`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CA, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––
`
`
`IPR2022-02190
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419
`
`––––––––––
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,656,419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Background ...................................................................................................... 6
`II.
`The ’419 Patent ................................................................................................ 8
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 10
`Identification of Challenge ............................................................................ 12
`A.
`Statutory Grounds................................................................................ 12
`B.
`Relied-Upon Prior Art ......................................................................... 12
`1.
`Verbeke (Ex-1004) .................................................................... 12
`2.
`Jalan (Ex-1005) ........................................................................ 15
`3.
`Neiman (Ex-1006) ..................................................................... 16
`Standing ............................................................................................... 17
`C.
`D. Discretionary Analysis for Review ..................................................... 17
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................................. 19
`V.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 20
`A.
`“a procedure of [an/the] application” (Claims 1, 12, 18) .................... 20
`VI. Challenged Claims ......................................................................................... 20
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are
`Rendered Obvious by Verbeke ............................................................ 20
`1.
`Claims 1, 12, and 18 ................................................................. 21
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 48
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 51
`4.
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claims 7, 8, and 15 ................................................................... 55
`7.
`Claims 9 and 16 ......................................................................... 56
`8.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 58
`9.
`Grounds 2 and 3: Claims 5, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are Rendered
`Obvious by Verbeke and Jalan; and by Verbeke, Jalan, and
`Neiman ................................................................................................. 59
`1.
`Combination of Verbeke and Jalan (and Neiman) ................... 60
`2.
`Claims 5 and 14 ......................................................................... 64
`3.
`Claims 11, 17, 19, and 20 ......................................................... 69
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 75
`VIII. Mandatory Notices and Fees ......................................................................... 76
`CLAIM APPENDIX ................................................................................................ 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,656,419 to Medeiros, II (“the ’419 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`File History of the ’419 patent (Application No. 12/497,323)
`(’419 patent FH)
`
`Declaration of H.V. Jagadish, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0261069 to
`Verbeke (“Verbeke”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0172626 to Jalan
`et al. (“Jalan”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0031842 to
`Neiman et al. (“Neiman”)
`Excerpt of Tanenbaum, Distributed Systems: Principles and
`Paradigms, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007 (“Tanenbaum”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,098,091 to Kisor (“Kisor”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,112,243 to Downs et al. (“Downs”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0005181 to
`Fellenstein et al. (“Fellenstein”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,499,023 to Harris (“Harris”)
`D. Talia and P. Trunfio, “Toward a Synergy Between P2P and
`Grids” in IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 96-95,
`July-Aug. 2003 (“Talia”)
`A. E. El-Desoky, H. A. Ali and A. A. Azab, “A Pure Peer-To-
`Peer Desktop Grid Framework with Efficient Fault
`Tolerance” 2007 International Conference on Computer
`Engineering & Systems, 2007, pp. 346-352 (“El-Desoky”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,037 to Bacthavachalu et al.
`(“Bacthavachalu”)
`A. Fuggetta, G. P. Picco and G. Vigna, “Understanding Code
`Mobility” in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
`vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 342-361, May 1998 (“Fuggetta”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0160413 to
`Broussard et al. (“Broussard”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0271799 to
`1017
`Barsness et al. (“Barsness”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/026829 to
`Woodgeard (“Woodgeard”)
`Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures to
`Netflix, CA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80
`(E.D. Tex.).
`Plaintiffs’ Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2 Disclosures to Netflix, CA,
`Inc., et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex.).
`Excerpt of Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms – Barrons
`(“Barrons”)
`Excerpt of Computer and Internet Dictionary – Random House
`(“RandomHouse”)
`Excerpt of Dictionary of Computing – Bloomsbury
`(“Bloomsbury”)
`Excerpt of Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering
`Dictionary (“Wiley”)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson re El-Desoky
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson re Fuggetta
`
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson re Talia
`
`Writ of Mandamus In re Netflix, Inc., Docket No. 2022-110
`(Fed. Cir.)
