PTAB

IPR2020-00845

LG Electronics Inc v. Jenam Tech LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Sharing Information for Detecting an Idle Connection
Brief Description: The ’995 patent discloses a system for exchanging timeout information between network nodes before establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This information is used to modify a timeout attribute, such as an idle time period, after which the connection is dropped to preserve resources.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Eggert (an IETF Internet-Draft published April 14, 2004, titled "TCP Abort Timeout Option").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eggert discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Eggert teaches a "TCP Abort Timeout Option" (ATO) that allows hosts to negotiate individual, per-connection abort timeouts during the TCP three-way handshake, prior to the connection being fully established. Petitioner asserted this process directly maps to the claims, wherein a second node receives a TCP-variant packet (a SYN packet with an ATO) from a first node. This packet contains metadata (the abort timeout value) which the second node uses to modify a timeout attribute for the connection.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference, arguing that Eggert alone renders the claims obvious. The motivation presented in Eggert is to solve the same problem as the ’995 patent: allowing mobile hosts to maintain TCP connections across disconnected periods that are longer than a system's default timeout.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument is that implementing the explicit teachings of Eggert would inherently result in the claimed invention.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Eggert, and Hankinson (EP 1 242 882 B1).
Core Argument for this Ground: This ground was presented to the extent Eggert alone was deemed insufficient to teach the apparatus limitations of a non-transitory memory and one or more processors.
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Hankinson discloses a conventional computer system, such as a Solaris or Linux server, that includes processors (CPUs) and non-transitory memory (e.g., a hard drive) for storing and executing an operating system and TCP protocol software. The combination of Eggert's software protocol with Hankinson's hardware apparatus was argued to meet all limitations of the independent claims.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Eggert with Hankinson because Eggert explicitly identifies Solaris (an operating system disclosed in Hankinson) as a TCP implementation that would benefit from its proposed timeout option. Implementing Eggert's software protocol on a standard server computer as taught by Hankinson would have been a natural and obvious design choice. Storing the software on non-transitory memory is a fundamental requirement for persistence.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing a software protocol modification (Eggert) on a standard hardware platform (Hankinson) designed to run such protocols.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Eggert, Hankinson, and RFC 1122.
Core Argument for this Ground: This ground specifically addressed claim 16, which requires that modifying the timeout attribute reduces the number of keep-alive signals required to be communicated.
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that RFC 1122, a foundational TCP requirements document incorporated as a normative reference in Eggert, teaches the use of keep-alive messages to probe a connection during idle periods. Eggert's negotiation allows for modifying the user timeout value.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA implementing Eggert's TCP modification on a Hankinson-like system would do so in compliance with standard TCP practices, including the keep-alive mechanism detailed in RFC 1122. A POSITA would understand that shortening the abort timeout, as enabled by Eggert's negotiation, would necessarily reduce the number of periodic keep-alive signals sent during a disconnection before the connection is aborted, thus achieving the limitation of claim 16.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The reduction in keep-alive signals was argued to be a predictable and inherent result of shortening the connection timeout, leading to a high expectation of success.

Petitioner addressed the term "TCP-variant," which was central to the claims. It adopted the Patent Owner's proposed construction from a parallel district court case: "manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement; varying usually slightly from the standard form."
Petitioner argued that Eggert's protocol, which adds a new TCP option into the standard TCP header format for timeout negotiation, squarely meets this "slight variation" definition. This position was intended to show that Eggert's teachings could not be distinguished from the claims based on this term.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the primary prior art reference, Eggert, was never presented to or considered by the examiner during prosecution. Petitioner contended that Eggert was materially different from any art cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors. It argued that the parallel district court litigation was in its infancy, with no trial date set, discovery just beginning, and claim construction proceedings not yet concluded. Therefore, an IPR would be a more efficient resolution.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of Patent 9,923,995 as unpatentable.