Microsoft Corp v. Edge Networking Systems LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00618
• Patent #: 11,695,823
• Filed: February 17, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Edge Networking Systems, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Distributed Software Defined Networking
• Brief Description: The ’823 patent describes a distributed software-defined network (dSDN) system. The system comprises a programmable network device and a programmable cloud device that host components of distributed software applications, an application management portal for managing the lifecycle of these applications, and an infrastructure application marketplace for providing them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 12-15, and 19 are obvious over Vasell in view of Alves and Rellermeyer.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vasell (Patent 6,496,575), Alves (“OSGi in Depth,” a 2012 publication), and Rellermeyer (“Dependability as a cloud service,” a 2012 IEEE conference paper).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vasell disclosed the foundational architecture of the claimed system. Vasell’s “service gateway system,” comprising a local “service platform server” (the network device) and remote “network operator servers” (the cloud devices), was presented as a direct analogue. This system runs distributed “service applications” with components on both local and remote servers, communicating securely over the Internet. Petitioner contended that Alves and Rellermeyer provided the missing implementation details for Vasell's conceptual framework, describing how to build such systems using the well-known OSGi standard. Alves was cited for its teachings on implementing OSGi-compatible distributed systems in cloud environments, including using a bundle repository (marketplace) and secure communication protocols. Rellermeyer was cited for teaching load balancing and elastic scalability for OSGi services in a cloud environment, corresponding to claimed features like a distributed resource service.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Vasell’s architecture was a known foundational concept for the OSGi framework. Alves and Rellermeyer provided standardized, well-known implementation details for the exact type of distributed, modular system Vasell proposed. A POSITA would have been motivated to look to established standards like OSGi (as detailed in Alves and Rellermeyer) to implement Vasell’s system, thereby gaining predictable benefits like scalability, modularity, and interoperability in a cloud environment.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results because it involved implementing a known architecture (Vasell) using a standard, well-documented framework (OSGi, per Alves and Rellermeyer) specifically designed for such distributed systems.

Ground 2: Claims 3-5, 7-8, and 18 are obvious over Vasell in view of Alves, Rellermeyer, and Hall.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vasell (Patent 6,496,575), Alves (a 2012 publication), Rellermeyer (a 2012 IEEE conference paper), and Hall (“OSGi in Action,” a 2011 publication).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1, adding Hall to address claim limitations related to application lifecycle management and security, particularly the verification of application authenticity and integrity (claim 18). Petitioner asserted that Vasell’s system was an “open” environment allowing for third-party application developers, creating a clear need for security. Hall was cited for describing the use of standard Java security features, such as digital signatures, within the OSGi framework to manage permissions and verify the authenticity of third-party applications (“bundles”). Hall allegedly taught how a management agent could use digital signatures to grant permissions based on the developer’s identity, ensuring applications are “tamperproof.”
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Vasell, Alves, and Rellermeyer to create a cloud-based distributed system, would be further motivated to incorporate Hall’s teachings to address the inherent security risks of Vasell’s open, third-party developer environment. Adding standardized digital signature verification, as taught by Hall for OSGi systems, was presented as a simple, well-known solution to ensure the integrity and authenticity of downloaded applications, a crucial step in any real-world deployment.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in adding Hall's security features, as they were standard, widely implemented techniques for Java and OSGi environments, the very technologies underlying the proposed combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "virtual fabric" (claim 12): Petitioner contended that if this term is treated as means-plus-function, the corresponding structure is "an abstraction layer for applications to communicate with each other" as described in the specification. Petitioner argued the prior art discloses this structure through its use of Java APIs and standardized communication protocols in a sandboxed JVM environment.
• "load controller adapted to monitor loads..." (claim 7): If treated as means-plus-function, Petitioner asserted the corresponding structure is "a controller executing at least one of a 'cloud breathing' or 'load monitoring' application." Petitioner argued that Rellermeyer’s disclosure of monitoring remote service invocations to perform load-balancing and elastic scaling meets this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR would issue months before the expected trial date in the parallel district court litigation. Petitioner also stipulated it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the litigation if the IPR is instituted, eliminating concerns about overlapping issues. Furthermore, Petitioner contended the merits of the petition are exceptionally strong, as Vasell discloses a parallel architecture to the ’823 patent, and the secondary references merely supply well-known, standardized implementation details. Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the asserted prior art is non-cumulative and was never considered during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-19 of the ’823 patent as unpatentable.