PTAB

IPR2023-00928

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Networking and Information Sharing for Connection Management
  • Brief Description: The ’217 patent is directed to methods and systems for networking and sharing information to detect and manage an idle TCP connection between two nodes. The invention involves using different time durations to monitor for inactivity during and after connection setup.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Morris in view of SIP - Claims 52-57 and 69 are obvious over Morris in view of SIP.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Morris (Application # 2011/0213820) and SIP (IETF RFC 3261).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Morris, which is a pre-grant publication of an application in the ’217 patent’s own priority chain, discloses nearly all limitations of independent claim 52. Morris teaches a method for two nodes to negotiate and use an idle time period ("second duration") to detect inactivity and deactivate a connection after the connection has been established. However, Petitioner asserted that Morris does not expressly disclose detecting a timeout based on a "first duration" during the connection setup phase itself. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to SIP, a well-known Session Initiation Protocol. SIP discloses using a timer (Timer B) during its initial three-way handshake to detect a timeout if a response to an INVITE request is not received, thereby terminating the failed connection attempt. Petitioner mapped the combination to dependent claims by showing how Morris discloses keep-alive mechanisms (claim 53) and negotiation capabilities (claims 54-55), and how the combined Morris-SIP system would operate sequentially using the "first duration" during setup and the "second duration" after setup (claim 56).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Morris and SIP because both are networking protocols in the same technical field that address the creation and management of communication sessions between nodes. Morris is explicitly concerned with avoiding wasted network bandwidth and resources from idle or dead connections. SIP provides a known solution to a related problem: wasting resources on connection attempts that fail to complete. A POSITA, seeking to implement the resource-saving system of Morris, would have been motivated to incorporate the timeout-during-setup mechanism from SIP to make Morris’s system more robust and efficient by also handling failed connection setups, which is a simple and logical improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The proposed modification involved applying a well-understood concept (timeout detection during connection establishment) from one networking protocol (SIP) to another (Morris's TCP-based system) to achieve the predictable result of improved resource management. This was presented as a straightforward combination of known elements to yield a predictable outcome.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Lack of Priority Claim Entitlement: A central argument of the petition was that the challenged claims are not entitled to their asserted priority date of February 27, 2010. Petitioner argued that the priority applications fail to provide adequate written description support under 35 U.S.C. §112 for two key features recited in the challenged claims: (1) a "first connection" that is not limited to TCP (i.e., non-TCP embodiments), and (2) the concept of detecting a time period and closing the connection during the connection setup phase. Because this support was allegedly missing from the priority documents, Petitioner contended the claims’ effective filing date is no earlier than January 14, 2021, making both Morris (published 2011) and SIP (published 2002) available as prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors Favor Institution: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core reasons provided were that the parallel district court litigation involving the ’217 patent has been stayed pending the resolution of IPRs for related patents, and this stay is likely to remain in place. Furthermore, no trial date has been set, the case is in its early stages with no significant investment in discovery or claim construction, and the petition presents compelling merits for unpatentability, which serves the public interest in canceling invalid patent claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 52-57 and 69 of the ’217 patent as unpatentable.