PTAB

IPR2019-00765

Trend Micro Inc v. Cupp Computing As

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Security Services During Power Management Mode
Brief Description: The ’595 patent relates to a mobile security system that provides security services for a device operating outside a trusted enterprise network. The system is designed to perform these services, initiated by a remote administrator, while the mobile device is in a low-power "power management mode" by detecting a wake event and waking the device or its components as needed.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Joseph disclosed all elements of the challenged independent claims. Joseph taught a "security/diagnostics unit" (SDU) integrated into a laptop (the "mobile device") that communicates with a remote "security/technical support entity" (the "security administrator device"). Petitioner contended this SDU functions as the claimed "security system," as it can detect a wake event (e.g., a message from the remote entity) and send a corresponding wake signal to the laptop's power management controller. This action wakes the laptop from a powered-down state to perform security services, such as erasing data, thereby meeting the core limitations of the claims.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As this was a single-reference ground, Petitioner argued that Joseph itself provided all necessary elements and motivations, rendering the claimed invention obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012) and Zmudzinski (Application # 2007/0266265).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Joseph to address dependent claims requiring malware and data security scans. Petitioner argued that Zmudzinski taught a processing system, such as a laptop, with multiple logical partitions that could be woken from a "reduced power mode" by a power policy manager to perform various functions, explicitly including "virus scanning."
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Zmudzinski's teaching of virus scanning with Joseph's security framework as a matter of common sense and to provide a more comprehensive security solution. The functional similarities between the systems—waking a component from a low-power state to perform maintenance or security tasks—made the integration straightforward and predictable.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing virus scanning in the Joseph system, as it involved applying a well-known security technique to a system designed for remote security management to achieve the predictable result of detecting viruses.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Gordon as an alternative single reference that rendered the claims obvious. Gordon disclosed a "wireless security module" containing a "firmware agent" connected to a host device like a laptop. This module, communicating with a remote "monitoring center," could receive messages ("wake events") indicating it should "wake-up the host so that a data protection measure can be invoked." Petitioner mapped Gordon's security module to the "security system" and the monitoring center to the "security administrator device." The disclosed data protection measures included "data delete" and "software deployment," which Petitioner argued met the limitations for removing unauthorized data (claim 9) and re-imaging the device (claims 11 and 26).
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, Petitioner contended that Gordon alone taught the claimed subject matter.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single-reference ground.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 13-14 and 28-29 over Gordon in view of Zmudzinski, and claims 11 and 26 over Joseph in view of Gordon, relying on similar combination rationales.

"power management mode": Petitioner adopted the construction advanced by the Patent Owner in co-pending litigation, defining the term as "a mode where the mobile device conserves power." This construction was foundational to the invalidity arguments, allowing Petitioner to map the prior art's teachings of waking devices from various inactive, sleep, or low-power states to the claim language.

Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’595 patent was not entitled to its claimed priority date of August 4, 2008. Petitioner argued that the core "wake" functionality recited in the challenged claims constituted new matter added to a later-filed application on August 4, 2009. Establishing this later effective filing date was critical to the petition, as it positioned Zmudzinski (published in 2007) and other references as valid prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 9, 11, 13-14, 16, 24, 26, and 28-29 of the ’595 patent as unpatentable.