PTAB

IPR2021-00869

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Detecting Idle TCP Connections
  • Brief Description: The ’945 patent discloses a networking method for sharing information to detect an idle Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. The technology involves a first node sending a TCP packet that includes an Idle Time Period (ITP) header to a second node, which then detects this information to manage the connection state.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wookey and Berg - Claims 1, 9-10, 34, and 64-69 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 the combination of Wookey and Berg teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Wookey was asserted to disclose a client-server system where a client machine first establishes a primary connection with a first server over standard TCP/HTTP. This server then provides the client with "code" (an HTML page with encoded URLs) that, when used, causes the client to establish a second connection with another server. Wookey suggests this second connection can use a different protocol but does not provide specific implementation details for ensuring reliability.

      Petitioner contended that Berg remedies this deficiency by teaching a Reliable User Datagram Protocol (RUDP), which is explicitly described as a protocol separate from TCP. Berg’s RUDP is designed to provide reliable connections and allows for negotiating connection parameters, including a "null segment timeout value" used to monitor connection idleness. Petitioner mapped the claims by arguing a POSITA would implement the second connection in Wookey’s system using Berg’s RUDP. In this combined system, establishing the RUDP connection involves exchanging SYN packets. The client would receive a SYN packet from the server containing a "null segment timeout parameter field" (the claimed "idle time period parameter field") and its associated value (the "metadata"). The client would then use this metadata to create or modify a local null segment timer (the "timeout attribute"), thereby satisfying the key limitations of independent claims 1 and 34. Dependent claims were argued to be obvious for similar reasons, adding details also found in the combined teachings, such as receiving the parameter-negotiation packet before the connection is fully established.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wookey and Berg to achieve a predictable and improved system. Both references are in the same field of establishing reliable network connections. Wookey identified a clear need for robust, reliable connections that can handle interruptions (e.g., when a mobile device temporarily loses signal) but provided only a high-level framework. Berg provided a specific, well-defined solution (RUDP) that directly addresses Wookey’s stated goals by enabling per-connection negotiation of reliability parameters like idle timeouts. A POSITA would combine Berg's protocol with Wookey's architecture to implement the second connection with enhanced reliability, a known problem with a readily available solution.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination involved substituting a known type of reliable communication protocol (Berg's RUDP) into a system designed to accommodate various protocols (Wookey). This was presented as a straightforward application of known networking principles to achieve the foreseeable result of a more reliable connection, not requiring any undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that no express claim constructions were necessary to resolve the challenge. However, it specifically addressed the term "a second protocol that is separate from the TCP" found in claims 1 and 34. Petitioner argued that under its plain and ordinary meaning, Berg’s RUDP protocol, which is layered on top of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), is undisputedly separate from TCP. It noted that the Board had previously found Berg to disclose a non-TCP protocol in a related IPR, reinforcing its position that no special construction was required.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), based on the Fintiv factors, was not appropriate. The core arguments asserted that the factors strongly favored institution. Specifically, Petitioner highlighted that no trial date had been set in the parallel district court litigation, which was stayed pending a motion to transfer. This created a strong likelihood that the Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue long before any potential trial. Further, Petitioner argued that investment in the parallel proceedings had been minimal, there was little to no overlap between the IPR grounds and district court invalidity contentions (which had not yet been served), and the petition presented meritorious grounds for unpatentability.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 9-10, 34, and 64-69 of Patent 10,069,945 as unpatentable.