Intel Corp v. Acqis LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01095
• Patent #: 8,756,359
• Filed: July 2, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Acqis LLC
• Challenged Claims: 10-16, 22-27

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computer System with Attached Computer Module and Peripheral Console
• Brief Description: The ’359 patent discloses a modular computer architecture consisting of a removable Attached Computer Module (ACM) containing core processing components (CPU, memory, graphics) and a Peripheral Console (PCON) that houses peripherals and I/O ports. The two units connect via a high-speed exchange interface system.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chu330 and Cupps - Claims 10-16 and 22-27 are obvious over Chu330 in view of Cupps.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chu330 (Patent 6,345,330) and Cupps (Application # 2003/0135771).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chu330 discloses a modular computer system nearly identical to that claimed in the ’359 patent, including an ACM, a PCON, and an interconnecting bus (XPBus) that functions as a Low Voltage Differential Signal (LVDS) channel with two sets of unidirectional serial bit channels. However, Petitioner contended that Chu330 does not explicitly disclose integrating the CPU, graphics subsystem, and host interface controller (HIC) onto a single chip. Petitioner asserted that Cupps remedies this deficiency by teaching the integration of different processors and controllers onto a single integrated circuit. Cupps explicitly discloses combining a CPU (Intel Pentium Processor 320), a graphics and memory controller hub (GMCH), and an integrated controller hub (ICH) onto a single chip to achieve known benefits. Petitioner argued that combining the single-chip integration teaching of Cupps with the modular architecture of Chu330 renders all challenged claims obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Chu330 and Cupps to achieve predictable benefits. Chu330 itself identified low power consumption as a key design goal. Cupps expressly taught that integrating components onto a single chip reduces power consumption, decreases physical footprint, and increases performance. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply the well-known integration techniques from Cupps to the similar components in Chu330’s system to gain these recognized advantages.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The components described in Chu330 (CPU, graphics subsystem, HIC) are substantially similar to those that Cupps teaches integrating. As component integration was a well-established trend in computer architecture for achieving predictable improvements, a POSITA would have reasonably expected that applying this technique to Chu330's system would be successful.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition is that the ’359 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 15, 2011. Petitioner argued that the key "CPU-LVDS" limitations—reciting an integrated CPU and graphics subsystem in a single chip directly coupled to an LVDS channel—were not supported by the written description of any parent applications preceding the ’436 patent. Petitioner asserted this subject matter was improperly added as new matter during the prosecution of the ’436 patent, relying on a provisional application that was never properly incorporated by reference into the priority chain. This argument is critical, as it establishes an effective filing date that makes Chu330 (2002) and Cupps (2003) available as prior art against all challenged claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Prosecution History (§325(d)): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, stating that although Chu330 was listed on an Information Disclosure Statement, it was never substantively considered or cited by the examiner against any claims. Crucially, the examiner never determined the proper priority date for the challenged claims and therefore never considered art like Cupps, which teaches the limitations Petitioner asserted were added as new matter. Petitioner contended this failure to assess the priority date was a material error.
• Fintiv Factors (§314(a)): Petitioner asserted that the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. Petitioner Intel Corporation is not a party to the parallel district court litigations involving the ’359 patent. While certain real parties-in-interest (RPIs) are defendants, Petitioner argued that denying institution based on litigation involving different parties would contradict Congressional intent. Furthermore, the petition was filed at an early stage of the parallel litigation, before significant investment in claim construction or discovery. The RPIs also expressed a willingness to stipulate not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts and inconsistent outcomes.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 10-16 and 22-27 of Patent 8,756,359 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.