`
`Claim construction order, CA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Order, SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`115 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2020)
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`Background
`The ’419 patent relates to distributed computing, where a client submits a
`
`computing job to a set of computers (e.g., a grid or framework), which places
`
`portions of the job (e.g., a task) on one or more computers of the set (e.g., a node)
`
`for execution, without client direction. Ex-1007, 2-4; Ex-1011, 1:15-40, 6:9-14;
`
`Ex-1006, ¶[0113]; Ex-1009, 4:10-23; Ex-1003, ¶¶3-5. A POSITA1 would have
`
`known the following characteristics of distributed systems by 2008-2009.2 Ex-
`
`1003, ¶¶13-14.
`
`Distributed Systems and Processing: Distributed systems include grid,
`
`cluster, and peer-to-peer systems where a scheduler—rather than the client—
`
`decides which tasks are sent to which nodes. See, e.g., Ex-1007, 17, 44; Ex-1012,
`
`1; Ex-1011, 4:56-5:2; Ex-1013, 2; Ex-1014, 3:57-4:44; Ex-1016, ¶[0044]; and Ex-
`
`1017, ¶¶[0024]-[0025], [0035]; Ex-1003, ¶6. To use distributed computing, a job
`
`is divided into tasks (sometimes themselves called “jobs”) to be distributed across
`
`different nodes, and processed individually. See, e.g., Ex-1007, 23; Ex-1018,
`
`
`1 A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`challenged claims. See §IV.
`
`2 “2008-2009” represents the time frame before the ’419 patent’s July 2, 2009
`
`filing date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`¶[0004]; Ex-1011, 7:45-8:56. Tasks may run on nodes in different programming
`
`languages and operating systems. Ex-1014, 6:41-45; Ex-1006, ¶¶[0049], [0087],
`
`[0089]; Ex-1003, ¶7.
`
`Transparency: Distributed computing “hide[s] the fact that its processes and
`
`resources are physically distributed across multiple computers.” Ex-1007, 4-5.
`
`Such a system “is said to be transparent.” Id. Transparency is implemented in
`
`ways so the user does not know which node(s) will process its job. See, e.g., Ex-
`
`1007, 23; Ex-1011, 5:27-6:4; Ex-1014, 6:23-52, 9:43-35; Ex-1003, ¶8.
`
`Dependent Processes and Tasks: Tasks are often dependent on one another.
`
`See, e.g., Ex-1006, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], [0039], [0041]; Ex-1014, 4:30-4:44, 6:23-
`
`6:52, 8:63-9:12; Ex-1003, ¶9.
`
`Knowledge Sharing: Distributed systems share data, instructions, code, and
`
`results among their nodes. See Ex-1007, 3-4, 103-104; Ex-1011, 1:15-40, Ex-
`
`1015, 1-2, 11-12, Table 2; Ex-1003, ¶10.
`
`Results: Distributed systems return task results to the user directly, or place
`
`the result(s) in storage for user access. See, e.g., Ex-1009, 4:10-23; Ex-1011, 5:2-
`
`14; Ex-1017, ¶¶[0006], [0034]; Ex-1018, ¶[0024]; Ex-1003, ¶11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`II. The ’419 Patent
`A. Overview
`Filed on July 2, 2009, the ’419 patent claims no other priority. Ex-1003,
`
`¶33. The ’419 patent “relates generally to distributed computing” (Ex-1001, 1:5-
`
`7) and states in its Summary of the Invention:
`
`According to one embodiment a first node of a network
`communicates with a second node of the network. The
`first node tells the second node to perform an operation
`and how to perform the operation using computer code.
`Additionally, the first node tells the second node what to
`do with the result of the operation.
`
`Ex-1001, 1:19-24. This, however, describes a one-to-one client/server
`
`arrangement well-known by 2008-2009, not a distributed system. The ’419 patent
`
`nevertheless purports to provide “technical advantages[,]” including: (i) “an
`
`operation may be called without knowing the node that will perform the
`
`operation”; and (ii) “nodes may share knowledge for performing an operation” to
`
`allow “an application to be distributed, with different nodes performing different
`
`operations of the application.” Ex-1001, 1:25-41. These “advantages,” however,
`
`were well-known aspects of distributed computing by 2008-2009. See §I; Ex-
`
`1003, ¶15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ’419 patent’s FIG 1 depicts its “dynamic distributed evaluator system
`
`10” as nodes 20 (depicted in
`
`FIG. 2) in network 12 with
`
`evaluators 46 that may send and
`
`receive instructions, locate and
`
`transmit code, and perform
`
`operations. Ex-1001, 2:1-12, 2:49-3:14; Ex-1003, ¶¶16, 18.
