PTAB

IPR2022-00287

Unified Patents LLC v. Callstat Solutions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Collecting Information
  • Brief Description: The ’983 patent discloses a system for collecting information about a computer system using a "discovery agent." The agent is activated to collect data and sends it to a "discovery engine," which determines which of a plurality of "discovery rules" to apply to the data to trigger a subsequent action.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 under §102 over Seiffert

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seiffert (Patent 5,729,472).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Seiffert discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Seiffert describes a monitoring architecture with subsystems, each containing a "monitoring agent." This monitoring agent includes "watchdog agents" that correspond to the claimed "discovery agent" and a "rule evaluation module" that determines and applies "watchdog rules," corresponding to the claimed "discovery rules." Seiffert’s watchdog agents are activated at scheduled intervals to collect system data (e.g., user logins, system load) and return the data to the local rule evaluation module. The module then evaluates the data against a plurality of watchdog rules and, if conditions are met, directs a separate action agent to execute a specified action. Petitioner asserted these components are separate code sequences located within the same computer subsystem, meeting the limitations of independent claim 1 and its challenged dependents.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 12, and 21-25 under §103 over Seiffert in view of Agarwal

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seiffert (Patent 5,729,472) and Agarwal (Patent 5,958,010).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Seiffert does not teach every limitation, the combination with Agarwal renders the claims obvious. Seiffert provides the primary system architecture as described in Ground 1. Agarwal, which relates to automated monitoring of distributed systems, was cited for its teaching of implementing monitoring agents as separate and distinct programs. Specifically, Agarwal discloses "Mission Universal Monitoring (MUM) agents" as software modules, such as C++ programs, that collect data on managed client stations. This combination was argued to render claim 5 (each discovery agent is a separate program) and claim 21 (a computer software product) obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Seiffert with Agarwal to implement Seiffert’s conceptual watchdog agents as distinct software programs. This would be an application of a known technique (Agarwal’s separate program agents) to a known system (Seiffert’s monitoring architecture) to achieve the predictable benefits of modular software design. Seiffert itself already described its agents as independent components, providing a suggestion for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references disclose similar data monitoring systems. Agarwal merely provided a well-understood, predictable implementation detail (separate software programs) for the components already outlined in Seiffert’s system.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 12 under §103 over Pisello

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pisello (Patent 5,495,607).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pisello discloses a domain-wide server management system that renders the claims obvious. In Pisello, "local field agents" (e.g., agents 119c and 119d) on managed servers act as the claimed "discovery agents," collecting file catalog and infrastructure status information either periodically or upon an event. This information is received by a central Domain Administrating Server (DAS), which uses a "rule-base driven artificial administrator" to determine and apply policies, such as file backup or migration instructions. Petitioner asserted these policies are equivalent to the claimed "discovery rules." The local field agents that collect data and the policy-enforcement programs that apply the rules were argued to be separate code sequences located on the same computer system, thus mapping to all limitations of the challenged claims.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that Petitioner is not a party to any parallel litigation involving the ’983 patent, meaning no stay is required and factors concerning trial proximity and investment are inapplicable or weigh in favor of institution. Petitioner also asserted that it developed its invalidity grounds independently and that any overlap with issues in the parallel litigation would be coincidental. Finally, Petitioner argued the strong merits of the petition and the fact that the cited art was not considered during prosecution weigh against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 12, and 21-25 of the ’983 patent as unpatentable.