Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: October 1, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ACRONIS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: October 1, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ACRONIS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`
`A. Background
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Acronis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, and
`
`25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’728 patent”). Realtime
`
`Data LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.”).
`
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 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 petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of any claim of the ’728
`
`patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties note that the ’728 patent has been asserted against
`
`Petitioner in Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Acronis, Inc., Case No. 1-17-
`
`cv-11279 (D. Mass.). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 7. The parties also identify at least 37
`
`other district court cases in which the ’728 patent has been asserted against
`
`other defendants. Pet. 3; Paper 4, 6–10. Finally, some claims of the ’728
`
`patent previously have been challenged in other inter partes review
`
`proceedings, including IPR2017-00108, IPR2017-00179, IPR2017-00808,
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`IPR2017-01354, IPR2017-01690, IPR2017-02178, and IPR2018-00614.
`
`Pet. 3; Paper 4, 4–5.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, and 25 of
`
`the ’728 patent are unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 23–
`
`83):1
`
`Statutory
`Ground
`§ 102
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Nishigaki2
`Nishigaki and Dawson3
`Nishigaki and Dawson
`
`1, 15, and 24
`25
`2, 4–6, 9, 10, and 20
`
`D. The ’728 Patent
`
`The ’728 patent, titled “Data Compression Systems and Methods,”
`
`issued on June 9, 2015. Ex. 1001, at [45], [54]. The ’728 patent relates to
`
`“[d]ata compression using a combination of content independent data
`
`compression and content dependent data compression.” Id. at [57].
`
`According to the patent, “[t]here are various problems associated with the
`
`use of lossless compression techniques,” including “data dependency,” in
`
`which “the compression ratio achieved is highly contingent upon the content
`
`of the data being compressed.” Id. at 2:29–40. In addition, “natural
`
`variation” can lead to “significant variations in the compression ratio
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies on a Declaration from Charles G. Boncelet, Jr., Ph.D.
`Ex. 1002.
`
`2 Nishigaki, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`P2000-50268A, published Feb. 18, 2000 (Ex. 1003, “Nishigaki”) (references
`are to the English translation provided in Ex. 1003).
`
`3 Dawson, U.S. Patent No. 5,553,160, issued Sept. 3, 1996 (Ex. 1004,
`“Dawson”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`obtained when using a single lossless data compression technique for data
`
`streams having different data content and data size.” Id. at 2:41–45. Thus,
`
`according to the ’728 patent, it is important to select the best data
`
`compression technique for any given application by considering “many
`
`factors.” Id. at 2:46–64. Although methods to choose appropriate
`
`compression techniques existed in the prior art, the ’728 patent notes that
`
`those methods had shortcomings, including “the need to unambiguously
`
`identify various data types” and that “it may be difficult and/or impractical
`
`to predict which data encoding technique yields the highest compression
`
`ratio.” Id. at 3:20–52.
`
`The ’728 patent addresses these limitations. Specifically, the ’728
`
`patent describes “a method for compressing data” that comprises “analyzing
`
`a data block of an input data stream” with “disparate data types” in order to
`
`determine which of those data types makes up the data block, then
`
`“performing content dependent data compression on the data block, if the
`
`data type of the data block is identified” or “performing content independent
`
`data compression on the data block, if the data type of the data block is not
`
`identified.” Id. at 3:59–4:4. The “data compression is performed on a per
`
`block basis.” Id. at 8:16–17; see also id. at 18:15–16, 21:1–2, 23:56–57
`
`(same statement with respect to multiple embodiments).
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, and 25 of the ’728 patent are
`
`challenged. Claims 1, 24, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative,
`
`and it recites:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`
`1. A system for compressing data comprising;
`
`a processor;
`
`one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and
`
`a single data compression encoder;
`
`wherein the processor is configured:
`
`to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing of the
`data within the data block to identify the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based
`solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more
`parameters or attributes of the data within the data block;
`
`to perform content dependent data compression with the one or
`more content dependent data compression encoders if the one
`or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified; and
`
`to perform data compression with the single data compression
`encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data
`are not identified.
`
`Ex. 1001, 26:29–48.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (upholding
`
`the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claim terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Both parties argue that we need not construe any claim terms need in
`
`order to decide whether to institute trial. Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 6–7. We
`
`agree. Accordingly, we do not construe any terms expressly.
