PTAB

IPR2024-00497

Cisco Systems Inc v. UMBRA Technologies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for a Global Virtual Network
  • Brief Description: The ’505 patent describes a system for connecting two endpoint devices across a network using a plurality of end-to-end tunnels formed by intermediate access point servers. A central control server selects an optimal tunnel for communication based on network performance information it receives.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hankins and Munger - Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 are obvious over Hankins in view of Munger.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hankins (Patent 10,177,957) and Munger (Patent 6,502,135).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hankins discloses a "parallel" system to the ’505 patent, teaching every limitation of the independent claims. Hankins describes a network with a first gateway device (the ’505 patent’s "first device"), a second gateway device ("second device"), and a plurality of tunnel servers ("intermediate access point servers") that form multiple end-to-end tunnels between the gateway devices. A central controller ("control server") in Hankins selects one of these tunnels based on network information like latency and bandwidth, which it receives from network devices. For dependent claims requiring a Domain Name System (DNS) lookup to locate the second device (e.g., claim 2), Petitioner contended that Hankins's disclosure of "domain name services" and "querying servers" meets this limitation. Alternatively, Munger is cited as explicitly teaching a client computer performing a DNS lookup to locate a target computer.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Munger's conventional DNS lookup functionality with the network system of Hankins. The motivation was to provide the well-known and necessary capability for network devices to locate each other using domain names rather than just IP addresses, which is a fundamental aspect of modern networking. This combination would simply add a known feature to improve the functionality of Hankins's system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in integrating a standard DNS function into the Hankins network, as it involved combining known elements for their intended purposes to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hankins, Munger, and Treuhaft - Claims 3 and 13 are obvious over Hankins in view of Munger and Treuhaft.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hankins (Patent 10,177,957), Munger (Patent 6,502,135), and Treuhaft (Application # 2013/0275570).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Hankins and Munger from Ground 1 to address claims 3 and 13, which further require performing the DNS lookup from a cache. While Petitioner asserted that Hankins itself discloses caching service requests, Treuhaft was introduced for its explicit teaching of this limitation. Treuhaft describes a nameserver that, upon receiving a DNS request, first checks a local cache to resolve the request before performing a full recursive lookup, thereby improving performance.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to add the caching technique taught by Treuhaft to the DNS-enabled system of Hankins and Munger. The primary motivation was performance optimization—a core concern in network design. Using a local cache to store recent DNS results is a standard, universally understood method to reduce latency and minimize network traffic, and it would have been an obvious improvement to the combined system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Implementing a DNS cache is a routine and predictable modification. A POSITA would have been confident that adding this feature to the Hankins/Munger system would successfully improve DNS lookup speed without altering the network's fundamental operation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner asserted that the trial date in the parallel district court litigation is August 2026, a full year after the expected Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR. Furthermore, Petitioner stated the litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment and has committed to a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in court any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the IPR if review is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’505 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.