PTAB

IPR2025-00479

Advanced Micro Devices Inc v. XtreamEdge Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method for Network Connection Optimization
Brief Description: The ’634 patent discloses a method for optimizing network connections by collecting parameter values at an endpoint device to determine bandwidth. The method involves a "tuner server" that determines if a new connection request matches a geographical or network topology area of a past connection and initiates the new connection using parameter values from that past connection.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Erskine (Patent 7,742,499).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Erskine teaches a method for adaptive bandwidth management in VoIP networks that renders all challenged claims obvious. Erskine’s "communication devices" (endpoint devices) monitor and collect Quality of Service (QoS) parameters (e.g., packet loss, latency) to determine bandwidth between different "geographically distinct zones." A "call server" (acting as the claimed "tuner server") uses this information from past connections to determine whether a new call between zones can be established, based on a calculated "sliding maximum interzone bandwidth." This process allegedly maps directly to the ’634 patent’s method of collecting parameter values, determining a match based on a geographical area (the link between zones), and initiating a connection with a bandwidth based on past parameter values.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this is a single-reference ground.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Scherzer (Patent 8,000,276).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Scherzer, which discloses a client/server system for improving wireless connectivity, teaches the key limitations of the claims. In Scherzer, a client (the "first endpoint device") collects and reports "backhaul quality" (parameter values) to a server (the "tuner server"). The server maintains a database of access points, including historical connection data, and provides clients with information about preferred access points within their "geographical proximity." Based on this determination from the server, the client initiates a connection. Petitioner asserted this system of collecting connection quality parameters and using them at a server to recommend connections based on geographical location and past performance meets the limitations of the independent claims.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this is a single-reference ground.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Scherzer (Patent 8,000,276) and Gillett (Patent 9,661,553).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Scherzer, supplementing it with Gillett. Petitioner argued that to the extent Scherzer did not explicitly disclose one client endpoint connecting directly with another client endpoint via an access point, Gillett remedied this by teaching user terminals (endpoint devices) communicating with each other (e.g., via VoIP calls or file transfers) through wireless access points. The core functionality of collecting connection parameters and having a server determine preferred connections based on geographical area and historical data was provided by Scherzer, as argued in Ground 2.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Gillett's explicit teaching of inter-client communication with Scherzer's network optimization system to achieve predictable benefits. These benefits included improved network scalability by allowing more clients to join, enhanced traffic coordination by the access points, and extended communication range between clients without requiring direct client-to-client configuration.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as applying the known technique from Gillett (client-to-client communication via access points) to Scherzer’s system would yield predictable results.

"geographical area": Petitioner argued that a formal construction for this term was not necessary for the IPR proceeding. They asserted that the teachings of the prior art, such as Erskine's "geographically distinct zone" and Scherzer's "geographical proximity," were consistent with the examples of "geographical area" provided in the ’634 patent specification (e.g., "an apartment complex, neighborhood, or city").

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial. Under the Fintiv factors, they contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with a trial date set for May 2026 and claim construction not yet briefed. They further argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was unwarranted because the primary prior art references asserted (Erskine, Scherzer, and Gillett) were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’634 patent.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’634 patent as unpatentable.