Unified Patents LLC v. MicroPairing Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00317
• Patent #: 7,178,049
• Filed: January 4, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Unified Patents, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Micropairing Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 29-31

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Configuring Real-Time Applications in a Distributed Multi-Processor System
• Brief Description: The ’049 patent discloses a method for managing processor failures in a multi-processor system, particularly within a vehicle. The system uses a "configuration manager" to detect a failure on one processor and a "task manager" to reassign the failed application to another available processor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 29-31 are obvious over Kizuka in view of Watabe.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kizuka (Patent 5,796,937) and Watabe (Patent 5,796,936).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kizuka taught the core elements of the challenged claims. Kizuka described a multiprocessor system with an "administration facility" that functioned as the claimed configuration manager by detecting a "processor abnormality" (failure) and notifying a "work allocation facility." This "work allocation facility" functioned as the claimed task manager by receiving the failure notification and reallocating the failed application ("work") to a redundant processor. Petitioner contended that Kizuka’s "takeover information" corresponded to the claimed "data and state information" that is redirected upon failure. While Kizuka disclosed a general multiprocessor system, Watabe supplied the missing context by teaching a distributed control system specifically for "vehicle controls," thereby rendering the preamble of claim 29 obvious. Watabe also explicitly taught exchanging "quantities of state" between controllers, which Petitioner argued supplemented Kizuka’s disclosure to fully teach the "data and state information" limitation. For dependent claim 30, Petitioner asserted that Watabe taught replacing a running application when capacity is limited by describing a process to expel a low-load task to make room for a higher-priority backup task. For dependent claim 31, Petitioner argued Watabe taught identifying critical and non-critical applications by distinguishing between "indispensable" tasks and tasks that "may be executed by another controller."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to apply the fault-tolerance techniques of Kizuka to the automotive control system of Watabe. The motivation stemmed from the recognized need to improve the safety and reliability of vehicle computing systems, which was a known problem in the art. Combining Kizuka's robust failure-handling method with Watabe's vehicle-specific system was presented as a predictable solution to a known problem.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kizuka's fault-tolerance methods were described as being broadly applicable and not limited to a specific technical environment. Petitioner argued that Kizuka provided detailed, step-by-step guidance that a POSITA could readily implement within the known parameters of a vehicle control system like that in Watabe.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "using the task manager for automatically identifying another processor..." in claim 29.
• Petitioner contended this phrase should be construed to mean that the task manager identifies the other processor based on a received configuration manager notification. This construction was asserted to be consistent with the ’049 patent's specification, which described the configuration manager as the entity that identifies the replacement processor and then sends that information to the task manager. This construction was critical to Petitioner's obviousness argument, as it directly mapped to the functionality described in Kizuka, where the "administration facility" (configuration manager) identifies a redundant processor and notifies the "work allocation facility" (task manager).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) because the primary references, Kizuka and Watabe, were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’049 patent.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv. The core arguments were that Petitioner is not a party to any of the parallel district court litigations involving the ’049 patent. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that the scheduled trial dates in the parallel litigations were either speculative or set for well after the IPR's final written decision would be due, and that minimal investment had been made on the merits of invalidity in those cases.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 29, 30, and 31 of the ’049 patent as unpatentable.