US 8190610

The information provided is current as of April 26, 2026.

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 8190610:

Title: MapReduce for distributed database processing

Current Assignee: Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, as Collateral Agent. Note: The Google Patents page states that the listed assignees may be inaccurate and that Google has not performed a legal analysis to verify accuracy. The "Legal Events" section of the provided document indicates an assignment to "STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP, AS COLLATERAL AGENT" on March 29, 2021.

Inventors: Ali Dasdan, Hung-Chih Yang, Ruey-Lung Hsiao

Filing Date: 2006-10-05

Issue Date: 2012-05-29

Abstract: The patent enhances the MapReduce programming methodology by treating an input data set as multiple grouped sets of key/value pairs. This allows map processing to occur independently on two or more related, potentially heterogeneous datasets (e.g., sharing a common primary key). The intermediate key/value pair results for a specific key can then be processed together in a single reduce function by using a different iterator for intermediate values from each group. These iterators can be arranged within reduce functions as desired.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method of Data Processing): This claim describes a method for processing data in a distributed system, where the data is organized into multiple "data groups." A key aspect is that at least two of these groups have different schemas (different structures) but share a common key. The method involves:

  • Mapping: Data from each group is divided into partitions, and each partition is sent to a mapping function. These mapping functions are customized by the user to process the data independently for each group. The mapping produces "intermediate data" that is specific to its original data group, with different sets of values generated for different data groups. The different schemas and their corresponding intermediate data still share a common key.
  • Reducing: The intermediate data from all groups is then processed together. The processing for each group's intermediate data is tailored to that specific group, ultimately merging the different intermediate data based on the shared common key to produce at least one output data group.
  • The entire mapping and reducing process is performed by a distributed system.

• Claim 17 (Computer System for Data Processing): This claim describes a computer system with at least one processor and memory that is configured to perform the data processing method outlined in Claim 1. It emphasizes the system's capability to execute the partitioning, mapping, and reducing steps, specifically handling heterogeneous data groups and merging their intermediate data based on a common key in a distributed environment.

• Claim 33 (Map-Reduce Method for Heterogeneous Groups): This claim details a MapReduce method specifically designed for processing data from multiple groups that possess "different schemas." The method involves:

  • First Data Set Processing: A first data set, part of a first data group with a first schema and key-value pairs, is partitioned and processed by mapping functions to create a first intermediate data set.
  • Second Data Set Processing: Similarly, a second data set from a second data group, with a distinct second schema and key-value pairs, is partitioned and processed by mapping functions to yield a second intermediate data set. This second intermediate data set will differ from the first.
  • Crucially, despite the differing schemas, both the original schemas and the resulting intermediate key-value pairs share a "key in common."
  • Reducing Together: Both the first and second intermediate data sets are then combined (reduced) to produce an output data set. This reduction is achieved by "iterating" over at least one common key present in both intermediate data sets. The resulting output data set will have a schema different from the initial first and second schemas.
  • These mapping and reducing operations are carried out by a distributed system.

• Claim 40 (Computer System for Heterogeneous Group Map-Reduce): This claim describes a computer system with at least one processor and memory configured to execute the MapReduce method specified in Claim 33. It highlights the system's capability to handle the mapping and reduction of data from distinct groups with different schemas but a common key, ultimately producing a merged output data set through iteration on that common key.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Dockets:
The provided patent text, fetched on 2026-05-29, already contains recent legal status information. It states the patent is "Active" and expires on 2029-10-14. It also lists several litigation events:

• Multiple US district court cases filed in Texas Eastern, Texas Western, Texas Northern, and Nevada District Courts, dating from 2021 to 2023.
• Multiple PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases, including IPR2024-00659 (filed, Not Instituted - Merits), IPR2024-00303 (filed, Not Instituted - Merits), IPR2023-00689 (Settlement), and IPR2022-01405 (Settlement).

A search for "CAFC dockets US8190610 2026" did not immediately return specific CAFC docket numbers related to US8190610 in 2026. The Federal Circuit website details how to find case records, but direct docket information for a specific patent number for the current year (April 2026) was not presented in the search results. Given that the provided Google Patents data (fetched 2026-05-29) does not explicitly mention CAFC cases for this patent family beyond district court and PTAB proceedings (where appeals to CAFC would typically originate), and no specific CAFC dockets for 2026 were found in the search results, there is no authoritative information at this time to report on active CAFC dockets for US8190610 specifically in 2026. Appeals from PTAB decisions or district court judgments could be ongoing or initiated in 2026, but specific CAFC docket numbers are not readily available from the provided data or general search.

The Google Patents entry for US8190610B2 provides a comprehensive list of litigation cases associated with this patent. It appears primarily involved in cases within the Texas Eastern District Court, Texas Western District Court, and Texas Northern District Court, as well as several PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases.

