PTAB

IPR2019-00767

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 ’683 patent discloses a "mobile security system" designed to provide security for a mobile device that has traveled outside of a trusted enterprise network. The system manages security services by detecting a wake event, waking the mobile device from a "power management mode," and then performing security functions such as scanning or updating the device.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Joseph discloses all limitations of the independent claims. Joseph teaches a laptop computer (the "mobile device") integrated with a "security/diagnostics unit" or SDU (the "mobile security system") that has its own processor separate from the laptop's main processor. The SDU detects "wake events," such as commands from a remote security entity, to power-up the laptop from a powered-off or low-power state (a "power management mode"). In response, the SDU sends signals to the laptop's power management controller (a "wake signal") to wake the device and then manages various security and maintenance services, such as erasing data or performing diagnostics.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was presented as a direct mapping, asserting that Joseph alone teaches the claimed invention, making it obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Because Joseph was argued to disclose all elements, a POSITA would have an absolute expectation of success.

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 specific security services like scanning for viruses, malware, or unauthorized data. Zmudzinski discloses a processing system with a sequestered partition that can wake a main partition from a "reduced power mode" to perform various functions, explicitly including "virus scanning." Petitioner argued that Zmudzinski's teaching of virus scanning supplies the limitations missing from Joseph for these dependent claims.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Zmudzinski's known security technique (virus scanning) with Joseph's mobile security architecture to enhance its functionality. Adding virus scanning was presented as a predictable and desirable improvement to protect against a known threat, motivated by common sense.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing a standard virus scan within the security framework disclosed by Joseph, as the systems were analogous and the task was well-understood.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gordon, as an alternative to Joseph, also discloses all elements of the independent claims. Gordon teaches a "wireless security module" with a firmware agent and a separate processor that is integrated into a host laptop. This module can detect a "wake event" by receiving a message from a remote monitoring center. In response, the firmware agent issues a "wakes-up" signal to the host to wake it from an inactive or low-power state. After waking the host, the module can invoke "data protection measures," such as data deletion or software deployment.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Similar to the Joseph ground, this was argued as a direct mapping where Gordon alone renders the independent claims obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a complete expectation of success as Gordon was argued to teach all claimed limitations.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) over Gordon in view of Zmudzinski, which relied on the same rationale as Ground 2 for incorporating virus and malware scanning into the base system taught by Gordon.

"mobile," "mobile security system," and "mobile security system processor": Petitioner proposed these terms be construed as not being connected to a network via a wired connection, consistent with its position in related district court litigation. Petitioner contended the prior art meets the limitations under either this construction or the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the Patent Owner.
"power management mode": Petitioner adopted the construction advanced by the Patent Owner in related litigation: "a mode where the mobile device conserves power."

Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’683 patent is not entitled to the filing date of its earliest provisional application (August 4, 2008). Petitioner argued that the core claimed features—specifically the "wake" functionality, including detecting a wake event and providing a wake signal—constituted new matter added in a later, non-provisional application filed on August 4, 2009. This challenge, if successful, would establish an earlier effective date for the Joseph and Gordon references, ensuring they qualify as prior art.

Petitioner requests 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.