throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 6
`Filed: May 24, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`_______________
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`On November 30, 2016, Veritas Technologies, LLC (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–
`4, 6, 10–16, 18–20, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`8,643,513 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’513 patent”). Concurrently with the Petition,
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”), requesting that this
`proceeding be joined with Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data
`LLC, Case IPR2016-00978 (“978 IPR”). Mot. 1. Patent Owner Realtime
`Data LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file an Opposition to the Motion for
`Joinder.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the Petitioners would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons discussed below, we
`institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims and grant
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`B. Related Proceedings and Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`In the 978 IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6,
`10–16, 18–20, and 22 the ’513 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`unpatentable over Wang1, Matsubara2, and Franaszek3. 978 IPR, slip op. at
`29 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2016) (Paper 24).
`The Petition in this proceeding challenges the same claims on
`identical grounds of unpatentability, and relies on the same evidence and
`arguments as presented in the 978 IPR. Pet. 1; Mot. 1–2. Petitioner
`represents that “[i]ntentionally, the Petition is nearly word-for-word identical
`to the petition in the [978] IPR in an effort to avoid multiplication of issues
`before the Board” and relies upon similar evidence, including an “essentially
`identical” expert declaration. Mot. 2. Petitioner notes that its Petition is
`“supplemented with additional support.” Pet. 1. Patent Owner did not file a
`preliminary response and has not presented any arguments regarding the
`merits of the Petition.
`For the above reasons, in particular the fact that the present Petition is
`virtually identical to the petition in the 978 IPR, we determine Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently under 35 U.S.C. § 314 that an inter partes review
`should be instituted in this proceeding on the same grounds of
`unpatentability as the grounds on which we instituted inter partes review in
`the 978 IPR.
`C. The ’513 Patent
`The ’513 patent, titled “Data Compression Systems and Methods,”
`discloses systems and methods for analyzing a data block and selecting a
`
`
`1 WO 00/46688, issued August 10, 2009 (978 IPR, Exhibit 1009, “Wang”).
`2 US Patent No. 5,838,821, issued November 17, 1998 (978 IPR, Exhibit
`1010, “Matsubara”).
`3 US Patent No. 5,870,036, issued February 9, 1999 (978 IPR, Exhibit 1011,
`“Franaszek”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`compression method to apply to that block. Ex. 1001, Title, Abst. The ’513
`patent further discloses “fast and efficient data compression using a
`combination of content independent data compression and content
`dependent data compression.” Id. at 3:55–58. One embodiment of the ’513
`patent is illustrated in Figure 13A reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13A of the ’513 patent, the system receives an
`input data stream of data blocks. Id. at 15:63–16:5. Content dependent data
`recognition module 1300 analyzes the incoming data stream to recognize
`“data types” and other parameters indicative of the “data type/content.” Id.
`at 16:15–21. If module 1300 recognizes the data type of a given data block,
`module 1300 routes the block to content dependent encoder module 1320
`(id. at 16:24–26); if not, it routes the block to “content independent” (or
`“default”) encoder module 30 (id. at.3:66–67, 4:30–35, 15:56–63, 16:26–27,
`18:17–25).
`Content dependent encoder module 1320 comprises lossy or lossless
`compression encoders (id. at 16:28–37); content independent encoder
`module 30 comprises only lossless encoders (id. at 16:43–50). Lossy
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`encoders provide for an “inexact” representation of the original
`uncompressed data (id. at 2:4–7); lossless encoders provide for an “exact”
`representation (id. at 2:18–20). The ’513 patent teaches that “[e]ncoding
`techniques” may be selected “based upon their ability to effectively encode
`different types of input data.” Id. at 12:54–56.
`
`Another embodiment of the ’513 patent is illustrated in Figure 13B
`reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown above in Figure 13B of the ’513 patent, “compression ratio
`module 1340, operatively connected to the content dependent output
`buffer/counters 1330 and content independent buffer/counters 40 determines
`the compression ratio obtained for each of the enabled encoders and[/]or El
`. . . En . . . .” Id. at 17:28–42. The compression ratio is set “by taking the
`ratio of the size of the input data block to the size of the output data block
`stored in the corresponding buffer/counters BCD1, BCD2, BCD3 . . . BCDm
`and[/]or BCE1, BCE2, BCE3 . . . BCEn.” Id. at 17:39–42.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20,
`and 22 of the ’513 patent, of which claims 1 and 15 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are
`reproduced below (with paragraphing added):
`1. A method of compressing a plurality of data blocks,
`comprising:
`analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize when an
`appropriate content independent compression algorithm is to be
`applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`applying the appropriate content independent data compression
`algorithm to a portion of the plurality of data blocks to provide a
`compressed data portion;
`analyzing a data block from another portion of the plurality of
`data blocks for recognition of any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter that is indicative of an appropriate content dependent
`algorithm to apply to the data block; and
`applying the appropriate content dependent data compression
`algorithm to the data block to provide a compressed data block
`when the characteristic, attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the analyzing the plurality of data blocks to recognize
`when
`the appropriate content
`independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied excludes analyzing based only on a
`descriptor indicative of the any characteristic, attribute, or
`parameter, and
`wherein the analyzing the data block to recognize the any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter excludes analyzing based
`only on the descriptor.
