Unified Patents LLC v. Pure Data Systems LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00484
• Patent #: Patent 5,999,947
• Filed: December 31, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Unified Patents Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Pure Data Systems, LLC.
• Challenged Claims: 6, 12, and 13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and system for distributing database differences
• Brief Description: The ’947 patent describes a system for distributing updates from a database on a server computer to read-only copies on one or more client computers. The invention aims to improve efficiency by storing database changes in a generic format on the server and then translating them into a specific format compatible with the particular database engine residing on each client.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 6, 12, and 13 are obvious over Olson in view of Bauer.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Olson (Patent 5,995,980) and Bauer (Patent 5,870,765).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Olson teaches the core elements of the challenged claims, including a method for synchronizing a source database with multiple target databases that may have different formats (e.g., Oracle, IBM, Sybase). Olson’s system captures database changes, stores them as "extract update batches" (argued to be a generic format), and uses a "BUILD machine" to convert these batches into update packages with a physical format specific to the target database (argued to be a specific format). Olson’s "apply machine" on the client then executes these instructions. Petitioner contended that Olson alone teaches most limitations of independent claim 6, including distributing differences to clients with different database engines, storing differences in a generic format, and translating them to a specific format. Bauer was introduced to supply the limitation of the client initiating the data transfer by "receiving from a client computer a request." Petitioner asserted Bauer explicitly teaches a "pull-model" synchronization where a client sends a "table refresh request message" to the server to initiate the update process.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner provided several motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the references. First, Olson and Bauer are analogous art, both addressing the problem of synchronizing databases in a distributed, heterogeneous environment. Second, a POSITA seeking to improve Olson's system, which expressly mentions servicing Oracle databases, would naturally have looked to Bauer, a patent assigned to Oracle Corp. Third, Olson expresses a desire for "increasing update flexibility." Petitioner argued that incorporating Bauer’s client-initiated "pull" request mechanism into Olson's system is a well-known design choice that directly addresses this goal, providing the predictable benefit of allowing intermittently connected clients to control the timing of their updates.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. The integration of a client-initiated "pull" request (from Bauer) into a database replication system (like Olson's) was a simple combination of known elements using well-understood client-server communication techniques (e.g., remote procedure calls) to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "database engine" (claim 6): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a software program that can understand and interact with a particular data store," based on the patent's own express definition. This construction was central to mapping Olson’s "apply machine" component, which executes update packages on the client's target database, to the claimed "database engine."
• "generic format" / "specific format" (claim 6): Petitioner proposed that these terms should be construed relatively as "a source format for translation" and "a target format of translation," respectively, without any further technical limitations. This construction was critical to arguing that Olson's two-step process—first creating "extract update batches" and then converting them into the "physical format of respective targets"—satisfies the claim limitations of storing in a generic format and translating to a specific one.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. Although the secondary reference, Bauer, was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution, it was never substantively discussed or applied by the Examiner.
• More importantly, the primary reference, Olson, was never cited or considered by the USPTO. Therefore, the specific ground of invalidity—the combination of Olson and Bauer—is new and has not been previously evaluated by the Office. Petitioner also noted the ’947 patent had not been challenged in any prior IPR petitions.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 6, 12, and 13 of the ’947 patent as unpatentable.