PTAB

IPR2025-01284

Dell Technologies Inc v. Cloud Byte LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communication System, Forwarding Node, Path Management Server, Communication Method, and Program
  • Brief Description: The ’249 patent describes a packet forwarding node that routes data through a network using source routing. The system relies on an incoming packet that includes a "plurality of identifiers," where each identifier in the sequence specifies a subsequent link or path for the packet to follow.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-27 are obvious over Shimizu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shimizu (Application # 2006/0227779).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Shimizu, a single prior art reference, discloses and renders obvious every limitation of the challenged claims. Shimizu teaches a network routing scheme that is functionally identical to the claimed invention, using a plurality of "tags" within a data frame's header to dictate a specific, hop-by-hop path through a private network. This approach directly maps to the ’249 patent’s core concept of using a "plurality of identifiers" for source routing, a feature Petitioner noted was central to the patent’s allowance.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Shimizu’s "switches" are the claimed "packet forwarding nodes" and its "routing tables" are the claimed "packet forwarding tables." The key limitation of receiving a packet with a "plurality of identifiers" (claims 1 and 6) was allegedly met by Shimizu's disclosure of frames containing multiple "vector based tags" or "port ID based tags" that control the path of the frame. Petitioner further argued that Shimizu’s disclosure of connecting its private "switch network" to an "external network" and the "internet" inherently teaches the limitations of determining whether to forward externally. Specifically, an edge switch in Shimizu (e.g., switch Z.C) was argued to necessarily perform this determination. The petition also mapped the claimed functions of adding path information for internal packets (Shimizu's "inbound tags") and removing it for external packets (Shimizu's removal of the final outbound tag at the network edge).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the motivation was presented as a POSITA’s natural consideration of Shimizu to solve the known problem of controlling data paths through a private network, the very problem addressed by the ’249 patent.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying Shimizu’s teachings, as it provides a detailed and enabling disclosure of the claimed routing techniques.

Ground 2: Claims 1-27 are obvious over Shimizu in view of RFC-4271

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shimizu (Application # 2006/0227779) and RFC-4271 ("A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," a 2006 technical standard).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground reinforced the obviousness argument, focusing particularly on the limitation present in all independent claims requiring a node to "determine whether to forward to an external network." Petitioner argued that even if Shimizu alone did not render this limitation obvious, combining Shimizu with the well-known BGP-4 protocol described in RFC-4271 would. RFC-4271 provided an express, standardized solution for routing between different networks.
    • Prior Art Mapping: The mapping of Shimizu’s disclosures from Ground 1 was incorporated by reference. The incremental teaching from RFC-4271 was its description of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). RFC-4271 explains that a BGP-enabled device ("BGP speaker") maintains a Routing Information Base (RIB) that contains routes learned from external networks. This mechanism inherently requires the device to distinguish between internal and external destinations and, therefore, to "determine whether to forward to an external network" when processing a packet.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to enable communication between Shimizu's private network and other networks. A POSITA would have recognized Shimizu's network as an Autonomous System (AS). By 2009, BGP-4 (as defined in RFC-4271) was the de facto industry standard protocol for inter-AS routing. Therefore, implementing BGP-4 was the most logical, predictable, and standard solution for connecting Shimizu's network to the external networks it explicitly discloses.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing the standardized BGP-4 protocol on a network switch was a routine and well-understood task in the field of computer networking.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner asserted that discretionary denial is not warranted. Pursuant to the PTAB's Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management Memorandum, Petitioner stated that any specific arguments regarding discretionary denial would be addressed in a responsive brief if first raised by the Patent Owner.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-27 of Patent 9,900,249 as unpatentable.