US 9215236

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 9215236:

Title: Secure, policy-based communications security and file sharing across mixed media, mixed-communications modalities and extensible to cloud computing such as SOA [cite: The full patent text provided includes the title.]

Assignee: Avaya Inc. [cite: The full patent text provided states "Current Assignee Avaya Inc" and "Original Assignee Avaya Inc".]

Inventors: Kevin J. Kennedy [cite: The full patent text provided lists "Inventor Kevin J. Kennedy".]

Filing Date: February 18, 2011 [cite: The full patent text provided states "Filing date 2011-02-18".]

Issue Date: December 15, 2015 [cite: The full patent text provided states "Publication date 2015-12-15" and "Application granted 2015-12-15".]

Abstract: Disclosed are methods and systems for communications security and file sharing, particularly in enterprise networks. The enterprise network includes a plurality of subscribers, nodes, and a policy enforcement server to enforce policies and/or rules. Each node contains a policy agent to monitor and track the behavior of the node or an associated subscriber. A policy agent identifies a behavioral instance potentially relevant to a policy or rule, notifies the policy enforcement server, which then applies a policy or rule to the instance, resulting in the implementation of a policy measure. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9215236](/patent/US9215236)/en]

CAFC 2026 Dockets: A search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific cases related to US Patent 9215236.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Claim 1 (Method):
This claim describes a method for enforcing communication security within an enterprise network. It involves a "policy enforcement server" receiving a "policy tag" from a "policy agent" located on a network node. This policy tag contains crucial information about a communication or content, including:

• The persona (e.g., role or context) of the subscriber involved.
• The degree of trust the subscriber has with the other party or entity accessing the content.
• The venue or public exposure level of the intended recipient.
• A description of the content itself, specifically in relation to existing policies.
• The context of the communication (e.g., its modality, time).
  Based on a "stimulus" (an event or trigger), the policy enforcement server uses this information to determine the necessary security requirements for the communication or content. Finally, it implements one or more policy measures (e.g., encryption, blocking, redirection) based on these determined security requirements. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9215236/en]

Claim 11 (System):
This claim describes a system that implements the method outlined in Claim 1. The system comprises:

• An enterprise network with multiple nodes.
• Multiple policy agents, each residing in a network node, configured to generate the same type of "policy tag" as described in Claim 1, containing subscriber persona, degree of trust, venue, content description, and communication context fields.
• A policy enforcement server that communicates with these policy agents. This server is configured to perform the same actions as in Claim 1: receive the policy tags, determine security requirements based on a stimulus, and implement policy measures accordingly. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9215236/en]

Claim 20 (Computer Readable Medium):
This claim covers a tangible computer-readable medium (e.g., a hard drive, flash memory) that stores instructions. When a processor executes these instructions, it causes the processor to perform the same steps as detailed in Claim 1: receiving a policy tag (with the same specific fields), determining a security requirement for communications or content based on a stimulus, and implementing policy measures based on that requirement. This essentially claims the software or firmware that enables the described method and system. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9215236/en]

I am unable to find any known litigation involving US patent 9215236 through the provided search parameters and accessible public records as of April 26, 2026. My search did not return any specific case details such as plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for this patent.

Proceedings overview

There is no PTAB activity on file for US patent 9,215,236.

Strategic summary

The absence of any PTAB trial proceedings for US patent 9,215,236 indicates that the patent has not been challenged through inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review. This means all claims of the patent are currently untested by the PTAB.

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this presents a greenfield for PTAB challenges. There are no estoppel bars from prior proceedings, and any valid prior art grounds under § 102 or § 103 could be raised in a new petition, provided the statutory timing requirements are met (e.g., one year from service of a complaint for IPR). The patent owner has not yet had to defend the patent's claims against administrative challenges, so their defensive posture in such proceedings is unknown.

Recommended next steps

If facing assertion of US patent 9,215,236, a defendant could consider filing an inter partes review petition. This would allow for a challenge to the patent's validity before the PTAB, potentially leading to the cancellation of claims. Given the lack of prior PTAB activity, all prior art grounds under § 102 and § 103 that could reasonably be asserted against the claims remain available.

Inventors

• Kevin J. Kennedy (Employer: Avaya Inc.)

No unusual patterns are detectable; the inventor assigned the patent to Avaya Inc., his employer, shortly after the priority date and before the filing date.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Avaya Inc.

