PTAB

IPR2019-00253

Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd v. Nomadix Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Dynamic Data Transfer Management on a Per Subscriber Basis in a Communications Network
  • Brief Description: The ’922 patent discloses systems and methods for managing network bandwidth for individual subscribers. The system calculates a delay period for a data packet based on a bandwidth parameter associated with the user device, retrieves this parameter from a subscriber profile, and then queues the packet for that delay period to enforce the bandwidth limit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over '540 patent in view of '433 patent - Claims 1 and 9

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 5,864,540 (’540 patent) and Patent 6,587,433 (’433 patent).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’540 patent discloses a traffic shaper that manages bandwidth for network "connections" by calculating a delay period for non-conforming packets and queuing them to enforce a contracted bandwidth. This system, Petitioner alleged, meets all limitations of claims 1 and 9 except for explicitly reciting a "user device" and retrieving the bandwidth limit from a "user profile record." The ’433 patent was argued to supply these missing elements by teaching a system where users select their desired bandwidth, which is then stored in a "user profile" record associated with that user and their specific device (e.g., a personal computer).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because they are analogous art directed at the common problem of bandwidth management. The ’540 patent provides a robust mechanism for enforcing bandwidth limits via packet delay, while the ’433 patent provides a user-centric administration model. Combining them would be a simple substitution of a known element (per-user profiles for bandwidth management) for the per-connection method in the ’540 patent to provide more flexible and commercially desirable user-specific billing and service tiers.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination would only require minor software adjustments. The traffic shaper of the ’540 patent would be modified to retrieve bandwidth parameters from a user profile structure (as taught by the ’433 patent) instead of from its existing connection table, a task well within the skill of a POSITA.

Ground 2: Obviousness over '279 patent in view of 98-010P Report - Claims 1 and 9

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 7,392,279 (’279 patent) and IEEE, INDEX Project Report #98-010P (May 1998) (98-010P Report).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’279 patent discloses a time-based buffering system that limits a network entity to its paid-for bandwidth by calculating a required delay and queuing packets. This system was alleged to meet all claim limitations except for a "data storage system including a user profile record" from which the bandwidth parameter is retrieved. Petitioner asserted the 98-010P Report remedies this by describing a system where users select a quality of service (QoS), including specific bandwidth levels, via a user interface. This selection is then stored in a database with a user ID, creating a user profile that is used to control the user's connection quality.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to combine these teachings to solve the common problem of enforcing bandwidth constraints. The 98-010P Report demonstrated the market-driven need for user-selectable, usage-sensitive pricing, which required storing bandwidth limits in user profiles. A POSITA seeking to implement the packet delay enforcement mechanism of the ’279 patent would naturally look to the user profile management technique of the 98-010P Report as a known and effective way to manage the bandwidth parameters for individual users.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected and predictable. The combination would involve populating the memory already present in the ’279 patent's router with user profile data (as taught by the 98-010P Report) and programming the system to use that data to determine the packet delay. Such minor software and data management adjustments were considered routine for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over '492 patent in view of '540 patent - Claims 1 and 9

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patent 5,623,492 (’492 patent) and Patent 5,864,540 (’540 patent).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ’492 patent discloses nearly all claimed elements, including a system that stores user-selected bandwidth constraints in a look-up table (a user profile record) associated with a user's device address. The system enforces these limits by penalizing packets that violate the constraint (e.g., by dropping them). However, the ’492 patent does not explicitly teach calculating a delay period and delaying transmission based on that period. Petitioner argued the ’540 patent supplies this missing mechanism by teaching a traffic shaper that calculates a "conformance time" (a delay period) and queues non-conforming packets until that time is reached.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to improve the enforcement method of the ’492 patent with the technique from the ’540 patent. At the time, there was a finite and known set of solutions for handling packets that exceeded bandwidth limits, including dropping them (as in ’492) or queuing them (as in ’540). Delaying packets was a predictable and often superior alternative to dropping them because it prevented data loss. This would amount to the simple substitution of one known bandwidth enforcement technique for another to achieve a more robust system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination would involve modifying the processor in the ’492 patent to implement the delay calculation and queuing logic from the ’540 patent instead of its existing packet-dropping or marking function. This was presented as a straightforward software change for a POSITA.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’922 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.