Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00868
• Patent #: 10,306,026
• Filed: April 29, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Jenam Tech, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 52, 55-57, 59-61, 64, 66-69

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Detecting Idle TCP Connections
• Brief Description: The ’026 patent discloses methods for networking and managing network connections. The technology involves a first node sending a TCP packet that includes an Idle Time Period (ITP) header, for example in the TCP options field, to a second node to share information for detecting and managing an idle TCP connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 52, 55-57, 59, 61, 64, 66, and 68-69 are obvious over Wookey in view of Berg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921) and Berg (Patent 6,674,713).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wookey disclosed a client-server system where a client machine establishes a primary TCP connection with one remote machine and can be directed to establish a secondary connection with another remote machine using various protocols, including non-TCP protocols. While Wookey suggested the need for connection reliability, it did not detail the specific protocol for achieving it. Petitioner asserted that Berg cured this deficiency by teaching a non-TCP protocol, Reliable User Datagram Protocol (RUDP), designed to maintain reliable connections. A POSITA would implement Berg's RUDP as the "non-TCP protocol" for the secondary connection in Wookey's system. Key limitations were mapped such that Berg's "null segment timeout value"—a negotiable RUDP parameter specified in milliseconds—corresponds to the claimed "metadata" specifying an "idle time period." The expiration of a null segment timer based on this value triggers an "auto reset" if a keep-alive message is not acknowledged, which satisfies the claim limitation of the connection being "subject to deactivation."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wookey and Berg to improve the reliability of the secondary connections in Wookey's system. Wookey identified the desirability of handling disconnections and managing session inactivity, creating a clear reason to seek an established solution. Berg provided a direct solution to this problem through its RUDP, which offered configurable timeout parameters on a per-connection basis to maintain session integrity. The combination was presented as applying a known solution to a recognized problem to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a reasonable expectation of success because combining a known reliable transport protocol (Berg's RUDP) with a general networking system (Wookey's) was a straightforward application of known technologies within the same technical field to achieve a predictable improvement in connection stability.

Ground 2: Claims 60 and 67 are obvious over Wookey in view of Berg and Tucker.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wookey (Application # 2007/0171921), Berg (Patent 6,674,713), and Tucker (Patent 7,389,512).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Wookey/Berg combination to address the additional limitation that the idle time period is configured by an application "via an analog of a socket." The Wookey/Berg combination established a system where an application configures the idle time period (null segment timeout) via an Application Programming Interface (API). While Berg's RUDP protocol explicitly included an API for this purpose, it did not specify the precise inter-process communication (IPC) mechanism. Tucker was introduced to teach that various IPC mechanisms—such as shared memory segments, message queues, pipes, and streams—are well-known, interchangeable "analogs of a socket" used to facilitate communication between separate processes, such as an application and a protocol layer.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the Wookey/Berg combination would need to select a specific IPC mechanism to enable the application to communicate with the RUDP layer via the API taught by Berg. Tucker provided a finite list of known, suitable IPC components for this exact purpose. A POSITA would be motivated to use one of Tucker's disclosed socket analogs as a standard and obvious design choice to implement the required communication, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that selecting a standard IPC component from the finite options described in Tucker to implement the API described in Berg was a routine design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded a predictable and successful implementation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner asserted that no express claim constructions were necessary to resolve the grounds. For the key terms "non-TCP packet" and "non-TCP connection," Petitioner argued that Berg’s Reliable User Datagram Protocol (RUDP) and its associated UDP packets squarely met these limitations under any reasonable interpretation. Because the prior art allegedly disclosed these features clearly, Petitioner contended that a formal, specific construction was not required.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was inappropriate. The core arguments asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages and was stayed pending a motion to transfer. This meant no trial date was set and the parties' investment in the case was minimal. Petitioner contended that any potential trial would occur well after the IPR's Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner argued that factors 2 (proximity to trial) and 3 (investment in litigation) weighed heavily in favor of institution, while factor 4 (overlap) was neutral to favorable. These factors, combined with the asserted strength of the petition (factor 6), were argued to overwhelmingly favor institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 52, 55-57, 59-61, 64, and 66-69 of Patent 10,306,026 as unpatentable.