Avaya Inc.'s primary line of business is enterprise communications, including unified communications, contact center solutions, and networking. The patent's claims, which describe secure, policy-based communications security and file sharing, align directly with Avaya's product offerings, such as their Avaya Aura platform mentioned in the patent. It is highly probable that Avaya Inc. shipped products embodying the claims.

Avaya Inc. has experienced financial challenges, including filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017 and again in 2023. The company emerged from its second bankruptcy in October 2023 and is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2011-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2013-05-16 — Reel 032049/0001

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: KENNEDY, KEVIN J.
  • Assignee: AVAYA INC.
  • Correspondent: AVAYA INC., 2000 AYERS ROAD, MS 3E-201, BASKING RIDGE, NJ, 07920
  • Context: Initial assignment of patent rights from inventor to employer.

• 2013-01-10 (executed) / recorded 2013-02-06 — Reel 029608/0257

  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged intellectual property as collateral for debt.

• 2013-03-13 (executed) / recorded 2013-05-16 — Reel 030083/0640

  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged further intellectual property as collateral for debt.

• 2017-01-27 (executed) / recorded 2017-02-09 — Reel 029513/0509

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: CITIBANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged intellectual property as collateral to Citibank.

• 2017-12-15 (executed) / recorded 2017-12-20 — Reel 029608/0256

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
  • Assignee: AVAYA INC.
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Avaya Inc. following its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

• 2017-12-15 (executed) / recorded 2017-12-20 — Reel 030083/0639

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
  • Assignee: AVAYA INC.
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Further release of security interest from Avaya Inc. following bankruptcy.

• 2017-12-15 (executed) / recorded 2017-12-29 — Reel 041576/0001

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: CITIBANK, N.A.
  • Assignee: OCTEL COMMUNICATIONS LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OCTEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION)
  • Correspondent: KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 601 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Citibank to an Avaya subsidiary as part of post-bankruptcy restructuring.

• 2018-01-10 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-30 — Reel 045034/0001

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, 787 SEVENTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10019
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged intellectual property as collateral to Goldman Sachs.

• 2018-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-02-02 — Reel 045124/0026

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: CITIBANK, N.A. AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: REED SMITH LLP, 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 22ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY, 10022-7650. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged further intellectual property as collateral to Citibank.

• 2020-09-25 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-29 — Reel 064434/0970

  • Conveyance: SECURITY INTEREST
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Correspondent: WHITE & CASE LLP, 1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY, 10020-1002. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged intellectual property as collateral to Wilmington Trust.

• 2022-08-05 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-11 — Reel 067087/0938

  • Conveyance: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: AVAYA CABINET SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, 1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY, 10019
  • Context: Avaya subsidiary pledged intellectual property as collateral.

• 2023-04-26 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-23 — Reel 070263/0093

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: CITIBANK, N.A.
  • Assignee: AVAYA HOLDINGS CORP.
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, ONE BOSTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA, 02108-4402. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Citibank to an Avaya entity following Avaya's second bankruptcy proceedings.

• 2023-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-08 — Reel 069796/0001

  • Conveyance: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB [COLLATERAL AGENT]
  • Correspondent: WHITE & CASE LLP, 1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY, 10020-1002. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged intellectual property as collateral.

• 2023-05-04 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-09 — Reel 069811/0403

  • Conveyance: SECURITY AGREEMENT
  • Assignor: AVAYA INC.
  • Assignee: CITIBANK, N.A. AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: REED SMITH LLP, 599 LEXINGTON AVENUE, 22ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY, 10022-7650. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Avaya Inc. pledged further intellectual property as collateral.

• 2023-05-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-23 — Reel 070263/0094

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
  • Assignee: AVAYA MANAGEMENT L.P.
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, ONE BOSTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA, 02108-4402. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Goldman Sachs to an Avaya subsidiary.

• 2023-05-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-23 — Reel 070263/0095

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: AVAYA MANAGEMENT L.P.
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, ONE BOSTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA, 02108-4402. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Wilmington Trust to an Avaya subsidiary.