`
`FIG. 3 depicts the ’419 patent’s method. Ex-1001, 4:15-21. At 102, a node
`
`may be added. Id., 4:22-31. A first node may establish communication with a
`
`second node at 104 and, at “108, the first
`
`node may tell the second node to perform
`
`an operation.” Id., 4:32-37; Ex-1003,
`
`¶19. But the instructions may be sent
`
`without the first node “knowing the code
`
`that will be required, when the code will
`
`be needed, or the identity of the node that
`
`will perform the operation.” Ex-1001,
`
`4:37-40. In other words, the instructions at 108 (and 112, 116) are not directed to a
`
`particular node in advance of it performing the instructions, but are sent to the ’419
`
`patent’s grid of nodes 20a-20n, which will determine which node actually performs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`108’s instructions (and 112’s, 116’s) as the “second node.” Ex-1003, ¶20.3
`
`Instructions can be many different things. Ex-1001, 4:43-58; Ex-1003, ¶21.
`
`At 112, “[t]he first node may instruct the second node how to perform the
`
`operation using code” by providing it “or tell[ing] the second node how to obtain”
`
`it. Id., 4:59-5:23. Code may be removed from nodes post-execution. Id., 5:24-41.
`
`Different code may be used on different nodes. Id., 5:65-6:11; Ex-1003, ¶22.
`
`At “116, the first node may instruct the second node what to do with the
`
`result of the operation[,]” including “returning the result to the first node, sending
`
`the result to a third node, or using the result in another operation.” Ex-1001, 6:35-
`
`48; Ex-1003, ¶23.
`
`Prosecution History
`B.
`The ’419 patent’s application originally included independent claims 1, 11,
`
`and 16 corresponding (after substantive amendment) to challenged claims 1, 12,
`
`and 18, respectively. Ex-1002, 296-322; Ex-1003, ¶25. The language of, e.g.,
`
`original claim 1 (like the ’419 patent’s Summary of the Invention; see §II.A) reads
`
`
`3 See also Ex-1001, 2:34-48 (“The distributed nature of the application may be
`
`transparent to a node” requesting a job and instructions “may be sent without
`
`knowing the specific node 20 that has the resources to perform the operation or
`
`how to reach that node 20.”). Ex-1003, ¶17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`on one-to-one client/server processes. Thus, the pending claims were repeatedly
`
`rejected in view of prior art. Ex-1003, ¶26.
`
`Applicant eventually added new application claims 18, 20, and 22 specifying
`
`the telling/instructing steps involved a “plurality of nodes” (rather than just a
`
`“second node”) and that the first node “does not know which one of the plurality of
`
`nodes will perform the operation.” Ex-1002, 155-156; Ex-1003, ¶27. Applicant
`
`argued these claims were allowable because the applied references teach requests
`
`being sent directly to the server performing the operation, rather than to a plurality
`
`(or framework) of nodes. Ex-1002, 161-162; Ex-1003, ¶28.
`
`The Examiner found these claims allowable if rewritten in independent
`
`form. Ex-1002, 118; Ex-1003, ¶29. Applicant did so and, after subsequent
`
`Examiner amendments regarding inconsistent language, the Application was
`
`allowed. Ex-1002, 37-54, 83-89; Ex-1003, ¶¶30-31.
`
`However, this allowance was erroneous. The features added to gain
`
`allowance—(i) distribution transparency of nodes to a requesting node; and (ii)
`
`instructing a framework of nodes to perform operations using code and returning
`
`results—were well-known distributed system concepts by 2008-2009. See §I; Ex-
`
`1003, ¶¶24, 32.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`Statutory Grounds
`A.
