PTAB

IPR2021-00675

Rubrik Inc v. Commvault Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Object Store and Server for a Cloud Storage Environment, Including Data Deduplication and Data Management Across Multiple Cloud Storage Sites
  • Brief Description: The ’657 patent discloses systems for performing data backup and storage operations in a cloud environment. The technology focuses on data deduplication at the object, sub-object, and block levels, and the use of storage policies to manage how data is stored on cloud sites.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Sub-Object Deduplication for Cloud Storage - Claim 5 is obvious over Bunte, Vermeulen, and Black.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bunte (WO 2008/070688), Vermeulen (Application # 2007/0156842), and Black (Application # 2002/0059317).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bunte disclosed a system for creating secondary archive copies of data based on storage policies. Vermeulen, assigned to Amazon, was asserted to teach the use of a popular cloud storage platform (Amazon S3) for storing data remotely. Black was alleged to teach sub-object level deduplication, specifically by processing Outlook mailbox files (.PST files) to identify, extract, and deduplicate constituent parts like email attachments. The combination of Bunte’s policy-based archiving, Black’s sub-object deduplication, and Vermeulen’s cloud storage platform was argued to render the system of claim 5 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Bunte's general archiving system with the popular and cost-effective cloud storage solution detailed in Vermeulen. As Bunte mentioned handling e-mail data, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Black's specific and efficient method for deduplicating sub-objects within large e-mail files to improve storage efficiency before transfer to the cloud.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the references described compatible technologies from established companies in the data management field (Commvault, Amazon), making their integration predictable and straightforward.

Ground 2: Adding Block-Level Deduplication - Claim 5 is obvious over Bunte, Vermeulen, Black, and Zhu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bunte (WO 2008/070688), Vermeulen (Application # 2007/0156842), Black (Application # 2002/0059317), and Zhu (Application # 2008/0133835).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground supplemented the combination of Bunte, Vermeulen, and Black with Zhu. Petitioner asserted that Zhu, assigned to data deduplication leader Data Domain, taught block-level deduplication by segmenting data streams into blocks and storing only unique blocks. This was argued to satisfy claim limitations requiring sub-objects to be constituted from a set of blocks, if the claim were so construed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would implement a multi-stage deduplication process for maximum efficiency. After first using Black’s method to perform sub-object deduplication (e.g., removing duplicate email attachments), the POSITA would be motivated to apply Zhu's more granular block-level deduplication to the remaining data. This sequential process would further reduce the amount of data to be stored, saving storage costs and bandwidth.

Ground 3: Identifying and Selecting a Cloud Storage Site - Claim 21 is obvious over Bunte, Vermeulen, and Widhelm.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bunte (WO 2008/070688), Vermeulen (Application # 2007/0156842), and Widhelm (Application # 2008/0052328).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claim 21, which recites "identifying a cloud storage site on which to store a secondary copy." Petitioner alleged Bunte and Vermeulen collectively taught storing a secondary copy on a cloud site. Widhelm was added to teach the "identifying" step, as it disclosed a system that selected the most economical and efficient cloud storage site from among multiple different vendors (e.g., Amazon S3, Omnidrive) based on an algorithm evaluating metrics like cost, performance, and reliability.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the data management system of Bunte with a cloud storage component from Vermeulen would be aware of the competitive market for cloud storage. To optimize costs and performance, the POSITA would be motivated to integrate Widhelm's teachings to dynamically select the best storage provider, rather than being locked into a single option. Widhelm provided explicit economic and technical motivations for this combination.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claim 5 based on combinations including Monson-Haefel (a web archive of an Amazon S3 developer's guide), which provided further detail on interfacing with the S3 platform.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition was filed early in the co-pending district court litigation, with the trial date set for January 30, 2023, well after a Final Written Decision (FWD) would be due. Petitioner stated that no substantive rulings, including claim construction, had been made by the district court and that the asserted grounds relied on prior art not considered during prosecution of the ’657 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 5 and 21 of Patent 10,248,657 as unpatentable.