Tessell Inc v. Nutanix Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00733
• Patent #: 11,640,340
• Filed: March 20, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Tessell, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Nutanix, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Database Management System and Services
• Brief Description: The ’340 patent describes a database management system that provides high availability and backup services for a database cluster. The system uses replication across primary and secondary nodes for failover protection and separately manages snapshot-based backups from a designated "active node" to create a "highly available time machine."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-30 are obvious over Chikkanayakanahally, with or without Merriman.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chikkanayakanahally (Patent 9,934,107) and Merriman (Patent 8,572,031).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chikkanayakanahally discloses all key features of the challenged claims. It teaches a high-availability database system with primary and secondary nodes, where secondary databases are synchronized copies of the primary. Upon failure of the primary, a secondary can "transition to become the primary database." Crucially, Chikkanayakanahally also discloses a system for taking snapshot-based backups from a "preferred node" (analogous to the ’340 patent's "active node"). The selection of this preferred node is based on a user-defined "backup preference," which can specify taking backups from a primary, a secondary, or based on a priority list if a node becomes unavailable. This mirrors the ’340 patent's core concept of having two distinct policies: one for primary node failover and a separate, user-defined "switch over policy" for selecting the active node for backups.

  • For the limitation of a "first policy" for primary node failover (claim 1), Petitioner contended that Chikkanayakanahally’s teaching of designating a secondary node to become the new primary upon failover inherently meets this limitation. Alternatively, Petitioner argued a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have found it obvious to implement this failover using the well-known election protocols taught by Merriman. Merriman discloses an "election protocol" for selecting a new primary node based on defined criteria such as "freshest data," "best location," or "most robust hardware," directly teaching a policy-based approach to failover.

  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine Merriman with Chikkanayakanahally to implement a more robust and optimal primary node failover mechanism. While Chikkanayakanahally taught the concept of failover, Merriman provided an explicit, criteria-based election protocol. A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Merriman’s teachings to improve consistency, reduce complexity, and ensure the best-suited secondary node is chosen as the new primary in Chikkanayakanahally’s system. Petitioner argued implementing this selection logic on Chikkanayakanahally’s "backup server" would be a convenient and logical design choice, centralizing management tasks.

  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references address high-availability, replicated database systems. Chikkanayakanahally’s system, with its nodes connected via a network, provided the necessary architecture to implement Merriman’s election protocol, making the combination a matter of routine software engineering.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The parallel district court proceeding has been stayed, minimizing concerns about duplicative efforts and inconsistent results. Petitioner asserted it filed the IPR petition before any significant litigation investment or substantive orders occurred.
• Petitioner further argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is not warranted because neither Chikkanayakanahally nor Merriman was considered by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’340 patent. Therefore, the petition raises new questions of patentability that have not been previously addressed by the USPTO.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 11,640,340 as unpatentable.