PTAB

IPR2023-00169

Cisco Systems Inc v. Corrigent Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Bandwidth Allocation in a Network
  • Brief Description: The ’431 patent describes methods and systems for allocating bandwidth in a communications network, such as a ring network. The core technology involves defining a logical connection topology for a data service that is different from the network's underlying physical topology and then mapping the logical topology onto the physical one to allocate bandwidth more efficiently.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Baker and Wright - Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 25-26 are obvious over Baker in view of Wright.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baker (Application # 2004/0095946) and Wright (Application # 2004/0174884).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baker disclosed the foundational elements of independent claim 1, including a method for automatically assigning network resources like bandwidth by overlaying a logical topology (e.g., a star topology) onto a physical network (e.g., a ring network). Baker’s system maps these "virtual paths" (logical connections) to the physical links. Petitioner asserted that Wright augmented Baker by teaching specific procedures for assigning network resources to provide bandwidth Quality of Service (QoS). Wright explicitly disclosed receiving "logical connectivity data" and communication requirements for a service, determining bandwidth requirements based on those service parameters, and reserving the required bandwidth on the physical links.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the analogous teachings of Baker and Wright, as both address managing network resources for logical topologies over physical ones. Wright was said to provide specific, advantageous details that were generally described or absent in Baker, such as how to receive logical topology information and how to calculate and reserve bandwidth to provide QoS guarantees for services like VPNs. The references teach compatible network technologies (ATM over SONET), making the combination straightforward.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the technologies were compatible. Baker's "head node" was described as a capable controller with sufficient resources to implement the more detailed bandwidth calculation and reservation procedures taught by Wright, leading to the predictable result of a more robust bandwidth management system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Baker, Wright, and Holender - Claims 5, 10, 12-16, 18-24, 27-30 are obvious over Baker and Wright in view of Holender.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baker (Application # 2004/0095946), Wright (Application # 2004/0174884), and Holender (Patent 6,104,699).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Baker-Wright combination to address claims requiring multiple logical topologies or services with different classes. Petitioner argued that Holender explicitly taught partitioning a single physical network's resources to support multiple, parallel logical networks simultaneously. Each logical network could be tailored for different services or traffic classes with different demands (e.g., bandwidth, grade of service), which directly addressed limitations in claims such as claim 12 (defining first and second sets of logical connections with different topologies) and claim 5 (defining a class of service).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Holender’s teachings to the Baker-Wright system to gain the benefit of efficiently supporting diverse services on a single physical infrastructure. While Baker taught sequential overlays, Holender taught the known alternative of parallel overlays to simplify network management and better handle services with differing demands. This combination would allow the system to handle multiple data transmission services, each with its own logical topology and bandwidth requirements, as recited in the challenged claims.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable and successful, as Holender also taught using compatible ATM and SONET technologies. Applying the bandwidth allocation methods of Baker-Wright on a per-logical-network basis, as taught by Holender, was presented as a straightforward application of known principles to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 6 is obvious over Baker-Wright in view of Zheng (Patent 6,757,247) for teaching the use of a correction factor in bandwidth calculation, and that claim 17 is obvious over Baker-Wright-Holender in view of Zheng for the same reason.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary prior art references (Baker, Wright, Holender, Zheng) were not considered during the original prosecution.
  • Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is not warranted. They contended that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment, and the trial date is uncertain and likely to occur well after a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner also stated its intent to stipulate not to pursue in district court any ground on which trial is instituted.
  • Finally, Petitioner argued against denial under General Plastic factors based on a separate IPR filed by another party (Unified Patents). Petitioner distinguished its petition by noting it challenges all 30 claims, whereas the Unified petition challenged only three, and asserted that the parties lack the "significant relationship" that would justify denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’431 patent as unpatentable.