PTAB

IPR2025-01400

CrowdStrike Inc v. Skysong Innovations LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Facilitating Display of Different Categories of Content
  • Brief Description: The ’721 patent describes a system for enhancing web browser security by compartmentalizing web content into different browser instances. The system automatically launches a "fresh browser instance" for sensitive content, using a daemon to track active instances and a browser extension to communicate requests to the daemon.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Fages, Korycki, Jai, and Hayden

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fages (Application # 2012/0069401), Korycki (Patent 9,009,853), Jai (WO 02/37333), and Hayden (Patent 9,509,783).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination teaches all limitations of claim 1. Fages was asserted to teach the foundational system of partitioning web browsing into separate, independent execution environments for secure (sensitive) and non-secure content based on predefined URL lists. To implement the specific architecture recited in the claims, Petitioner contended Korycki taught using a daemon that runs as a background process, a browser extension, and a native application to facilitate communication between the extension and the daemon for security purposes. To meet the limitation of confirming a URL is not already being accessed, Petitioner asserted Jai taught comparing a requested URL against already-open applications to avoid duplicates, and Hayden taught checking whether a specific browser instance is already running and available before launching a new one.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to implement Fages’s high-level security concept using the well-known and efficient architecture disclosed by Korycki (daemon, extension, native application). A POSITA would further incorporate the teachings of Jai and Hayden to add efficiency, avoid redundant browser instances, and reduce computing resource consumption by checking if a URL or browser instance is already active before launching a new one.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have an expectation of success because all references address browser security and operate on standard computer systems. Combining the software-based functionalities would have been a predictable integration of known techniques to achieve an improved, more efficient browser security system.

Ground 2: Claims 3-5 are obvious over Fages, Korycki, Jai, Hayden, and Russello

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fages, Korycki, Jai, Hayden, and Russello (Application # 2014/0137184).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Russello to the primary combination from Ground 1 to teach the limitations of claims 3-5. Petitioner argued Russello disclosed using a process trace (ptrace) API to intercept system calls made by a target process (e.g., a browser) and a "process monitor" (tracer) to control those calls. This was mapped to claim 3’s limitation of executing an API call to intercept a system call to a web server. Russello was also asserted to teach pausing the target process upon interception of a system call, which maps to the "pause operations" limitation of claim 4.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would add Russello's teachings to the base Fages combination to enhance security. While the primary combination provides a way to manage browser instances, Russello provides a known technique for low-level system call monitoring, thereby giving the system finer control and providing security benefits not expressly detailed in Fages.
    • Expectation of Success: Russello’s ptrace functionality was a well-known feature in Linux-based systems, which are compatible with the systems described in the other references. Implementing this known security technique would predictably result in a system with increased security.

Ground 3: Claims 6-8, 12-13, and 16-18 are obvious over Fages, Korycki, Jai, Hayden, O'Niell, and Cardona

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combination from Ground 1, plus O'Niell (Patent 8,424,017) and Cardona (Application # 2003/0061257).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds O'Niell and Cardona to address claim 6's limitation that the daemon comprises a multi-threaded C program using Unix domain sockets. Petitioner asserted O'Niell taught a daemon implemented in the C programming language that uses Unix domain sockets for efficient inter-process communication. Cardona was cited for its express teaching of a multi-threaded daemon capable of handling multiple tasks or connections concurrently.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would implement the daemon of the primary combination using the teachings of O'Niell and Cardona to achieve better performance and use standard, well-understood programming practices. Using the C language and Unix domain sockets (from O'Niell) are common and efficient choices for daemon implementation. Making the daemon multi-threaded (from Cardona) is a known way to improve performance and responsiveness when handling multiple browser instances.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modifications involved implementing a software component (the daemon) using standard programming languages and features (C, multithreading, sockets) that were widely known and well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 9-11, 14, and 15 based on further combinations of the above-cited prior art with Russello and Tazuma (Patent 7,493,414), relying on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "browser instance type": Petitioner argued, based on the specification and prosecution history, that this term refers to the functional category of the browser instance (e.g., a "secure" type for sensitive content vs. a "general" or "unsecured" type for all other content). This construction is important to show that Fages, which discloses separate browser sessions for secure and non-secure content, teaches this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’721 patent as unpatentable.