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancelation of the challenged
`
`claims on the following grounds:
`
`Grounds
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Claims
`1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15,
`16, 18
`
`5, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20
`
`5, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Prior Art
`Verbeke
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Verbeke and Jalan
`
`Verbeke, Jalan, and Neiman
`
`
`
`The Grounds render the challenged claims obvious because any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`
`a POSITA to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`
`B. Relied-Upon Prior Art4
`Verbeke (Ex-1004)
`1.
`Verbeke is prior art under pre-AIA §102(b) because it published over one
`
`year before the ’419 patent’s priority date. Ex-1003, ¶¶38-39. Verbeke is
`
`analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’419 patent and is
`
`4 Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 applies. MPEP §2159.02.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`reasonably pertinent to running applications across multiple nodes in distributed
`
`computing systems. Ex-1004, ¶[0016]. In Verbeke, the application is divided into
`
`code fragments/tasks and distributed across a plurality of worker nodes. Id.,
`
`¶¶[0066]-[0069], FIGS. 5, 6:
`
`
`
`Ex-1003, ¶¶40-41.
`
`Verbeke teaches5 a job submitter (e.g., node 1206) sends a message to a node
`
`framework (including, e.g., peer group 1200 with worker nodes 1202a-1202h, task
`
`dispatcher peer group with task dispatcher nodes, and repository peer group with
`
`repository nodes) identifying a job to be performed, the code to be used, and how
`
`
`5 “Teaches” represents the broader concept of “teaches or suggests.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`results are to be returned, where job management on the framework is by a task
`
`dispatcher node(s) (e.g., FIG. 5’s task dispatcher 1106 or FIG. 6’s node(s) in task
`
`dispatcher peer group). Ex-1004, ¶¶[0066]-[0076], [0079]-[0082], [0093], [0096];
`
`Ex-1003, ¶42.
`
`To run a job, Verbeke teaches its task dispatcher node(s) polls code
`
`repository node(s) (e.g., via repository manager 1108) to determine if the requested
`
`code is stored therein, and obtains it from job submitter node 1206 if necessary.
`
`Ex-1004, ¶¶[0074]-[0075], [0096]. Repository manager 1108 then creates a job
`
`repository for the requested job (e.g., job repositories 1102a-1102c) on repository
`
`nodes. Id. Tasks may then be received from the job submitter and stored in the
`
`related job repositories (e.g., tasks 1104a-1104c). Ex-1004, ¶¶[0074]-[0075],
`
`[0096]; Ex-1003, ¶43.
`
`The task dispatcher node(s) may then distribute tasks and code to worker
`
`nodes. Ex-1004, ¶¶[0076], [0096]. The worker nodes then execute the tasks and
`
`send them back with results to the task dispatcher node(s), which may then store
`
`the results in the relevant job repository in conjunction with the repository
`
`manager. Ex-1004, ¶¶[0079], [0096]. The results are then sent back to the job
`
`submitter on its instructions. Ex-1004, ¶[0082]; Ex-1003, ¶44.
`
`Thus, Verbeke teaches a job submitter communicating with a framework of
`
`nodes (including worker, task dispatcher, and repository nodes), and telling the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`nodes to perform an operation (e.g., a task) using code (e.g., the code) and what to
`
`do with a result (e.g., return to the job submitter). Moreover, because the task
`
`dispatcher nodes, and not the job submitter node, distribute the tasks to the worker
`
`nodes, the job submitter node does not know which worker nodes will perform the
`
`tasks. Ex-1004, ¶[0071]; Ex-1003, ¶45.
`
`Jalan (Ex-1005)
`2.
`Jalan is prior art under pre-AIA §102(b) because it published over one year
`
`before the ’419 patent’s priority date. Ex-1003, ¶¶46-47. Jalan is analogous art
`
`because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’419 patent and is reasonably
`
`pertinent to running applications across multiple nodes in distributed computing
`
`systems. Ex-1003, ¶48. Jalan teaches job distribution techniques where tasks are
`
`further distributed from one node to another. Jalan teaches using parallel
`
`procedural calls from a master process on a master node that execute as slave
`
`processes on slave nodes. See Ex-1005, ¶¶[0098]-[0099], FIGS. 1-2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Ex-1003, ¶¶49-51.
