Kinaxis Inc v. Blue Yonder Group Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01246
• Patent #: 6,591,153
• Filed: July 23, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Kinaxis Inc. and Kinaxis Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Blue Yonder Group, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 17-20, 24-31, 33-36, 40-47, 49-52, and 56-63

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Methods for Scheduling Manufacturing Resources
• Brief Description: The ’153 patent discloses systems and methods for scheduling manufacturing resources. The system generates and selects planning routes based on an order’s objective, defined resources, and user-selected scheduling and routing goals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 17-20 are obvious over Koski in view of Natarajan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Koski (Patent 5,596,502) and Natarajan (Patent 5,099,431).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Koski, a supply chain management system, teaches most limitations of independent claim 17. Koski discloses a system that receives a customer order with an objective (e.g., "functionalities desired by the customer"), defines resources ("Resource Objects"), generates a production method ("Job"), generates various routes ("alternate probable process paths"), and selects a "best path" based on routing and scheduling concerns. Petitioner asserted Natarajan, which discloses a scheduling system using a relational database (e.g., DB2), remedies Koski's use of general memory by teaching the use of a formal database for storing manufacturing and order data, as recited in claim 17. Dependent claims 18-20 are allegedly obvious as they recite routing and scheduling goals (e.g., "fast," "best," "maximizing resource utilization") that Petitioner contended are inherent or obvious optimizations disclosed in Koski’s "best path" calculation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Natarajan with Koski to gain the known benefits of using a standard, interactive database to store order and manufacturing data, which was a widely used and familiar technique, rather than developing a custom memory storage system from scratch.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because implementing a standard database into a computer-based management system like Koski was a routine and predictable task.

Ground 2: Claims 24-27 are obvious over Koski in view of Natarajan and Lin.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Koski (Patent 5,596,502), Natarajan (Patent 5,099,431), and Lin (Patent 5,880,960).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Koski/Natarajan combination by adding Lin to teach the limitations of claims 24-27. Petitioner argued that Lin addresses the management of work-in-process (WIP). Specifically, Lin discloses a method to identify and "pack out" excess WIP by calculating the difference between current WIP and a standard, ideal amount. Lin teaches consuming this excess WIP by assigning it to specific jobs or tools. This corresponds to the "pack out module" of claim 24, which "packs out excess work-in-process" (claim 24), "by identifying said excess" (claim 25), "identifying orders that consume said excess" (claim 26), and "schedules said identified orders" (claim 27).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Lin's WIP management teachings into the Koski/Natarajan manufacturing system to improve efficiency. Doing so would reduce inventory costs, decrease cycle times, and better allocate resources by making productive use of excess WIP, which are all well-understood goals in manufacturing.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been successful because Koski's system already includes WIP, and Lin explicitly teaches a straightforward method for managing it that is "relatively easy to implement" on any manufacturing line.

Ground 3: Claims 28-31 are obvious over Koski in view of Natarajan, Lin, and Ettl.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Koski (Patent 5,596,502), Natarajan (Patent 5,099,431), Lin (Patent 5,880,960), and Ettl (Patent 5,946,662).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Ettl to the previous combination to teach the limitations of claims 28-31 related to Stock Keeping Units (SKUs). Petitioner argued Ettl discloses a method for inventory optimization that uses SKUs to track different inventory types, including on-hand finished goods and pipeline WIP. Petitioner asserted this directly teaches assigning a "first attribute" (WIP) and a "second attribute" (finished good) to a SKU, as recited in claim 28. Ettl's teachings, combined with Lin's disclosure of packing out excess WIP, allegedly render obvious a first attribute indicating when a SKU needs to be packed out (claim 29) and a second attribute indicating a finished good (claim 30). Ettl’s disclosure of tracking SKUs for upstream inputs and final outputs, combined with Koski's disclosure of resource throughput rates, allegedly teaches defining resources by identifying starting/ending SKUs and production rates (claim 31).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ettl to improve the inventory tracking and optimization of the underlying manufacturing system. Using SKUs was a common practice to enhance compatibility with other supply chain systems and provide more granular control over inventory.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating a SKU-based tracking system as taught by Ettl was a conventional and predictable modification for a computerized inventory and manufacturing system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on Koski alone; Koski in view of Lin; Koski in view of Lin and Ettl; and several combinations using Smirnov (Patent 6,279,009) as the primary reference in place of Koski.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that claim terms ending in "module" (e.g., "modeling module," "production method module," "scheduling manager module") are means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. §112(6) because "module" is a nonce word.
• For each "module," Petitioner proposed a function derived from the claim language and identified the corresponding structure from the specification's disclosure of a general-purpose computer ("a work station, a server, a network of computer devices, or the like") executing a specific algorithm detailed in the patent's description. For example:
  • "modeling module..." (claim 17.2):
    • Function: defining resources.
    • Structure: A computer executing an algorithm that receives, parses, and defines resource constraints.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner contended that the trial date in the related district court litigation (March 6, 2023) was scheduled for months after the projected Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board (January 2023), meaning efficiency considerations favored institution. The petition was also filed early, only two months after receiving infringement contentions and well before the one-year statutory bar.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 17-20, 24-31, 33-36, 40-47, 49-52, and 56-63 of the ’153 patent as unpatentable.