PTAB

IPR2019-00373

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. Parity Networks LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Transferring Data Packets in a Network
  • Brief Description: The ’978 patent discloses methods and systems for transferring data packets from a source node in a virtual private network (VPN) through a public network (e.g., the Internet) to a destination node within the same VPN. The invention involves generating a value based on a first header of the data packet, creating a second header that includes this value, and using the second header to select a routing path through the public network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Jagannath and Callon - Claims 1, 4, 12, and 14-16 are obvious over Jagannath in view of Callon.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jagannath (Patent 7,095,740) and Callon (Internet-Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02.txt>, Nov. 21, 1997).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of Jagannath and Callon teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Jagannath discloses the foundational system for independent claims 1 and 12: transferring data packets between nodes in a VPN across a public network using a packet structure with a first header (IP header) and a second header containing a VPN-specific label for routing. Callon, a framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), supplies the missing elements. Callon teaches using multipath routing and explicitly suggests using a "hash function on the source and destination IP addresses" within a packet header to generate a value. This value is then used to select one of several paths to avoid packet misordering. By implementing Callon's multipath hashing technique within Jagannath's MPLS-based VPN architecture, a POSITA would arrive at the claimed invention.
      • Dependent claims 4 and 14, which require the value be derived from a "hash operation," are directly taught by Callon's explicit disclosure of using a "hash function."
      • Dependent claim 15, requiring the hash be performed on information related to source and destination node addresses, is taught by Callon's primary example of hashing "on the source and destination IP addresses."
      • Dependent claim 16, requiring the hash be performed on a "protocol field," was argued to be an obvious design choice. A POSITA familiar with Callon's hashing concept and the well-known structure of IP headers (which the ’978 patent admits included a five-tuple of fields including the protocol field) would find it obvious to apply the hash to other fields in that tuple, like the protocol field, as a routine modification.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Jagannath and Callon because Jagannath expressly incorporates the MPLS standard detailed in Callon. The petition highlights that Jagannath states its "present invention" uses a label field "as defined by the Multi-protocol label switching standard, see Callon et al." A POSITA implementing Jagannath's system would therefore be required to consult Callon. Callon, in turn, mandates that MPLS protocol standards "MUST support multipath routing" and teaches that using labels makes multipath more efficient, providing a clear reason and incentive to integrate Callon’s multipath techniques into Jagannath’s framework.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Jagannath and Callon operate in the same field of IP networking and packet routing using labels. Integrating Callon’s well-defined hashing function and multipath selection logic into Jagannath’s compatible MPLS network architecture would be a predictable implementation for a person of ordinary skill.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition argued for a specific construction of the phrase "using the second header portion, selecting one of a plurality of possible paths..." found in independent claims 1 and 12.
  • Petitioner proposed the construction: "using the derived value in the second header portion, selecting one of a plurality of possible paths ... such that different paths are selected for packets having different derived values."
  • This construction was asserted to be required by the patent's specification and the prosecution history of the parent ’287 patent. During that prosecution, the patentee distinguished prior art by arguing the "inventive nature" of the process was the ability to hash a packet header to create a new value and then use that value to "load balance the packets on different paths through the Internet," thereby mandating a direct link between the derived value and the selection of different paths.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central contention was establishing Callon as a valid prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
  • Petitioner argued that the Callon Internet-Draft was publicly accessible on the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) website without restriction no later than its publication date of November 21, 1997, which predates the ’978 patent’s priority date. Evidence included the document's unlimited distribution statement, expert declarations confirming IETF's public documentation procedures, and the fact that Jagannath itself cites Callon, which demonstrates its availability and accessibility to those skilled in the art at the time.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • The petition argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d).
  • The core reason provided was that the asserted prior art combination of Jagannath and Callon was not cited or substantively considered by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’978 patent. Petitioner contended that because the Patent Office had not previously addressed the specific invalidity grounds presented, institution of an inter partes review was warranted to assess the patentability of the challenged claims in light of this new art and argument.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 12, and 14-16 of Patent 7,468,978 as unpatentable.