`Neiman (Ex-1006)
`3.
`Neiman is prior art under pre-AIA §102(b) because it published over one
`
`year before the ’419 patent’s priority date. Ex-1003, ¶¶52-53. Neiman is
`
`analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’419 patent and is
`
`reasonably pertinent to running applications across multiple nodes in distributed
`
`computing systems. Ex-1003, ¶54. Neiman teaches dividing a parent job into
`
`descendant jobs processed on different nodes of a distributed system according to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“meta-information” in the job. See Ex-1006, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], [0116]-[0120], FIG.
`
`9. Descendant job results are returned to the parent job, which then uses them to
`
`create a final result for the calling application. Ex-1006, ¶[0119]; Ex-1003, ¶55.
`
`Standing
`C.
`Petitioner certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting this inter
`
`partes review and the ’419 patent is eligible for such review.
`
`D. Discretionary Analysis for Review
`The Fintiv factors weigh in favor of institution. Petitioner filed a mandamus
`
`request with the Federal Circuit to dismiss or transfer the Texas district court case
`
`to California. See Ex-1028. The mandamus request has strong support in Federal
`
`Circuit precedents. See, e.g., Ex-1028 at 000014. The California district court
`
`case pending between the parties is in its infancy. No scheduling conference or
`
`other events have yet occurred. Thus, if the Texas case is transferred, Fintiv
`
`factors two (trial date), three (investment in proceedings), and four (overlap of
`
`issues) all weigh in favor of institution.
`
`No motion to stay pending IPR has been filed in either case. Factor one is
`
`against denial given that Judges Gilstrap and Payne have a record of staying cases
`
`based on IPR institutions even in light of impending trial dates. Ex-1030 (Order,
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:19-CV-00115-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22,
`
`2020) (Gilstrap, J.) at 000001-02 (staying case six weeks before jury selection)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Even if the Texas case is not transferred, Factor four is against denial. If
`
`institution is granted, Petitioner will not assert in district court grounds that were
`
`raised or reasonably could have been raised here. See Sand Revolution II, LLC v.
`
`Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11-12 (PTAB
`
`June 16, 2020). Furthermore, claims 2, 7, 8, and 15 are only challenged in this
`
`IPR.
`
`Only Fintiv factor five weighs slightly against institution. While Petitioner
`
`and PO are the same parties as in the parallel district court cases, it is “far from an
`
`unusual circumstance” that this is so. Sand Revolution, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24
`
`(granting institution where the parties are the same as in a parallel district court
`
`case) (informative).
`
`Finally, this Petition is strong on the merits, showing the claims are rendered
`
`obvious. It was filed to address claims first identified six months ago (on July 1,
`
`2021) when PO served its Infringement Contentions. Ex-1019; Ex-1020; Tianma
`
`Microelectronics Co. Ltd. v. Japan Display Inc., IPR2021-01057, Paper 15 at 11
`
`(PTAB Jan. 6, 2022). This Petition is part of a larger dispute between Petitioner
`
`and Broadcom Corp. and its subsidiaries (including PO). Across the proceedings,
`
`17 patents with hundreds of claims have been asserted against Petitioner, and
`
`Petitioner has expeditiously filed IPR petitions, including sixteen petitions before
`
`this one (of which seven have been instituted to date), weighing against denial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Apple Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00506, Paper 11 at 16 (PTAB Sept.
`
`1, 2020). The large number of patents and complex issues in dispute between the
`
`parties make the PTAB the optimal venue for “in depth” analyses and thorough
`
`resolution of the dispute. Apple Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00157,
`
`Paper 10 at 22 (PTAB Jun. 15, 2020). Thus, Fintiv factor six (other circumstances)
`
`weighs in favor of institution.
`
`Considering the Fintiv factors overall, institution would best serve the
`
`system’s efficiency and integrity.
`
`Denial of institution under §325(d) would not be appropriate because this
`
`Petition relies on grounds and arguments not previously presented to the Office.
