PTAB

IPR2024-01017

Google LLC v. Kove Io Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Retrieving Data Location Information for Data Stored in a Distributed Network
  • Brief Description: The ’640 patent describes systems and methods for storing and retrieving information across a distributed network. It discloses a Network Distributed Tracking Protocol (NDTP) where a client consults a constellation of non-hierarchical servers to find the network location of data associated with a specific identifier.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Kahn - Claims 10-13, 17-19, and 24 are anticipated by Kahn under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (WIPO Application No. 1997/043717).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kahn, which describes a system for managing digital objects in a distributed network, discloses every element of the challenged claims. In Kahn’s system, digital objects are identified by unique “handles” (the claimed “identification string”), and their locations are indicated by “pointers” (the claimed “location string”). These handle-to-pointer mappings are stored in a plurality of distributed, network-attached “handle servers” (the claimed “data location servers”). Petitioner asserted that Kahn’s client system receives a user request, uses a hash table to identify the correct handle server, and transmits a request including the handle to that server to retrieve the corresponding pointer.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Kahn explicitly discloses the "redirect" feature of claim 10. If a client sends a request to the wrong handle server, that server returns a "not-responsible-for-handle message" (the claimed "redirect message"). This message prompts the client to download an updated hash table to find the correct server, thereby containing information for the client to calculate the location of a second server that possesses the location string.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kahn and Vingralek - Claims 10-24 are obvious over Kahn in view of Vingralek under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (WIPO Application No. 1997/043717) and Vingralek (R. Vingralek, Distributed file organization with scalable cost/performance (1993)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Kahn’s "not-responsible-for-handle message" is deemed not to explicitly teach a redirect message containing information for the client to calculate a new server location, Vingralek supplies this teaching. Vingralek describes a hash-based distributed file system where clients maintain local copies of an address table. When a client request reaches the wrong server due to a stale table, that server forwards the request to the correct server and also sends a message back to the client with updates for its local hash function and address table. This provides an explicit mechanism for a server to transmit information used by a client to calculate the location of a different server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Vingralek with Kahn to improve the efficiency and scalability of Kahn’s system, a stated goal of Kahn. Vingralek’s method of providing deferred, targeted updates to a client’s hash table only when an error occurs reduces communication overhead compared to Kahn’s suggestion of frequent, full-table downloads. Implementing Vingralek’s more efficient update mechanism would have been a predictable solution to a known problem in distributed systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the same technical field of hash-based distributed data storage. The combination involved applying a known method for deferred updates (from Vingralek) to a known distributed data retrieval system (Kahn) to achieve the predictable result of reduced network overhead and improved scalability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that no special constructions were necessary but explained how the prior art meets the claims even under constructions adopted in related proceedings for the ’640 patent and a related patent. Key terms addressed include:
    • "identifier": Construed as "a unique encoding that identifies an individual entity, and with which zero or more data location specifiers are associated in a location server." Petitioner argued Kahn's "handle" meets this construction.
    • "location information": Construed as "information pertaining to one or more locations of data and/or the identities of one or more location servers." Petitioner argued Kahn's "pointers" meet this construction.
    • "plurality of location servers": Construed as "location servers in non-hierarchical structures." Petitioner argued Kahn's hash-based distribution of handles across servers results in a non-hierarchical, flat topology.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d): Petitioner argued against denial, asserting that the grounds are not the same or substantially the same as those considered during prosecution or in two prior ex parte reexaminations. Petitioner contended that the Office previously erred by allowing the claims despite the known art, noting that examiners in the reexaminations found prior art failed to teach the "redirect message" limitation that Kahn allegedly discloses.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued strongly against discretionary denial based on a co-pending district court case. It asserted that: (1) a stay of the litigation is likely, as is common in the Northern District of Illinois; (2) the trial date is April 2028, well after the FWD deadline of approximately December 2025; (3) investment in the parallel proceeding is minimal as the case is in its earliest stages; and (4) the strong merits of the petition weigh heavily in favor of institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 10-24 of the ’640 patent as unpatentable.