PTAB

IPR2025-00617

Microsoft Corp v. Edge Networking Systems LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Distributed Software Defined Networking
  • Brief Description: The ’095 patent describes a distributed software-defined network (dSDN) system that includes programmable network devices and cloud devices. These devices are powered by a sandboxing operating system that allows for the deployment and "hot upgrade" of distributed applications with minimal interruption, with application components running in isolation on both the network and cloud devices. The system also includes an application management portal and an application repository to manage the lifecycle and usage of these applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vasell, Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer - Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are obvious over Vasell in view of Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vasell (Patent 6,496,575), Alves (a 2012 book titled "OSGi in Depth"), Hall (a 2011 book titled "OSGi in Action"), and Rellermeyer (a 2012 IEEE conference paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vasell discloses the foundational architecture of the challenged claims. Vasell’s "service gateway system," which includes a local "service platform server" (the claimed network device) and remote "network operator servers" and "service provider equipment" (the claimed cloud device), forms the basis of the distributed system. Vasell further taught using distributed "service applications" with components on both local and remote servers, running in a Java run-time environment (JVM), which Petitioner contended functions as the claimed sandboxing operating system by ensuring application isolation and integrity. The secondary references were presented as providing well-known implementation details for such a system, particularly within the Open Standards Gateway initiative (OSGi) framework, which standardized the concepts pioneered in Vasell.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references because Vasell’s architecture represented a foundational concept that was later standardized and improved by the OSGi specifications, which are detailed in Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer. A POSITA implementing Vasell's system would naturally look to these contemporary OSGi standards for implementation details. Specifically, a POSITA would combine:
      • Alves to implement Vasell's system in a modern cloud environment, using a cloud-based application repository for storing and managing validated applications, which Alves taught was an "ideal platform for cloud computing."
      • Hall to add standardized security features, such as requiring digital signatures for third-party applications and upgrades, to enhance security in Vasell's "open" development environment.
      • Rellermeyer to implement dynamic load balancing and elastic scalability (the patent's "cloud breathing") across multiple cloud servers, using features already provided by the OSGi framework.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended there was a high expectation of success because the combination involved implementing a foundational distributed system (Vasell) using the well-documented, standardized, and proven technical details of the OSGi framework (Alves, Hall, Rellermeyer) to achieve predictable benefits like improved scalability, security, and resource management.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no specific constructions are required because the prior art meets the claim limitations under any reasonable construction. However, to preempt potential means-plus-function arguments from the Patent Owner, Petitioner addressed several terms by referring to the structure identified in the specification, including:
    • "[sandboxing operating system]… facilitates upgrades… with substantially no interruption": Petitioner contended this function is performed by the structure disclosed in the ’095 patent where the sandboxing OS ensures each application runs in a dedicated, isolated process. This isolation permits one instance of an application to remain running while another is upgraded, thus enabling a "hot upgrade" with minimal service interruption.
    • "programmable network device" and "programmable cloud device" "verifies authenticity of the upgrades… based on unique security keys": Petitioner argued this function corresponds to the structure of verifying an application with a signature generated by a security key, as described in the specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate, asserting that the relevant factors weigh in favor of institution.
    • Factor 2 (Trial Date): Petitioner argued this factor favors institution because the parallel district court litigation trial is expected in late-November 2026, months after a Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue in this IPR.
    • Factor 4 (Overlap): Petitioner asserted this factor favors institution, stipulating that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel litigation. Further, Petitioner noted the litigation does not involve all of the challenged claims (specifically claims 6, 8, and 10-13).
    • Factor 6 (Merits): Petitioner argued the petition presents compelling merits, stating that Vasell is a "parallel disclosure" to the ’095 patent, describing the same fundamental architecture, and that the combination merely applies well-known OSGi implementation details to achieve predictable results.
  • Petitioner also argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is not appropriate because the prior art references relied upon in the petition were not considered during prosecution and are not cumulative to the art of record.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 of the ’095 patent as unpatentable.