- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 31, 2026 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 were not shown unpatentable because Dziong and Sathyanath do not teach the claimed sharing definition for existing connections with allocated bandwidth.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“First, the claims use present-tense language, “one or more other connections, which have respective bandwidths and which are permitted to share a bandwidth allocation with the new connection.”3 Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphasis added). The exclusive use of the present tense have indicates “other connections” must have current possession of the bandwidth. For these other connections to share bandwidth with a newly established connection, they must already exist and have bandwidth ready for immediate use, rather than merely holding a dormant “reservation” pending a network failure. See PO Supp. Br. 1. The Federal Circuit addressed a similar situation where the Court found the present-tense limitation “is connected to the computer network” means a device was required to be connected at the” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combination, do not teach or suggest limitations 1.2 and 1.3 requiring: providing a sharing definition specifying one or more other connections, which have respective bandwidths and which are permitted to share a bandwidth allocation with the new connection, such that a total bandwidth allocated jointly to the new connection and to the other connections in any given segment is equal to a maximum of the requested bandwidth and of the bandwidths of the other connections in the given segment Ex. 1001, limitations 1.2, 1.3 (emphasis added); see PO Resp. 17–22; Sur-reply 4–5, 12–14. As discussed above in Section II.C.2, we interpret “other connections” to mean “existing connections in the network that already have bandwidth allocated to them.” Because the information shared in Dziong and Sathyanath, described below, relates to reserved protection paths, rather than existing connections that have bandwidth that can currently transmit network traffic, the references do not teach or suggest the “other connections” part of the sharing definition in limitations 1.2 and 1.3. Dziong describes advertising, across the network, the amount of bandwidth reserved for recovery on each link that would be activated when a protected link fails. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 60; Pet. 36. Once activated, network traffic from a “primary path” failure is rerouted to these recovery paths. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7–9, 70, 83. Petitioner points to this advertising of the reserved bandwidth information as teaching the claimed “sharing definition.” Pet. 33–36 (arguing that the “protection paths [in Dziong] have bandwidth reservations” and “share an overall protection bandwidth reservation”); Reply 21–23. However, since the advertised information only contains information about the recovery paths “that would be activated” upon a primary path failure, such paths are not existing connections that already have bandwidth allocated to them, and therefore do not teach the claimed “other connections” that are part of the sharing definition. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 60.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,596,088 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,596,088 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00954 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–25 because Mitchell did not teach or render obvious the required failure propagation to each node and deactivation causing loss of connectivity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“the parties’ arguments, we understand Mitchell to teach the propagation of failure information from the location of the failure to the network’s edge or endpoints and that this propagation excludes nodes between the detected failure and the network’s core. Therefore, the question before us is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have learned of the recited propagation and receipt to and from “each node of the other nodes of the plurality of network nodes traversed by the first set of links”8 from Mitchell’s downstream propagation of failure information. We are not persuaded that Petitioner’s showing is sufficient. Petitioner relies upon a circumstance where the failure occurs far upstream and uses that case to assert that Mitchell teaches the recited propagation and receipt. Claims 1 and 16, however, respectively recite the propagation to “each node” and “all nodes.” Mitchell, in contrast, does not teach propagation to each node, but rather it teaches continuing down the path to message only the remaining nodes in the path between the failure and the endpoints. It specifically and explicitly sets out to maintain connectivity with all nodes upstream of the failure. This is materially different from the claims of the ’637 patent, and Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to extend Mitchell’s downstream-only propagation to instead” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“and 16. See Prelim. Resp. 7–10. For example, claim 1 additionally recites, in relevant part, “deactivating a physical layer of the first set of links connected thereto, thereby causing a loss of connectivity in the first set of links.” Ex. 1001, 11:37–39 (limitation [1h]). Claim 16 similarly recites, in relevant part, “to deactivate the physical layer resources of each node to links in the first set of links connected to that node upon receiving the second message, to cause a loss of connectivity in the first set of links.” Id. at 12:54–58 (limitation [16g]). Thus, claims 1 and 16 both require deactivating the physical layer of nodes in order to cause a loss of connectivity in the first set of links. Petitioner asserts that Mitchell teaches that “the physical layer of the links connected downstream of these network elements are deactivated, which causes a loss of connectivity in the ‘group of links.’” Pet. 26 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 36 (making same argument for claim 16). We are not persuaded that downstream deactivation teaches the deactivation of “each node” nor does it teach the “loss of connectivity in the first set of links.” This is true because Mitchell teaches the preservation of connectivity in upstream links. Petitioner does not argue that one of ordinary skill would have understood Mitchell to teach deactivation of the set of links, but rather Petitioner argues that there could be a circumstance where Mitchell may be unable to preserve connectivity because the failure happened at the most upstream location. This is not sufficient to teach a system that deactivates all nodes in the set of links in order to cause a loss of connectivity in the set of links because Mitchell sets out to maintain some degree of connectivity. We agree with Patent Owner that the disclosures of Mitchell would not have taught one of ordinary skill in the art the recited propagation and receipt of failure information to and by each of the nodes in the network nor would it have taught the recited deactivation to cause a loss of connectivity in the set of links. As such, Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that Mitchell would have rendered independent claims 1 or 16 obvious. As to dependent claims 2–15 and 17–25, Petitioner makes no further allegations that would remedy the deficiency discussed above in regards to the independent claims. As such, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any of claims 1–25 would have been obvious over the asserted art.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,199,637
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.