PTAB

IPR2025-00619

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 ’871 patent discloses a "distributed software-defined network" (dSDN) system. The system comprises programmable network devices and cloud devices that host separate components of distributed software applications, all powered by a sandboxing operating system to ensure isolation. An application management portal manages the lifecycle and upgrades of these applications, which are stored in an application repository.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9 are obvious over Vasell in view of Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vasell (Patent 6,496,575), Alves (a 2011 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 disclosed the foundational architecture of the challenged claims: a distributed "service gateway system" with a local "service platform server" (the claimed network device) and remote "network operator servers" and "service provider equipment" (the claimed cloud devices). Vasell's system runs distributed "service applications" with components on each device within a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) environment and includes remote management capabilities. Petitioner contended that Vasell's high-level disclosures were direct precursors to the Open Standards Gateway Initiative (OSGi) framework.
    • The secondary references were presented as providing well-known implementation details for such an OSGi-based system that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have used to complete Vasell’s design. Alves was cited for teaching a centralized "OSGi bundle repository" (the claimed application repository) in a cloud environment and the use of secure communication protocols (e.g., RMI, SOAP) between distributed application components. Hall was cited for teaching the use of standardized digital signatures to verify the authenticity and integrity of application bundles from third-party developers, a key security feature for an open platform like Vasell’s. Rellermeyer was cited for disclosing a service that provides elastic scalability and load balancing for OSGi services across cloud nodes, corresponding to the patent’s "cloud breathing" and load monitoring functionalities.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine these references because Vasell's architecture was a foundational concept that was later standardized and refined under the OSGi framework. A POSITA implementing Vasell's system would have naturally consulted contemporary OSGi literature like Alves, Hall, and Rellermeyer for established solutions to implement specific features. The motivations were presented as simple design choices to achieve predictable benefits: using Alves for a centralized repository and secure communications, Hall for robust security and authentication in a multi-developer environment, and Rellermeyer for modern cloud scalability and resource management.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved integrating standardized, compatible OSGi-based technologies within a common Java run-time environment, which was the same environment disclosed by the primary reference, Vasell.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that while plain and ordinary meaning should apply, it addressed certain terms that the Patent Owner treats as means-plus-function in related litigation. The key positions relevant to the invalidity grounds include:
    • "application management portal ... capable of managing upgrades ... with substantially no interruption": Petitioner contended the corresponding structure is a "general-purpose computer with Internet access" adapted to perform the algorithm for "hot upgrade" disclosed in the specification. This structure and function were argued to be met by Vasell's "management system service" which could update application configurations on the fly, combined with the standardized "hot update" technologies for OSGi frameworks.
    • "sandboxing operating system": Petitioner asserted the corresponding structure is an operating system that allows applications to run in isolation. This was mapped to the well-known sandboxing provided by the JVM environment that Vasell disclosed for running its distributed application components.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core argument was that the Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR is expected in September 2026, several months before the earliest potential trial date in the parallel district court litigation (late-November 2026).
  • Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds or prior art in the parallel litigation, thereby eliminating any concerns of duplicative efforts or inconsistent rulings between the two forums. Petitioner also argued the petition presented compelling merits for unpatentability.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9 of the ’871 patent as unpatentable.