. While Dingman taught that users must be "authorized," it did not specify the method. Buch, which is directed to enhancing Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) systems like Dingman’s, was alleged to supply the well-known method of validating devices using digital identity certificates (PKI). Finally, to meet the limitation of the controller receiving connection confirmations, Petitioner asserted that Cook taught a controller receiving "heartbeat" notifications from both the host and remote to confirm a direct connection has been established.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Dingman and Buch because Buch provided a standard, secure, and interoperable method (PKI certificates) to implement the generic "authorization" taught by Dingman in its SIP-based system. A POSITA would further combine Cook’s notification system to add desirable and conventional network management features, such as connection auditing and status monitoring, to the Dingman/Buch system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a standard authentication protocol (Buch) and a known monitoring technique (Cook) to a communication architecture (Dingman), all of which were compatible and well-understood technologies, ensuring a predictable and successful integration.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Flowers, Schneier, and Cook - Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are obvious over Flowers in view of Schneier and Cook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Flowers (Application # 2003/0105812), Schneier ("Applied Cryptography" textbook), and Cook (Patent 7,424,736).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Flowers disclosed a peer-to-peer system with a "Peer Switch" (controller) that authenticates users and facilitates connections across firewalls. Critically, Flowers taught that after a remote selects a host, the controller relays the remote's parameters (address and port data) to the host, which then "initiates a network connection back to the requesting peer." This taught the core firewall-traversal method. For the validation element, Petitioner relied on the well-known Schneier textbook, which described the content and use of standard X.509 digital certificates for authentication. The combination with Cook was argued for the same reasons as in Ground 1: to supply the element of the controller receiving notifications that a connection is established.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Flowers with Schneier because Flowers explicitly called for user authentication using digital certificates, and Schneier provided the details of the industry-standard (X.509) implementation. Using this standard would be an obvious design choice for ensuring security and compatibility. As in Ground 1, a POSITA would add Cook's notification scheme to the Flowers/Schneier system to enable connection auditing and improve reliability, which are routine enhancements for such systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing the standard authentication described by Schneier into the system of Flowers would have been straightforward. Adding Cook’s monitoring functionality was also a simple integration of a known technique, leading to a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges by adding further references to the primary combinations. These grounds argued that claim 5 is obvious by adding Bahl (Application # 2005/0210150), which taught a host initiating a reconnection procedure when a remote becomes unresponsive, and that claim 6 is obvious by further adding Shaffer (Patent 7,539,127), which taught sending "standby messages" to maintain a connection state while a remote device reboots.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of Patent 7,814,216 as unpatentable.