throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 11
`
`
` Entered: January 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SERVICENOW, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BMC SOFTWARE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BRIAN P. MURPHY, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Petitioner ServiceNow, Inc. (“ServiceNow”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”)
`(Paper 1) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 5, 10–13, and 16 of
`Patent 8,646,093 B2 (“the ’093 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. Patent Owner BMC Software, Inc. (“BMC”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) (Paper 10) to the Petition. We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter
`
`partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” For the
`reasons that follow, we have decided not to institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties identify the following proceeding related to the ’093
`
`patent (Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1): BMC Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc., Case No.
`
`2:14‐CV‐00903 JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2014). The ’093 patent is also the
`
`subject of a petition for covered business method review in CBM2015-
`00170.
`
`
`
`The ’093 Patent
`B.
`The ’093 patent is directed to a software license system that “allows
`
`an enterprise to model software license contracts and evaluate deployment of
`software for compliance with the software license contracts.” Ex. 1001,
`Abstract. Figure 2 of the ’093 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts system 200 having Configuration Management Database
`(CMDB) 260, which “contains data about managed resources known as
`Configuration Items (CIs).” Id. at 1:29–30. Information about the software
`contracts, which may include the information listed in Table 1 of the
`specification, may be stored as CIs in CMDB 260. Id. at 5:1–2, 9–55 (Table
`1).
`License datastore 270, which may be separate from or a part of
`
`CMDB 260, provides storage for license certificates “to model software
`contracts, including rules against which the CIs are evaluated for software
`license compliance and other information necessary for processing those
`rules.” Id. at 4:11–17, 9:37–40. “A license certificate indicates the right to
`deploy software in the environment managed by the CMDB server 110,” and
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`an exemplary license certificate may include the information listed in Table
`3 of the specification. Id. at 8:61–63, 9:1–20 (Table 3).
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 1 of the ’093 patent recites:
`1.
`A computer-implemented method, comprising:
`modeling deployment of a software product and a
`software license contract for the software product;
`storing a first model of the modeled deployment of the
`software product in a configuration management database
`(CMDB) by storing information related to the software product
`as a first configuration item in the CMDB and by storing
`information related to the software license contract as a second
`configuration item in the CMDB;
`storing a second model of the modeled software license
`contract for the software product in a license database by
`generating a license certificate corresponding to the software
`license contract and storing the license certificate in the license
`database; and
`evaluating the deployment of the software product for
`compliance with the software license contract, comprising:
`connecting and comparing the first model and the
`second model by comparing the first configuration item
`with the license certificate and connecting the license
`certificate with the second configuration item responsive
`to comparing the first configuration item with the license
`certificate; and
`generating an exception indication if the act of
`comparing the first model and the second model indicates
`non-compliance with the software license contract.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`D.
`The Prior Art
`ServiceNow relies on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,810,389 B1 to Meyer, filed Nov. 8,
`2000, issued Oct. 26, 2004 (Ex. 1003, “Meyer”);
`Excerpts from United Kingdom Office of Government
`Commerce, BEST
`PRACTICE
`SOFTWARE ASSET
`FOR
`MANAGEMENT, IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) (2003) (Ex.
`1004, “Best Practice”);
`Excerpts from Rob Addy, EFFECTIVE IT SERVICE
`MANAGEMENT, TO ITIL AND BEYOND! (2007) (Ex. 1005,
`“Addy”); and
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0071276
`A1 to Bruchlos, filed June 24, 2004, published Mar. 31, 2005
`(Ex. 1006, “Bruchlos”).
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`ServiceNow challenges claims 1, 5, 10–13, and 16 of the ’093 patent
`on the following grounds (Pet. 4):
`References
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`E.
`
`Meyer, Best
`Practice, Addy
`Meyer, Best
`Practice, Addy,
`Bruchlos
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1, 5, 10, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`11–13
`
`F.
`
`
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–78 (Fed. Cir.
