Nokia Of America Corp v. TQ Delta LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00640
• Patent #: 7,453,881
• Filed: March 3, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Nokia of America Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): TQ Delta, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 17-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Reducing Latency in Bonded DSL Systems
• Brief Description: The ’881 patent relates to reducing latency in asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) communication systems, such as DSL. The invention addresses latency differences across multiple bonded transceivers operating at different data rates by utilizing a "transmission parameter value" to reduce the latency differential.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 17-18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Gray

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gray (Patent 6,178,448).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gray disclosed every limitation of claims 17 and 18. Gray taught a system with a "Multilink Transmission Group" (MLTG) comprising multiple concurrent sublinks between nodes, which Petitioner asserted constituted a "plurality of bonded transceivers." Gray’s system used a scheduler to distribute packets from a single bit stream across these sublinks, which operated at different transmission rates based on link quality. Petitioner contended that Gray’s use of link quality information (e.g., bit error rate, delay factor) to adjust packet distribution and select the link with the least delay constituted "utilizing at least one transmission parameter value to reduce a difference in latency." The parameters disclosed, such as bit error rate (a function of coding) and packet size (a framing parameter), were argued to meet the limitations of dependent claim 18.

Ground 2: Claims 17-18 are obvious over Keller-Tuberg in view of Cooper

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Keller-Tuberg (Patent 7,068,657) and Cooper (Patent 6,772,388).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Keller-Tuberg disclosed a system for inverse multiplexing (IM) over ATM links with disparate data rates, teaching a plurality of bonded transceivers. Keller-Tuberg addressed latency differences by using buffers sized to accommodate differential delay but did not explicitly teach adjusting transmission parameters to minimize that delay. Cooper taught an algorithm for adaptively optimizing Forward Error Correction (FEC) parameters (e.g., Reed-Solomon coding parameters) in real-time to reduce latency on a single communications link while meeting performance metrics like bit error rate.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because Keller-Tuberg explicitly stated a preference for minimizing delay across its links. A POSITA, seeking to implement this preference, would have looked to a known technique like Cooper’s algorithm for dynamically adjusting transmission parameters (like FEC) to reduce latency. The combination would improve Keller-Tuberg’s system performance by actively minimizing differential delay rather than just passively compensating for it with buffers.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references concerned latency reduction in ATM-based systems. Applying Cooper's well-defined algorithm to each of Keller-Tuberg's individual links was a predictable application of a known technique to achieve a known benefit (reduced latency).

Ground 3: Claims 17-18 are obvious over Counterman in view of Djokovic

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Counterman (Patent 6,222,858) and Djokovic (Patent 6,956,872).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Counterman taught an Inverse Multiplexing for ATM (IMA) system with multiple links having different transmission rates but grouped to have the same cell transfer delay (latency) to meet a desired Quality of Service (QoS) objective. Counterman achieved this by selecting FEC and interleaving parameters but did not detail the implementation. Djokovic taught a DSL system that used different, selectable FEC parameters (specifically Reed-Solomon coding) to manage the trade-off between reliability and latency for different data services.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references because Counterman taught the desirability of managing latencies across different links but lacked implementation details. A POSITA would look to a compatible reference like Djokovic, which provided detailed teachings on using selectable Reed-Solomon FEC parameters to control latency in the exact type of DSL systems Counterman described. This combination would allow for the practical implementation of Counterman’s goal of creating links with specific, managed latency profiles.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because both references described DSL systems and the use of FEC to manage latency. Incorporating Djokovic’s detailed and predictable Reed-Solomon coding techniques into Counterman’s conceptual framework was a straightforward way to achieve Counterman’s stated QoS objectives.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 17 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Keller-Tuberg.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "transceiver": Petitioner argued against the district court’s construction which required the transmitter and receiver portions to "share at least some common circuitry." Petitioner asserted the correct construction should be the plain and ordinary meaning: "a communications device capable of transmitting and receiving data," without the common circuitry limitation, as there was no support for such a narrowing construction in the intrinsic record.
• "utilizing at least one transmission parameter value to reduce a difference in latency between the bonded transceivers": Petitioner argued against the district court’s construction which narrowed the term to reducing a difference in "configuration latency." Petitioner contended the claim language was broader, covering any reduction in the overall "difference in latency," which could be affected by multiple factors beyond just configuration latency (e.g., wire latency, design latency) as disclosed in the specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued denial was improper because the primary references (Gray, Keller-Tuberg, Cooper, Djokovic) were not considered by the examiner during prosecution. While Counterman was listed on the face of the patent, it was not substantively discussed or applied in a rejection. Therefore, the petition raised new arguments and art not previously before the USPTO.
• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued discretionary denial under Fintiv was inappropriate. Key factors weighed against denial because: (1) Petitioner was not a party to the parallel district court litigation involving the ’881 patent; (2) the issues and prior art combinations in the petition were materially different from the single anticipation ground presented to the jury in that litigation; and (3) investment in the parallel litigation was minimal and its trial date was uncertain, especially relative to the PTAB's statutory deadline.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 17 and 18 of the ’881 patent as unpatentable.