PTAB

IPR2021-00935

Cohesity Inc v. Commvault Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Controlling Access to Stored Data
  • Brief Description: The ’335 patent discloses a method and system for controlling access to stored data by leveraging a preexisting security infrastructure. The system is designed to apply proper access controls to secondary data copies, such as backups, to prevent unauthorized access when data is moved outside its original, secure environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kahn - Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, and 13 are obvious over Kahn

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (Patent 7,185,192).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kahn, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses a flexible, role-based authorization system that provides robust access control for resources in a computing environment, rendering the challenged claims obvious. Kahn’s system manages secondary copies of data files through its “Backup Operator” role, which permits users to create backup copies of files, volumes, or databases. The petition asserted that Kahn’s role-rule authorization module functions as the claimed "security system," which is queried via an access request to determine a user's rights. When the access rights permit, Kahn’s system performs the requested storage operation, such as backing up a production data file and later using that secondary copy to perform a restore.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation was inherent in Kahn’s own teachings. Petitioner contended that Kahn’s comprehensive access-control framework provides all the necessary components and functionalities, and that implementing the claimed method would have been an obvious application of Kahn’s disclosed system for managing backup and restore operations securely.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the claimed method using Kahn’s disclosed system, as it provides a detailed architecture for rule-based access control for storage operations.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kahn in view of Forney - Claims 3, 7, and 11 are obvious over Kahn in view of Forney

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (Patent 7,185,192) and Forney (Patent 8,559,605).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that to the extent Kahn does not expressly teach querying a security system to determine a user’s email address for notifications, Forney supplies this missing element. Forney discloses an integrated messaging system that retrieves user information, including a "user email address," from a directory service (e.g., Active Directory) in response to a request. Petitioner asserted that adding Forney’s method of querying a directory service for an email address to Kahn’s system, which already includes monitoring and alert functions, would render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references address enterprise software for managing networked computing environments. A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate Forney's specific email lookup capability into Kahn’s system to enhance its existing notification and alert features, ensuring that status updates for storage operations are sent to the correct user. This combination would be a predictable improvement to Kahn's system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining a standard directory lookup for an email address with a system that already generates alerts is a straightforward and well-understood task in enterprise software development.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate and that the Board should institute review. The petition asserted that a balanced assessment of the Fintiv factors weighs heavily in favor of institution. Key arguments included that the PTAB’s Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue approximately two months before the scheduled trial in the parallel district court litigation. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that investment in the parallel proceeding had been minimal, and the overlap of issues was uncertain because final invalidity contentions were not yet due in court.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, and 13 of the ’335 patent as unpatentable.