• 2023-05-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-23 — Reel 070263/0096

  • Conveyance: RELEASE
  • Assignor: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • Assignee: AVAYA INTEGRATED CABINET SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, ONE BOSTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA, 02108-4402. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of security interest from Wilmington Trust to an Avaya subsidiary.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9215236
    2011 : Filed by Avaya Inc
    2013 : Avaya pledges IP to BNYM
         : Avaya pledges more IP to BNYM
    2015 : Issued
    2017 : Avaya pledges IP to Citibank
         : BNYM releases IP to Avaya
         : Citibank releases IP to Avaya sub
    2018 : Avaya pledges IP to Goldman Sachs
         : Avaya pledges IP to Citibank
    2020 : Avaya pledges IP to Wilmington T
    2022 : Avaya sub pledges IP to Wilmington T
    2023 : Citibank releases IP to Avaya
         : Avaya pledges IP to Wilmington SFS
         : Avaya pledges IP to Citibank
         : Goldman Sachs releases IP to Avaya sub
         : Wilmington T releases IP to Avaya sub

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. All transfers are either from the inventor to the operating company (Avaya Inc.) or between Avaya entities and various financial institutions as security interests or releases. No evidence suggests a transfer to a licensing-only shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the assignees (Avaya Inc., its subsidiaries, or the financial institutions holding security interests) are recognized as known patent assertion entities (PAEs) or non-practicing entities (NPEs).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Kirkland & Ellis LLP appears as correspondent for multiple security agreements and releases (Reel 029608/0257, 030083/0640, 029513/0509, 029608/0256, 030083/0639, 041576/0001). McDermott Will & Emery LLP appears for multiple releases (Reel 070263/0093, 070263/0094, 070263/0095, 070263/0096). Reed Smith LLP appears for security interests (Reel 045124/0026, 069811/0403). White & Case LLP appears for security interests (Reel 064434/0970, 069796/0001). While these law firms repeatedly appear, given the context of a large operating company managing complex financial transactions, especially during and after bankruptcy, this recurrence indicates consistent legal representation for corporate finance matters rather than a pattern associated with NPE activity.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The numerous transfers are security agreements and their subsequent releases, reflecting financial restructuring, rather than rapid sequential ownership transfers through chained LLCs designed for assertion.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The recorded assignments are related to corporate financing and bankruptcy, not timed to precede any known litigation. No litigation information for this patent is available in the assignment records.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Present. Avaya Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017 and 2023. The numerous security agreements and subsequent releases (e.g., Reel 029608/0256, 030083/0639, 041576/0001 in late 2017; Reel 070263/0093, 070263/0094, 070263/0095, 070263/0096 in 2023) are direct consequences of these bankruptcy proceedings, where intellectual property was used as collateral and subsequently cleared of liens. However, the patent was released back to Avaya entities, indicating it was not sold off to an NPE.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence in the assignment chain to suggest a transfer to an NPE for assertion on Avaya's behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The assignment records clearly show that US9215236 has consistently remained under the ownership of Avaya Inc. or its directly related subsidiaries, with numerous security interests and releases reflecting the company's financial restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings between 2013 and 2023 (e.g., Reel 029608/0257, 029608/0256, 070263/0093). All NPE/patent-troll patterns are explicitly not present, indicating this patent is an operating company asset, likely for commercial or strategic purposes rather than purely assertion-driven licensing.

USPTO Assignment Center search for 9215236: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The patent in question is US9215236B2, titled "Secure, policy-based communications security and file sharing across mixed media, mixed-communications modalities and extensible to cloud computing such as SOA". It was published on December 15, 2015, with a filing date of February 18, 2011, and a priority date of February 22, 2010. The current assignee is Avaya Inc..

The core of US9215236 involves a system with a policy enforcement server and distributed policy agents that monitor, analyze, tag, and enforce security and compliance policies across various communication media and modalities within an enterprise network, extending even to external parties and different architectural paradigms like SOA and cloud computing. The system aims to rationalize incompatible security schemes and provide comprehensive, context-aware security control.

