Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00627
• Patent #: 10,375,215
• Filed: March 15, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Jenam Tech, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4, 8, 9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Detecting an Idle TCP Connection
• Brief Description: The ’215 patent discloses a networking method for detecting and managing idle TCP connections. The system uses a "TCP-variant" protocol where a first node sends a packet containing an Idle Time Period (ITP) header to a second node, allowing the connection's timeout attributes to be modified based on the ITP information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wookey and Eggert - Claim 1 is obvious over Wookey in view of Eggert.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921) and Eggert (TCP Abort Timeout Option, IETF Internet-Draft, April 14, 2004).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wookey discloses the basic method of claim 1, including a server node sending data and code (e.g., an HTML page with URLs) to a client node. This code, when used by the client, causes it to establish a second connection with another remote machine. However, Wookey does not explicitly teach using a "TCP-variant packet" for this second connection. Petitioner asserted that Eggert remedies this deficiency. Eggert describes a modification to the standard TCP protocol that introduces a "TCP Abort Timeout Option" (ATO). This option, included in a TCP packet's option field, allows two nodes to negotiate a custom abort timeout, making the connection more resilient to temporary disconnections. Petitioner contended that a TCP packet containing Eggert's non-standard ATO is inherently a "TCP-variant packet" as required by the claim.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Eggert with Wookey to solve a problem recognized in Wookey: maintaining reliable connections, especially for mobile clients that may experience intermittent connectivity. Wookey suggests a need for robust connections but does not detail the protocol. Eggert provides an elegant and known solution for improving TCP connection reliability in precisely such scenarios. A POSITA would combine Eggert’s protocol with Wookey's system to create a more reliable and commercially desirable product, which is a predictable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known protocol enhancement (Eggert) to a known client-server architecture (Wookey). Petitioner asserted this was a straightforward substitution of one protocol for another from a finite number of known options to achieve a predictable result, giving a POSITA a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wookey, Eggert, and Abdolbaghian - Claims 4, 8, and 9 are obvious over Wookey in view of Eggert and Abdolbaghian.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921), Eggert (IETF Internet-Draft), and Abdolbaghian (Patent 6,981,048).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Wookey-Eggert combination from Ground 1 to address the dependent claims. Claim 4 adds communicating "keep-alive packets" based on a "keep-alive period" that is, in turn, based on the "idle time period" (the negotiated abort timeout from Eggert). Claim 8 requires the keep-alive period be administered by a "keep-alive timer," and claim 9 requires this timer to be separate from the idle timer. Petitioner argued that using keep-alive packets to maintain a connection is a fundamental networking concept suggested by Wookey itself. The key inventive concept alleged by the patent is basing the keep-alive period on the idle timeout. Petitioner asserted this step is made obvious by Abdolbaghian, which teaches a keep-alive mechanism to prevent an application timeout. Abdolbaghian explicitly discloses setting a keep-alive timer to expire before a longer application timeout expires, thereby establishing the principle of basing a shorter keep-alive period on a longer timeout period.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the reliable connection of Wookey and Eggert would naturally seek to ensure that connection remains active, a standard goal for which keep-alive mechanisms are the conventional solution. To make the keep-alive mechanism effective, a POSITA would look to prior art like Abdolbaghian. Following Abdolbaghian’s logic, the POSITA would set the keep-alive timer in the Wookey-Eggert system to be shorter than the negotiated abort timeout value. This common-sense approach ensures keep-alive packets are sent before the connection is dropped, preventing the very problem the keep-alive mechanism is meant to solve.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a keep-alive timer is a routine task for a network engineer. Configuring its period to be less than the connection timeout is a basic, logical step to ensure functionality. Petitioner argued this modification was a straightforward application of well-known networking principles with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that no express claim constructions are necessary. However, for the terms "TCP-variant packet" and "TCP-variant connection," Petitioner contended they should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Under this interpretation, a protocol that "varies slightly" from standard TCP, such as by adding a new, non-standard option, would meet the limitation. Petitioner asserted that Eggert's protocol, which introduces the novel "TCP Abort Timeout Option," is such a variant, and the packets used to negotiate it are therefore "TCP-variant packets."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
  • Not Cumulative (§325(d)): Petitioner argued that Eggert is not cumulative to any prior art considered by the examiner during prosecution. Specifically, Eggert is fundamentally different from RFC 5482 (cited in an IDS) because Eggert teaches a binding negotiation of a common timeout value, whereas RFC 5482 describes a non-binding exchange.
  • Fintiv Factors Not Met (§314(a)): Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. The co-pending district court litigation was in its earliest stages with no trial date set. Furthermore, the district court had stayed the case pending a ruling on Google's motion to transfer, making the future trial date, if any, highly speculative and likely to occur well after the Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’215 patent as unpatentable.