WSOU Investments, LLC D/B/A Brazos Licensing and Development

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2021

IPR2021-00961 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571-272-7822 Date: December 6, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
d/b/a BRAZOS LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2
_______________

Before THU A. DANG, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Summary
Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 (“the challenged claims”)
of U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’014 patent”). WSOU
Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Patent
Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the
Petition. With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 7) to the
Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply1 (Paper 9) to the
Reply.
An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information
presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We
determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’014
patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is
instituted.
B. Real Parties in Interest
The parties identify themselves as the only real parties in interest.
Pet. 62; Paper 3, 1.

1 We authorized Patent Owner to file a corrected Sur-reply (Paper 9) to
replace its original Sur-reply (Paper 8).
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

3
C. Related Matters
The parties indicate that the ’014 patent is the subject of the following
district court case: WSOU Investments, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
No. 6:21-cv-00128 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 62; Paper 3, 2.
D. The ’014 Patent
The ’014 patent relates to “communication networks and, more
specifically but not exclusively, to connections in communication
networks.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–7. The ’014 patent states that “[n]etworking
connections are currently identified by Internet Protocol (IP) address and
port number.” Id. at 1:11–12. According to the ’014 patent, “[w]ith the
advent of mobility, and now cloud-based computing, the IP address of a host
of a networking connection may change.” Id. at 1:12–14. As a result, “in
order to maintain the networking connection and hide the change from the
application, either the IP address is forced to remain the same while
rerouting packets or the networking connection is closed and a new
networking connection is opened.” Id. at 1:14–19.
To address this alleged deficiency, the ’014 patent describes a
“service-based networking capability” that “replaces traditional networking
connections between endpoints with service connections between
endpoints.” Id. at 2:23–26. “The service connection between endpoints may
be provided above the transport layer and below the application layer.” Id.
at 2:29–31. “In general, use of a service connection between endpoints may
provide various advantages over use of traditional transport layer
connections between endpoints, such as obviating the need for applications
or services to have knowledge of the underlying communication network
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

4
[and] . . . handling IP address changes . . . in a manner transparent to the
application or service client.” Id. at 2:37–67.
E. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 18, and 19 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory communicatively connected to
the processor, the processor configured to run a connected
services stack, the connected services stack comprising a
connected services layer configured to operate below an
application layer and above a transport layer, wherein the
connected services layer is configured to support establishment
of a service connection between the connected services layer
and a remote connected services layer of a remote endpoint,
wherein the connected services layer is configured to support
establishment of the service connection based on a service
name of the connected services layer, a service name of the
remote connected services layer, and a service connection
identifier for the service connection, wherein the connected
services layer is configured to:
send, toward a server, a service connection request
message comprising the service name of the connected services
layer and the service name of the remote connected services
layer of the remote endpoint; and
receive, from the server, a service connection response
message comprising the service name of the remote connected
services layer of the remote endpoint, an Internet Protocol (IP)
address of the remote endpoint, and the service connection
identifier for the service connection.
Ex. 1001, 14:28–53.
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

5
F. Evidence
Petitioner submits the following evidence:
Evidence Exhibit No.
Declaration of Nader F. Mir, Ph.D. (“Mir Declaration”) 1003
Traversat, US 8,359,397 B2, issued Jan. 22, 2013
(“Traversat”) 1005
Guo, US 2005/0015427 A1, published Jan. 20, 2005 (“Guo”) 1006
G. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
following grounds:
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–11, 18, 19 103 Traversat
12–17 103 Traversat, Guo
II. ANALYSIS
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
equivalent training, and approximately two years of professional experience
in the field of communication networks,” as well as “a working knowledge
of the communication network art that is pertinent to the ’014 patent.” Pet. 8
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill
in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Nader
Mir. Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not propose a description of the
level of ordinary skill in the art or dispute Petitioner’s description. Prelim.
Resp. 12. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.
B. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent is construed
using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b),
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