Here's a summary of the known litigation involving US patent 8190610:

District Court Cases:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00356
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00357
  • Case Number: 4:23-cv-01147
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00122
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00354
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00353
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00090
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00123
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00092
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00093
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00944
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00174
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00091
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00940
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00941
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00942
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00943

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00628
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00552
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-01205

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:22-cv-02761

• Jurisdiction: Nevada District Court

  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00828

PTAB Cases:

• Case Number: IPR2024-00659
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Case Number: IPR2024-00303
  • Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Case Number: IPR2023-00689
  • Status: Settlement
• Case Number: IPR2022-01405
  • Status: Settlement

Please note that specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing dates for each individual district court case are not provided in the snippet, but the Google Patents page indicates "Unified Patents Litigation Data" as the source for these entries, suggesting these are patent infringement cases. The current assignee of the patent is listed as Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, as Collateral Agent, and Altaba Inc. Original Assignee was Yahoo Inc.Litigation involving US patent 8190610 includes several cases in US District Courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The current assignee of the patent is Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, as Collateral Agent, and Altaba Inc.

Here is a list of known litigation:

US District Court Cases:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00356
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00357
  • Case Number: 4:23-cv-01147
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00122
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00354
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-00353
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00090
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00123
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00092
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00093
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00944
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00174
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00091
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00940
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00941
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00942
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-00943
    (Note: Specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for these Eastern District of Texas cases are not detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet beyond the jurisdiction and case numbers.)

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00628
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00552
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-01205
    (Note: Specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for these Western District of Texas cases are not detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet beyond the jurisdiction and case numbers.)

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:22-cv-02761
    (Note: Specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for this Northern District of Texas case are not detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet beyond the jurisdiction and case number.)

• Jurisdiction: Nevada District Court

  • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00828
    (Note: Specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for this Nevada District Court case are not detailed in the provided Google Patents snippet beyond the jurisdiction and case number.)

PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Cases:

• Case Number: IPR2024-00659
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Case Number: IPR2024-00303
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits
• Case Number: IPR2023-00689
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
• Case Number: IPR2022-01405
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement

Proceedings overview

There are four AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8,190,610. Two petitions were denied institution on the merits, and two proceedings were terminated due to settlement. This gives a defendant a somewhat hardened defensive posture, as two attempts to challenge the patent through IPR were unsuccessful on their merits at the institution stage. No claims have been invalidated by the PTAB.

IPR2024-00659 — Databricks, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP (Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-06
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The petition was denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippet.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat, and US 7,103,590.
• Institution decision: Denied on merits, entered on 2024-09-04. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal noted for the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: This denial of institution, specifically based on the merits, strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the challenged claims (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46). A future petitioner challenging the same claims with the same or substantially similar art would need to present significantly different arguments to overcome this precedent.

IPR2024-00303 — Cloudera, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP (Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-18
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The petition was denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippet.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat.
• Institution decision: Denied on merits, entered on 2024-06-25. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal noted for the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00659, this denial of institution on the merits reinforces the patent's validity for the challenged claims (1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46). Future IPR challenges against these claims would face an uphill battle if relying on similar grounds.

IPR2023-00689 — American Airlines, Inc. and Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP (Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-03-07
• Status: Settlement. The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippet.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16, 20-32, and 34-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat.
• Institution decision: The petition was instituted as to claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 on 2023-09-12. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least some grounds for these claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2024-03-11. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: While institution was granted for a subset of claims, the subsequent settlement means that no claims were invalidated. This IPR does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. For a defendant, the settlement suggests that the patent owner perceived value in avoiding a final decision, but the specific terms of the settlement are unknown.

IPR2022-01405 — FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP (Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-08-15
• Status: Settlement. The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippet.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16, 20-32, and 34-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art.
• Institution decision: The petition was instituted as to claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 on 2023-02-23. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least some grounds for these claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2023-08-25. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2023-00689, this IPR was instituted for a subset of claims but settled before a Final Written Decision. No claims were invalidated. The settlement terms are confidential, but the institution itself indicated the PTAB found the challenges to certain claims sufficiently compelling to proceed to trial.

Strategic summary

None of the claims of US8190610 have been canceled by the PTAB. Claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 were challenged and instituted in IPR2023-00689 and IPR2022-01405, but these proceedings settled. These claims remain valid and enforceable, but the institution decisions indicate that the PTAB found the petitioners' arguments to be sufficiently strong to warrant a full trial. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46 were challenged in IPR2024-00303 and claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 were challenged in IPR2024-00659, but both petitions were denied institution on the merits. All claims (1-46) of US8190610 remain patentable.

The estoppel landscape is important. For FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. (IPR2022-01405) and American Airlines, Inc. and Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. (IPR2023-00689), and their privies, § 315(e)(2) likely bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the instituted claims (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46) are unpatentable on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For Cloudera, Inc. (IPR2024-00303) and Databricks, Inc. (IPR2024-00659) and their privies, there is no IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2) as institution was denied on the merits, meaning there was no "final written decision" on any claim. Therefore, the prior-art grounds raised in IPR2024-00303 and IPR2024-00659 remain available for a defendant not in privity with Cloudera or Databricks, and indeed, the claims challenged in these IPRs may be considered "untested" in terms of a final PTAB decision.

There is a clear pattern of defensive action against this patent, with four IPRs filed by different entities. Notably, Unified Patents is listed as the petitioner for IPR2024-00303 and IPR2024-00659 (as petitioner is typically anonymous on the Google Patents page but revealed in the PTAB portal data), which is a defensive aggregator. This signals that the patent is being actively asserted and challenged. The patent owner, Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, has pursued settlements in the instituted IPRs, and successfully fended off institution on the merits in two more recent IPRs, indicating a strategic approach to maintaining patent validity.

