Cavium LLC v. Alacritech Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00401
• Patent #: 7,945,699
• Filed: December 27, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Cavium, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Alacritech, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Obtaining a Destination Address So That a Network Interface Device Can Write Network Data Without Headers Directly Into Host Memory
• Brief Description: The ’699 patent describes a method for offloading network protocol processing to improve efficiency. The system uses a network interface device that, after receiving an initial packet, provides a session-layer header to the host computer's application, which analyzes it to determine a final memory destination for the data. The network interface then receives this destination address and writes the data portions of subsequent packets directly into that host memory location using Direct Memory Access (DMA), bypassing the host CPU and avoiding the transfer of network and transport layer headers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are obvious over Kiyohara in view of SMB.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiyohara (Patent 5,237,693) and SMB ("Protocols for X/Open PC Networking: SMB, Version 2," a 1992 technical standard).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kiyohara taught the fundamental architecture claimed in the ’699 patent. Kiyohara’s "intelligent board system" disclosed a network interface coupled to a host computer where the interface handled lower-layer protocol processing (transport, network) and the host computer handled upper-layer processing (session, application). Kiyohara’s system received network packets, separated data from headers, and placed the data into a "data storage area" in host memory, with the pointer to this destination being obtained from the host application. However, Kiyohara did not specify a particular session-layer protocol for determining that destination.

    Petitioner contended that SMB, a well-known session-layer protocol for file and printer sharing, supplied the missing element. In a system combining the two references, the host application would analyze the SMB session-layer header (e.g., an SMBreadX command and its associated fields) to determine the appropriate destination in host memory for the incoming file data. The combination thus disclosed obtaining a destination by analyzing a session-layer header. Kiyohara’s network interface then performed the data transfer to the host-provided destination without the host computer processing the network or transport layer headers, meeting the key limitations of the independent claims.

  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references to create a functional, high-performance, and standardized peripheral-sharing system. Kiyohara provided a high-speed architecture that explicitly contemplated using a session layer protocol but did not name one. A POSITA seeking to implement Kiyohara’s system for file and printer sharing would naturally and logically have turned to SMB, which was the primary industry-standard protocol for that exact purpose. The combination was a straightforward implementation of a known protocol (SMB) on an improved hardware architecture (Kiyohara) to achieve a predictable result.

  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. SMB was designed to be implemented over various transport protocols, including the TCP/IP protocols that Kiyohara’s intelligent board system was disclosed to handle. No undue experimentation would have been required to integrate the well-documented SMB protocol into Kiyohara's system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) or §325(d) was improper. The petition was substantially identical to a previously filed petition (IPR2017-01711) that the Board denied. However, Petitioner asserted that the prior denial was based solely on a procedural failure to establish the public accessibility of the SMB reference. This petition was filed to cure that specific deficiency with new evidentiary declarations. Because the Board had not previously considered the substantive merits of the obviousness grounds, Petitioner argued that instituting review would not be redundant or an inefficient use of Board resources.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’699 patent as unpatentable.