PTAB

IPR2023-00537

Cisco Systems Inc v. Lionra Technologies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring the Condition of a System with Distributed Components
  • Brief Description: The ’630 patent discloses a method for monitoring the condition of a network with distributed components organized in a logical ring structure. The method reduces network traffic by having each component monitor only a single neighboring component (its predecessor or successor) and then inform all other components in the system if a failure is detected.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Silva - Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are obvious over Silva

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silva (“DIP: Distributed Diagnosis Protocol,” Microprocessing and Microprogramming 38 (1993)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Silva, a 1993 journal article describing a protocol to check the availability of processors in a distributed system, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Silva discloses organizing network nodes in a "virtual ring," which Petitioner contended is the same as the claimed "logical ring structure." In Silva’s protocol, each node monitors only its direct predecessor by listening for periodic "I_AM_ALIVE" messages using a "Watchdog process." Petitioner asserted this maps directly to the core limitation of monitoring only a single neighboring component. If an "I_AM_ALIVE" message is not received before a timer expires, the predecessor node is determined to have a "Node Down" condition, which corresponds to the claimed "predefined condition" (e.g., an offline condition). Upon detecting this failure, the monitoring node immediately broadcasts a "NODE_DOWN" message to all other nodes in the network, fulfilling the limitation of "informing all other components."
    • Motivation to Apply: This is a single-reference obviousness challenge. Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to solve the problem of efficiently monitoring a distributed network would have been motivated to apply the well-known teachings of Silva, as it addresses the same problem in the same field of endeavor.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying Silva's protocol, as it was designed specifically for detecting failures in distributed systems and its principles were well-understood in the art. The protocol's steps were explicit and their outcomes predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • While Petitioner stated that no formal claim constructions were necessary, it provided its understanding of two key terms to clarify its obviousness arguments, contending the prior art teaches them.
  • "leasing method" (claim 3): Petitioner argued this term is embodied by Silva's "Heartbeat" and "Watchdog" processes. In Silva, each node periodically sends an "I_AM_ALIVE" message (the lease) to its neighbor. A watchdog timer at the receiving node is reset upon receipt of this message. If the timer expires without a message (the lease expires), the sending node is determined to be offline.
  • "Inform All method" (claim 7): Petitioner asserted this term is met by Silva’s "Node Down Protocol." When a node detects a failure, it broadcasts a "NODE_DOWN" message to all other nodes. Silva further discloses that other nodes should reply with an "ND_Ack" (acknowledgment) message. If a node fails to acknowledge, it too is classified as "DOWN," and this new failure is subsequently announced to the remaining nodes, matching the detailed acknowledgment and re-notification process described in the ’630 patent.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both §325(d) and the Fintiv factors.
  • §325(d): Denial was argued to be unwarranted because the sole prior art reference, Silva, was never presented to or considered by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’630 patent. Therefore, the petition raised new, non-cumulative arguments.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner contended the factors weighed strongly in favor of institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with invalidity contentions not yet due and no significant investment made (e.g., no claim construction hearings held, discovery not yet open). Petitioner also noted that the projected trial date in the Eastern District of Texas was contemporaneous with or after the Board’s deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Finally, Petitioner asserted that the merits of the petition were exceptionally strong, which should weigh against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-12, 14, and 15 of the ’630 patent as unpatentable.