PTAB

IPR2021-01005

Cloudflare Inc v. Sable IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing an Aggregate Micro-Flow
  • Brief Description: The ’919 patent discloses methods and systems for transmitting data packets in a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. The purported improvement involves routing traffic ("micro-flows") by selecting a specific Label Switched Path (LSP) based on both a requested Quality of Service (QoS) and other transmission constraints defined by a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kodialam - Claims 1-24, 28, and 29 are obvious over Kodialam.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kodialam (Patent 6,584,071).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kodialam taught all elements of the challenged claims. Specifically, Kodialam disclosed a method for routing packet flows (the claimed "micro-flows") in an MPLS network by provisioning multiple LSPs. Petitioner asserted that Kodialam taught selecting a particular LSP based on guaranteed QoS parameters, such as "minimum bandwidth required" and "maximum delay." Furthermore, Kodialam disclosed grouping packets into "equivalence classes" (the claimed FEC) that define transmission constraints and simplify routing calculations, thus meeting the core limitations of independent claims 1, 11, 16, and 28.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground). Petitioner contended that all claimed elements were present in Kodialam, making the claimed invention obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kodialam and Cheesman - Claims 25-27 are obvious over Kodialam in view of Cheesman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kodialam (Patent 6,584,071) and Cheesman (Patent 6,680,933).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged method claims for transmitting a data flow, including separating an aggregate flow at an ingress line card and reassembling it at an egress line card. Petitioner argued Kodialam provided the overall MPLS routing framework based on QoS, including ingress/egress interfaces. Cheesman was argued to supply the specific implementation details for how a network switch separates, queues, and reassembles packet flows to meet QoS requirements. Cheesman’s disclosure of enqueuers, class-based queues, and schedulers on ingress and egress line cards was asserted to teach the claimed separating and assembling steps.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA reviewing Kodialam’s high-level disclosure of service-level-guarantee routing would have sought implementation details for its policy rules and techniques to address latency. A POSITA would combine Kodialam with Cheesman because both address routing packet flows in label-switch networks with service-level guarantees, and Cheesman provided the specific, well-known router components (enqueuers, schedulers) to implement the QoS functions described more generally in Kodialam.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved incorporating Cheesman’s conventional router components into Kodialam’s known MPLS network architecture to achieve the predictable result of improved QoS management.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Andrikopoulos and Goguen - Claims 4, 8, 15, 28, and 29 are obvious over Andrikopoulos in view of Goguen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andrikopoulos (a 1999 article titled "Supporting Differentiated Services in MPLS Networks") and Goguen (Patent 6,665,273).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claims requiring selection of less-utilized paths and methods involving active analysis of dynamically changing QoS. Petitioner argued Andrikopoulos provided the foundational MPLS system that selects LSPs based on QoS requirements. However, Andrikopoulos posed an open question on how to efficiently partition resources when bandwidth is dynamically allocated. Goguen was argued to provide the solution by teaching an MPLS system that actively monitors actual traffic flow and dynamically adjusts bandwidth to shift traffic from congested paths to "under-loaded" paths. This combination allegedly taught selecting a path utilized by fewer data packets and performing active analysis of dynamic QoS parameters.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Andrikopoulos and Goguen because both are directed to improving MPLS systems and address the same problem of efficient resource utilization. Goguen’s teachings directly answered the question of dynamic resource allocation posed by Andrikopoulos, providing a clear reason to integrate Goguen’s traffic monitoring and dynamic adjustment features into Andrikopoulos’s QoS-based routing system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was presented as the application of a known traffic engineering solution (Goguen) to a known problem (dynamic resource allocation in Andrikopoulos), leading to the predictable outcome of improved network performance and reduced congestion.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 17-18, and 20-24 are obvious over Andrikopoulos alone, and that Claims 16, 19, and 25-27 are obvious over Andrikopoulos in view of Cheesman.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition was filed only ten weeks after service of the complaint in the related district court litigation, meaning the case was in its earliest stages. Further, one petitioner (SonicWall) was not a party to the co-pending litigation, meaning no trial date could compete. Petitioner also contended that trial dates in the district court were uncertain and that it would stipulate not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, eliminating concerns of duplicative efforts.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of Patent 7,012,919 as unpatentable.