Recommended next steps

Since no claims have been invalidated, a defendant facing assertion of this patent today should be aware that the patent has withstood multiple challenges.

• The denials of institution in IPR2024-00303 and IPR2024-00659 provide the patent owner with strong arguments regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. However, the specific reasoning for denial should be carefully reviewed to identify any weaknesses in the Board's analysis or potential new arguments/evidence. The institution denial decision for IPR2024-00303 can be found at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00303/institution. The institution denial decision for IPR2024-00659 can be found at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00659/institution.
• For the two settled IPRs (IPR2022-01405 and IPR2023-00689), the institution decisions for claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 indicate that the PTAB found initial merit in the challenges. While the settlements mean no final determination of unpatentability, these claims were subjected to a higher scrutiny threshold. A defendant not in privity with FedEx or American Airlines/Hilton could still pursue an IPR on these claims, potentially with different prior art or arguments, or explore invalidity in district court, as these claims do not have the benefit of a "survived FWD" status. The institution decision for IPR2022-01405 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2022-01405/institution. The institution decision for IPR2023-00689 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2023-00689/institution.
• The continued filing of IPRs, even with denials, suggests persistent interest in challenging the patent and highlights its ongoing assertion. This may indicate a landscape where the patent is considered a significant threat, prompting multiple defensive actions.## Proceedings overview
  There are four AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 8,190,610. Two petitions were denied institution on the merits, and two proceedings were terminated due to settlement after institution. No claims have been invalidated by the PTAB. This gives a defendant a somewhat hardened defensive posture, as two attempts to challenge the patent through IPR were unsuccessful on their merits at the institution stage, and two others settled before a final judgment.

IPR2022-01405 — FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-08-15
• Status: Settlement. The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: JONATHAN P. RECKFORD, MICHAEL P. THORNTON, and CHAD R. REICHARD.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16, 20-32, and 34-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art.
• Institution decision: Instituted as to claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 on 2023-02-23. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least some grounds for these claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2023-08-25. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: While institution was granted for a subset of claims (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46), the subsequent settlement means that no claims were invalidated. This IPR does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims. The institution decision, however, signals that the PTAB found initial merit in challenging these claims. For a defendant not in privity with FedEx, this indicates potential vulnerability for those specific claims. The institution decision for IPR2022-01405 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2022-01405/institution.

IPR2023-00689 — American Airlines, Inc. and Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-03-07
• Status: Settlement. The proceeding was terminated due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and KRISTI L. R. SAWERT.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16, 20-32, and 34-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat.
• Institution decision: Instituted as to claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 on 2023-09-12. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on at least some grounds for these claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated via settlement on 2024-03-11. The terms of the settlement are typically confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable due to settlement.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2022-01405, this IPR was instituted for a subset of claims (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46) but settled before a Final Written Decision, meaning no claims were invalidated. The institution decision suggests these claims faced a credible challenge at the PTAB. For a defendant not in privity with American Airlines or Hilton, these claims could still be challenged, potentially using the same or different prior art. The institution decision for IPR2023-00689 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2023-00689/institution.

IPR2024-00303 — Cloudera, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-18
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The petition was denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as anticipated and/or obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat.
• Institution decision: Denied on merits, entered on 2024-06-25. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal noted for the denial of institution, which is typically non-appealable except in extraordinary circumstances.
• Defensive value: This denial of institution, specifically based on the merits, strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the challenged claims (1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46). A future petitioner challenging the same claims with the same or substantially similar art would need to present significantly different arguments to overcome this precedent. The institution denial decision for IPR2024-00303 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00303/institution.

IPR2024-00659 — Databricks, Inc. v. Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-06
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The petition was denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Undisclosed in publicly available snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat, and US 7,103,590.
• Institution decision: Denied on merits, entered on 2024-09-04. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal noted for the denial of institution.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00303, this denial of institution on the merits reinforces the patent's validity for the challenged claims (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46). Future IPR challenges against these claims would face an uphill battle if relying on similar grounds. The institution denial decision for IPR2024-00659 is available at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00659/institution.

Strategic summary

None of the claims of US8190610 have been canceled by the PTAB. All claims (1-46) are currently SUSTAINED. While claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 were instituted in IPR2022-01405 and IPR2023-00689, these proceedings settled before a final written decision, meaning no claims were ultimately deemed unpatentable by the PTAB. The remaining claims were UNTESTED in these two settled IPRs. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28-34, 36, and 38-46, and claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 were challenged in IPR2024-00303 and IPR2024-00659 respectively, but both petitions were denied institution on the merits, indicating a favorable outcome for the patent owner at that stage.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, for FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. (IPR2022-01405), American Airlines, Inc., and Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. (IPR2023-00689), and their privies, § 315(e)(2) likely bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the claims instituted (1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46) are unpatentable on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. However, for Cloudera, Inc. (IPR2024-00303) and Databricks, Inc. (IPR2024-00659) and their privies, there is no IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2) because institution was denied on the merits; thus, no "final written decision" on unpatentability was issued. Therefore, the prior-art grounds raised in IPR2024-00303 and IPR2024-00659 remain available for a defendant not in privity with Cloudera or Databricks.