`
`The relied-upon art was not considered during prosecution. Ex-1003, ¶37. This is
`
`the only IPR filed against the challenged claims to date.
`
`Finally, the General Plastic factors do not weigh against institution.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`The ’419 patent’s field is distributed computing. Ex-1003, ¶56. A POSITA
`
`for the ’419 patent would have been a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, or a similar field, with at least two years of experience in the design of
`
`distributed computing systems or a person with a master’s degree in computer
`
`science, or a similar field, with a specialization in such systems. A person with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.
`
`Ex-1003, ¶¶57-59.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`“a procedure of [an/the] application” (Claims 1, 12, 18)
`A.
`A POSITA would have understood “a procedure of [an/the] application” as
`
`“a subpart of [an/the] application.” Ex-1003, ¶67. The intrinsic record confirms
`
`this. Ex-1003, ¶¶62-63. A POSITA would have understood the claim language as
`
`specifying a “procedure” as part of an “application” and the specification as
`
`describing a “procedure” as some functional subpart of an application (see Ex-
`
`1001, 2:63-3:14, stating “[o]perations may be any specific actions, tasks,
`
`procedures, and/or functions of the application”). Ex-1003, ¶¶64-65. A POSITA
`
`would have understood “procedure,” “action,” “task,” and “function” to be of
`
`similar scope and interchangeable in the ’419 patent. Id. Contemporaneous
`
`dictionary definitions confirm this understanding. Ex-1021, 380; Ex-1022, 448,
`
`484; Ex-1023, 265; Ex-1024, 605, 755; Ex-1003, ¶66.
`
`VI. Challenged Claims
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are Rendered
`Obvious by Verbeke
`The claims challenged in Ground 1 are rendered obvious by Verbeke. Ex-
`
`1003, ¶70.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 12, and 18
`
`1[p]. An apparatus, comprising
`12[p]. A method, comprising:
`18[p]. An apparatus, comprising
`
`Should these preambles be considered limitations, Verbeke renders them
`
`obvious because Verbeke teaches an apparatus and method (e.g., a distributed
`
`computing system and method of utilization) throughout. See, e.g., Ex-1004,
`
`passim. For example, Verbeke teaches a “system and method for submitting
`
`computational tasks in a distributed heterogeneous networked environment[.]” Ex-
`
`1004, ¶¶[0067], [0069]; Ex-1003, ¶¶72-74.
`
`1[a]
`
`a first node of a network, the first node comprising: an interface
`operable to: communicate with a second node of the network; and one
`or more processors operable to:
`establishing communication with a plurality of nodes of a network;
`12[a]
`18[a] a first node of a network, the first node comprising: an interface
`operable to: communicate with a second node of the network and a
`third node of the network; and one or more processors operable to:
`
`Verbeke renders obvious 1[a] and 18[a] because it teaches its apparatus (see
`
`1[p], 18[p]) includes a first node of a network (e.g., job submitter 1206), the first
`
`node comprising: an interface (e.g., nodes with wired/wireless network interfaces)
`
`operable to: communicate with a second node of the network and a third node of
`
`the network (e.g., job submitter node 1206 communicates with one or more nodes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`in its framework over a network); and one or more processors (e.g., nodes include
`
`processors) operable to perform system functions (see elements [b]-[e]). Ex-1003,
`
`¶¶76, 78.
`
`Verbeke renders obvious 12[a] because it teaches its method (see 12[p])
`
`includes establishing communication with a plurality of nodes of a network (e.g.,
`
`job submitter 1206 communicates with one or more nodes in its framework over a
`
`network). Ex-1003, ¶77.
