Juniper Networks Inc v. Swarm Technology LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01445
• Patent #: 9,852,004
• Filed: August 26, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Juniper Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Swarm Technology LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Parallel Computing Apparatus and Method of Operation
• Brief Description: The ’004 patent discloses a parallel computing system where autonomous co-processors ("cells") proactively retrieve tasks from a shared task pool. The system uses software "agents" to search the task pool, aiming to reduce co-processor idle time and eliminate the need for a central controller to assign tasks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Leong and AppleTalkBook - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Leong in view of AppleTalkBook.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Leong (Patent 6,006,249) and AppleTalkBook (a 1989 printed publication).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Leong discloses the core architecture of the ’004 patent. Leong teaches a decentralized processing system where multiple, autonomous processing units (the claimed "co-processors") proactively retrieve tasks from an electronic "bulletin board" (the claimed "task pool"). One of Leong's processing units acts as a "surveying agent" to populate the bulletin board with tasks, corresponding to the claimed "controller." The other processing units independently check the bulletin board for tasks they are capable of performing, execute them, and update the board upon completion, all without central control, meeting the limitations of independent claims 1 and 3.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Leong explicitly recognized the need for a "readily scalable" system. Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Leong's system with the well-known "plug-and-play" networking techniques taught by AppleTalkBook to improve this scalability. AppleTalkBook teaches how devices on a network can self-configure, automatically obtain network addresses, and discover other resources, which would allow new processing units to be added to Leong's system without manual configuration.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Leong discloses using a standard Ethernet network, and AppleTalkBook teaches that its protocols could be implemented over Ethernet networks via "EtherTalk," making the combination technically straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Leong, AppleTalkBook, and Ethernet Standard - Claims 3-12 are obvious over Leong in view of AppleTalkBook and the Ethernet Standard.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Leong (Patent 6,006,249), AppleTalkBook (a 1989 printed publication), and the Ethernet Standard (a 1980 printed publication).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the teachings of Leong and AppleTalkBook from Ground 1 and adds the Ethernet Standard to explicitly disclose the "agent" limitations of claim 3, which recites an agent comprising a source address, destination address, and payload. Petitioner contended that since Leong's system uses a standard Ethernet network, a POSITA would naturally consult the Ethernet Standard for implementation details. The Ethernet Standard explicitly defines the structure of a data frame, which includes fields for a destination address, a source address, and a data payload, directly corresponding to the claimed agent structure.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA implementing the Ethernet network disclosed in Leong would be motivated to use the fundamental data frame structure defined in the Ethernet Standard. This is not a modification but rather the standard and necessary way to implement communication over the network technology Leong itself selected.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The expectation of success would be high, as this combination involves applying the defining specification of a network protocol to a system that already uses that protocol.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Leong, AppleTalkBook, and Bates - Claim 9 is obvious over Leong in view of AppleTalkBook and Bates.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Leong (Patent 6,006,249), AppleTalkBook (a 1989 printed publication), and Bates (Application # 2007/0074207).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets claim 9, which requires the task pool to be "configured to notify the controller upon completion of the first task." Petitioner argued that while Leong's system updates a task's status to "complete" in the bulletin board, Bates provides a more direct teaching of task completion notification and synchronization. Bates, which is in the same field of multiprocessing, describes how a processor (SPU), upon task completion, can notify another processor (PPU) via an interrupt or by updating a task ID that can be polled.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Leong with Bates to implement a more efficient and robust task sequencing mechanism. Leong teaches that some tasks depend on the completion of others but does not provide specific implementation details. Bates provides these details, teaching an efficient task completion system that avoids the need for constant polling of a shared memory resource, which would be a known technique to improve the system described in Leong.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Bates's task synchronization methods to Leong's system, as both deal with coordinating tasks among multiple processors in a parallel computing environment.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).
• For §325(d), Petitioner asserted that its arguments were not cumulative of art considered during prosecution, as the Examiner never considered the teachings of Leong, AppleTalkBook, or the Ethernet Standard.
• Regarding the Fintiv factors under §314(a), Petitioner contended that the co-pending district court case was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no substantive discovery conducted, and no infringement contentions exchanged. Petitioner further noted that a stay of the district court case is likely if the IPR is instituted, which favors institution to promote efficiency.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 9,852,004 as unpatentable.