`2015). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent
`any special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or
`phrases must be set forth “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`ServiceNow identifies three terms for construction: “license
`certificate,” “model”/“modeling,” and “exception indication.” Pet. 15–20.
`
`“license certificate”
`1.
`ServiceNow and BMC both agree “license certificate” should be
`construed as “information relating to the right to deploy software.” Pet. 16–
`17 (emphasis omitted); Prelim. Resp. 7–8. We find this construction is
`consistent with the use of “license certificate” in the ’093 patent, so we
`apply this construction for purposes of this Decision.
`
`“model”/“modeling”
`2.
`ServiceNow and BMC also agree on constructions of “model” as “an
`organized collection of information about an object” and of “modeling” as
`“creating a model.” Pet. 17–18 (emphasis omitted); Prelim. Resp. 8.
`Because we find the proposed constructions of these terms are consistent
`with their use in the ’093 patent, we apply these constructions for purposes
`of this Decision.
`
`“exception indication”
`3.
`The parties propose different constructions for the term “exception
`indication.” See Pet. 19–20; Prelim. Resp. 8–10. For purposes of this
`decision, we decline to construe this term, because it has no bearing on our
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`disposition below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We now consider ServiceNow’s asserted grounds in its Petition and
`BMC’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`ServiceNow has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`ServiceNow submitted a declaration from Tal Lavian, Ph.D., to accompany
`its Petition. See Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002).
`
`Obviousness Ground Based on Meyer, Best Practice, and Addy
`ServiceNow contends claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Meyer, Best Practice, and Addy. Pet. 26–
`52. BMC disputes ServiceNow’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 16–29.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`1. Meyer
`Meyer relates to “providing licenses to client computer systems to
`allow the client computer systems to use licensed software products.” Ex.
`1003, 3:62–64. Figure 1 of Meyer is reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a software licensing system (SLS) having licensing server
`25, which holds license file 65 of licenses 60. Id. at 1:42–2:5. Applications
`15, 20 make license requests 40, 45, which are also known as “checkout”
`requests, from licensing server 25. Id. at 1:44–49. Licensing server 25
`either grants or denies (50, 55) these requests based on the result of a
`verification “that the license is intended to allow the operation of the
`application in the current configuration, environment, and at the current
`time.” Id. at 1:49–60.
`Meyer also describes exemplary license 200 as containing license
`count 205, feature name 215, end date 225, and license version number 235.
`Id. at Fig. 3, 2:6–23.
`
`
`Best Practice
`2.
`Best Practice is a publication of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL),
`which is affiliated with the Office of Government Commerce of the United
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`Kingdom government. Ex. 1004, 16. Among other things, the publication is
`directed to software asset management (SAM) via the use of a CMDB. Id.
`at 16, 96. Best Practice describes that “each component contained within the
`CMDB is referred to as a Configuration Item (CI),” and “[e]ach CI record
`within the CMDB contains all of the attributes and information relating to a
`component necessary for managing it, whether software, hardware,
`contracts, etc.” Id. at 96–97. Exemplary contents of a CMDB, including
`exemplary CIs, are disclosed in Appendix D of Best Practice. Id. at 134–
`140.
`
`
`Addy
`3.
`Addy is a textbook related to the management of IT services. Ex.
`1005. Addy states that “the CMDB should be an embedded part of every IT
`process and should be used by every member of the IT function on a daily, if
`not hourly basis.” Id. at 239.
`
`Claim 1 Obviousness Analysis
`4.
`Claim 1 is unpatentable “if the differences between the subject matter
`[claimed] 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 person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a).1 ServiceNow proposes combining certain exemplary configuration
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’093
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, throughout this Decision we refer to the pre-AIA versions
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`items from a CMDB as disclosed in Best Practice with Meyer’s teachings on
`creating and checking license records to teach the limitations of claim 1. See
`Pet. 26–48. ServiceNow contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`had reason to combine these teachings based on various commonalities in
`the references themselves and additionally based on Addy’s statements
`encouraging the use of CMDBs. See id. at 33–38, 41–47. Considering
`ServiceNow’s obviousness analysis and BMC’s Preliminary Response, and
`based on the present record, we are not persuaded that ServiceNow has
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness
`challenge of claim 1 for the reasons explained below.
