Salesforcecom v. WSOU Investments LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00428
• Patent #: 8,280,928
• Filed: January 11, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Salesforce.com, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
• Challenged Claims: 1-8 and 13-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multi-Level Enmeshed Directory Structures
• Brief Description: The ’928 patent relates to methods and systems for creating a multi-level "enmeshed" directory structure for organizing data objects. The invention purports to allow data objects to be linked to multiple descriptors at higher levels, which can in turn be linked to each other across levels, forming a complex relational hierarchy.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Erdogan and Evans - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Erdogan in view of Evans.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Erdogan (a 2008 article titled “A Model to Represent Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) on SQL Databases”) and Evans (Patent 8,195,646).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Erdogan taught modeling hierarchical data in relational databases using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure, which allows an object (vertex) to have multiple parents (descriptors). Evans taught a file system structure, specifically Microsoft’s NTFS, which uses "hard links" to allow a single file to appear in multiple folders. Petitioner contended that implementing Erdogan’s logical DAG structure within Evans’ concrete file system directly teaches the method of independent claim 1, including creating a multi-level relational tree where descriptors are associated with data objects.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Erdogan expressly contemplated that its system could be modeled using the Windows NTFS file structure taught by Evans. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would be motivated to apply Erdogan's more efficient database structure to a well-known file system like that in Evans to create a practical implementation that saves memory and reduces data redundancy, a common goal in the field.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. Erdogan provided detailed pseudo-code for its implementation and was specifically directed at Microsoft technologies, including NTFS, the same system described by Evans. This created a straightforward path for combination.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Erdogan, Evans, and Hekmatpour - Claim 5 is obvious over Erdogan and Evans in view of Hekmatpour.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Erdogan, Evans, and Hekmatpour (Patent 5,644,686).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Erdogan and Evans from Ground 1. Dependent claim 5 adds the limitation of a graphical user interface (GUI) to navigate the directory. Petitioner asserted that Hekmatpour, which taught an expert system with a three-level hierarchical knowledge base, expressly disclosed using a GUI for navigating multi-level enmeshed data structures. Hekmatpour’s GUI presents objects and their descriptors with links, mapping directly to the limitations of claim 5.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hekmatpour’s GUI with the Erdogan/Evans system to improve user experience. Petitioner argued this combination aligned with the well-established industry trend of migrating from non-graphical (e.g., DOS) to graphical-based (e.g., Windows) operating systems, and Hekmatpour itself stated its GUI enabled "powerful possibilities for user interface design."
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because all references disclosed techniques based on standard, well-understood database and user interface technologies that could be readily implemented by a competent programmer.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Erdogan, Evans, Hekmatpour, and Hunt - Claims 6-8 and 13-19 are obvious over Erdogan, Evans, and Hekmatpour in view of Hunt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Erdogan, Evans, Hekmatpour, and Hunt (Patent 9,104,779).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the system-oriented claims (a network management system, a computer-readable storage medium, a content server). Petitioner argued that while the prior art from Grounds 1 and 2 taught the core method, Hunt supplied the necessary teachings for these specific implementation environments. Hunt described analyzing and synthesizing complex knowledge representations (like those in Erdogan) on network systems, using non-transitory computer-readable media, and on content servers that distribute information to client devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: Erdogan itself suggested its system could be applied in various environments, including network-based systems like Active Directory. This would motivate a POSITA to apply the core method to the specific network, server, and storage medium environments explicitly taught by Hunt to create a robust, distributed system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have an expectation of success because Erdogan’s teachings on SQL Server implementation are highly compatible with the server environments described by Hunt, providing a clear and obvious path for integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "directory": Petitioner argued this preamble term was limiting and should be construed as "an entity in a file system which contains a group of files and/or other directories." This construction was based on what Petitioner identified as explicit patentee lexicography in the ’928 patent’s specification.
• "identifying a single initial descriptor that links a plurality of descriptors...": Petitioner proposed a detailed construction requiring a specific four-level hierarchy. This construction was based on arguments the applicant made during prosecution to distinguish the claims from prior art, where the applicant allegedly characterized the invention as requiring at least four distinct hierarchical levels.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the Fintiv factors weighed strongly in favor of institution.
• Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR was instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds, or any grounds that could have been reasonably raised, in the parallel district court litigation.
• The IPR petition challenged six more claims (1-8, 13-19) than were at issue in the parallel litigation (1-5, 13-16).
• The district court trial date was uncertain and had already been delayed, and the court had invested minimal time in the case, particularly on validity issues.
• Petitioner also argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), stating that the primary prior art references were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution and were not cumulative of the art that was considered.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 and 13-19 of the ’928 patent as unpatentable.