PTAB

IPR2021-00814

Juniper Networks Inc v. Correct Transmission LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Connectivity and Fault Management in Computer Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’928 patent discloses a method and system for performing Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) in an Ethernet network. The technology focuses on designating a specific physical link within a Link Aggregation Group (LAG) to forward CFM messages for fault examination, thereby allowing testing of individual links within a bundled logical connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, 18-24, 26-27, and 30-32 are obvious over Y.1731 in view of Hayami.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Y.1731 (ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731) and Hayami (Patent 6,198,726).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Y.1731, an industry standard for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions, discloses most elements of the challenged claims, including a maintenance entity in an Ethernet CFM domain with aggregated links forming a single logical link. However, Y.1731 does not explicitly teach designating and examining a specific physical link within the logical group using CFM messages. Petitioner asserted that Hayami supplies this missing element. Hayami teaches a fault management system that performs OAM processing on a line-by-line basis for an aggregated link by converting line identifiers into a unique internal processing identifier (ICID). This ICID is then used to test each physical line individually.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the standard CFM framework of Y.1731 with Hayami's method for granular, line-by-line fault management. The motivation was to improve upon Y.1731’s capabilities by implementing an efficient and specific method for fault detection on individual physical links within a LAG, which was a known objective in network management. This combination would predictably enhance fault isolation and network reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Both references operate in the same field of network fault management and address analogous problems. Integrating Hayami’s specific technique for identifying and testing individual lines into the broader, standardized CFM system of Y.1731 was presented as a straightforward application of known principles to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, 18-24, 26-27, and 30-32 are obvious over Bruckman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bruckman (Patent 6,957,369).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Bruckman alone renders the challenged claims obvious. Bruckman discloses a system with a main module and multiple subsidiary modules connected by aggregated links. The system performs non-intrusive self-testing by identifying idle physical links within the aggregated group. The main module's processor selects a specific idle line for testing, configures a switch to connect it, and instructs the corresponding subsidiary module to transmit test traffic over that designated link. The main module then examines the returned traffic to detect faults. This process, Petitioner argued, teaches every key limitation, including a "port definer module" that designates a specific physical link of a logical link for fault examination by forwarding a test message.
    • Motivation to Combine (Implicit Modification): While this is a single-reference ground, the argument relied on a POSITA's understanding of the art. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have found it obvious to adapt Bruckman’s self-test method, which uses generic test traffic, to use industry-standard CFM messages as acknowledged in the ’928 patent itself. This would be a routine modification to ensure Bruckman’s system operated in tandem with widely accepted CFM standards like Y.1731 and IEEE 802.1ag for improved interoperability and functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have readily understood how to implement Bruckman’s fault-testing logic using standardized CFM messages instead of generic test packets. Since the purpose and function of the messages are the same—to test a designated link for faults—this modification would have been a predictable substitution with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no express constructions were necessary for the IPR but addressed the term "port definer module" based on the Patent Owner's position in co-pending district court litigation.
  • For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed means-plus-function construction for "port definer module":
    • Function: "designating any one physical link of the logical link."
    • Structure: "a processor-based electrical circuit containing instructions configured to forward at least one CFM message via the designated link, and equivalents thereof."
  • Petitioner's core contention was that the prior art in both grounds discloses this recited structure performing the claimed function.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the primary references (Y.1731, Hayami, and Bruckman) were never considered by the examiner during prosecution and are not cumulative of the previously considered art.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors, asserting that the co-pending district court case was in its earliest stages with minimal investment. The trial date was more than a year away and speculative, making it likely that the Board’s Final Written Decision would issue before trial. Furthermore, Petitioner noted that the IPR challenges more claims than were asserted in the litigation, promoting a more efficient and complete resolution of the patentability dispute.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-15, 18-24, 26-27, and 30-32 of the ’928 patent as unpatentable.