PTAB

IPR2019-01552

Microsoft Corp v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: DEVICE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT
  • Brief Description: The ’273 patent relates to a computer security system for assessing the reputation or trustworthiness of a computing device based on its history of malicious activity. The system uses digital fingerprints to identify devices, associates detected attacks with those fingerprints, and maintains this data to inform decisions about future communications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Varghese - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 over Varghese.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Varghese (Patent 7,908,645).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Varghese, which was cited but not applied during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Varghese describes a comprehensive system for authenticating device access requests based on a "perceived risk of fraud," which Petitioner contended is synonymous with determining device "trustworthiness" as claimed in the ’273 patent.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Varghese discloses the core method of independent claim 1. Varghese’s system includes a Device Central Repository (DCR) that receives and stores historical fraud risk information associated with specific devices. These devices are identified by a unique "Device ID" generated through a digital fingerprinting process. When a service provider receives an access request, its authentication server requests an assessment from a Fraud Analysis and Alert Service (FAAS). The FAAS retrieves the subject device’s historical fraud data from the DCR using its Device ID, analyzes this data (i.e., prior attacks) using a rules-based engine to quantify a "risk score" (a measure of trustworthiness), and sends this score back to the service provider to guide the authentication decision. This process, Petitioner argued, directly maps to the claimed steps of receiving attack data, receiving a reputation request, retrieving data for a subject device, quantifying trustworthiness, and sending the result.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For claims challenged as obvious over Varghese alone (e.g., claim 5, requiring timestamps), Petitioner argued that even if not explicitly disclosed, the modification would have been obvious. Varghese teaches using "device based rules" to identify "risky patterns" such as multiple logins "within a given time period." To implement such a rule, a POSITA would have found it obvious to receive and store timestamps with the authentication request data in the DCR. This would provide necessary context for historical trend analysis, a predictable improvement to Varghese’s existing risk assessment framework.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in incorporating timestamps, as Varghese's system was already designed to store and analyze historical data, and adding a time element is a well-known method for enhancing such analysis.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Varghese and Zuk - Claims 4, 9, and 14 are obvious over Varghese in view of Zuk.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Varghese (Patent 7,908,645) and Zuk (Patent 7,904,479).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground addressed claims requiring the stored attack data to include "excerpts of logs of network activity." Petitioner argued that while Varghese provides the foundational reputation management system, Zuk teaches the use of network logs for security analysis, and a POSITA would have been motivated to combine them.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Varghese’s DCR stores data on prior attacks, such as fraudulent authentication requests. Zuk discloses an intrusion detection system that creates and processes security logs recording network events to detect "attempted security intrusions" and other suspicious behavior. Petitioner contended that a POSITA would combine these teachings by configuring Varghese’s DCR to also receive and store network log data as taught by Zuk, thereby satisfying the claim limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Varghese and Zuk because both references address the same field of endeavor: network security and preventing unauthorized device access. The motivation would be to enhance the accuracy of Varghese's risk assessment. Incorporating Zuk's network log data into Varghese's DCR would provide additional, valuable context for the historical authentication data already stored there. This would enable a more thorough and robust fraud assessment, as Varghese’s system is already configured to analyze and weigh multiple fraud detection inputs.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Varghese’s system is explicitly designed as a flexible, multi-input fraud analysis engine. Adding another data source, such as the network logs taught by Zuk, would be a predictable and straightforward improvement to enhance its analytical capabilities without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’273 patent as unpatentable.