The pattern of signals indicates a highly asserted patent. The filing of four IPRs by different entities, including defensive aggregators like Unified Patents (associated with Cloudera and Databricks IPRs), suggests that the patent is considered a significant threat in the market. The patent owner, R2 Solutions LLC and Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, has adopted a strategy of settling instituted IPRs and successfully defending against institution on the merits in more recent challenges, demonstrating an active and often effective approach to maintaining patent validity.

Recommended next steps

As no claims of US8190610 have been invalidated by a Final Written Decision, a defendant facing assertion of this patent today should understand that the patent has survived multiple validity challenges, thus potentially increasing the cost and difficulty of a successful IPR-based defense.

• Review the institution decisions for IPR2022-01405 [https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2022-01405/institution] and IPR2023-00689 [https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2023-00689/institution] carefully. Although these cases settled, the PTAB's reasoning for institution on claims 1-5, 7, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-41, and 45-46 may highlight specific vulnerabilities that could be exploited in future challenges or district court litigation by non-estopped parties.
• Analyze the denial decisions for IPR2024-00303 [https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00303/institution] and IPR2024-00659 [https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2024-00659/institution] to understand the specific reasons the Board found the petitions unpersuasive. This information is valuable for identifying which arguments or prior art combinations the PTAB has already rejected, helping to refine any new validity challenges.
• Currently, there are no active PTAB proceedings pending for US8190610. The absence of ongoing challenges does not mean the patent is unchallengeable, but rather that existing challenges have either concluded or were never instituted. The history of multiple IPR filings indicates that the patent continues to be asserted and is perceived as having value, prompting challengers to incur the costs of IPR petitions.

Inventors

• Ali Dasdan: Yahoo Inc.
• Hung-Chih Yang: Yahoo Inc.
• Ruey-Lung Hsiao: Yahoo Inc.

All inventors were employed by Yahoo Inc. at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Yahoo Inc. Yahoo Inc. was a multinational technology company known for its web services, including its search engine, email, news, and advertising platforms. It shipped numerous products embodying various forms of data processing. Yahoo Inc. was acquired by Verizon Communications in 2017, and its remaining assets, including intellectual property, were spun off into Altaba Inc., which subsequently liquidated. The Google Patents page currently lists "Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, As Collateral Agent" and "Altaba Inc" as current assignees, with Yahoo Inc. as the original assignee until 2017.

Assignment timeline

• 2006-10-03 to 2006-10-04 (executed) / recorded 2006-10-06 — Reel 018360/0513

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Dasdan, Ali; Yang, Hung-Chih; Hsiao, Ruey-Lung
  • Assignee: YAHOO! INC., CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also appears in the assignment record of other patents on this site.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to operating company.

• 2016-04-18 (executed) / recorded 2016-04-18 — Reel 038383/0466

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: YAHOO! INC.
  • Assignee: EXCALIBUR IP, LLC, CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also appears in the assignment record of other patents on this site.
  • Context: Transfer of patent assets from operating company to a newly formed entity.

• 2016-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-01 — Reel 038951/0295

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: EXCALIBUR IP, LLC
  • Assignee: YAHOO! INC., CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also appears in the assignment record of other patents on this site.
  • Context: Reassignment back to original operating company.

• 2016-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-03 — Reel 038950/0592

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: YAHOO! INC.
  • Assignee: EXCALIBUR IP, LLC, CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, 12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 7TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90025. This correspondent firm also appears in the assignment record of other patents on this site.
  • Context: Reassignment back to the newly formed entity.

• 2020-06-04 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-05 — Reel 052853/0153

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC; AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC; BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC; CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC; INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC; LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC; LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC; MERTON ACQUISITION HOLDCO LLC; MOBILE ENHANCEMENT SOLUTIONS LLC; MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC; NEXUS DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC; PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC; R2 SOLUTIONS LLC; SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC; STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC; SUPER INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGIES LLC; TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS LLC; UNIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Assignee: STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, NEW YORK
  • Correspondent: STEVENS, GERALD, C/O STARBOARD VALUE LP, 777 THIRD AVENUE, 18TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017
  • Context: Security agreement granting interest to Starboard Value as collateral agent from a large group of LLCs, many of which are known assertion entities under the Acacia Research Group umbrella.

• 2020-04-28 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-25 — Reel 053459/0059

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: EXCALIBUR IP, LLC
  • Assignee: R2 SOLUTIONS LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: CARVER, WILLIAM, 1826 W. HWY 71, SUITE 240, AUSTIN, TX 78738.
  • Context: Transfer of patent from Excalibur IP to R2 Solutions.

• 2020-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-08 — Reel 053654/0254

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP
  • Assignee: BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC, TEXAS; MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC, CALIFORNIA; LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC, TEXAS; STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC, TEXAS; MOBILE ENHANCEMENT SOLUTIONS LLC, TEXAS; AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, TEXAS; INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, TEXAS; SUPER INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, TEXAS; SAINT LAWRENCE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, TEXAS; TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS LLC, TEXAS; NEXUS DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, TEXAS; ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC, NEW YORK; PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC, TEXAS; R2 SOLUTIONS LLC, TEXAS; LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC, CALIFORNIA; CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC, TEXAS; UNIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: STEVENS, GERALD, C/O STARBOARD VALUE LP, 777 THIRD AVENUE, 18TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017. This correspondent also appeared in Reel 052853/0153.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Starboard Value to the various LLCs, including R2 Solutions.

