PTAB

IPR2026-00190

Microsoft Corp v. Sandpiper CDN LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Configuring Content Delivery Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’053 patent relates to a content delivery network (CDN) where cache servers serve resources to clients based on two types of configuration data: "global" data from the CDN operator that controls the overall network, and "customer" data from content owners that controls the delivery of their specific content. A central "control core" manages the distribution of this configuration data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lewin and Wein - Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-16, 21-23, 25, 27-30, 32, 34-35, 37-42, 47, 49-50 are obvious over Lewin in view of Wein.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lewin (Patent 7,010,578) and Wein (Patent 7,240,100).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lewin disclosed the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a CDN with a control core (a Network Operations Center and registration server) and a plurality of cache servers serving content for customers. However, Lewin’s primary focus was on adding third-party caches to an existing CDN. Petitioner asserted that Wein supplied the missing details, expressly teaching the use of both CDN-operator-provided metadata (the claimed "global configuration data") and per-customer metadata configuration files (the claimed "customer configuration information") to control how a cache server handles content requests. The combination, therefore, taught a CDN where cache servers obtain both global and customer-specific configurations to serve content, as claimed in independent claims 1 and 27.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Wein’s teachings with Lewin’s system to understand how to configure the primary CDN itself. Lewin focused on integrating third-party caches, whereas Wein detailed the internal configuration of a primary CDN using the exact dual-configuration (global and customer) model claimed. Petitioner noted both references were assigned to Akamai Technologies, a prominent CDN provider, and their teachings were complementary, not contradictory.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the systems described in Lewin and Wein were nearly identical Akamai-based CDNs, making the integration of Wein's configuration methods into Lewin's network a straightforward application of complementary teachings.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Liu and Devanneaux - Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-16, 18-28, 30, 32, 35-42, 44-50 are obvious over Liu in view of Devanneaux.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liu (Application # 2010/0257258) and Devanneaux (Application # 2007/0156845).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Liu, which described the "Speedera" CDN, disclosed a network with a control core (a Network Operations Center), a plurality of cache servers, and the use of "global configuration" files distributed from a central authority. Liu also taught that customers could control certain parameters for their content. Devanneaux, describing the "Akamai" CDN, was argued to provide more extensive details on granular, customer-specific configurations, including metadata tags and scripts that allow for features like content pre-fetching and custom traffic path optimization. The combination therefore disclosed a CDN where cache servers receive global data and more detailed customer-specific data to serve resources.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement the more granular and flexible customer-specific configurations taught by Devanneaux into Liu’s CDN. While Liu’s system focused on DNS-level configuration, a POSITA would recognize the need to also configure the cache servers themselves to provide advanced, customer-specific delivery features. Devanneaux provided a known method for achieving this enhanced functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the Speedera and Akamai networks were similar, well-known CDNs that eventually merged. Implementing Devanneaux’s widely used XML-based configuration methods into Liu’s network would be a predictable and easily implementable improvement.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Liu, Devanneaux, and Lewin819 - Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 29, 31, 33-34 are obvious over Liu and Devanneaux in view of Lewin819.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liu (Application # 2010/0257258), Devanneaux (Application # 2007/0156845), and Lewin819 (Application # 2010/0274819).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Liu/Devanneaux combination by adding Lewin819’s disclosure of using customer-provided scripts for the dynamic assembly of webpages at the CDN edge. Petitioner argued that while Liu and Devanneaux taught systems for delivering largely static content based on configuration files, Lewin819 taught using customer-configuration information in the form of scripts (e.g., ESI statements) to enable dynamic content delivery. For claims requiring customer information to be obtained upon receipt of a request (claim 29) or to comprise scripts (claim 31), Lewin819 explicitly taught that configuration information could be in a request itself and that scripts are used to build the dynamic response.
    • Motivation to Combine: By the priority date of the ’053 patent, CDNs had evolved beyond static content delivery to accelerate entire dynamic web applications. A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Liu/Devanneaux CDN to include the dynamic webpage capabilities taught by Lewin819. This would provide customers with powerful features to build dynamic sites without burdening their own origin servers, a known industry trend.
    • Expectation of Success: Lewin819 provided the necessary and well-understood framework (ESI logic) to implement dynamic content assembly in a standard CDN environment like that of Liu/Devanneaux, making the modification straightforward with a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Liu/Devanneaux with Nygren to teach the use of consensus algorithms (claims 17, 43) and with Crosbie to teach version control for configuration files (claims 18-20, 44-46).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-50 of Patent 9,456,053 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.