Tessell Inc v. Nutanix Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00732
• Patent #: 10,817,157
• Filed: March 20, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Tessell, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Nutanix, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Database Provisioning System
• Brief Description: The ’157 patent discloses a system for provisioning a "source database" through a graphical user interface (GUI). The system guides a user through selecting various parameters—such as database engine type, virtual machine profiles, and backup schedules—to automate and simplify database creation and management in a virtualized environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sivasubramanian, Zha, and Shekar - Claims 1-19 are obvious over Sivasubramanian in view of Zha and Shekar.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sivasubramanian (Patent 8,713,060), Zha (Patent 8,150,808), and Shekar (Application # 2018/0232142).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Sivasubramanian disclosed the foundational system: a "control plane" that automates database provisioning workflows through a GUI. This GUI allows users to select parameters like database engine and storage capacity. Petitioner argued that Zha taught the claimed backup and data protection features, including using a UI to configure a "schedule" for capturing snapshots and transaction logs and setting data retention periods. Finally, Petitioner mapped Shekar to the claimed virtualized computing environment, as Shekar disclosed a hyperconverged infrastructure (HCI) where applications, such as databases, run on configurable virtual machines (VMs).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sivasubramanian with Zha to incorporate well-known, user-configurable backup parameters (e.g., frequency, retention) into Sivasubramanian's flexible but less-detailed provisioning system, thereby improving its functionality and user control. A POSITA would then implement this combined system on Shekar’s HCI because HCI was a known, high-performance alternative to cloud deployment for databases, and Shekar explicitly taught running applications on VMs in such an environment.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved integrating conventional database management features (from Zha) and a known deployment architecture (from Shekar) into a known database provisioning framework (Sivasubramanian), all of which were well within the ordinary skill in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sivasubramanian, Zha, Shekar, and RDS - Claims 1-19 are obvious over the combination of Sivasubramanian, Zha, and Shekar in view of RDS.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sivasubramanian (Patent 8,713,060), Zha (Patent 8,150,808), Shekar (Application # 2018/0232142), and RDS (Amazon Relational Database Service User Guide (2016)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1. Petitioner argued that RDS, a user guide for Amazon's database service, taught implementing a complex configuration process through a sequential, multi-screen GUI, commonly known as a "wizard." This wizard presents options on separate screens or "user interfaces," directly mapping to claim limitations that require presenting selectable options on at least one user interface after a previous selection is made on a first user interface.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the wizard-style UI taught by RDS to the primary Sivasubramanian+Zha+Shekar combination to improve user experience. This was a common and predictable UI design choice for guiding users through complex, multi-step configuration tasks like database creation. Breaking the process into smaller, sequential steps would reduce the risk of user error and confusion, a known benefit of this approach.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because implementing a standard wizard UI was a well-known technique for software applications and was a straightforward application of a known interface design principle to a known system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was unwarranted. It contended that the parallel district court proceeding was stayed in favor of arbitration, mooting concerns about trial timing and duplicative efforts. Furthermore, the petition was filed early in the litigation, before any significant investment or substantive orders.
• §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the prior art and arguments were not "meaningfully addressed" by the USPTO during prosecution. Although Zha and a related Sivasubramanian patent were listed on an IDS, the examiner never applied them in a rejection, did not articulate any consideration of their specific teachings, and never analyzed the proposed obviousness combinations. Petitioner asserted that the examiner's failure to consider these combinations was a material error.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 10,817,157 as unpatentable.