`Ex. 1001, 26:21–46.
`15. A device for compressing data comprising:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`a first circuit configured to analyze a plurality of data blocks to
`recognize when an appropriate content independent compression
`algorithm is to be applied to the plurality of data blocks;
`a second circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`independent data compression algorithm to a portion of the
`plurality of data blocks to provide a compressed data portion;
`a third circuit configured to analyze a data block from another
`portion of the plurality of data blocks for recognition of any
`characteristic, attribute, or parameter that is indicative of an
`appropriate content dependent algorithm to apply to the data
`block; and
`a fourth circuit configured to apply the appropriate content
`dependent data compression algorithm to the data block to
`provide a compressed data block when the any characteristic,
`attribute, or parameter is identified,
`wherein the first circuit is further configured to analyze the
`plurality of data blocks to recognize when the appropriate
`content independent compression algorithm is to be applied by
`excluding analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the
`any characteristic, attribute, or parameter, and
`wherein the third circuit is further configured to analyze the data
`block to recognize the any characteristic, attribute, or parameter
`by excluding analyzing based only on the descriptor.
`Id. at 27:32–28:19.
`E. Motion for Joinder
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes
`review, subject to certain statutory provisions:
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (Any request for joinder
`must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested).
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing
`and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case
`IPR2013–00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15). As the
`moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the
`requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`As an initial matter, the present Motion for Joinder meets the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) because the Motion was filed on
`November 30, 2016, which is not later than one month after the 978 IPR was
`instituted on November 1, 2016.
`Additionally, the present Petition challenges the same claims of the
`same patent as those under inter partes review in the 978 IPR, and the
`Petition also asserts the same grounds of unpatentability based on the same
`prior art and the same evidence, including the same declaration testimony.
`Mot. 2; compare Pet. 17, with 978 IPR, Paper 10, 17; Exs. 1016, 1017. The
`Petition does not assert any other grounds of unpatentability not already of
`record in the 978 IPR. Indeed, the Petition repeats almost verbatim most of
`the content of the petition in the 978 IPR. See Pet. 1; Mot. 2. Petitioner
`notes, however, that its Petition is “supplemented with additional support.”
`Pet. 1; see also Exs. 1016, 1017 (indicating differences between (i) the
`present Petition and the 978 IPR petition and (ii) the expert declarations in
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`track changes). We determine this “additional support” does not change
`significantly the asserted ground of unpatentability or the evidence and
`arguments supporting that ground. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that
`granting joinder would not require any alterations to the existing scheduling
`order in the 978 IPR. Mot. 6. Petitioner also represents that the lead
`petitioner in the 978 IPR (Riverbed Technology, Inc.) does not oppose
`joinder of the present proceeding. Id. at 8.
`According to Petitioner, joinder will promote the efficient
`determination of validity of the challenged claims of the ’530 patent, as well
`as simplify briefing and discovery. Id. at 7. Petitioner asserts that Patent
`Owner would not be prejudiced because the schedule of the 978 IPR would
`be unchanged, and Patent Owner would not take on additional costs or
`burden because of the overlap between the present Petition and the 978 IPR
`petition. Id. at 8.
`Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner has established good cause for joining this proceeding with the
`978 IPR. Specifically, we find that joinder of this proceeding with the 978
`IPR is unlikely to require any delay or modification to the scheduling order
`already in place for the 978 IPR. We determine that Patent Owner will not
`be prejudiced unduly by the joinder of these proceedings, and joining
`Petitioner’s identical challenges to those in the 978 IPR will lead to greater
`efficiency while reducing the resources necessary from both Patent Owner
`and the Board. Consequently, granting the Motion for Joinder under these
`circumstances would help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution” of these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). For the above
`reasons, we conclude that the Motion for Joinder should be granted.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`
`
`II. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review
`in IPR2017-00366 is hereby instituted for claims 1–4, 6, 10–16, 18–20, and
`22 of the ’513 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang,
`Matsubara, and Franaszek;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is
`granted, and Petitioner is joined as a petitioner in IPR2016-00978;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-00366 is hereby joined with
`IPR2016-00978;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground of unpatentability on which
`trial was instituted in IPR2016-00978 is unchanged and remains the only
`ground on which trial has been instituted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`IPR2016-00978 (Paper 25), as modified by joint stipulations (Papers 26, 27),
`is unchanged and shall govern the schedule of the joined proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and the petitioners in IPR2016-
`00978 will file all papers jointly in the joined proceeding as consolidated
`filings, and will identify each such paper as “Consolidated,” except for
`papers that involve fewer than all of these parties;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-00366 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceeding are to be
`made in IPR2016-00978;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`into the record of IPR2016-00978; and
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00366
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2016-00978 shall
`be modified to reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`attached example.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONERS:
`Jonathan D. Link
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Jonathan.Link@lw.com
`Lisa.Nguyen@lw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Donald J. Featherstone
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Joseph E. Mutschelknaus
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`donf-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jmutsche-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`11
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.; DELL INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD
`ENTERPRISE CO.; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; TERADATA
`OPERATIONS, INC.; ECHOSTAR CORPORATION; HUGHES
`NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC; and VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-009781
`Patent 8,643,513 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00366 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`12
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket