PTAB

IPR2019-00767

Trend Micro Incorporated v. CUPP Computing AS

Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Security Services During Power Management Mode
Brief Description: The ’683 patent discloses a "mobile security system" that is separate from a mobile device's main processor. This system is designed to provide security services (e.g., malware scanning, updates) to the mobile device when it is outside a trusted enterprise network by waking the device from a "power management mode" to perform these tasks.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Joseph taught all elements of the independent claims. Joseph discloses a "security/diagnostics unit" (SDU) integrated into a laptop that is architecturally separate from the laptop's main processing unit. This SDU constitutes the claimed "mobile security system." Petitioner asserted that Joseph’s SDU detects a "wake event" (e.g., a command from a remote entity), provides a wake signal to the laptop's power management controller to exit a low-power state, and then manages security services like diagnostics and updates. Petitioner contended that this directly maps to the core limitations of detecting a wake event, waking the device from a power management mode, and managing security services in response, as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012) and Zmudzinski (Application # 2007/0266265).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring specific security services like scanning for viruses, malware, or unauthorized data. Petitioner argued that while Joseph provides the base system for waking a device to perform security tasks, it does not explicitly mention virus scanning. Zmudzinski was introduced to supply this missing element, as it discloses a system with a "sequestered partition" that can wake a main partition from a "reduced power mode" to perform various functions, including "virus scanning."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zmudzinski's known virus scanning technique with Joseph's mobile security framework. The motivation would be to enhance the security capabilities of the Joseph system, which is designed for security but lacks a specific disclosure of this fundamental security task. Petitioner asserted this combination involves applying a known technique to a known system to achieve predictable results.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references describe waking a device from a low-power state to perform maintenance or security operations, making their functionalities highly compatible.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Gordon as an alternative primary reference to Joseph. Gordon discloses a wireless security module containing a "firmware agent" that is separate from a host laptop's main processor. This module communicates with a remote monitoring center. Petitioner argued Gordon's firmware agent detects a "wake event" when it receives a message from the monitoring center, then issues a "wake-up" signal to the host laptop to exit an inactive or low-power state. Upon waking, the system invokes a "data protection measure," such as data deletion or software deployment, which constitutes the claimed "managing security services."
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 based on the combination of Gordon and Zmudzinski, relying on a similar rationale as Ground 2 to add virus and malware scanning functionality to the Gordon system.

"mobile," "mobile security system," "mobile security system processor": Petitioner argued that these terms should be construed, consistent with its litigation position, to mean a system or processor "not connected to a network via a wired connection." This construction emphasizes the wireless, independent nature of the security system, which Petitioner contended is disclosed by the prior art.
"power management mode": Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's construction from related litigation, defining the term as "a mode where the mobile device conserves power." This was strategically used to argue that the "inactive," "powered down," or "low power-use" states described in the prior art (e.g., Joseph, Gordon) meet this claim limitation.

Priority Date Entitlement: A central contention was that the ’683 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2008 provisional application filing date. Petitioner argued that the parent application added significant new matter—specifically the entire "wake" functionality central to the independent claims—that was not present in the provisional application. Therefore, Petitioner asserted the correct priority date is the 2009 filing date of the parent application, which makes Joseph, Gordon, and Zmudzinski all valid prior art under pre-AIA §102.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-20 of the ’683 patent as unpatentable.