6
including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and
customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim
terms. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 13. Nonetheless, we determine that it is
necessary to address the claim limitations below for purposes of this
Decision.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite “wherein the connected services layer is
configured to support establishment of the service connection based on a
service name of the connected services layer, a service name of the remote
connected services layer, and a service connection identifier for the service
connection.” Ex. 1001, 14:37–42, 16:38–43, 16:65–17:3 (emphasis added).
Claims 1, 18, and 19 also recite “wherein the connected services layer is
configured to: send, toward a server, a service connection request message
comprising the service name of the connected services layer and the service
name of the remote connected services layer of the remote endpoint.” Id. at
14:42–47, 16:43–48, 17:3–8 (emphasis added). Because the former
limitation refers to “a service name” and the latter limitation refers to “the
service name,” those limitations together require a service connection
request message that includes the same “service name of the remote
connected services layer” that is used to establish the service connection. Id.
at 14:37–47, 16:38–48, 16:65–17:8 (emphasis added); see Tech. Consumer
Prods., Inc. v. Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., 955 F.3d 16, 22 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“No other heat sink is specified in the claim. Consequently, ‘the heat sink’
that is used in the calculation of the height-to-diameter ratio is the same heat
sink that is annularly coupled to the heat spreader.”).
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

7
C. Obviousness of Claims 1–11, 18, and 19 over Traversat
Petitioner argues that claims 1–11, 18, and 19 would have been
obvious over Traversat. Pet. 10–40. For the reasons discussed below,
Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
showing that claims 1–11, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over
Traversat.
1. Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “wherein the connected services layer is configured to
support establishment of the service connection based on a service name of
the connected services layer, a service name of the remote connected
services layer, and a service connection identifier for the service
connection.” Ex. 1001, 14:37–42 (emphasis added). Claim 1 also recites
“wherein the connected services layer is configured to: send, toward a
server, a service connection request message comprising the service name of
the connected services layer and the service name of the remote connected
services layer of the remote endpoint.” Id. at 14:42–47 (emphasis added).
With respect to the claimed “service name of the remote connected
services layer,” Petitioner argues that Traversat teaches “a peer-to-peer
platform” where the “peers are identified by a ‘unique identifier (UUID)’ (a
peer identifier) or by a ‘unique string as a name.’” Pet. 12, 17 (citing
Ex. 1005, code (57), 17:14–15, 17:21–22, 19:59–61, 35:50–54) (emphasis
added). Petitioner contends that based on the description of a service name
in the ’014 patent, “either of” Traversat’s peer identifier or its peer name “is
the claimed service name.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:22–26; Ex. 1003
¶ 86) (emphasis omitted).
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

8
With respect to the claimed “establishment of the service connection,”
Petitioner argues that Traversat teaches establishing a pipe between an
originating peer and an endpoint peer. Pet. 15, 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 9:39–48,
20:10–15, 38:13–15). Petitioner contends that “[t]he pipe identifier of the
pipe (service connection identifier for the service connection) and the peer
identifiers of the originating peer (service name of the connected services
layer) and the endpoint peer (service name of the remote connected services
layer) are thus used to establish the pipe between the core layer 120 of each
peer.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–91; Ex. 1005, 20:10–15, 20:22–
35). Thus, Petitioner relies on the peer identifier of the endpoint peer as
being the service name of the remote connected services layer used to
establish the service connection. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90.
With respect to the claimed “service connection request message,”
Petitioner argues that Traversat teaches a discovery query message. Pet. 19–
20 (citing Ex. 1005, 16:59–66, Fig. 15). Petitioner contends that “[t]he
discovery query message requests the discovery of a specific endpoint peer
and identifies it by name (service name of the remote connected services
layer of the remote endpoint).” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96; Ex. 1005,
52:12–22, 52:33–35). Thus, Petitioner relies on the peer name of the
endpoint peer as being the service name of the remote connected services
layer that is included in the service connection request message. Id.;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 96.
Patent Owner responds that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that
Traversat teaches a service connection request message comprising the
service name of the remote connected services layer. Prelim. Resp. 17–18.
Patent Owner contends that Traversat teaches that “using the peer discovery
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