`
`B. Grounds Relying on Nishigaki
`
`1. Nishigaki
`
`Nishigaki relates to “an encoder that properly encodes/decodes
`
`according to a document type.” Ex. 1003, at [57]. According to Nishigaki,
`
`different means exist for compressing data, with some of these means
`
`leading to higher compression ratios. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. To choose the proper
`
`compression method to apply to particular data, Nishigaki teaches
`
`determining the type of data and then selecting the appropriate compression
`
`method to be applied to that data type. Specifically, Nishigaki discloses
`
`compressing data either with a “character compression unit” or with a “non-
`
`character compression unit,” depending on whether the data in the document
`
`to be compressed is character data or non-character data. Id. ¶ 10. To make
`
`this decision, Nishigaki analyzes image data. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. “The input[]
`
`image data . . . are divided into blocks of 4x4 pixels.” Id. ¶ 17. Edge and
`
`non-edge attributes are determined for each block, and those attributes are
`
`used to “determine[] whether the document is a character document or a
`
`non-character document.” Id. Specifically, Nishigaki discloses determining
`
`that the document is character-based “when (the number of edge attribute[s]
`
`+ that of non-edge attribute[s])/total number of attributes is equal to or larger
`
`than a predetermined number.” Id. When this calculated quantity is less
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`than the predetermined number, “the document is a non-character
`
`document.” Id.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`All claims of the ’728 patent require choosing a type of data
`
`compression, either one of a suite of content-dependent data compression
`
`types or a single or default data compression type. Ex. 1001, 26:29–28:51.
`
`Claims 1–24 of the ’728 patent each recite a limitation requiring that the
`
`choice of data compression type be made on the basis of the success or
`
`failure of an attempt to identify “one or more parameters or attributes of the
`
`data” to be compressed. Id. at 26:29–48, 28:12–30. Patent Owner argues
`
`that claim 25 also requires the choice be made on this basis. Prelim. Resp.
`
`55–56. Petitioner agrees. Pet. 72–75. Because both parties agree that all
`
`claims of the ’728 patent require choosing the data compression type on the
`
`basis of the success or failure of an attempt to identify a parameter or
`
`attribute of the data to be compressed, we proceed on that understanding of
`
`the claims.
`
`Petitioner argues that Nishigaki discloses, teaches, or suggests the
`
`limitations requiring that the choice of data compression type be made on
`
`the basis of the success or failure of an attempt to identify a parameter or
`
`attribute of the data to be compressed. Id. at 34–37 (claim 1), 51–54 (claim
`
`24), 72–75 (claim 25). Specifically, Petitioner argues that Nishigaki teaches
`
`choosing the default or single data compression encoder “when the one or
`
`more parameters or attributes of the data are not identified” because
`
`“Nishigaki discloses that ‘if the document-type signal is for a non-character
`
`document, the secondary compression is implemented by a non-character-
`
`compression unit 118.’” Id. at 34–35 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 18); see also id. at
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`51–52, 72–73 (identical arguments) (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Even in the
`
`obviousness ground challenging claim 25 on the combination of Nishigaki
`
`and Dawson, Petitioner does not direct us to any portion of Dawson as
`
`teaching or suggesting the limitation that requires that the choice of data
`
`compression type be made on the basis of the success or failure of an
`
`attempt to identify a parameter or attribute of the data to be compressed,
`
`relying solely on Nishigaki to teach or suggest this limitation. Id. at 72–75.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Nishigaki’s disclosure is not sufficient to
`
`teach the dependence of the data compression encoding type on the success
`
`or failure of the identification of any parameters or attributes of the data to
`
`be compressed. Prelim. Resp. 23–37, 55–59. On the record available to us,
`
`we agree with Patent Owner.
`
`Nishigaki teaches a choice between content-dependent character-
`
`based data compression and non-character-based data compression.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 18 (“if the document-type signal is for a character document, the
`
`secondary compression for characters is implemented by a character-
`
`compression unit”; “if the document-type signal is for a non-character
`
`document, the secondary compression is implemented by a non-character-
`
`compression unit”). The portions of Nishigaki cited by Petitioner, however,
`
`do not teach making this choice based on the success or failure of the
`
`identification of some parameter or attribute of the data to be compressed.
`
`Instead, either character-based or non-character-based data compression may
`
`be used even once a parameter or attribute of the data is successfully
`
`identified. In Nishigaki, “it is determined that the document is a character
`
`document when (the number of edge attribute + that of non-edge
`
`attribute)/total number of attributes is equal to or larger than a predetermined
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`number.” Id. ¶ 17. When this calculated value is less than the
`
`“predetermined number,” “it is determined that the document is a non-
`
`character document.” Id. Thus, when a particular calculated parameter has
`
`a high value, the content-dependent character-based compression is used,
`
`and when the calculated parameter has a low value, the non-character-based
`
`compression is used. That is, in Nishigaki, the choice between the
`
`compression types is made based on the value of a calculated parameter, not
`
`the success or failure of the identification of that parameter.
`
`Because Nishigaki does not base its choice of compression type on the
`
`success or failure of the identification of any parameter or attribute of the
`
`data to be compressed, and because the parties agree that all the claims of
`
`the ’728 patent recite limitations requiring this basis for the choice of
`
`compression type, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of any challenged
`
`claim.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`
`evidence before us, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review of any challenged claim.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied,
`
`and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00703
`Patent 9,054,728 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Janine A. Carlan
`Jasjit S. Vidwan
`ARENT FOX LLP
`Janine.Carlan@arentfox.com
`Jasjit.Vidwan@arentfox.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William P. Rothwell
`Kayvan B. Noroozi
`NOROOZI PC
`william@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
