PTAB

IPR2021-00408

Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optimization of Traffic Load in a Distributed Antenna System
  • Brief Description: The ’454 patent describes a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) that employs traffic monitoring and load balancing optimization. The system dynamically reallocates radio resources between different sectors by shifting Digital Remote Units (DRUs) based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to optimize network performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-17 and 19 are anticipated by Kummetz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kummetz (Patent 9,398,464).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kummetz, which discloses a "Base Station Router for Distributed Antenna System," teaches every element of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped Kummetz’s "base station router" to the claimed Digital Access Unit (DAU) and its "remote antenna units" to the claimed DRUs. Kummetz’s "controller" was asserted to function as the claimed "traffic monitoring unit," as it detects "traffic indicators"—such as the number of mobile devices in a coverage zone—that are analogous to the claimed KPIs. The controller in Kummetz reconfigures the DAS by reallocating sectors from a first coverage zone to a second based on these indicators, thereby meeting the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 regarding dynamic resource allocation. Petitioner further contended that Kummetz’s disclosure of an external controller option anticipates claims requiring the traffic monitoring unit to be external to the DAUs.

Ground 2: Claims 15, 16, and 18 are obvious over Kummetz in view of Evans

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kummetz (Patent 9,398,464) and Evans (Application # 2012/0057572).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that while Kummetz discloses the base DAS system, it is generally agnostic about the specific network topology for interconnecting its remote antenna units. Evans, which focuses on implementing the Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) protocol in a DAS, was cited to explicitly disclose various standard network topologies. Evans teaches daisy-chain (relevant to claim 15), star (relevant to claim 16), and loop/ring (relevant to claim 18) configurations for interconnecting network components.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Kummetz explicitly suggests using the CPRI protocol for its digital embodiments. Evans provides known, CPRI-compatible topologies that would be natural and predictable design choices for a POSITA to consider. Implementing these standard topologies would solve the challenge of interconnecting numerous remote antenna units in complex environments like stadiums or large buildings, where simple point-to-point connections taught by Kummetz might be infeasible or inefficient.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination. Applying a known network architecture from Evans to the DAS in Kummetz would be a routine implementation using established principles, leading to a predictable and functional system with the desired topology.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative obviousness challenges for claim 7 over Kummetz in view of Kummetz ’579 (Application # 2011/0281579) and for claim 17 over Kummetz in view of Kummetz ’999 (Patent 9,735,999). Both the ’579 application and the ’999 patent were incorporated by reference into Kummetz to provide additional detail on traffic monitoring techniques and system connections, respectively.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate because the parallel district court case was in its very early stages. At the time of filing, no trial date was set, discovery was nascent, and a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR was likely to be granted. Petitioner contended that the IPR presented strong grounds for unpatentability, was not redundant to the prior art considered during prosecution, and would be a more efficient forum for resolving the patentability of all 19 challenged claims, as opposed to the subset likely to be litigated in court.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 10,506,454 as unpatentable.