`In its unpatentability contentions, ServiceNow maps certain software
`modeling information from Best Practice to the recited “first model of the
`modeled deployment of the software product in a configuration management
`database (CMDB)” of claim 1. Id. at 29–30. Specifically, ServiceNow
`contends Best Practice’s CI for software products in Table D.2 teaches
`“information related to the software product” in the “first configuration
`item,” whereas Best Practice’s CI for software license contracts in Table D.1
`teaches “information related to the software license” in the “second
`configuration item.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 134–38).
`
`Correspondingly, ServiceNow maps Meyer’s license records stored in
`the license database to the recited “second model of the modeled software
`license contract for the software product in a license database” of claim 1.
`Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 1, 3; 2:10–21). ServiceNow contends the
`recited “license certificates” are generated when Meyer’s license server 760
`creates license records by examining external files that contain information
`about underlying software license contracts. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003,
`7:40–61). Citing Best Practice, ServiceNow contends it would have been
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`obvious to modify the software license system of Meyer to include “the
`ability to maintain a CMDB with CIs for storing information relating to ‘the
`software product’ and ‘the software license contract,’ respectively.” Id. at
`34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–84).
`
`The “evaluating” step of claim 1 comprises “connecting and
`comparing” and “generating” substeps directed to interactions of the “first
`model” and the “second model.” Specifically, the “first configuration item”
`of the first model is compared to the “license certificate” of the second
`model. To teach this limitation, ServiceNow relies on Meyer’s comparing of
`key/value attributes in a licensing request with the license record attributes
`in the license record. See Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003, 2:6–23). ServiceNow
`acknowledges Meyer does not disclose configuration items or a CMDB, see
`id. at 42, but ServiceNow cites claim 1’s earlier recitation that “information
`related to the software product” is stored “as a first configuration item.” Id.
`at 40. As stated above, ServiceNow proposes adding a CMDB to the
`software licensing system of Meyer; ServiceNow contends “this
`combination would have predictably resulted” in Meyer’s system comparing
`“the attributes in the license record (the ‘license certificate’) . . . against
`information about the software from the ‘first configuration item’ in the
`CMDB, rather than the licensing request in Meyer.” Id. at 41–42 (emphasis
`omitted) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101).
`BMC contends ServiceNow’s analysis of “comparing the first
`configuration item with the license certificate” is flawed because Meyer
`does not expressly disclose a “first configuration item” that can be compared
`to a license certificate. See Prelim. Resp. 22. Specifically, BMC cites
`ServiceNow’s analysis of Meyer whereby “the ‘first configuration item’ is
`merely ‘the license request issued to the licensing server’” in Meyer. Id.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`(citing Pet. 40). BMC notes an apparent contradiction in this analysis,
`because ServiceNow elsewhere relies on Best Practice, rather than Meyer,
`for teaching the “first configuration item.” Id. (citing Pet. 29). BMC further
`criticizes ServiceNow’s analysis by noting it would be “nonsensical” for
`Meyer’s system—as modified to include a CMDB—to compare the CI of a
`CMDB, rather than a licensing request, with Meyer’s license file. Id. at 22–
`23. BMC contends there is no cited teaching of how “‘requests’ could be
`generated from a CMDB that merely reflects the deployment of software in
`an enterprise and does not consist of actual running applications or license
`clients.” Id.; see also id. at 17 (“Meyer’s architecture [w]ould be completely
`changed to read software modeled in a CMDB, where no clients or requests
`exist.”).
