Intel Corp v. Acqis LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01099
• Patent #: 9,529,769
• Filed: July 1, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Acqis LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Modular Computer System with Integrated CPU and Graphics
• Brief Description: The ’769 patent describes a computer system architecture featuring a removable "attached computer module" (ACM) that contains core processing components like the CPU and graphics subsystem. This ACM interfaces with a "peripheral console" (PCON) that houses or connects to peripherals, a power supply, and other I/O devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Chu330 and Cupps - Claims 1-22 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 teaches a modular computer system nearly identical to that claimed in the ’769 patent, including a removable ACM containing a CPU and graphics subsystem, and a PCON. Chu330 also discloses the use of an interface with Low Voltage Differential Signal (LVDS) channels for communication between the ACM and PCON. However, Chu330 does not explicitly teach integrating the ACM's CPU, graphics subsystem, and host interface controller onto a single chip. Petitioner asserted that Cupps remedies this deficiency by teaching the integration of various processors and controllers (including a CPU, graphics controller, and I/O controller) into a single integrated circuit. The combination of Chu330's modular architecture with Cupps's single-chip integration teaching allegedly renders all challenged claims obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings of Chu330 and Cupps to achieve predictable and well-understood benefits. Chu330 emphasizes the desirability of low power consumption for its system. Cupps explicitly teaches that integrating components onto a single chip is a known method for "improving the efficiency and power conservation of the device." A POSITA would therefore be motivated to apply the single-chip integration taught by Cupps to the components within Chu330's ACM to further this goal of power reduction. Additional motivations cited from Cupps included achieving increased performance, a smaller physical footprint, and reduced chip count.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The components described in both Chu330 (CPU, graphics subsystem, host interface controller) and Cupps (processor, graphics controller, I/O module) are standard computer building blocks. As Cupps presented single-chip integration as a known technique for these types of components, a POSITA would expect to successfully apply this technique to the similar components in Chu330's ACM to yield the predictable benefits of integration.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: The central technical and legal argument underpinning the petition is that the ’769 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than April 15, 2011. Petitioner argued that the key claim limitations requiring an "integrated [CPU] and graphics subsystem in a single chip" and the direct coupling of this integrated subsystem to an LVDS channel were not disclosed in the patent's parent applications. Petitioner contended this subject matter was improperly added new matter first introduced in the application for the ’436 patent, filed in 2011. This later priority date is critical because it establishes that Chu330 (2002) and Cupps (2003) are valid prior art references against the challenged claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Previously Presented Art: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that while Chu330 was listed in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, it was never applied by the Examiner to any claims. Furthermore, Petitioner contended the Examiner materially erred by accepting the patent’s claimed priority date without proper analysis. This failure meant the Examiner could not have properly appreciated the relevance of prior art like Chu330 and Cupps, which predate the asserted effective filing date of 2011.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of institution. The core arguments were that Petitioner Intel is not a party to the parallel district court litigations involving the ’769 patent, and denying institution on the basis of litigation involving other parties would be improper. For the Real Parties in Interest who are defendants, the litigation was in a very early stage, with the scheduled trial date falling after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. Petitioner also noted a willingness by the co-defendant RPIs to stipulate not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts and inconsistent rulings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’769 patent as unpatentable.