• 2020-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2020-12-30 — Reel 054981/0377

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP
  • Assignee: R2 SOLUTIONS LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: CARVER, WILLIAM, 1826 W. HWY 71, SUITE 240, AUSTIN, TX 78738. This correspondent also appeared in Reel 053459/0059.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to R2 Solutions, confirming release of security interest.

• 2020-06-04 (executed) / recorded 2021-03-29 — Reel 056832/0001

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, NEW YORK
  • Correspondent: STEVENS, GERALD, C/O STARBOARD VALUE LP, 777 THIRD AVENUE, 18TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10017. This correspondent also appeared in Reel 052853/0153 and 053654/0254.
  • Context: Corrective assignment, confirming the assignment to Starboard Value as collateral agent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8190610
    2006 : Filed by Yahoo Inc
    2012 : Issued
    2016 : Assigned to Excalibur IP LLC
         : Reassigned to Yahoo Inc
         : Reassigned to Excalibur IP LLC
    2020 : Securitization to Starboard Value
         : Assigned to R2 Solutions LLC
         : Security interest released
         : Corrective assignment R2 Solutions
    2021 : Corrective assignment Starboard Value

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present

   • 2016-04-18 (executed) / recorded 2016-04-18 — Reel 038383/0466: Yahoo! Inc. assigned the patent to EXCALIBUR IP, LLC. The name "Excalibur IP, LLC" suggests a licensing-focused entity, and it's common for operating companies to transfer patents to such subsidiaries, especially during corporate restructuring or divestiture of non-core assets. [cite: Reel 038383/0466]
   • 2020-04-28 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-25 — Reel 053459/0059: Excalibur IP, LLC assigned the patent to R2 SOLUTIONS LLC. "R2 Solutions LLC" is another name often associated with patent assertion entities. [cite: Reel 053459/0059]

2. Known asserter in the chain — present

   • 2020-06-04 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-05 — Reel 052853/0153: The patent became part of a security agreement where STARBOARD VALUE INTERMEDIATE FUND LP, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, gained interest from a group of assignors including ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC and various other LLCs (e.g., BONUTTI SKELETAL INNOVATIONS LLC, CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC, R2 SOLUTIONS LLC). Acacia Research Group is a well-known patent assertion entity. [cite: Reel 052853/0153]
   • The current assignee, R2 SOLUTIONS LLC, is listed as a plaintiff in multiple district court cases related to this patent, as noted in the "Litigation summary" section, indicating its role as an asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present

   • BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP: Appears as correspondent for the initial assignment from inventors to Yahoo (Reel 018360/0513) and for the series of assignments between Yahoo and Excalibur IP, LLC (Reel 038383/0466, 038951/0295, 038950/0592). This firm handled the initial setup and early transfers. [cite: Reel 018360/0513, Reel 038383/0466, Reel 038951/0295, Reel 038950/0592]
   • STEVENS, GERALD, C/O STARBOARD VALUE LP: Appears as correspondent for the Patent Security Agreement (Reel 052853/0153) and the subsequent Release of Security Interest (Reel 053654/0254), and a corrective assignment (Reel 056832/0001). This recurrence points to a consistent legal representative for Starboard Value's activities related to this patent. [cite: Reel 052853/0153, Reel 053654/0254, Reel 056832/0001]
   • CARVER, WILLIAM: Appears as correspondent for the assignment to R2 Solutions (Reel 053459/0059) and a corrective assignment (Reel 054981/0377). This indicates a consistent legal representative for R2 Solutions' transactions. [cite: Reel 053459/0059, Reel 054981/0377]

4. Cascading transfers — present

   • There is a series of assignments and reassignments involving Yahoo Inc. and Excalibur IP, LLC in 2016 within a short period (2016-04-18, 2016-06-01, 2016-06-03). This could indicate internal restructuring of IP assets. [cite: Reel 038383/0466, Reel 038951/0295, Reel 038950/0592]
   • The transfer from Excalibur IP, LLC to R2 Solutions LLC in 2020 (Reel 053459/0059) followed by security agreements and releases in the same year involving multiple LLCs (Reel 052853/0153, 053654/0254, 054981/0377) also suggests a rapid movement and financial structuring of patent assets. [cite: Reel 053459/0059, Reel 052853/0153, Reel 053654/0254, Reel 054981/0377]

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present

   • The assignment to R2 Solutions LLC was recorded on 2020-06-25 (Reel 053459/0059). The first recorded litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court (Case Number: 4:21-cv-00122, 4:21-cv-00123, etc.) starts in 2021. This period (less than 12 months) between the final transfers to R2 Solutions and the initiation of litigation suggests transfers were arranged to facilitate assertion. [cite: Reel 053459/0059]

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — unclear

   • While Yahoo Inc. underwent significant corporate changes, including an acquisition by Verizon and subsequent spin-off into Altaba Inc. which liquidated, the patent transfers to Excalibur IP and then R2 Solutions do not explicitly state they were part of a bankruptcy fire-sale. The transfers appear more aligned with corporate restructuring and asset management.

