PTAB

IPR2021-01237

Trend Micro Inc v. Cupp Computing As

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Security System for a Mobile Device
Brief Description: The ’632 patent discloses a security system intended to protect mobile devices that are operating outside of a trusted enterprise network. The system is designed to manage security services for the mobile device, particularly when the device enters a power management mode, by using a "wake" functionality to perform tasks like malware scanning or updates.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803) and Gardner (Application # 2006/0272020).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gordon disclosed a "host monitoring system" (the claimed "security system") that communicates with host devices like laptops (the claimed "mobile device"). This system could send "wake-up" signals to a security agent on the laptop to perform security services, such as data deletion. Petitioner contended Gardner, which is expressly incorporated by reference into Gordon, disclosed using a "web-based or network based console" (the claimed "security administrator device") to allow authorized administrators to remotely access and manage the host monitoring system. The combination of these references allegedly taught all limitations of independent claims 1 and 16.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gardner’s remote administrator console with Gordon’s security system to achieve the well-understood benefit of remote administration and monitoring. Petitioner asserted that Gordon’s express reference to Gardner provided a direct motivation, as it would be a desirable and predictable extension of Gordon’s functionality.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a web-based administrative interface (Gardner) into a network-based security monitoring system (Gordon) was a routine task for a POSITA and would have yielded predictable results.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803), Gardner (Application # 2006/0272020), and Chang (Application # 2011/0264931).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Gordon and Gardner combination from Ground 1 to address the limitation in dependent claims 7 and 22 requiring a wake event that includes "detecting a predetermined clock time." Petitioner argued that Chang disclosed a power control system where a server sends instructions to client computers to power them up or down at specific, predetermined times, such as turning them on at "07:00" (7:00 am) or waking them "during the night" for software patches.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Gordon/Gardner system to initiate wake events at predetermined times as taught by Chang. This would provide the known benefit of scheduling security tasks, like updates or scans, during off-peak hours (e.g., overnight) to minimize disruption to the user, a common and desirable practice in network administration.
- Expectation of Success: Implementing time-based triggers for network commands was a well-known and straightforward programming task, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803), Gardner (Application # 2006/0272020), and Meenan (Application # 2006/0101277).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built upon the Gordon and Gardner combination to address the limitation in dependent claims 9 and 24 requiring security services to include "removing unauthorized data from the mobile device." Petitioner asserted that Meenan disclosed a security system where a host server provides a scanner application and remedies to client devices (e.g., laptops) to detect and remove "unauthorized programs" such as viruses, spyware, and malware.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Meenan's functionality with the Gordon/Gardner system to improve its security capabilities. The primary motivation was the desire to create a more robust security solution by adding the specific, known technique of removing malicious software, which Gordon’s more general "data delete" function did not explicitly detail. Both systems used a similar server-client architecture, making the combination logical.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a malware removal feature into a general security platform was a common and predictable enhancement for security systems at the time.

“power management mode”: Petitioner argued for the construction "a mode where the mobile device conserves power," noting this construction was adopted by the Board in an IPR for a related patent.
“security administrator device”: Petitioner contended the plain and ordinary meaning included a device that performs security administration, consistent with the patent’s disclosure of a device performing tasks like updating security policies and audit trails.
“a security system processor”: Petitioner argued this meant "one or more security system processors," consistent with conventional claim interpretation and the patent specification.

Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued that none of the challenged claims were entitled to the filing date of the ’134 provisional application (August 4, 2008). It was contended that the functionality related to the "wake code," including detecting a wake event and sending a wake signal, was new matter added to the subsequent non-provisional application filed on August 4, 2009. This later date was asserted as the correct effective filing date, making Chang prior art under §102(e).

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), stating that the primary reference (Gardner) was never considered by the examiner during prosecution.
Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that: (1) a stay of the co-pending district court case was likely if the IPR was instituted; (2) the district court litigation was in its early stages, with the trial date still distant and subject to change; and (3) Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue any invalidity ground in district court that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR, thereby avoiding duplicative efforts.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 7, 9, 16, 22, and 24 of the ’632 patent as unpatentable.