PTAB

IPR2023-00932

Google LLC v. Jenam Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Detecting an Idle Network Connection
  • Brief Description: The ’058 patent is directed to methods and systems for networking and sharing information to detect an idle Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. The technology involves using metadata within packets to manage connection states and timeouts to avoid unnecessarily keeping idle connections open.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 54, 56, 62-64, and 68 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 discloses most features of the challenged claims, including a method for detecting an idle connection after it has been established. Morris teaches generating a packet with metadata ("first metadata") specifying a duration ("second duration") for detecting an idle period. Once the connection is set up and becomes idle for this duration, the connection is at least partially closed. However, Petitioner contended that Morris does not expressly teach detecting a timeout period during the initial connection setup using a separate duration ("first duration") or using a protocol that is "separate from" TCP.

    • Petitioner asserted that SIP, an application-layer protocol for managing communication sessions, remedies these deficiencies. SIP discloses using a timeout mechanism (Timer B) during its initial three-way handshake procedure (the INVITE transaction) to set up a session. If no response is received to an initial INVITE request within the timeout period, the transaction is terminated. This teaches the claimed concept of detecting a time period based on a "first duration" during connection setup and at least partially closing the connection in response. Combining SIP's setup-time timeout with Morris's post-setup idle detection would render the claims of the ’058 patent obvious.

    • For dependent claims, Petitioner argued that Morris discloses server/client configurations (claim 56), keep-alive mechanisms involving timer setting/resetting (claims 56, 62, 64), and receiving timeout parameters from a prior connection (claim 68), which are obvious modifications or inherent aspects of the combined system.

    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Morris and SIP to improve network efficiency. Both references are in the same technical field of networking protocols, address communication between nodes, and use handshake procedures. Morris is concerned with wasting network resources on idle connections after they are established. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate SIP’s teachings to detect a failed connection even earlier—during the setup phase—to prevent wasting resources on connections that never properly establish. This would be a predictable improvement, applying a known technique (setup timeout) to a known system (Morris's idle connection management).

    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Implementing a timeout mechanism during connection setup was a well-known technique in the networking field. Integrating SIP’s timeout concept into Morris’s framework would be a straightforward application of known principles to achieve the predictable result of more robust and efficient connection management.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition is that the challenged claims of the ’058 patent are not entitled to the priority date of their parent applications, and their effective filing date is no earlier than March 18, 2021. Petitioner argued 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. The use of a packet in a "protocol that is separate from a transmission control protocol (TCP)." Petitioner asserted that the priority applications are exclusively focused on TCP-based embodiments and provide no disclosure on how the invention would work in a non-TCP environment (e.g., UDP).
      1. The detection of a time period "during at least a portion of the first connection set up." Petitioner contended the priority applications only disclose detecting idle periods after a connection is fully established, not during the setup handshake.
  • Prior Art Applicability: Based on this priority date challenge, Petitioner argued that both Morris (published 2011) and SIP (published 2002) qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court litigation between the parties has been stayed pending the resolution of multiple related IPRs, and no trial date is set. Petitioner asserted that investment in the district court case has been minimal, with no claim construction or significant discovery having occurred. Given the stay, the overlap of issues is low, and the Board should not deny institution, especially in light of what Petitioner characterized as the compelling merits of its unpatentability arguments.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 54, 56, 62-64, and 68 of the ’058 patent as unpatentable.