PTAB

IPR2025-00341

Tesla Inc v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Resource Management in a Distributed Computing Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’743 patent discloses a resource management system for a distributed computing environment. The system uses software to manage multiple copies of a scalable application across a network of host computers, automatically starting, stopping, or moving application copies in response to performance information from the hosts and applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Welch in view of Ravindran - Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are obvious over Welch in view of Ravindran.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch (a 1999 whitepaper titled "Distributed, Scalable, Dependable Real-Time Systems...") and Ravindran (a 1998 whitepaper titled "Specification and Modeling of Dynamic, Distributed Real-time Systems...").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Welch, a pre-AIA publication co-authored by inventors of the ’743 patent, discloses the same fundamental system for Quality of Service (QoS) management claimed in the patent. Welch’s system was alleged to include components that map directly to the four distinct "function groups" recited in independent claim 10: (1) "Hardware Monitors" that monitor host and network resources; (2) "Software Monitors" that provide application event reporting; (3) a "Resource Manager" that performs reasoning and decision-making; and (4) a "Program Control" component that starts, stops, and moves applications. To the extent Welch provided high-level descriptions, Petitioner asserted that Ravindran, a paper cited by Welch, supplied specific implementation details, such as how the Hardware Monitors calculate and report host and LAN load indices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Welch and Ravindran because Welch explicitly cites Ravindran as a reference for details regarding its "path-based real-time subsystem." Petitioner contended this provided a direct and explicit reason for a POSITA to consult Ravindran to implement the system described in Welch.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, arguing that because both references describe the same type of path-based system and share common authors, Ravindran's detailed teachings would predictably and successfully integrate with Welch's overall framework to achieve the intended QoS management functions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Welch, Ravindran, and Hosokawa - Claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are obvious over Welch, Ravindran, and Hosokawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch, Ravindran, and Hosokawa (Patent 6,088,727).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds the teachings of Hosokawa to the Welch and Ravindran combination. Petitioner argued Hosokawa addresses two key aspects of claim 10. First, Hosokawa teaches a cluster control system where the management software resides on one of the managed hosts, providing a survivability benefit by allowing the manager to be restarted on another host upon failure. This was asserted to teach the claimed limitation of the management software being "stored on at least one host" that is part of the managed system. Second, Hosokawa explicitly discloses distributed systems where the number of applications (M) is independent of the number of hosts (N), showing configurations where M is equal to, greater than, or less than N, thereby directly teaching this limitation of claim 10.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hosokawa's teachings with the Welch/Ravindran system to achieve the predictable benefit of improved system survivability, a stated goal of Welch. Applying Hosokawa's known technique of co-locating the manager software on a managed host was presented as a simple, known design choice for fault tolerance. Further, designing a system with an independent number of applications and hosts was a known method for achieving scalability, another of Welch's stated goals.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as both the Welch system and Hosokawa describe distributed computing systems designed for scalability and fault tolerance. Applying Hosokawa's established techniques to Welch’s similar system would be expected to work as intended.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition is that the ’743 patent is not entitled to the priority date of its provisional application (May 25, 2000). Petitioner argued the provisional application fails to provide adequate written description for the claimed invention because the terms "function" and "function group," which form the organizing structure of claim 10, are entirely absent from the provisional. Consequently, the patent's critical date is its non-provisional filing date of May 24, 2001. This later date is crucial for establishing that Welch (publicly available Dec. 1999) and Ravindran (publicly available Dec. 1998) qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Against denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Petitioner contended the asserted grounds are not cumulative because the Examiner never considered the Welch, Ravindran, or Hosokawa references during prosecution. Against discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the projected trial date in a parallel district court case (January 2027) is seven months after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR (June 2026). The petition further argued that investment in the parallel litigation has been minimal and that the overlap of invalidity issues is currently speculative.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’743 patent as unpatentable.