Rubrik Inc v. Commvault Systems Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00673
• Patent #: 9,740,723
• Filed: March 17, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Rubrik, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Commvault Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Management of Virtualization Data
• Brief Description: The ’723 patent discloses systems and methods for copying data from one or more virtual machines (VMs). The method involves determining if a virtual machine manager is present, querying the manager to identify the VMs it manages, and copying the data from the identified VMs to a storage device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over esxRanger and VirtualCenter - Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18, and 21 are obvious over the esxRanger Manual in view of the VirtualCenter Manual.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: esxRanger Manual (a 2006 professional reference manual for backup software) and VirtualCenter Manual (a 1998-2004 user manual for VMware's management software).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the esxRanger Manual, a guide for backup software designed to work with VMware, taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, esxRanger software received a request to copy data when a user initiated a backup job, either immediately or via a scheduler. The manual taught a "VirtualCenter (VC) Mode," which required the software to first determine if it was connected to a VirtualCenter instance (a virtual machine manager) by reading stored configuration details. Once confirmed, esxRanger would automatically access the VirtualCenter to request information about the VMs it managed, such as their host locations or user-defined "custom attributes," in order to determine which specific VMs to back up. Finally, esxRanger copied the data from the determined VMs to a designated physical storage device. Dependent claims related to disk-level copies, determining specific VM disk files, and limiting concurrent backup operations were also allegedly taught by esxRanger's backup configuration options.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended the motivation was explicit, as the esxRanger Manual was for software designed specifically to interface with VMware's VirtualCenter. The esxRanger Manual repeatedly referenced VirtualCenter and directed users to VMware's website for more information. A POSITA would combine the manuals to understand how esxRanger's features, like filtering backups by "custom attributes," utilized the underlying capabilities of VirtualCenter as described in its own manual.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the references described commercially available software products expressly designed to work together.

Ground 2: Obviousness over esxRanger, VirtualCenter, and Naftel - Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 17-18 are obvious over the esxRanger Manual and VirtualCenter Manual in view of Naftel.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: esxRanger Manual, VirtualCenter Manual, and Naftel (8,635,429).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the arguments from Ground 1 and added Naftel to address limitations related to extracting file system information from a backed-up VM disk file. Petitioner argued that while esxRanger taught a utility to mount a VM backup and browse its files, Naftel specifically disclosed a mapping utility that extracts information about the location of a virtual file allocation table (FAT) to map a virtual drive's file structure. Naftel taught extracting this information, associating it with the VM in a created map, and storing that map.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Naftel with the primary references to improve esxRanger's file-level restore functionality. Petitioner asserted that manually browsing a mounted disk as taught by esxRanger could be cumbersome. Naftel’s teaching of mapping virtual drives to enable individual file restoration without fully mounting the image file offered a recognized way to expand and improve the utility of the esxRanger software.

Ground 3: Obviousness over esxRanger, VirtualCenter, and Sen - Claims 5-6, 14, and 19 are obvious over the esxRanger Manual and VirtualCenter Manual in view of Sen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: esxRanger Manual, VirtualCenter Manual, and Sen (2007/0288536).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Sen to the base combination to address claims requiring indexing of data from both virtual and non-virtual machines. Sen disclosed a system for managing backup data by creating indexes of their contents. Petitioner argued Sen taught determining distinct data objects (e.g., files, emails) within backup data, indexing them, and storing them in an index that could combine data from multiple sources. A POSITA would have understood this to include backup data from both VMs (from esxRanger) and non-virtual machines. Sen also taught receiving a query to scan the index and returning responsive search results.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sen's indexing teachings with esxRanger to create a more efficient and robust data management system. Indexing backup data from esxRanger would improve a user's ability to locate specific files for restoration without manually searching VM archives. Sen provided an express motivation by teaching that its system helps "efficiently manage data usage and discoverability within an organization."

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on esxRanger and VirtualCenter in view of Amarendran (for single instance storage) and Le (for virtual-to-virtual disk format conversion).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the district court trial was scheduled for January 2023, nearly two years after the petition's filing, providing ample time for a Final Written Decision (FWD).
• Petitioner also noted that the primary prior art references, the esxRanger Manual and VirtualCenter Manual, were not considered during the original prosecution of the ’723 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-21 of Patent 9,740,723 as unpatentable.