SAP Se v. Teradata US Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00861
• Patent #: 9,851,923
• Filed: May 12, 2021
• Petitioner(s): SAP Se
• Patent Owner(s): Teradata US, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Management of Data in Multi-Storage Systems That Can Include Non-Volatile and Volatile Storages
• Brief Description: The ’923 patent discloses techniques for managing data storage by using a combination of a "data temperature-based" storage management technique and a "non-temperature-based" technique (such as Least Recently Used, or LRU) together in a single volatile storage system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Lee - Claims 1-16 are unpatentable over Lee under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2014/0095802).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lee anticipates claims 1-15 and renders all challenged claims obvious. Lee expressly discloses a database management system that uses different cache replacement policies for different workloads coexisting in the same database instance. Specifically, Lee teaches using a temperature-based (access-based) replacement policy for Data Warehousing (DW) workloads in a first portion of a volatile buffer cache, while simultaneously using a non-temperature-based LRU replacement policy for Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) workloads in a second portion of the same cache. This combination of a temperature-based and a non-temperature-based technique, partitioned within a volatile storage, allegedly maps directly to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the obviousness challenge, Petitioner asserted that Lee’s own teachings motivate the combination of its features. For claim 16, which adds a third memory portion with a second non-temperature-based technique, Petitioner argued that Lee’s disclosure of using "one or more" other replacement policies would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to implement an additional non-temperature-based policy to handle another distinct workload, which would be a predictable and simple extension.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as Lee describes the policies as compatible and complementary within the same data storage system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lee in view of Ho - Claims 1-16 are obvious over Lee in view of Ho.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2014/0095802) and Ho (Patent 6,370,619).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed independent claim 16, which requires a third portion of volatile memory managed by a second, different non-temperature-based technique. While Lee teaches combining one temperature-based and one non-temperature-based policy and suggests using "one or more" additional policies, Ho explicitly discloses partitioning a buffer cache into three or more distinct buffer pools. Ho teaches applying different non-temperature-based replacement strategies (e.g., LRU, FIFO, LIFO) to each of these pools to manage data with different access patterns.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the performance of Lee's system. Lee establishes the benefit of using different policies for different workloads, and Ho provides an express template for expanding this concept to three or more policies. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Ho’s teaching of using multiple distinct non-temperature-based policies into Lee’s system to create a more robust cache management solution capable of handling a wider variety of workloads, as both references address the same technical problem.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as the combination involves applying known, modular caching policies to partitioned memory, a well-understood and predictable technique in the art.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ho in view of Morris - Claims 1-16 are obvious over Ho in view of Morris.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ho (Patent 6,370,619) and Morris (Application # 2007/0067575).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Ho discloses the core concept of partitioning a volatile buffer cache into multiple pools and applying different non-temperature-based policies (LRU, FIFO, etc.) to each. However, Ho does not expressly teach a temperature-based policy. Morris remedies this by disclosing a method of managing a data cache using a "temperature" value assigned to data objects. Data is stored in the cache only if its temperature exceeds a certain threshold.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the temperature-based policy from Morris as one of the multiple "plug-and-play" replacement policies in Ho's flexible, partitioned system. Ho teaches using a variety of policies to optimize storage, and Morris explicitly teaches its temperature-based method as an "addition to existing cache management techniques." Combining them would allow a system to handle both recency-based access patterns (via Ho's LRU) and popularity-based access patterns (via Morris's temperature policy), creating a more optimized and versatile system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because cache management policies were known to be modular. Implementing Morris’s defined technique within one of Ho’s buffer pools would be a straightforward integration of compatible concepts.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Data temperature": Petitioner proposed this term includes any value representing the number or frequency of data accesses, in absolute or relative terms. This construction is based on explicit examples in the ’923 patent specification.
• "Persistent data temperature": Petitioner argued this term has multiple reasonable interpretations, including: (1) a temperature value stored in non-volatile memory; (2) the temperature of data that is stored in non-volatile memory; or (3) both. Petitioner contended the prior art meets the claim element under any of these interpretations.
• "Temperature-based storage management technique": Petitioner proposed this term includes techniques using data temperature (e.g., access frequency) to manage storage, consistent with the patent’s description. The corresponding "non-temperature-based" term includes conventional techniques like LRU.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the primary prior art references, Lee and Ho, were never cited or considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’923 patent. Therefore, the petition raised new arguments based on art not previously before the USPTO.
• Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation should not preclude institution. It argued that the trial date was scheduled for January 2023, well beyond the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Furthermore, at the time of filing, the district court case was in its early stages, with minimal investment from the parties and the claim construction process not yet begun.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 9,851,923 as unpatentable.