Ericsson Inc v. ProComm Intl Pte Ltd

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2024-01452](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452)
- Patent #: [8,583,100](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8583100)
- Petitioner(s): [Ericsson Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/ericsson-inc) and [Cellco Partnership](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cellco-partnership) d/b/a Verizon Wireless
- Patent Owner(s): [Procomm International Pte. Ltd](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/procomm-intl-pte-ltd)
- Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-19

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Distributed Remote Base Station System
- Brief Description: The [’100](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1001) patent discloses a distributed antenna system (DAS) that distributes base station functionality across a plurality of remote antenna units. The system is designed to improve network capacity and reduce signal processing latency by performing functions at the network edge rather than at a centralized location.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Aarflot in view of Laroia - Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-19 are obvious over Aarflot in view of Laroia.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) (Patent [8,908,650](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004)), [Laroia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010) (Patent [7,899,495](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) discloses the foundational architecture of the challenged claims: a distributed base station system with a host unit (Radio Equipment Controller or REC) communicatively coupled to a plurality of remote antenna units (Radio Equipment or REs) arranged in a network. However, the key limitation requiring the duplication and transmission of an RF signal from a second remote unit—a feature added to the claims to overcome prosecution history rejections—is not explicitly taught by [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004). Petitioner asserted that [Laroia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010) remedies this deficiency by teaching macrodiversity through "bicasting," where a primary base station transmits packets and also forwards replicated packets to a secondary base station for simultaneous or subsequent transmission. The combination of [Aarflot's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) architecture with [Laroia's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010) bicasting method allegedly renders the claims obvious.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine [Aarflot’s](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) distributed system with the macrodiversity teachings of [Laroia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010) to achieve well-known benefits. These benefits include combating signal fading, increasing signal strength, and enabling seamless soft handoffs for mobile devices moving between the coverage areas of different remote antenna units. [Laroia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010) explicitly describes these advantages, providing a clear reason to apply its techniques to a system like [Aarflot's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004).
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination. The petition contended that implementing macrodiversity and simulcasting were predictable and well-understood techniques in wireless networking at the time of the invention, and their application to [Aarflot's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) DAS architecture would yield the expected, predictable improvements in network performance and reliability.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Aarflot in view of Wiedeman - Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-19 are obvious over Aarflot in view of Wiedeman.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) (Patent [8,908,650](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004)), [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009) (Patent [6,985,454](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground focused on the claim limitation requiring each remote unit to be coupled to a "co-located, network layer router." Petitioner argued that [Aarflot’s](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) disclosed "framer/deframer" circuitry, which routes data frames between the REC and REs, would be understood by a POSITA to be a network layer router. Alternatively, if the framer/deframer is not considered a network layer router, Petitioner asserted that [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009) teaches the use of co-located network layer routers in a communications system. [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009) describes a satellite communication system where each satellite includes a co-located router for routing TCP/IP packets.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to implement the network routers of [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009) in the [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) system as a simple substitution of one known routing method for another. Using standard IP routing, as taught by [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009), would be a predictable way to achieve reliable data transport between the nodes in [Aarflot’s](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) network and ensure interoperability with other IP-based networks.
    - **Expectation of Success:** The expectation of success would be high because substituting a standard IP router for another packet-routing mechanism is a routine and predictable modification in network design. It involves combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results—namely, the reliable transport of data packets across a network.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial of the inter partes review (IPR) would be inappropriate.
- **Denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d):** Petitioner asserted denial is not warranted because the primary prior art references ([Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004), [Laroia](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1010), and [Wiedeman](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1009)) were not cited or considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the [’100](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1001) patent. The arguments are therefore not cumulative or redundant.
- **Denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) (Fintiv):** Petitioner argued that the *Fintiv* factors weigh in favor of institution. Key arguments included that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment, and Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the litigation if the IPR is instituted. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that the merits of the petition are particularly strong and compelling, especially given that [Aarflot](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1004) discloses an architecture nearly identical to that of the [’100](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1001) patent.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14-15, and 17-19 of the [’100](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01452/doc/1001) patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Ericsson & Verizon target distributed base station patent: Aarflot, Laroia & Wiedeman cited for obviousness against 14 claims on network macrodiversity.