`
`The features recited in 1[a], 12[a], and 18[a] (and elements [b]-[e] of each)
`
`are taught by Verbeke’s FIG. 6 and its description. Annotated FIG. 6 depicts a first
`
`node of a network in communication (see arrows) with a plurality of nodes of
`
`Verbeke’s framework, including a
`
`node or nodes of task dispatcher
`
`peer group and a node or nodes of
`
`peer group 1200 including worker
`
`nodes 1202a-1202h. Ex-1004,
`
`¶¶[0043]-[0044], [0067], [0069],
`
`[0071]-[0076], [0081]-[0084],
`
`[0093], [0108]-[0109], [0112],
`
`[0114]. Verbeke also teaches other
`
`nodes in its framework, including repository and monitor nodes that may be in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`communication with job submitter 1206 and the other nodes, described below. Ex-
`
`1004, ¶¶[0044], [0067], [0069]. Verbeke further teaches its network nodes,
`
`including job submitter node 1206, include processors and network interfaces. Ex-
`
`1004, ¶¶[0004], [0016], [0066]-[0068], [0071], [0109]; Ex-1003, ¶79.
`
`Verbeke also teaches the features of 1[a], 12[a], and 18[a] as follows. Ex-
`
`1003, ¶80.
`
`“A First Node of a Network”: Verbeke further renders this obvious.
`
`Verbeke teaches its apparatus (see 1[p]) is a networked peer node framework (Ex-
`
`1004, ¶¶[0069], [0083]-[0084]) including workers, monitors, task dispatchers, and
`
`repositories (¶[0071])6 and a job-submitting node (¶[0108], teaching “tasks may
`
`preferably be submitted to the cluster or group for execution from any peer node”),
`
`¶[0117], FIGS. 19A-E). Ex-1003, ¶¶81-83. A POSITA would have understood
`
`Verbeke’s job-submitting node (e.g., job submitter 1206) is a “first node of a
`
`network” because it is the node that submits a job to Verbeke’s distributed
`
`framework of peer nodes for execution (e.g., by worker nodes 1202a-1202h as
`
`described below). Ex-1003, ¶84.
`
`“The First Node Comprising: An Interface Operable To: Communicate
`
`With A Second Node Of The Network” / “Establishing Communication With A
`
`
`6 Or multipurpose nodes belonging to several peer groups (¶[0072]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Plurality Of Nodes Of A Network” / “The First Node Comprising: An Interface
`
`Operable To: Communicate With A Second Node Of The Network And A Third
`
`Node Of The Network”: Verbeke further renders these obvious because it teaches
`
`its first node (e.g., job submitting node 1206) communicates over a network with a
`
`plurality of nodes of Verbeke’s framework including a node(s) of task dispatcher
`
`peer group, a node(s) of peer group 1200 including worker nodes 1202a-1202h,
`
`and a repository node(s), and that its nodes utilize “wired or wireless network
`
`interfaces.” See, e.g., Ex-1004, ¶¶[0044], [0067], [0069], FIGS. 6, 8; Ex-1003,
`
`¶85.
`
`Verbeke teaches the nodes of its framework communicate with each other.
`
`See, e.g., Ex-1004, ¶[0043] (“peer nodes … communicate with each other, and
`
`cooperate with each other to form peer groups”), ¶¶[0069], [0081] (“peers 1202 a-
`
`1202h … may exchange messages with each other” and “job submitter 1206 may
`
`want to submit a job to the work group”). Ex-1003, ¶86. For example, in the
`
`context of annotated FIG. 6, Verbeke teaches its
`
`first node (e.g., job submitter 1206)
`
`communicates with a plurality of nodes of
`
`Verbeke’s framework, including a node or nodes
`
`of task dispatcher peer group and a node or
`
`nodes of peer group 1200 including worker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00322
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`nodes 1202a-1202h. Further examples of specific communications between a first
`
`node (e.g., job submitter 1206) and a plurality of other nodes (e.g., workers 1202a-
`
`1202h, or task dispatcher or repository nodes) taught by Verbeke are discussed in
`
`elements [b]-[e]. For example, job submitter 1206 sends code and tasks to a
`
`node(s) of task dispatcher peer group, which passes the code and tasks along to
`
`workers 1202a-1202h (and a repository node(s)), and results from workers 1202a-
`
`1202h are returned to job submitter 1206 via a node(s) of task dispatcher peer
`
`group (and a repository node(s)). Thus, there is two-way communication between
`
`job submitter 1206 and nodes of Verbeke’s framework. See, e.g., Ex-1004,
`
`¶¶[0071], [0074]-[0076], [0081]-[0082],