9
protocol, a requesting peer, after receiving any and all reachable
advertisements, may look for, and find a specific ‘named peer’ within those
returned advertisements.” Id. at 18. But, according to Patent Owner,
Traversat “does not require or guarantee that ‘the service name of the remote
connected services layer of the remote endpoint’ is included in Traversat’s
discovery query message.” Id. at 17–18.
We agree that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Traversat’s
discovery query message includes the service name of the remote connected
services layer, but for a different reason than the one articulated by Patent
Owner. As discussed above, claim 1 requires a service connection request
message that includes the same “service name of the remote connected
services layer” that is used to establish the service connection. See Section
II.B. On this record, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Traversat’s
discovery query message includes the same service name of the remote
connected services layer that is used to establish the service connection.
As discussed above, Petitioner argues that Traversat teaches a
discovery query message that includes the peer name of the endpoint peer.
Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 96. On the other hand, Petitioner argues that Traversat
teaches establishing a service connection based on the peer identifier of the
endpoint peer. Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 90. Petitioner, though, does not
identify evidence indicating that the peer name and the peer identifier of the
endpoint peer are the same.2 See Pet. 17–22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–100.

2 Petitioner appears to acknowledge that Traversat’s peer name and peer
identifier are different. Pet. 17 (“[P]eers are identified by a ‘unique
identifier (UUID)’ (a peer identifier) or by a ‘unique string as a name. . . . A
peer UUID or unique name is contained in a peer advertisement.”)
(emphasis added).
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

10
In fact, the portions of Traversat cited by Petitioner indicate that the
peer name is different than the peer identifier. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005,
17:14–15, 17:21–22, 19:59–61, 35:50–54), 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:50–
36:15). Specifically, Traversat teaches that “[a] peer advertisement may . . .
hold specific information about the peer, such as its name, peer identifier,
registered services and available endpoints.” Ex. 1005, 35:50–54 (emphasis
added). And Traversat provides the following “example of one embodiment
of a peer advertisement” in Extensible Markup Language. Id. at 35:56–58.

Id. at 35:54–36:15 (emphasis added). The above example shows that the
peer advertisement includes separate fields for the peer name and the peer
identifier. Id. Further, the portions of Traversat cited by Petitioner
consistently describe the peer name and the peer identifier separately.
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

11
Compare id. at 17:14–15 (“unique identifier (UUID)”), 19:52–55 (“peer
group universal unique identifier (UUID)”), 36:26 (“Peer identifier”), with
id. at 17:21–22 (“name”), 19:52–55 (“name”), 36:19–22 (“Name”).
Thus, on this record, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that the
peer name and the peer identifier of Traversat’s endpoint peer are the same.
And, as a result, Petitioner also does not show sufficiently that Traversat
teaches a service connection request message that includes the same service
name of the remote connected services layer that is used to establish the
service connection. For that reason, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been
obvious over Traversat.
2. Independent Claims 18 and 19
Claims 18 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed above
for claim 1. Ex. 1001, 16:38–48, 16:65–17:8. Petitioner asserts that claims
18 and 19 would have been obvious over Traversat based on the same
arguments and evidence discussed above for claim 1. Pet. 40. Thus, for the
same reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 18 and 19 would have been
obvious over Traversat.
3. Dependent Claims 2–11
Claims 2–11 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Petitioner’s
arguments and evidence regarding these dependent claims do not
compensate for the deficiencies discussed above for claim 1. See Pet. 24–
40. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 2–
11 would have been obvious over Traversat.
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

12
4. Summary
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–11, 18, and 19
would have been obvious over Traversat.
D. Other Asserted Grounds
Petitioner argues that claims 12–17 would have been obvious over
Traversat and Guo. Pet. 40–56. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
regarding this asserted ground do not compensate for the deficiencies
discussed above for the asserted ground based on Traversat alone. See id.
Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, Petitioner does not demonstrate
a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted ground.
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’014 patent is
unpatentable.
IV. ORDER
It is hereby
ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.
IPR2021-00961
Patent 9,357,014 B2

13
PETITIONER:

Theodore M. Foster
David L. McCombs
Eugene Goryunov
Gregory P. Huh
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
eugene.goryunov.ipr@haynesboone.com
gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com

PATENT OWNER:

Ryan Loveless
Jeffrey A. Stephens
Brett Mangrum
James Etheridge
Brian Koide
Jeffrey Huang
ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
ryan@etheridgelaw.com
jstephens@etheridgelaw.com
brett@etheridgelaw.com
ipteam@etheridgelaw.com
brian@etheridgelaw.com
jeff@etheridgelaw.com