PTAB

IPR2021-00727

Daimler Ag Mercedes Benz USA LLC Mercedes Benz Intl Inc v. Stragent LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework
  • Brief Description: The ’036 patent relates to a system and software for sharing information between different networks in a distributed system, such as an automotive environment. The system uses a gateway with a common "bulletin board" memory to interface between networks like a Controller Area Network (CAN), FlexRay, or Local Interconnect Network (LIN).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM

  • Claims 43, 45-52, 54-56, 58-60, 63-70, 77, 80-82 are obvious over Miesterfeld in view of Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM.
    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld (Patent 6,141,710), Wense (Application # 2003/0043739), OSEK-COM (an OSEK/VDX Communication Specification), and OSEK-NM (an OSEK/VDX Network Management specification).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miesterfeld discloses the core apparatus: an automotive gateway that uses a shared memory to facilitate data exchange between a vehicle data bus (VDB) and an intelligent transportation system (ITS) bus. Wense teaches the common practice of interconnecting different modern automotive network protocols, specifically disclosing the use of CAN and FlexRay in the same vehicle. Petitioner contended that while Miesterfeld teaches the general architecture, the OSEK standards disclose necessary implementation details for such a system. OSEK-NM and OSEK-COM teach standardized methods for managing network nodes and communications, including using timers and thresholds to determine resource availability and sending notifications upon timeouts, which directly map to memory-related limitations in the challenged claims.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Miesterfeld’s gateway with Wense’s teachings as a simple design choice, substituting an older network standard in Miesterfeld (J1850) with the more modern and domain-specific FlexRay protocol taught by Wense. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the well-known and standardized communication and network management protocols of OSEK-COM and OSEK-NM into Miesterfeld’s architecture to ensure interoperability and robust error handling, such as managing access to the shared memory via timeouts, a fundamental concept in distributed systems.
      • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves integrating known network protocols (Wense) and standard management interfaces (OSEK) into a conventional gateway architecture (Miesterfeld), all within the predictable field of automotive electronics.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Core References plus OSEK-OS

  • Claims 44, 53, 57, 61-62, and 73-76 are obvious over Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM in view of OSEK-OS.

    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, OSEK-NM, and OSEK-OS (an OSEK/VDX Operating System specification).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the core combination of Ground 1, adding OSEK-OS to teach limitations related to operating system functions. Petitioner asserted OSEK-OS discloses using time-stamps for temporal reference (claim 44), a storage resource as a component of firmware by supporting code execution from ROM (claim 53), the use of both non-volatile (ROM) and volatile (RAM) memory (claim 57), explicit and implicit resource management (claims 61-62), and a plurality of software layers including application, middleware, and real-time OS layers (claims 73-76).
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate a standard automotive operating system like OSEK-OS into Miesterfeld’s embedded gateway to manage basic processor tasks like scheduling, application execution, and resource control. This would provide a uniform environment for the software, facilitating development and ensuring reliable operation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the core combination of Miesterfeld, Wense, OSEK-COM, and OSEK-NM, supplemented with other references. These included:

    • Ground 3 (claims 71-72), which added OSEK-OIL to teach a virtual ECU and interfacing with design tools.
    • Ground 4 (claims 78-79), which added Reinold to teach providing software upgrades over a communication link.
    • Ground 5 (claim 83), which added OSEK-FTCom to teach cross-network variable sharing through real-time data replication for fault tolerance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "threshold": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a “value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” This construction was previously adopted by the Board in IPRs involving parent patents.
  • "share the information": Petitioner argued that "sharing" requires that information be accessible, without requiring storage of that information. This construction was also previously adopted by the Board in related proceedings.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution. It contended that denial under §325(d) was improper because the primary references (Wense, OSEK, Miesterfeld) were either not considered or not substantively evaluated by the Examiner during prosecution. Petitioner also argued that denial under Fintiv was unwarranted because the co-pending district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with motions to dismiss pending and no trial date set, meaning there was no overlap in issues or investment of judicial resources that would favor denial. Finally, Petitioner asserted that filing multiple petitions was necessary due to the large number of challenged claims (127 asserted in litigation) and that the petitions rely on different primary references and challenge non-overlapping claim sets.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 43-83 of the ’036 patent as unpatentable.