Cisco Systems Inc v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01226
• Patent #: 8,130,775
• Filed: July 6, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1 and 6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method of Setting Up at Least Two Pseudo-Wires Able to Broadcast a Data Stream
• Brief Description: The ’775 patent relates to packet-switched networking technology for setting up at least two pseudo-wires capable of broadcasting a data stream. The purported advancement is a method where two distinct pseudo-wires, running from a common input router to two different output routers, share a common first link between the input router and an intermediate router.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aggarwal and Hussain - Claims 1 and 6 are obvious over Aggarwal in view of Hussain.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aggarwal (Patent 7,602,702) and Hussain (a 2004 publication titled “Fault-tolerant IP and MPLS Networks”).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aggarwal teaches the core inventive concept of the ’775 patent. Specifically, Aggarwal discloses establishing point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in an MPLS network, where multiple "branch LSPs" originating from a single source router are explicitly configured to "share the same links where possible" to optimize network resources. This directly maps to the ’775 patent's claimed feature of two paths sharing a common first link. Petitioner contended that while Aggarwal uses the term "LSP," Hussain teaches that implementing LSPs as "pseudo-wires" (the term used in the challenged claims) was a well-known and conventional technique in the art. Hussain provides detailed guidance on establishing pseudo-wires, which correspond to nested LSPs within tunnels, to provide Layer 2 services over an MPLS backbone. Therefore, the combination of Aggarwal's link-sharing architecture with Hussain's conventional pseudo-wire implementation renders the claimed method obvious. The limitations of claim 6, which recite a computer program product for performing the method of claim 1, were argued to be obvious for the same reasons, as Aggarwal explicitly discloses implementing router control units with software stored on a computer-readable medium.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) implementing Aggarwal's general P2MP LSP architecture would have been motivated to consult a detailed guide like Hussain for implementation specifics. Hussain focuses on high-availability and fault-tolerant MPLS networks, making it a natural reference for a POSITA seeking to build a robust system. The motivation was to apply a known technique (implementing LSPs as pseudo-wires, per Hussain) to a known method (Aggarwal's link-sharing LSPs) to improve network efficiency, reduce complexity, and leverage the known benefits of pseudo-wires for broadcasting Layer 2 services—all goals consistent with those described in Aggarwal.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing LSPs as pseudo-wires was a well-established practice. Both Aggarwal's LSPs and Hussain's pseudo-wires operate within MPLS networks, often use the same routers and links, and serve similar functions like data broadcasting. Since a pseudo-wire is fundamentally a type of LSP, applying Hussain's specific implementation to Aggarwal's architecture would have yielded predictable results without requiring any undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate because the primary references, Aggarwal and Hussain, were not considered or cited during the original prosecution of the ’775 patent. The examiner's allowance was based on the novelty of sharing a link between pseudo-wires, the very feature Petitioner alleged is taught by Aggarwal.
• Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner contended that denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was inappropriate. The key arguments asserted were that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages with minimal investment, and the scheduled trial date of May 2021 was highly uncertain and likely to be delayed beyond the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner also argued that a stay of the litigation was appropriate and likely if the inter partes review (IPR) was instituted. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the strong merits of the petition weighed heavily in favor of institution to promote efficiency and avoid potentially conflicting outcomes.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1 and 6 of Patent 8,130,775 as unpatentable.