PTAB

IPR2022-01573

Ericsson Inc v. Telecom Network Solutions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Feedback Loop for Dynamic Network Resource Allocation
  • Brief Description: The ’813 patent describes methods and systems for dynamically allocating shared network resources (e.g., spectrum) among multiple electronic devices. The system generates a "prioritization list" based on subscriber billing profiles and histories to repeatedly reallocate resources, which can include modifying the service and/or billing profiles of subscribers based on network utilization.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 18-21, 23-29, and 31-42 are obvious over Freen in view of Tiedemann and further in view of O'Neill.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Freen (WO 2008/090414), Tiedemann (Patent 7,054,293), and O'Neill (Application # 2006/0036518).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Freen, discloses the core concept of the challenged claims: a system for dynamic spectrum management in a wireless network that allocates bandwidth based on subscriber profiles. Freen’s system considers subscriber characteristics, including subscription information, entitlements, historical usage, and billing information, to generate a "score" for each user. These scores are then compared to reallocate bandwidth when the network is congested. This process inherently involves grouping devices, receiving their service and billing profiles, and dynamically modifying resource allocation (e.g., bandwidth) based on traffic and profiles. Petitioner contended Freen’s disclosure of generating and comparing subscriber scores teaches or renders obvious a prioritization list.

    • Motivation to Combine:

      • Freen and Tiedemann: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Tiedemann with Freen to improve efficiency and implement a known industry practice. While Freen teaches generating and comparing "scores" to determine priority, Tiedemann explicitly discloses creating a "priority list" to manage resource allocation based on similar factors like service type and pricing. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Freen’s scoring system using Tiedemann's explicit priority list because it represents a more efficient, predictable, and conventional method for managing and comparing subscriber priorities rather than re-calculating and comparing scores for every allocation decision.
      • Combination with O'Neill: A POSITA would have been further motivated to incorporate the teachings of O'Neill to add a specific, known mechanism for resource management not explicitly detailed in Freen or Tiedemann. O'Neill teaches reducing a user's maximum guaranteed bit rate in response to network contention and demand from other users, allowing for reimbursement. This provides a method for reallocating bandwidth that increases network utilization and generates additional revenue, which are stated goals in Freen. This modification would have been a predictable application of a known resource management technique to the Freen/Tiedemann framework.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The combination involves integrating well-understood concepts to achieve predictable results. Freen already provides a system for prioritizing users based on scores; organizing these scores into a formal list as taught by Tiedemann is a straightforward and efficient implementation. Likewise, adding O'Neill’s technique for reducing guaranteed bit rates is applying a known solution to the known problem of resource contention, which would predictably improve the efficiency and revenue generation of the combined system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition asserted it presents compelling evidence of unpatentability by disclosing limitations the examiner previously identified as missing from the art. Petitioner also argued that the parallel district court litigation factors weigh in favor of institution, noting that no stay had been requested, the trial date was set for July 2024, and the court and parties had not yet invested substantial resources into the merits of the invalidity positions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 18-21, 23-29, and 31-42 of the ’813 patent as unpatentable.