Google LLC v. Kove Io Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01019
• Patent #: 7,814,170
• Filed: June 28, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Kove IO, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Managing Data Stored in a Distributed Network
• Brief Description: The ’170 patent describes a system for storing and retrieving information across a distributed network using a network distributed tracking protocol (NDTP). The system utilizes a network of location servers that use a hash function to organize and provide location information for data entities in response to client queries.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-17 are obvious over Kahn in view of Vingralek.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (WO 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 Kahn discloses the core limitations of the challenged claims. Kahn teaches a system for managing digital objects in a distributed network using unique identifiers ("handles") and multiple "handle servers" (location servers). The system uses a hash function to partition handles and their associated location pointers across the servers. A client applies the hash function to a handle to determine which server to query for the object's location. Petitioner contended this base system teaches the key elements of independent claims 1, 6, and 15, such as a data repository, a network of data location servers, identifier strings, and the use of a hash function to organize and locate data.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Kahn's system is inefficient when a client, using stale information, queries the wrong handle server. In Kahn, the incorrect server simply returns a "not responsible" message, forcing the client to download an updated hash table and initiate a new request. Vingralek, which also describes a hash-based distributed file system, remedies this common problem by teaching two more efficient solutions: (1) the incorrect server can apply the hash function itself to determine the correct server and forward the request directly, or (2) it can return a redirect message to the client containing the specific address of the correct server. A POSITA would combine Vingralek's superior error-handling and redirection logic with Kahn's system to achieve the predictable result of improved efficiency, reduced communication overhead, and less computational burden on the client, all of which are consistent with Kahn's stated goals of creating an "efficient and reliable" scalable system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references operate in the same technical field of hash-based distributed data storage. The proposed modification involves applying known techniques (Vingralek’s server-side forwarding or enhanced redirection) to a known system (Kahn) to solve a well-understood problem (stale client information), yielding the predictable outcome of enhanced system performance and scalability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner stated that no special claim constructions are necessary but argued the challenged claims are unpatentable even under constructions adopted for the ’170 patent in a related district court case (*[Kove IO, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/kove-io-inc) v. [Amazon Web Services, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-web-services-llc)*).
• For example, Petitioner applied the prior construction of "plurality of location servers" as "location servers in non-hierarchical structures." It argued that Kahn's use of a hash function to distribute handles across its servers results in a flat, non-hierarchical topology that meets this construction.
• By demonstrating unpatentability under the Patent Owner's previously advocated constructions, Petitioner contended its invalidity arguments are robust regardless of the specific constructions adopted in the present inter partes review (IPR).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial would be inappropriate.
• §325(d) (Prior Art and Arguments): Petitioner argued that denial is unwarranted because the Kahn and Vingralek combination was never presented to or considered by the USPTO during initial prosecution or in subsequent ex parte reexaminations. The asserted ground is therefore not the "same or substantially the same" as any previously considered.
• General Plastic (Other Petitions): Petitioner asserted it has never before challenged the ’170 patent and is not a party, real party-in-interest, or privy to other challenges filed by different parties (e.g., Amazon Web Services). Therefore, those separate proceedings should not prejudice Petitioner's statutory right to this IPR.
• Discretionary Denial under Fintiv (Parallel Litigation): Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors strongly weigh against denial. The co-pending district court case is in a very early stage, with discovery stayed and no claim construction hearing scheduled. The median time-to-trial in the Northern District of Illinois is nearly 57 months, placing the trial date (est. April 2028) well after the IPR's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner contended that given the early stage of litigation and the likelihood of a stay, the IPR provides a more efficient forum for resolving the patentability of the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-17 of Patent 7,814,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.