Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. Nokia Technologies Oy

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2024-01507](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507)
- Patent #: [8,996,693](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8996693)
- Filed: October 18, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [AMAZON.COM, INC.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-com-inc), [AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-com-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/nokia-corp)
- Challenged Claims: 1-5, 7-15, 17-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Method and Apparatus for Providing Dynamic Stream Processing of Data Based on Static Analytics
- Brief Description: [The ’693 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1001) discloses methods and systems for integrating real-time (dynamic) data stream processing with historical (static) data analytics. The purported invention involves transferring data from a dynamic processing mechanism to a static one for analysis and then returning the processed results back to the dynamic mechanism to generate more comprehensive and accurate outputs.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Foster - Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are obvious over Foster.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) et al., *IBM InfoSphere Streams: Assembling Continuous Insight in the Information Revolution* (2011) (“[Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)”).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004), which was not considered during prosecution, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) describes an integrated big data platform using IBM InfoSphere Streams for real-time "data-in-motion" processing and IBM BigInsights for historical "data-at-rest" analysis. Petitioner contended that [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)’s system performs the core steps of independent claim 1: Streams (a dynamic processing mechanism) determines and processes incoming data (a processing element), which is then marshalled and transferred to BigInsights (a static processing mechanism) for further analysis (e.g., bootstrapping, enrichment, or model updating). Critically, Petitioner asserted that [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) explicitly discloses transferring the processed data object back to the original dynamic mechanism, a feature the Patent Owner relied on for patentability. This is shown in [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)’s diagrams illustrating data flows for "Bootstrap/Enrich" and "Adaptive Analytics Model" updates, where enriched data and updated models from BigInsights are sent back to Streams.
    - **Key Aspects:** Petitioner emphasized that the very limitation used to overcome a rejection during prosecution—transferring processed data back to the *original* dynamic processing mechanism—is expressly taught by [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)'s integrated Streams-BigInsights architecture.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Foster in view of Williams - Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are obvious over Foster in view of Williams.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) and [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005) et al., *Implementing CICS Web Services* (2007) (“[Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005)”).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground reinforced the arguments from Ground 1, using [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005) to supplement the teaching of "marshalling." Petitioner argued that while [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) inherently discloses marshalling data for transfer between its Streams and BigInsights platforms (e.g., by converting data to JSON or TCP formats), [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005) explicitly teaches that marshalling and unmarshalling are well-known, fundamental techniques for translating data for transmission in any distributed computing environment. [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005) describes marshalling as the conventional process of serialization or encoding to prepare data for transfer between different processes or applications.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) and [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005) because they address similar problems in the same field of distributed computing and were both published as part of IBM's popular Redbooks series. Applying the conventional data transfer technique of marshalling (from [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005)) to [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)’s system, which already transfers data between distinct platforms, would have been a predictable and straightforward implementation detail to ensure interoperability.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining the references merely involves applying a standard, well-understood data formatting technique (marshalling) to a known system for distributed data processing. The combination would yield the predictable result of reliable data transmission between [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)'s components without changing the fundamental principles of operation of either reference.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- **"processing element"**: Petitioner proposed this term means "data to be processed." This construction is based on the claim language itself, which recites marshalling and processing the "processing element," and specification examples like data feeds. This broad construction allows data from [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)'s Streams system to be considered a "processing element."
- **"dynamic processing mechanism"**: Petitioner proposed this term means a "mechanism for processing data in real-time or near real-time," synonymously with stream processing. This construction maps directly to [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)’s InfoSphere Streams platform, which is designed for continuous, low-latency analysis of "data in motion."
- **"static processing mechanism"**: Petitioner proposed this term means a "mechanism for processing historical or slow-moving data," often in batches. This construction maps to [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004)’s BigInsights platform, which performs deep analysis on "data-at-rest" using technologies like MapReduce.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under *Fintiv* is not warranted. The petition asserted its merits are compelling and that no case management conference has occurred nor has a schedule been issued in the parallel district court litigation, indicating the IPR would not be an inefficient use of resources.
- Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary prior art references, [Foster](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1004) and [Williams](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1005), were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of [the ’693 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01507/doc/1001).

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an *inter partes* review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 of Patent [8,996,693](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8996693) as unpatentable.

Amazon targets Nokia's data processing patent: Foster prior art cited for obviousness of 18 claims, teaching a key dynamic-to-static data transfer.

IPR2024-01507

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Nokia Technologies Oy