Netflix Inc v. Ca Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00322
• Patent #: 8,656,419
• Filed: January 14, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Netflix, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): CA, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dynamic Distributed Evaluator System
• Brief Description: The ’419 patent relates to distributed computing systems. It describes a method and apparatus where a first node communicates with a plurality of other nodes, telling them to perform an operation using provided computer code and what to do with the result, without the first node knowing which specific node will perform the operation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 over Verbeke

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Verbeke (Application # 2004/0261069).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Verbeke alone renders the independent claims obvious. Verbeke discloses a distributed computing system with a "job submitter" node that sends tasks to a framework of "worker nodes" via "task dispatcher" and "repository" nodes. Petitioner mapped Verbeke’s "job submitter" to the claimed "first node" and the framework of worker, dispatcher, and repository nodes to the "plurality of nodes." Verbeke's job submitter tells the framework to perform an operation (a task), instructs how to perform it by providing code or identifying code in a repository, and specifies what to do with the result (e.g., return it to the job submitter). Critically, because the task dispatcher distributes tasks to available worker nodes, the job submitter does not know which specific worker node will perform the operation, thus meeting the "wherein the...processors does not know" limitation of the independent claims. Petitioner contended this reflects the well-known principle of "transparency" in distributed systems, which Verbeke’s system was designed to implement.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable, as this is a single-reference obviousness ground.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2 & 3: Obviousness of Claims 5, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 over Verbeke and Jalan; and over Verbeke, Jalan, and Neiman

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Verbeke (Application # 2004/0261069), Jalan (Application # 2004/0172626), and Neiman (Application # 2006/0031842).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring results to be passed between worker nodes (e.g., from a second node to a third node) or for one node to use the result of another as input for a subsequent operation. Petitioner asserted that Verbeke provides the foundational distributed computing framework, as detailed in Ground 1. Jalan was added for its teachings on job distribution techniques where tasks are further distributed from one node to another. Specifically, Jalan discloses a master process on a master node initiating slave processes on slave nodes, where a first slave node can create and send job information to a second slave node to perform a dependent task. This maps to the claims requiring a second node to send a result to a third node. Neiman was presented as an alternative or cumulative reference that similarly teaches dividing a parent job into descendant jobs processed on different nodes, where the output of the parent job is used as input for the descendant jobs.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Verbeke's distributed framework with the job dependency and parallelization techniques of Jalan and/or Neiman to improve the efficiency and performance of the system. Petitioner argued this was a simple application of a known technique (job parallelization) to a known system (a distributed framework) to achieve predictable results. All references relate to the same field of object-oriented, distributed computing.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining these compatible technologies was a well-known method for improving distributed systems by 2008-2009. The combination would not fundamentally change Verbeke’s system but would add functionality by enabling more complex, dependent task workflows.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "a procedure of [an/the] application" (Claims 1, 12, 18): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have understood this term to mean "a subpart of [an/the] application." This construction was asserted to be supported by the patent’s specification, which uses terms like "operations," "tasks," "procedures," and "functions" interchangeably to describe functional subparts of an application. This construction is important for mapping Verbeke's disclosure of distributing "tasks" or "code fragments" of a larger "job" to the claimed "procedure of an application."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition was filed in the context of a parallel district court case in the Eastern District of Texas, which Petitioner had sought to have dismissed or transferred to California via a mandamus request to the Federal Circuit. Petitioner argued that the district court case was in its infancy with no scheduling conference held, and that if transferred, the trial date would be well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner also noted that key claims were only being challenged in the IPR and committed not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, weighing against denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 8,656,419 as unpatentable.