Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01157
• Patent #: 7,939,967
• Filed: June 12, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Valtrus Innovations Limited
• Challenged Claims: 1-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Redundant Power Supply System
• Brief Description: The ’967 patent discloses a system with redundant power supplies to ensure continuous power to a load. The system uses two independent power sources, where a first power supply detects a failure in its source, issues an alert signal, and triggers a second power supply to take over providing power to the load.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8, and 14-15 are anticipated by Zak

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zak (Patent # 5,631,814).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zak, which teaches an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Zak’s UPS uses a main AC power line (first source) and a backup battery (second source). Petitioner mapped Zak’s main power conversion circuitry to the claimed "first power supply" and its battery-powered inverter circuitry to the "second power supply." When Zak's detector circuit senses a failure of the main AC power, it issues an output signal (signal 66) that Petitioner asserted serves as both the claimed "alert signal" and the "activation signal." This signal causes the battery-powered second power supply to transition from a zero-output state to a full-output state to power the load.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Zak’s holdover capacitors, which provide temporary power during the switch from AC to battery, meet the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 8 requiring the first power supply to provide operating power during the transition.

Ground 2: Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are obvious over Susong

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Susong (Application # 2009/0243391).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Susong teaches a multi-functional power supply system with a redundant "failover" configuration. The system uses two power supply units, each with its own associated battery assembly (the independent sources of electricity). When the first unit detects a failure in its battery, it is configured to issue a "surrender request" to the second unit. Petitioner argued this surrender request is the claimed "alert signal." Upon receiving this signal, the second unit issues a shutdown command and takes over powering the load, with the surrender request and/or shutdown command functioning as the "activation signal" that causes the second unit to transition from an inactive state to an active state.
  • Motivation to Combine: Although presented as single-reference obviousness, Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would find it obvious to use the power supply detailed in Susong’s Figure 1 as the redundant units in Figure 2. Further, a POSITA would be motivated to make Susong's batteries modular and separable from the power supply unit to facilitate easy replacement, a common practice for battery-operated devices.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because power supply design was a predictable art, and the proposed modifications were based on known principles and common design choices.

Ground 3: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Chang in view of Edelen

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chang (Application # 2003/0042798) and Edelen (Application # 2006/0226706).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chang teaches a control system for switching a load between multiple independent power sources. When a detecting module in the first power path senses an abnormality (e.g., power failure), it informs a central control module, which then switches the load to a second power source. Edelen teaches integrated UPS devices that include battery backup, controlled switching, and power monitoring capabilities within a single unit. The combination allegedly renders the claims obvious by implementing each of Chang's power paths as an integrated UPS with battery backup, as taught by Edelen.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve upon Chang's system. Integrating each of Chang's power paths into a self-contained UPS with battery backup (per Edelen) would create a more robust and truly uninterruptible power system. This would prevent even momentary power loss during the transition between sources, a key goal in both references. Petitioner argued this combination represents a simple substitution of one known element (a basic power path) with another (an integrated UPS) to yield predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because combining a switching controller with UPS units was a well-known and commonplace practice in the art by 2009. The integration was a predictable design choice to achieve space-saving advantages and enhanced reliability.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 2, 8, 11, and 14-15 are obvious over Susong and Zak, and that claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, and 13 are obvious over Chang alone.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not discretionarily deny the petition because the prior art cited (Zak, Susong, Chang, and Edelen) is new and was not before the examiner during prosecution. Petitioner further contended that the grounds are compelling, the petition was filed expeditiously, and the investment in parallel district court litigation has been limited.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’967 patent as unpatentable.