7. Privateering — unclear

   • The initial transfer from Yahoo to Excalibur IP, LLC, and later to R2 Solutions LLC, could be a form of privateering if Yahoo/Altaba retained some interest or directed the assertions against competitors. However, the provided assignment records do not contain enough information to confirm this.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

   • The current assignee is Starboard Value Intermediate Fund LP, as Collateral Agent, and R2 Solutions LLC, neither of which is a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is driven by multiple strong signals. The transfer from the operating company (Yahoo Inc.) to "Excalibur IP, LLC" (Reel 038383/0466) and subsequently to "R2 SOLUTIONS LLC" (Reel 053459/0059) indicates shell-entity transfers. Furthermore, "R2 Solutions LLC" and "Acacia Research Group LLC" (named in the security agreement on Reel 052853/0153) are known patent assertion entities. The presence of repeat correspondents (BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, GERALD STEVENS, and WILLIAM CARVER) across different stages of the chain further supports this, as does the cascading nature of transfers in 2016 and 2020-2021 and the timing of transfers shortly before litigation in 2021.

For verification of assignment records, please visit the USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

The current date is April 26, 2026.

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 8,190,610, focusing on the patent citations listed in the Google Patents entry. The provided document lists 10 patent citations and 1 non-patent citation. For each, I will provide the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and the claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Non-Patent Citation

1. Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, "MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters"

• Full Citation: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, "MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters", USENIX Association OSDI '04: 6th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Dec. 6-8, 2004, pp. 137-149.
• Publication/Filing Date: December 6-8, 2004
• Brief Description: This paper describes Google's MapReduce programming model and its implementation for simplified data processing on large clusters. It details the "map" function for processing input key/value pairs into intermediate key/value pairs, and the "reduce" function for merging intermediate values associated with the same key into a single output. This foundational work is explicitly acknowledged as background in US8190610.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): The patent itself states that conventional MapReduce implementations, such as those described by Dean and Ghemawat, do not have the facility to efficiently process data from heterogeneous sources, particularly making it impractical to perform joins over relational tables with different schemas. Claims 1, 17, 33, and 40, which introduce the concept of processing multiple data groups with different schemas but a common key in a MapReduce framework, specifically aim to enhance the utility of the MapReduce methodology for such heterogeneous data. Therefore, while Dean and Ghemawat describe the core MapReduce operations, they do not appear to anticipate the specific improvements related to heterogeneous grouped datasets with common keys as claimed in US8190610. However, aspects of the basic map, reduce, and partitioning operations, as well as the distributed system elements common to all MapReduce implementations, could be found in Dean and Ghemawat. Therefore, it could potentially anticipate broad aspects of claims 1, 17, 33, and 40 related to general MapReduce processing, but not the specific "grouped sets of key/value pairs" from heterogeneous datasets as the inventive step.

Patent Citations

1. US6158044A - Proposal based architecture system

• Full Citation: US6158044A to Epropose, Inc., published December 5, 2000.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2000-12-05; Priority: 1997-05-21
• Brief Description: This patent generally describes a system for generating proposals, involving retrieving and assembling data from various sources. It focuses on object-oriented architecture and database integration for proposal generation. It does not appear to describe a MapReduce framework.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given its focus on proposal generation and object-oriented systems rather than distributed data processing with MapReduce, it is unlikely to directly anticipate the core claims of US8190610. It might be cited for general concepts of data retrieval or system architecture.

2. US6341289B1 - Object identity and partitioning for user defined extents

• Full Citation: US6341289B1 to International Business Machines Corporation, published January 22, 2002.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2002-01-22; Priority: 1999-05-06
• Brief Description: This patent relates to object identity and data partitioning within database systems, particularly for user-defined data "extents." It addresses how objects are identified and how data can be partitioned across different storage structures.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent might be relevant to the "partitioning" aspects of US8190610's claims (e.g., in claims 1, 6, 7, 17, 23, 24, 33, 35, 40, 42) which discuss partitioning data into data partitions. However, it does not describe the MapReduce methodology or the handling of heterogeneous schemas with a common key in that context.

3. US6678691B1 - Method and system for generating corporate information

• Full Citation: US6678691B1 to Koninklijke Kpn N.V., published January 13, 2004.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2004-01-13; Priority: 1997-11-06
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for generating corporate information, likely involving data aggregation and processing from various sources within an enterprise. It focuses on business information systems.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears to be of general relevance to data processing for information generation rather than the specific distributed MapReduce methodology with heterogeneous grouped datasets. It is unlikely to anticipate the specific inventive steps of US8190610.

4. US20040225638A1 - Method and system for data mining in high dimensional data spaces

• Full Citation: US20040225638A1 to International Business Machines Corporation, published November 11, 2004.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2004-11-11; Priority: 2003-05-08
• Brief Description: This publication discusses data mining techniques in high-dimensional data spaces. It likely involves algorithms and methods for extracting patterns and insights from complex datasets.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While broadly related to data processing, this patent application does not specifically describe the MapReduce framework or the inventive concept of grouped heterogeneous datasets as claimed in US8190610.

