Intel VS Broadcom Case about the patented method of selecting a transfer format in a computer communication network

1
Intel VS BroadcomCase about the patented method
of selecting a transfer format in a computer
communication network

• UC Berkeley, E190G
• Presented by
• chun wing yeung (19076296)
• Oct-13-2008

2
Outline

• Brief background
• The technology 830 patent
• Broadcoms argument (technical aspect)
• Prior Art
• Conclusion

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Intel VS Broadcom

• August 30, 2000, Intel sued Broadcom for 82M for
  infringing of five patents
• 4,975,830 (the830 patent) -- Networking
• 4,823,201 (the 201 patent)
• 5,079,630 (the 630 patent)
  Encode/Decode
• 5,134,478 (the 478 patent)
• 5,894,410 (the 410 patent) -- Packaging

6
Patent 830 (December 4, 1990)

• Abstract
• A computer communication system including a
  comunication medium, a plurality of nodes coupled
  to
• the communication medium, and a transfer format
  selection means for selecting a format for the
  transfer
• of data between nodes. The system includes at
  least one default node and at least two
  supplemented
• nodes. Each node has a set of data transfer
  formats. A default format is included in the
  format set of each
• node. Each supplemented node has at least one
  supplemental format. Transfer format selection
  means in
• the form of circuitry and software provides for
  the selection of a data transfer format which is
  included
• in the source node format set and the destination
  node format set and is compatible with the
• communication medium. The source node includes a
  cache of node format sets. The source node
• searches for the destination node format set in
  the source node cache and selects a format which
  is
• common to the format sets of the source node and
  destination node. Our invention also includes an
• attention signal, a network interface and the
  other devices, apparatus, methods and subject
  matter
• disclosed herein.

7
Important Keywords

• Source Node, Destination Node
• More than one transfer formats (default)
• Transfer Format Selection Means (TFSM)
• Cache

8
Communication Network
Source Node (Node 1)
Destination Node (Node 2)
Cache (A set of data transfer formats)
Node 1 Default Format A Supplemental Format
B Format C
Node 2 Default Format B Supplemental Format C
9
10/100 BaseT LAN
Source Node
Destination Node
Cache (A set of data transfer formats)
Node 1 default 100BaseT Supplemental 10BaseT
Node 2 default 10BaseT
10
Transfer Format Selection Means (TFSM)
Step 1 Search Source cache for destination node
Yes
Send
11
Step 1 Search Source cache for destination node
Save bit string source node cache
Not Found
Send Inquiry
Send
12
Source Node (Node 1)
2. OK Send data using Format B
Destination Node (Node 2)
1. Check Cache (Source Node)
Node 1 Default Format A Supplemental Format
B Format C
Node 2 Default Format B Supplemental Format C
13
Source Node (Node 1)
Step 4 Send Data
Step 2 Send Inquiry Dialog
Destination Node (Node 2)
Step 1 Check Node 1s Cache
Node 1 Default Format A Supplemental Format
B Format C
Node 2 No Information
Node 2 Default Format D Supplemental Format
E Format B
Step 3 Update Cache
14
Intels Claim

• Broadcoms Ethernet products (mainly switches)
  infringe Intels 830 patent

15
Boardcoms Defense

• Boardcoms switches do not infringe Intels 830
  patent.
• 830 patent requires a source node and a
  destination node
• Boardcom claims their switch is only an
  intermediate, so it is neither a source or a
  destination

16
Source Node
Destination Node
Intermediate
17
The Courts decision

• The court construed source node to be a node
  that has the capability to transmit data, and
  construed destination node to be a node that
  has the capability to receive data.
• Broadcoms argument does not hold

18
Source Node
Destination Node
Destination Node
Source Node
19
Broadcoms 2nd Defense (memo 2, p34)

• PHY chips (installed in the switches) do not
  search its memory before performing the inquiry
  dialog.
• It will automatically send out FLPs
• gt TFSM structure is not present in Broadcoms
  product

20
Intels view

• The FLPs are the inquiry dialog

21
Courts rule

• The Broadcoms defense provides substantial
  evidence that Broadcoms device does not infringe
  Intels 830 patent.

22
Broadcoms 3rd Defense

• No Default format
• 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps (two formats, no default)

23
Court

• Broadcoms defense is without merit.
• 10 Mbps is the default, and 100Mbps is the
  supplemental format

24
Invalidity

• Try to show Broadcoms Flashtalk technology is a
  prior art of 830

25
Question to ask

• 1. Was there legally sufficient evidence
  regarding the Flashtalk product?
• 2. Was there substantial evidence that the
  Flashtalk product contained every element of the
  830 invention?

26

• 266 (Flashtalk) patent was file before 830
• Magazine article
• Expert witness

27
Does Flashtalk includes every element of TFSM?

• 1. Intel argues that the Flashtalk product does
  not retrieve a bit string representation of the
  destination node
• 2. Flashtalk product always sends an inquiry
  dialog

28

• The Flashtalk product does not receive a bit
  string representation of the destination nodes
  format set, but rather creates a bit string
  representation from the information received

29
Intels Version
Source Node (Node 1)
Step 4 Send Data
Bit string (eg. 001110)
Step 2 Send Inquiry Dialog
Destination Node (Node 2)
Step 1 Check Node 1s Cache
Node 1 Default Format A Supplemental Format
B Format C
Node 2 Default Format D Supplemental Format E
Node 2 Default Format D Supplemental Format
E Format B
Step 3 Update Cache, and bit string is stored
30
FlashTalk
Source Node (Node 1)
Step 3 Create a bit string, then update Cache,
and bit string is stored
Step 4 Send Data
Information Returned
Step 2 Send Inquiry Dialog
Destination Node (Node 2)
Step 1 Check Node 1s Cache
Node 1 Default Format A Supplemental Format
B Format C
Node 2 Default Format D Supplemental Format E
Node 2 Default Format D Supplemental Format
E Format B
31
Courts view

• The court finds that a reasonable jury could find
  the first part of the structure of the TFSM claim
  element present in the Flashtalk product
• Jury concluds that the Flashtalk product meets
  the TFSM limitation.

32
Broadcom won the case

• The 830 patent is invalided, so there is no
  infringement.

33
Conclusion

• The scope of 830 patent is too board?