PTAB

IPR2021-00629

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Networking with Idle Connection Detection
  • Brief Description: The ’564 patent is directed to networking systems and methods for sharing information to detect an idle network connection. The technology involves using a non-TCP protocol to establish a connection where metadata, such as an idle time period, is communicated in a non-TCP packet to manage the connection state and potential deactivation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 24-29 are obvious over Wookey in view of Berg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921) and Berg (Patent 6,674,713).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Wookey and Berg teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Wookey was asserted to disclose the foundational system where a client machine receives code (e.g., an HTML page with encoded URLs) from a first server and uses that code to establish a connection with a second, different server. Petitioner contended that while Wookey discloses that this second connection could use various protocols, including non-TCP protocols, it lacks specific implementation details for managing connection reliability.

      Petitioner asserted that Berg remedies this deficiency by teaching a specific non-TCP protocol, the Reliable User Datagram Protocol (RUDP), designed to provide reliable connections over unreliable networks like UDP. Berg’s RUDP was shown to establish a "non-TCP connection" using "non-TCP packets" (RUDP SYN packets) to negotiate connection parameters. Critically, Petitioner argued Berg discloses negotiating timeout values, such as a "null segment timeout value," within these packets. This value was presented as the claimed "metadata" specifying an "idle time period," which is used to determine a "timeout attribute" (a null segment timer). If the timer expires, the RUDP connection is subject to deactivation via an "auto reset," meeting the claim limitations.

      For limitations requiring a separate TCP connection, Petitioner argued Wookey’s framework inherently includes this. The initial connection from the client to the first server to receive the HTML code would be a standard TCP/HTTP connection, different from the non-TCP RUDP connection established with the second server. The dependent claims were argued to be obvious as they add only conventional system and method elements disclosed by the combination.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Berg's protocol with Wookey’s system to solve a problem articulated in Wookey. Wookey describes the need for connections that can handle interruptions and manage inactivity but does not detail how to achieve this. Berg provides an elegant, well-known solution with its RUDP, which offers per-connection negotiation of timeout parameters to enhance reliability. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Berg’s specific, flexible protocol to predictably improve the reliability and efficiency of the connections in Wookey's system. The combination was framed as the application of a known technique (Berg) to improve a similar system (Wookey).

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination involved integrating a known, reliable communication protocol into a standard client-server architecture. This was argued to be a straightforward implementation that would predictably yield the known benefits of Berg’s protocol—namely, improved connection stability and flexible timeout management—without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was inappropriate for several reasons.
  • The factor concerning proximity to a trial date was argued to weigh strongly in favor of institution, as no trial date had been set in the parallel district court litigation. Further, the court case was stayed pending a motion to transfer, making any potential trial date highly speculative and likely to occur well after the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline.
  • The investment factor also favored institution, as the parallel litigation was in its earliest stages with minimal investment in discovery or claim construction.
  • Petitioner also contended that the strong merits of the unpatentability grounds, the lack of substantive overlap with the stayed court case, and Petitioner’s diligence in filing the petition all weighed heavily against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 24-29 of the ’564 patent as unpatentable.