PTAB

IPR2025-01142

Microsoft Corp v. Lemko Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Devices for Routing Communications Between Distributed Mobile Architecture Servers
  • Brief Description: The ’990 patent discloses methods for routing communications between distributed mobile architecture (DMA) servers using DMA gateways. The technology is presented as an inexpensive system to deploy in rural or underserved areas by bridging disparate communications networks and enabling hand-offs for mobile devices moving between them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-9 are Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Flore

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Flore (Application # 2007/0021120).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Flore, which describes a handover procedure for a user equipment (UE) moving between an E-UTRAN and a UTRAN network, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped Flore’s network components to the claim terms, identifying Flore's Inter-Access System Anchor (Inter-AS Anchor) as the "first DMA gateway" and its Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) as the "second DMA gateway." The communication between these two nodes via a Gn interface constitutes the claimed "DMA gateway communications network."
    • Petitioner contended that the handover process in Flore meets the functional steps of independent claim 1. Specifically, the first gateway (Inter-AS Anchor) receives "communications information" in the form of a Packet Data Protocol (PDP) context from an Access Gateway (AGW). This PDP context contains routing information, including the address of the second gateway (SGSN) that will serve the UE post-handover. The first gateway then stores this information by updating its own PDP context fields, meeting the "store" limitation. Subsequently, the first gateway receives packets destined for the UE and routes them to the second gateway, fulfilling the limitations to "receive a communication associated with a destination device" and "route the communication."
    • For the dependent claims, Petitioner argued that Flore's disclosure is also complete. For claim 3, the Inter-AS Anchor emulates a Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN), which, according to 3GPP standards incorporated by Flore, includes a "location register function" that satisfies the "home location register" limitation. For claim 9, Petitioner asserted that the "Update PDP Context Request" message sent from the second gateway (SGSN) to the first (Inter-AS Anchor) is a "query," and the subsequent forwarding of the PDP context is "in response to" that query.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the parent of the ’990 patent, Patent 7,855,988, was the subject of a previous inter partes review (IPR) where the Board issued a Final Written Decision (FWD) finding similar claims anticipated by Flore based on the same mapping and arguments.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "distributed mobile architecture (dma)": Petitioner argued that this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the Board's construction in the IPR of the parent ’988 patent. Petitioner contended that Patent Owner improperly attempts to narrow the term by importing limitations from the specification, such as requiring "distributed call-routing functionality" or excluding all "legacy communication networks." Petitioner asserted the Board previously rejected these arguments, finding no disclaimer or lexicography in the specification to support such a narrow construction.
  • "communications information ... to be served by the second DMA gateway": Petitioner argued against Patent Owner's attempts to rewrite this phrase to mean that a device must already be "accessed by" or "being served by" the second gateway. Petitioner maintained that the plain language, particularly the future tense "to be served," covers a handover scenario where the information indicates a device will be served by the new gateway, which is precisely what Flore discloses. Petitioner also contended there is no requirement in the claim language that the "communications information" must explicitly "identify" the communications network.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 3-9 of the ’990 patent as unpatentable.