PTAB

IPR2021-00628

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Detecting an Idle TCP Connection
  • Brief Description: The ’564 patent discloses methods and systems for managing network connections, particularly for detecting an idle Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. The technology involves sharing idle information between nodes, such as an Idle Time Period (ITP), by embedding an ITP header within the TCP options field of a TCP packet to maintain the connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wookey and Eggert - Claims 16, 22, and 23 are obvious over Wookey in view of Eggert.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921) and Eggert (IETF Internet-Draft, Apr. 14, 2004).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wookey disclosed the fundamental system architecture recited in the claims. Wookey described a client machine that communicates with a first remote machine over a network, receives code (e.g., an HTML page with encoded URLs), and uses that code to initiate a second, separate connection with a second remote machine. Wookey suggested that this second connection could use a different protocol to address issues like intermittent connectivity for mobile clients but did not specify the protocol's details.

      Petitioner argued that Eggert supplied the missing details. Eggert described a "TCP-variant" protocol that allows connections to survive periods of disconnection by negotiating a per-connection "Abort Timeout Option" (ATO). This ATO, containing a timeout value ("idle information"), is communicated within the TCP header during the standard three-way handshake. Petitioner mapped Eggert's disclosure to the ’564 patent’s limitations of a "TCP-variant connection," identifying "idle information," generating a "TCP-variant packet" with metadata for an idle time period, and using that metadata to modify a "timeout attribute." The combination, therefore, taught a client node (from Wookey) using code to establish a TCP-variant connection (from Eggert) with a server node (from Wookey).

    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wookey and Eggert to create a more robust and reliable network connection. Wookey identified the problem of maintaining connections for mobile clients that may experience unintentional disconnections but provided only a high-level suggestion to use a different protocol. Eggert provided a specific, elegant solution for this exact problem: a modified TCP protocol that negotiates abort timeouts to survive such disconnections. A POSITA would combine Eggert’s well-defined protocol with Wookey’s system to improve its functionality, a predictable combination of known technologies to solve a known problem.

    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Eggert's protocol within Wookey's system. The combination involved applying a known networking protocol to a standard client-server architecture. The modification described by Eggert—adding a new option to a TCP header—was a standard and well-understood technique in network protocol design, ensuring a predictable and straightforward implementation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "TCP-variant packet" / "TCP-variant connection": Petitioner argued that these terms do not require explicit construction and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The ’564 patent specification provided little guidance on the meaning of "TCP-variant." Petitioner contended that Eggert's protocol, which varies slightly from standard TCP by adding a new "Abort Timeout Option" in the TCP header, fell squarely within a reasonable interpretation of a "TCP-variant." Consequently, packets and connections utilizing Eggert's protocol were argued to be "TCP-variant packets" and a "TCP-variant connection," respectively. Petitioner noted that the Board had previously adopted a similar interpretation for the same terms in a related IPR concerning a parent patent.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Arguments against §325(d) Denial (Cumulative Art): Petitioner argued that Eggert was not cumulative to prior art considered during prosecution, specifically RFC 5482. While both documents related to TCP timeouts, Petitioner asserted a material difference: Eggert taught a binding negotiation where two nodes establish a common, agreed-upon timeout value during the three-way handshake. In contrast, RFC 5482 was explicitly designed so that an exchange of timeout options was not a binding negotiation.
  • Arguments against Discretionary Denial under Fintiv: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set and the case stayed pending a motion to transfer. Petitioner asserted that minimal investment had been made in the litigation, there was no meaningful overlap of issues as invalidity contentions had not yet been served, and the petition presented strong grounds for unpatentability. These factors, Petitioner argued, heavily outweighed the fact that the parties were the same, warranting institution of the IPR.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 16, 22, and 23 of the ’564 patent as unpatentable.