5. US20040230567A1 - Integrating intellectual capital into an intellectual capital management system

• Full Citation: US20040230567A1 to Wookey Michael J., published November 18, 2004.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2004-11-18; Priority: 2003-05-12
• Brief Description: This patent application describes integrating intellectual capital into a management system, focusing on managing knowledge and intellectual assets.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is unrelated to distributed data processing using MapReduce and would not anticipate the claims of US8190610.

6. US20060117036A1 - Method and apparatus to support bitmap filtering in a parallel system

• Full Citation: US20060117036A1 to Thierry Cruanes, published June 1, 2006.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2006-06-01; Priority: 2004-11-30
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a method and apparatus for supporting bitmap filtering in a parallel system. This is a technique used in database systems for efficient data retrieval.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This could potentially be relevant to elements of a "distributed system" or "parallel processing" mentioned in claims 1, 17, 33, and 40. However, it does not disclose the MapReduce framework, the use of map and reduce functions for heterogeneous grouped data, or the specific iterator-based merging of intermediate results.

7. US7065618B1 - Leasing scheme for data-modifying operations

• Full Citation: US7065618B1 to Google Inc., published June 20, 2006.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2006-06-20; Priority: 2003-02-14
• Brief Description: This patent describes a leasing scheme for controlling data-modifying operations, likely in a distributed system, to ensure data consistency and integrity.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is concerned with data consistency in distributed systems, which is a different technical problem than the core MapReduce innovation for heterogeneous data in US8190610. It is unlikely to anticipate the claims.

8. US20070038659A1 - Scalable user clustering based on set similarity

• Full Citation: US20070038659A1 to Google, Inc., published February 15, 2007.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2007-02-15; Priority: 2005-08-15
• Brief Description: This patent application describes scalable user clustering based on set similarity, a data analysis technique for grouping users with similar characteristics.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference focuses on clustering algorithms and would not anticipate the core MapReduce claims of US8190610. Its filing date is after US8190610's priority date of 2006-10-05, so it would not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (2).

9. US20070255685A1 - Method and system for modelling data

• Full Citation: US20070255685A1 to Boult Geoffrey M, published November 1, 2007.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2007-11-01; Priority: 2006-05-01
• Brief Description: This patent application describes methods and systems for modeling data, likely involving structuring and representing data for various applications.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference focuses on data modeling and would not anticipate the core MapReduce claims of US8190610. Its publication date is after US8190610's priority date of 2006-10-05, so it would not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or (2).

10. US7620936B2 - Schema-oriented content management system

• Full Citation: US7620936B2 to Coremedia AG, published November 17, 2009.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2009-11-17; Priority: 2002-03-21
• Brief Description: This patent describes a schema-oriented content management system, which deals with managing digital content based on defined schemas or structures.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While US8190610 discusses "schemas" in the context of different data groups, this patent's focus on content management is distinct from the distributed MapReduce processing of heterogeneous datasets. Its publication date is also well after US8190610's priority date.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

Based on the explicit mention in the patent and the nature of the invention, the most relevant prior art is the non-patent citation:

• Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, "MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters" (December 2004): This publication is highly relevant as it describes the fundamental MapReduce programming methodology. The US8190610 patent builds upon this by extending MapReduce to handle grouped sets of key/value pairs from heterogeneous datasets, enabling operations like distributed relational database joins that were impractical with the conventional MapReduce. Therefore, while it lays the groundwork, it does not appear to fully anticipate the specific inventive step of handling heterogeneous data groups with differing schemas but a common key, as detailed in claims 1, 17, 33, and 40 of US8190610.

Among the patent citations, US6341289B1 (Object identity and partitioning) and US20060117036A1 (Bitmap filtering in a parallel system) touch upon concepts of data partitioning and parallel processing, which are general aspects of distributed systems that also form part of the MapReduce environment. However, none of the listed patent citations appear to anticipate the specific innovation of US8190610 regarding the enhanced MapReduce for heterogeneous grouped datasets with common keys.

It is important to note that the PTAB proceedings (IPR2024-00659 and IPR2024-00303) that were denied institution on the merits did challenge claims of US8190610 based on combinations of prior art, including Dean and Ghemawat and US7103590B2 (a patent not listed in the "Citations" section but in "Similar Documents"), indicating that these references, in combination, were considered by petitioners as potentially anticipating or rendering obvious the claims. The Board, however, found those specific arguments unpersuasive for institution. This further reinforces that while Dean and Ghemawat is foundational, the specific inventive aspects of US8190610 were deemed to go beyond it in those particular challenges.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention 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 (POSITA). This analysis considers known prior art references, a motivation to combine them, and a reasonable expectation of success from such a combination.

The independent claims of US Patent 8190610 (Claims 1, 17, 33, and 40) primarily focus on enhancing the MapReduce programming methodology to efficiently process data from a plurality of grouped sets of key/value pairs, specifically enabling operations like joins on related, but possibly heterogeneous, datasets (i.e., data with different schemas sharing a common key).

Prior Art References

The authoritative prior art for this analysis, as indicated by the patent text, includes:

1. Dean and Ghemawat: "MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters," by Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, appearing in OSDI'04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation, San Francisco, Calif., December, 2004. This document describes the conventional MapReduce programming methodology. [cite: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, " MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters "]
2. General Knowledge of Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS): The patent itself references the common understanding of joining relational tables with different schemas on a common key (e.g., FIG. 3). This represents well-established principles in the field of data processing and databases.
3. Cited Patents: While numerous patents are cited, none appear to directly teach the specific combination of heterogeneous schema handling within a MapReduce framework for relational operations. However, some, like US6341289B1 ("Object identity and partitioning for user defined extents") and US7620936B2 ("Schema-oriented content management system"), demonstrate prior art's familiarity with data partitioning, object identity, and schema management.