`
`We are persuaded by BMC’s arguments. ServiceNow’s proposed
`modification of Meyer conflicts with ServiceNow’s mapping of Best
`Practice to the “first model of the modeled deployment of the software
`product” and Meyer to the “second model of the modeled software license
`contract for the software product.” See Pet. 29–32. ServiceNow would have
`us supplant (or disregard) its own asserted use of Best Practice for teaching
`the “first configuration item” elsewhere in claim 1, see id. at 29 (citing Ex.
`1004, Table D.2), and substitute Meyer’s “information related to the
`software product” simply to reach the “comparing” step. See id. at 41–44.
`We find ServiceNow’s shifting application of the references to the “first
`configuration item” of claim 1 to be irreconcilable.
`Moreover, even if it were feasible, ServiceNow’s proposed
`modification of Meyer to include CIs in a CMDB would relate to stored
`data, namely, the license records that ServiceNow maps to the recited
`“license certificate.” See id. at 34 (“Under this combination, the claimed
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`‘license certificate’ . . . is generated based on the license information in the
`CMDB . . . .”). But, inconsistently, ServiceNow also likens CIs in the
`CMDB to Meyer’s license request issued to the licensing server. See id. at
`40 (relating the “first configuration item” to a “license request issued to the
`licensing server”). The result would be a system that no longer issues a
`license request, as taught by Meyer, because Meyer’s licensing request
`would have been replaced by a CI. As noted by BMC, ServiceNow does not
`address how such a modified system in Meyer would operate in the absence
`of licensing requests. See Prelim. Resp. 17, 22–23. ServiceNow cannot
`both rely on the license request to initiate the “comparing” action and at the
`same time replace the license request with a data structure, the first
`configuration item, which is not associated with any request or “comparing”
`action.
`For these reasons, and because ServiceNow’s citations to Addy do not
`cure the deficiencies noted above, ServiceNow has not established the
`combination of Meyer, Best Practice, and Addy teaches or suggests
`“comparing the first configuration item with the license certificate,” as
`recited in claim 1. Therefore, ServiceNow has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that Meyer, Best Practice,
`and Addy would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 1.
`
`Claims 5, 10, and 16
`5.
`Claims 5 and 10 depend from claim 1, so ServiceNow’s obviousness
`
`ground with respect to these claims is deficient for the same reasons as with
`claim 1. Independent claim 16 is a system claim comprising a “server
`computer” having a processor that “perform[s] the method of claim 1.”
`ServiceNow contends “claim 16 adds nothing of significance over claim 1”
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`and relies on the same analysis that it puts forth for claim 1. Pet. 51–52.
`ServiceNow’s obviousness ground with respect to claim 16 is therefore
`deficient for the same reasons as with claim 1. Accordingly, ServiceNow
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion
`that Meyer, Best Practice, and Addy would have rendered obvious claims 5,
`10, and 16.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness Ground Based on Meyer, Best Practice, Addy, and
`Bruchlos
`ServiceNow contends claims 11–13 would have been obvious over
`the combination of Meyer, Best Practice, Addy, and Bruchlos. Pet. 53–58.
`BMC disputes ServiceNow’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 25–29.
`Claims 11–13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`ServiceNow relies on the same analysis for the limitations in the base claim,
`and ServiceNow’s use of Bruchlos does not cure the deficiencies in that
`analysis. See Pet. 53–58. Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth above
`with respect to claim 1, ServiceNow has not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that Meyer, Best Practice, Addy, and
`Bruchlos would have rendered obvious claims 11–13.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We conclude that ServiceNow has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’093 patent
`challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter
`partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged
`claims.
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
`
`the ’093 patent.
`
`15
`
`

`
`16
`
`IPR2015-01555
`Patent 8,646,093 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Phillip E. Morton
`Andrew C. Mace
`Mark Weinstein
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`pmorton@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert A. Cote
`Pierre Hubert
`Robert Auchter
`Kevin Schubert
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`rcote@mckoolsmith.com
`phubert@mckoolsmith.com
`rauchter@mckoolsmith.com
`kschubert@mckoolsmith.com

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