PTAB

IPR2025-00473

Charter Communications Inc v. Iarnach Technologies Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Updating Configuration of an Optical Network Unit
  • Brief Description: The ’035 patent describes methods and systems for updating configuration files for an Optical Network Unit (ONU) operating in an Ethernet Passive Optical Network (EPON). The technology focuses on using a virtual cable modem (vCM) to manage the update process, allowing back-office systems that use DOCSIS protocols to control and reconfigure ONUs in an optical network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-13 over Tsuge in view of McKinnon and/or Noel

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsuge (Patent 8,160,448), McKinnon (Patent 7,848,234), and Noel (Application # 2008/0253771).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsuge teaches a DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON (DPoE) system where a virtual cable modem (vCM), implemented on an Optical Line Terminal (OLT), provisions ONUs. Tsuge’s vCM retrieves configuration files from a back-office system using standard protocols like DHCP and TFTP and applies the settings to the ONU. Petitioner contended that this system inherently discloses generating a configuration file (1a), notifying the vCM of its availability via an SNMP SetRequest (1b), providing the file upon request (1c), and monitoring for successful application via SNMP responses (1d).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that while Tsuge describes initial provisioning, it also contemplates subsequent configurations. McKinnon and Noel explicitly teach updating previously configured network devices (CMs and ONUs, respectively) to accommodate service changes or system improvements. McKinnon discloses a back-office system generating updated configuration files to modify bandwidth, while Noel describes an operator using a GUI to modify profiles that generate updated ONU configuration files. A POSITA would combine the explicit updating teachings of McKinnon and Noel with Tsuge’s foundational DPoE system to ensure it could accommodate evolving service needs and network conditions, a well-known requirement in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination because it involves applying well-understood, conventional update methodologies (from McKinnon and Noel) to a standard DPoE network architecture (Tsuge). The components were designed to be interoperable using standard protocols.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 14, 20, 26, and 32 over Bourgart in view of Barrow

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bourgart (Patent 8,416,816) and Barrow (Patent 7,519,690).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bourgart discloses a method for reconfiguring network termination devices (NTs), which include ONUs, without service interruption. Bourgart’s method includes an OLT receiving a notification that an updated configuration file is available (14a), obtaining the file (14b), and performing a validation for structural errors like checksums (14c). Bourgart further teaches interrogating the NTs to determine if they are capable of supporting the change (14d, 14e) and then applying the changes only if resources are sufficient (14f).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Bourgart’s step of determining resource availability would inherently involve identifying changes between the existing and updated configuration files. Barrow was introduced as teaching an explicit "update module" that dynamically updates telecommunications equipment (integrated services hubs) without rebooting. Barrow's module checks a new configuration file against current parameters to determine if changes are needed. A POSITA would combine Barrow's efficient update module with Bourgart’s system to streamline the process of identifying required resources, thereby reducing processing overhead and simplifying updates.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because Barrow’s method of comparing configuration files is a straightforward computational task. Implementing this logic within Bourgart's system to enhance its resource validation step would be a predictable and achievable modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Claims 3, 7, and 11 were challenged as obvious over the Tsuge combination with the further addition of Go (KR Patent 10-0414671) for its teaching of using Management Information Base (MIB) variables to trigger updates. Other dependent claims were challenged over the Bourgart/Barrow combination with the addition of Tsuge and/or Go for implementing the method in a DOCSIS/DPoE context. Finally, claims 18, 24, and 30 were challenged as obvious over Bourgart/Barrow in view of Koshy (a 2005 article) for the motivation to delete updated configuration files from local memory after successful application to save resources.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that independent claims 13 and 32, which recite multiple "means for" limitations (e.g., "means for generating," "means for notifying"), are governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Petitioner contended the specification fails to disclose sufficiently definite structure corresponding to these functions, instead describing them in purely functional terms or with generic computer components. For the purpose of the IPR, Petitioner proposed construing each "means for" limitation as "digital electronic circuitry, or computer software or firmware operating on hardware" that performs the recited function.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) - Same or Substantially the Same Art: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the petition relies on prior art references (Tsuge, Noel, McKinnon, Bourgart, Barrow, etc.) that were never presented to or considered by the examiner during prosecution. Therefore, the petition raises new issues of patentability that warrant institution.
  • §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate. Petitioner asserted that it was diligent, afiling the IPR petitions approximately three months before the §315(b) deadline. With a trial date in the parallel district court litigation scheduled for February 2026, a final written decision in the IPR would likely issue around the same time as the trial, favoring institution. Furthermore, litigation investment was minimal, with no claim construction or substantive merits determinations having occurred.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-32 of the ’035 patent as unpatentable.