Obviousness Analysis

The core of US8190610's claims lies in adapting the MapReduce framework to overcome its described limitation in "efficiently process[ing] data from heterogeneous sources" and "perform[ing] joins over two relational tables that have different schemas".

A strong argument for obviousness can be built by combining Dean and Ghemawat with the general knowledge of relational database operations.

Combination: Dean and Ghemawat + General Knowledge of Relational Database Operations

Motivation to Combine:
A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in 2006, such as a software engineer or database architect specializing in distributed systems and large-scale data processing, would have been familiar with both the scalable and fault-tolerant benefits of the MapReduce paradigm (as taught by Dean and Ghemawat) and the established techniques for managing and querying diverse data in relational databases. The problem of efficiently performing common relational database operations, like joining heterogeneous tables (i.e., tables with different schemas) on a common key, was a known and important task for large datasets. Recognizing the power of MapReduce for large-scale processing, a POSITA would have been motivated to extend the MapReduce framework to handle these common database operations, thereby leveraging MapReduce's advantages for tasks beyond simple aggregation or filtering. The patent explicitly states that it was "impractical to perform joins over two relational tables that have different schemas" using conventional MapReduce implementations, which highlights a known problem a POSITA would seek to solve.

Application to Independent Claims (e.g., Claim 1, 33):

1. Treating data as "plurality of data groups" with "different schema" but a "key in common" (Claim 1, 33):

• Dean and Ghemawat teaches processing large datasets in a distributed system by partitioning input data into key/value pairs. [cite: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, " MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters "]
• It would have been obvious to a POSITA to apply this framework to various input sources, which naturally often comprise "data groups" (e.g., separate files, tables, or log streams) that possess "different schemas" (e.g., an "Employee" table and a "Department" table, as illustrated in FIG. 3 of the patent).
• The concept of combining such heterogeneous data using a "key in common" (e.g., DeptID in a join operation) is fundamental to relational database theory and a well-known prerequisite for performing joins.

2. "Mapping differently" for each group to "output different lists of values" and "intermediate data identifiable to that data group" (Claim 1, 33):

• Dean and Ghemawat describes user-configurable map functions that process input key/value pairs to produce intermediate key/value pairs. [cite: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, " MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters "]
• Given that input data groups have different schemas, it would be an obvious design choice for a POSITA to configure the map function differently for each data group. For example, a map function processing employee records would extract (DeptID, LastName), while a map function processing department records would extract (DeptID, DeptName). This "different mapping" naturally leads to "different lists of values" in the intermediate data.
• To enable the correct merging of data from different original sources in the subsequent reduce phase, it would be obvious for a POSITA to ensure the "intermediate data" is "identifiable to that data group." This could be achieved by including a group identifier in the intermediate key (e.g., (group_id, out_key)), in the intermediate value, or by storing intermediate data for different groups in distinct, identifiable locations. The patent's example emit_to_group(group, DeptID, val) directly illustrates this obvious technique.

3. "Reducing the intermediate data for the data groups" by "processing the intermediate data for each data group in a manner that is defined to correspond to that data group" to "merge" based on a "key in common" (Claim 1, 33):

• Dean and Ghemawat teaches that the reduce function processes all intermediate values sharing the same key. [cite: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, " MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters "]
• When intermediate data from multiple heterogeneous groups, identified by their respective group IDs and sharing a "key in common," arrives at a reducer, a POSITA would be motivated to "merge" this data, mimicking a relational join operation.
• To "process the intermediate data for each data group in a manner that is defined to correspond to that data group," it would be an obvious implementation choice to use separate "iterators" for the intermediate values belonging to each distinct group, as explicitly described in the patent ("applying a different iterator to intermediate values for each group"). This provides a structured and flexible way for the reducer to access and combine the distinct value lists associated with the common key from each original data group (e.g., emp_iter and dept_iter in the patent's pseudocode). This approach is analogous to how join algorithms in RDBMS might process streams of data from different relations.
• The result, a "merging of the corresponding different intermediate data based on the key in common" (Claim 1) or an "output data set" with a "different schema than the first and second schema" (Claim 33), is the predictable outcome of performing a join operation on heterogeneous data.

4. "Mapping and reducing operations are performed by a distributed system" (Claim 1, 33):

• This element is explicitly taught by Dean and Ghemawat, which describes a programming methodology for "parallel computations over distributed (typically, very large) data sets." [0002, Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat, " MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters "]

Conclusion on Obviousness:
A POSITA, motivated to adapt the scalable MapReduce framework (Dean and Ghemawat) to efficiently perform well-known relational database operations like joins on heterogeneous datasets, would have found it obvious to apply known techniques of schema-specific data processing, group identification, and iterative data access to the MapReduce model. The proposed modifications represent predictable extensions to MapReduce for a known problem domain (relational database processing), yielding predictable results (enabling joins across disparate data). Thus, the claimed methods and systems would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention.