PTAB

IPR2023-00929

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Detecting an Idle TCP Connection
  • Brief Description: The ’856 patent discloses methods and systems for networking and sharing information to detect an idle Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. The technology involves negotiating an idle time period during connection setup and subsequently deactivating the connection if it remains idle for the specified duration.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Morris and SIP - Claims 1, 11, 14, and 15 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 publication of an application in the ’856 patent’s own priority chain, discloses most elements of the challenged claims. Morris teaches detecting an idle time period (referred to as a "second duration" for mapping purposes) in a connection after the connection is established and deactivating it upon timeout. However, Petitioner contended that Morris does not explicitly teach detecting a timeout based on a "first duration" during the connection setup itself. To supply this missing element, Petitioner pointed to SIP, a well-known application-layer protocol for managing communication sessions. SIP expressly discloses using a timeout mechanism (Timer B) during the initial session setup (the three-way handshake) to terminate the connection attempt if a response is not received. Petitioner argued that incorporating SIP’s setup-phase timeout into Morris’s post-setup timeout system renders the claims obvious. The petition further asserted that this combination meets the claim limitation requiring a protocol that is "not TCP, and that is not a TCP extension" because SIP's timeout is an application-layer feature, not a standard TCP mechanism, allowing the combined system to operate independently of the transport layer protocol (e.g., over UDP or TCP).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Morris and SIP to create a more robust and efficient connection management system. Morris is concerned with wasting network resources on established but idle connections. SIP addresses the related problem of wasting resources on failed connection attempts. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of implementing SIP’s setup-phase timeout to prevent resources from being tied up by unresponsive nodes, which is a known problem in the same field as Morris.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. Both Morris and SIP involve well-understood networking principles like handshakes and timeouts. Implementing a timeout mechanism during the connection setup phase, as taught by SIP, into the system of Morris would be a predictable modification, as the underlying technical concepts are compatible and widely used in the networking field.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Lack of Written Description Support for Priority Date: A central contention of the petition is that the challenged claims of the ’856 patent are not entitled to the filing date of any of their priority applications. Petitioner argued that the priority applications, including the one that published as the Morris reference, exclusively describe embodiments based on TCP. Key claim limitations—specifically the use of a protocol that is "not TCP, and that is not a TCP extension" and the detection of a timeout during connection setup—were allegedly not disclosed until the application that matured into the ’856 patent was filed on February 24, 2021. Because this alleged invention was not described in the earlier applications, Petitioner argued the ’856 patent’s effective filing date is February 24, 2021, making the 2011 Morris publication available as prior art against it under 35 U.S.C. §102.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors Favor Institution: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The core reasons asserted were that the parallel district court litigation against Google has been stayed pending the resolution of IPRs for related patents. Furthermore, the district court case is in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no significant investment by the court or parties, and minimal overlap of issues due to the stay. Petitioner also highlighted the compelling merits of the petition and the significant public interest in canceling claims of a patent whose related family members have already been found unpatentable or disclaimed in other PTAB proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’856 patent as unpatentable.