PTAB

IPR2018-00132

Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SERVER-GROUP MESSAGING SYSTEM FOR INTERACTIVE APPLICATIONS
  • Brief Description: The ’686 patent describes a system to improve networked, multi-person interactive applications (e.g., games) by using a "group messaging server." This server receives messages from multiple host computers, aggregates them to reduce message rate and latency, and forwards the aggregated messages to the appropriate hosts in the group.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aldred and RFC 1692 - Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 26, 27, 45, 46, 62, and 63 are obvious over Aldred in view of RFC 1692.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (International Publication No. WO 94/11814) and RFC 1692 (Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux), Aug. 1994).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aldred discloses a collaborative working environment for networked workstations that supports a broad spectrum of applications. Aldred’s architecture includes a "Central Serialisation Point" (CSP), a central node that collects all events, serializes them, and broadcasts them to all members of a "Sharing Set" to ensure consistency. Petitioner contended this CSP is analogous to the ’686 patent’s "group messaging server." While Aldred teaches the central server architecture, it does not explicitly disclose aggregating message payloads. RFC 1692, an internet protocol extension, teaches the Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux), which is designed to improve network efficiency by combining, or multiplexing, multiple small transport segments into a single, larger packet before transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine RFC 1692 with Aldred to improve network performance. Aldred’s system, which sends small event messages like drawing orders, would generate the exact type of traffic that RFC 1692’s multiplexing is designed to optimize. Aldred explicitly supports underlying transport protocols like TCP/IP, making the integration of an IP-extension like TMux a natural and logical modification to reduce the number of packets and decrease network load.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying a known network optimization technique (multiplexing) to a known collaborative system to achieve the predictable benefit of improved efficiency.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Aldred, RFC 1692, and Ulrich - Claims 22-27, 41-46, and 58-63 are obvious over Aldred and RFC 1692 in further view of Ulrich.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (WO 94/11814), RFC 1692, and Ulrich (Patent 5,466,200).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Ulrich to address dependent claims related to computer games, proximity-based messaging, and echo suppression. Ulrich discloses a networked interactive gaming system where a central hub controls communications. Critically, Ulrich’s hub can selectively transmit game updates only to players "in the same general area of the simulated environment," thus teaching the "close proximity" limitation. Ulrich also inherently teaches "echo suppression" by describing the hub sending updates about other users, which implies a user does not receive their own update back from the hub.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Ulrich's game-specific features into the efficient messaging system of Aldred/RFC 1692. Applying a general collaborative framework like Aldred to a popular application like gaming (taught by Ulrich) would be an obvious development path. Furthermore, Ulrich's method of limiting updates to nearby players reduces the total data transmitted, a key goal for network performance that complements the packet reduction benefits of RFC 1692.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable, as it involved integrating known gaming-specific optimizations from Ulrich into the foundational client-server messaging architecture established by Aldred and RFC 1692.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Aldred, RFC 1692, and Denzer - Claims 36 and 55 are obvious over Aldred and RFC 1692 in further view of Denzer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (WO 94/11814), RFC 1692, and Denzer (Patent 5,307,413).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Denzer to teach the limitation of "compressing said aggregated payload." Denzer discloses a data compression facility that intercepts, compresses, and then transmits TCP/IP packets using conventional compression algorithms to reduce their size.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Denzer's compression with the Aldred/RFC 1692 system to create a more robustly efficient network. Petitioner argued that the techniques are complementary: RFC 1692 reduces the number of packets via multiplexing, while Denzer reduces the size of those packets via compression. Combining these known, compatible methods to achieve a greater reduction in overall communication load would have been an obvious design choice for improving network performance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of multiplexing and compression was a well-understood strategy for optimizing network traffic, and a POSITA would expect the combined system to function predictably, yielding smaller, less frequent packets.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner noted that because the ’686 patent has expired, its claims should be interpreted using a district court-type standard.
  • Petitioner addressed claim constructions for terms like "group messaging server" and "aggregating" that the Patent Owner had advanced in related litigation. The core position was that the prior art renders the claims obvious even under the Patent Owner's proposed constructions, and therefore the Board need not formally construe the terms. For example, Petitioner argued that RFC 1692’s multiplexing, which combines data items that retain their identity and can be extracted, meets the Patent Owner's proposed construction for "aggregating."

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central contention was that the architecture of Aldred’s "Central Serialisation Point" (CSP) is functionally and structurally equivalent to the "group messaging server" claimed in the ’686 patent. Both are described as central entities that receive, process, and distribute messages to maintain consistency among a group of networked clients.
  • Petitioner also argued that Aldred either inherently discloses or renders obvious the limitation that messages contain a portion identifying the message group. It was argued this feature is necessary for a node participating in multiple "Sharing Sets" (groups) to correctly process incoming messages. If not inherent, adding such a well-known logical identifier to a message header would have been obvious to a POSITA.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 22-27, 36, 41-46, 55, and 58-63 of Patent 6,226,686 as unpatentable.