PTAB

IPR2023-00930

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 relates to methods and systems for managing network connections by sharing information to detect idle periods. The technology aims to conserve network resources by deactivating connections that are no longer active, based on negotiated timeout parameters.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Morris and SIP - Claims 40-42, 48, 49, and 54 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 stems from the '856 patent's own priority chain, discloses most elements of the challenged claims, including a method for detecting an idle connection after it has been established. However, Morris allegedly fails to teach two key features of independent claim 40: (1) detecting a timeout period during the initial connection setup, and (2) using a packet in a protocol that is not TCP or a TCP extension. Petitioner asserted that SIP, a well-known application-layer protocol for managing communication sessions, supplies these missing elements. SIP discloses a timeout mechanism (Timer B) that operates during its three-way handshake procedure (i.e., during connection setup) to terminate the process if no response is received. Furthermore, SIP is not a TCP protocol; it can run over UDP, and its initial INVITE packet is distinct from a TCP SYN packet, thereby satisfying the "non-TCP" and "not a synchronize (SYN) packet" limitations. The combination of Morris's post-establishment idle detection with SIP's setup-phase timeout detection was argued to render the claimed invention obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Morris and SIP to create a more robust and efficient network resource management system. Morris is concerned with wasting resources from established but idle connections, a problem that a POSITA would seek to solve comprehensively. SIP provides a known solution to the related problem of wasting resources on connections that fail to establish in the first place. Since both references address resource conservation in the same technical field of network protocols, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate SIP's setup-phase timeout teachings into the Morris system to prevent resource allocation for failed connection attempts.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. The proposed modification involves applying a known concept (timeout detection during connection setup from SIP) to an existing system (Morris) to achieve the predictable result of improved network efficiency. The integration was presented as a straightforward combination of known technologies to solve a common and well-understood problem in the networking field.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition was that the ’856 patent is not entitled to claim priority to its earlier-filed applications. Petitioner argued that the challenged claims' effective filing date is no earlier than February 24, 2021, the filing date of the application that matured into the ’856 patent. This argument was based on an alleged lack of written description support in the priority applications for two critical features: (1) the use of a protocol that is "not TCP, and that is not a TCP extension," and (2) the detection of a time period "during at least a portion of the first connection set up." Petitioner contended the priority specifications are exclusively focused on TCP-based embodiments and only describe detecting idleness after a connection is fully established. This technical contention is crucial to the invalidity case, as it allows Morris—a 2011 publication from the patent’s own family tree—to qualify as prior art against the challenged claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core reasons asserted were that the parallel district court litigation against Google has been stayed pending the outcome of related IPRs, and the case is in its earliest stages. It was noted that no trial date is set, no significant investments have been made in the district court case (e.g., no claim construction or substantive discovery has occurred), and the risk of inefficient overlap between the PTAB and the court is therefore low, weighing strongly in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, and 54 of Patent 11,050,856 as unpatentable.