PTAB

IPR2024-00823

Valeo Se v. Foras Technologies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Lockstep Error Detection and Recovery
  • Brief Description: The ’958 patent discloses a system and method for managing errors in a pair of lockstep processors. The invention uses firmware to detect a loss of lockstep (LOL), determine if the LOL is recoverable, and then cooperate with an operating system (OS) to perform recovery actions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 and 13-22 are obvious over Bigbee in view of Nguyen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bigbee (Application # US 2003/0126498) and Nguyen (Application # US 2004/0123201).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bigbee discloses a fault-tolerant data processing system with nearly all elements of the challenged claims, including a pair of lockstep processors, firmware, an OS, and methods for detecting a loss of lockstep and subsequently recovering it. However, Bigbee does not explicitly teach the crucial step of first determining if the detected lockstep error is recoverable before taking action. Petitioner asserted that Nguyen remedies this deficiency by disclosing a high-reliability processor system that explicitly teaches determining whether a detected error is recoverable or non-recoverable and then selecting an appropriate handling mechanism (e.g., recovery routine vs. system reset). The combination of Bigbee’s comprehensive system with Nguyen’s specific logic for determining error recoverability allegedly renders the claimed invention obvious. Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 require detecting LOL, using firmware to determine recoverability, idling the processors, attempting recovery, and reintroducing the processors to the OS if successful. Petitioner mapped these steps by arguing Bigbee taught the overall system and recovery framework, while Nguyen taught the missing decision logic for determining recoverability.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nguyen’s teachings with Bigbee’s system to address a known need in fault-tolerant computing: improving system reliability and availability. Petitioner contended it was well understood that handling all errors with a full system reset (as might be inferred from Bigbee alone) reduces system availability, while attempting to recover from a non-recoverable error risks data corruption and reduces system reliability. A POSITA would have therefore been motivated to implement Nguyen’s method for distinguishing between recoverable and non-recoverable errors into a system like Bigbee’s to optimize the error response and avoid these known trade-offs.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Bigbee’s system is described as being compliant with well-known industry standards, such as the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI), and its firmware includes common components like a processor abstraction level (PAL). Implementing Nguyen's logical steps for error determination into such a standards-compliant firmware environment would have been a predictable and straightforward task for a POSITA using ordinary programming skills.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Detection of Loss of Lockstep": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to include not only a detected mismatch between processor outputs but also the detection of a "precursor" to a mismatch, such as corrupt data in one processor that would lead to a mismatch if acted upon. This construction aligns with the patent’s specification and dependent claims and is important for mapping the teachings of the prior art, which describe detecting such precursor errors.
  • "Lockstep is Recoverable": Petitioner proposed this phrase should be construed as "lockstep is recoverable from the detected loss of lockstep." This construction links the determination of recoverability directly to the specific error that was detected, which is central to the logic taught by the prior art combination.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) / Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate primarily because this petition was filed with a motion to join an already-instituted IPR on the same patent (IPR2023-01373). Granting joinder would conserve PTAB and party resources. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage, with a trial date set for August 2025, well after the March 2025 statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR it seeks to join.
  • §325(d) Factors: Petitioner argued denial is inappropriate because the primary prior art combination of Bigbee and Nguyen was never considered by the examiner during prosecution. While Bigbee was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was never substantively analyzed or applied in a rejection. The secondary reference, Nguyen, which provides the key missing element of determining recoverability, was never before the Office at all. Therefore, Petitioner contended that the petition raises a new ground and arguments that warrant consideration.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 and 13-22 of the ’958 patent as unpatentable.