Charter Communications Inc v. Adaptive Spectrum Signal Alignment Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00088
• Patent #: 11,050,654
• Filed: November 8, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Charter Communications, Inc. and Plume Design, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-6, 8-12, 16, 18-22, 30, 33-34, and 36

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Downloadable Agent for Network Performance Monitoring
• Brief Description: The ’654 patent discloses a system using a downloadable agent to collect performance data from communication devices (e.g., routers, PCs) within a network. This data is transmitted to a central machine to assess, manage, and improve the performance of the network connection or the devices themselves.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Phuah, TR-069, and Huang - Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 18-22, 33-34, and 36 are obvious over Phuah in view of TR-069 and Huang.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Phuah (Application # 2011/0149720), TR-069 (a CPE WAN Management Protocol from Dec. 2007), and Huang (Application # 2011/0119370).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Phuah disclosed the core invention: a network system with a module ("Mod-122") on a customer premises equipment (CPE) device that performs diagnostic tests, collects WAN performance information (e.g., transmission rates), and transmits the results to a central network element ("NE106," the machine) for storage and analysis. This central machine then analyzes the data to generate results (e.g., corrective actions) and reports them to subscribers or service providers. Petitioner contended that Phuah's module is equivalent to the claimed "downloadable agent," as it is described as movable software that can be administered remotely.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve Phuah’s system using well-known, standardized components and methods.
    • Phuah expressly incorporates the TR-069 standard, which provides a known protocol for downloading software and firmware to CPE. A POSITA would have naturally applied TR-069's download teachings to implement Phuah's remotely administered module.
    • A POSITA would combine Huang to enhance Phuah’s diagnostic capabilities. Huang taught using a downloadable agent to measure key network metrics like throughput and latency. Incorporating Huang's more robust measurement techniques into Phuah's system was a predictable way to gather more comprehensive data for analysis, enabling better corrective actions.
  • Expectation of Success: There was a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying an industry-standard protocol (TR-069) and conventional network measurement techniques (Huang) to Phuah's disclosed system to achieve the predictable result of a more capable and easily deployable network monitoring tool.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ramos, Werner, and Schran - Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 18-22, 33-34, and 36 are obvious over Ramos in view of Werner and Schran.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ramos (a 2008 conference paper titled "Internet Access Quality Monitor"), Werner (Application # 2006/0164978), and Schran (Application # 2002/0138443).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ramos taught the foundation of the challenged claims: a client-server system where a user downloads a "thin client" software agent (IAQM Client) that measures WAN performance metrics (latency, download/upload rates) and transmits them to a central IAQM Server for analysis. However, Petitioner argued Ramos lacked specific details regarding the user's LAN configuration, on-demand change requests, and data storage specifics.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to supply the conventional details missing from Ramos's high-level disclosure.
    • Werner was used to provide a conventional network architecture. It explicitly disclosed a LAN with multiple devices coupled to a WAN via a router, which a POSITA would have recognized as the standard environment for a system like Ramos. Werner also taught using a software analyzer to "determine and/or request" on-demand changes to network capacity (throughput), providing the motivation to add this value-added feature to Ramos's monitoring-only system.
    • Schran was used to supplement Ramos’s disclosure on data handling. Schran taught a system where client machines transmit performance metrics to a remote server for storage in a database. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Schran’s specific database storage teachings to Ramos's system to predictably achieve robust data storage and retrieval for analysis. Schran also explicitly taught measuring throughput, filling a potential gap in Ramos.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references, as it involved fleshing out Ramos’s system with the conventional network architectures (from Werner) and data management techniques (from Schran) common in the art.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that incrementally added Huang’s teachings of a browser-based downloadable agent to the primary combinations of Phuah (Ground 2) and Ramos (Ground 4) to argue for alternative implementations of the claimed downloadable agent.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with minimal investment from the court or parties and a trial date far beyond the projected statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner also stipulated not to pursue these same grounds in the litigation if IPR is instituted, eliminating concerns of overlap. Furthermore, one Petitioner (Plume Design, Inc.) is not a party to the litigation.
• Petitioner also contended that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was unwarranted because the prior art references and combinations presented in the petition were not before the examiner during the original prosecution. The examiner relied on a different reference (Zhao), which Petitioner did not use, and did not have the benefit of Petitioner’s expert declaration explaining the teachings of the asserted art.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-12, 16, 18-22, 30, 33-34, and 36 of the ’654 patent as unpatentable.