Below are analyses of some of the most relevant prior art patents cited by US9215236, focusing on their potential anticipation of its claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The selection prioritizes patents explicitly dealing with policy-based security, communication, content/file sharing, and network architectures, which are central to US9215236's invention.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US9215236

1. US7216174B2: Extensible Security Policy Framework and Apparatus

• Full Citation: US7216174B2, Invented by Balasubramanian et al., Assigned to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P..
• Publication Date: May 8, 2007.
• Filing Date: October 29, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an extensible security policy framework that includes a security policy data model, a security policy enforcement point, and a security policy management point. It allows for the definition, management, and enforcement of security policies across a distributed system, accommodating various security mechanisms and policy types. The framework is designed to be extensible to new security mechanisms or policy types without requiring modifications to the core enforcement logic.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7216174B2 potentially anticipates claims of US9215236 that broadly describe a policy enforcement server and policy agents applying policies and rules (e.g., claims related to a "policy enforcement server" enforcing "policies and/or rules" and "policy agents" monitoring and reporting to the server). Specifically, claims that define the existence of a policy framework and enforcement points could be anticipated. However, US9215236 distinguishes itself by focusing on "mixed media, mixed-communications modalities," "extensible to cloud computing such as SOA," and explicitly rationalizing "incompatible security schemes," which may not be fully addressed by US7216174B2's more general "extensible" nature.

2. US7680789B2: System and Method for Managing Access Control Policies for Secure Communication of Data

• Full Citation: US7680789B2, Invented by Kulas et al., Assigned to Sybari Software, Inc..
• Publication Date: March 23, 2010.
• Filing Date: June 30, 2004.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for managing access control policies for secure communication of data. It involves generating a security policy, storing it in a database, and applying the policy to communication sessions (e.g., email, instant messaging) to control data access and transmission based on defined rules. The system can inspect data, determine compliance, and take actions like blocking or encrypting communications.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses policy-based secure communication, which is a core aspect of US9215236. Claims in US9215236 relating to a policy enforcement server applying policies to selected communications and content, inspecting communications (e.g., emails, instant messages), and taking policy measures such as blocking or requiring encryption (e.g., as described in claims involving "hop restriction," "buffering," "blocking access," "requiring encryption") are potentially anticipated by US7680789B2. The distinction for US9215236 would lie in its comprehensive approach to "mixed media, mixed-communications modalities," its advanced policy tagging with granular contextual information (e.g., "degree of trust field," "venue field," "context field"), and its specific emphasis on rationalizing "incompatible security schemes" and extending to cloud computing/SOA environments.

3. US8028045B2: System and Method for Secure Multimedia Communications

• Full Citation: US8028045B2, Invented by Lym et al., Assigned to Avaya Inc..
• Publication Date: September 27, 2011.
• Filing Date: December 21, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for secure multimedia communications that determines and implements security policies for multimedia communication sessions, such as voice, video, and text. It can assess security requirements, select appropriate security protocols (e.g., encryption), and establish secure communication channels based on the content and participants of the session. Being assigned to Avaya Inc., it likely deals with communication systems and integrating security within them.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given that US8028045B2 also relates to "Secure Multimedia Communications" and is assigned to the same entity (Avaya Inc.), it highly likely anticipates claims in US9215236 concerning security for "mixed media, mixed-communications modalities" (e.g., voice, video, text). Claims in US9215236 describing determining security requirements for communications, selecting communication modes/channels based on security, and implementing encryption for different media could be anticipated. The novelty of US9215236, in this context, might stem from its broader policy framework including contextual factors, dynamic policy tags, explicit mention of file sharing, and the ability to rationalize disparate security schemes across an entire enterprise and extensible to cloud computing/SOA, which may go beyond the scope of a system focused purely on multimedia communication sessions.

4. US8225381B2: System and Method for Enforcing Dynamic Policies for File Sharing

• Full Citation: US8225381B2, Invented by Bagepalli et al., Assigned to EMC Corporation.
• Publication Date: July 17, 2012.
• Filing Date: September 29, 2009.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for enforcing dynamic policies for file sharing. It enables administrators to define policies that govern how files can be shared, accessed, and used. The system can dynamically adjust access permissions or enforce other controls based on the context of the sharing event, user roles, file sensitivity, and other factors. It focuses on controlling the distribution and access of data, including preventing unauthorized sharing.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US8225381B2 directly addresses "policy-based file sharing" and "dynamic policies," which are key components of US9215236. Claims in US9215236 relating to policy enforcement for "content" (files, documents, etc.), tracking access/distribution, setting permissions, and implementing measures like blocking or restricting access based on policies (e.g., "use restriction(s) and/or permission(s)") are potentially anticipated. The distinguishing features of US9215236 would likely be its unification of file sharing with a broad range of communication modalities (live voice, instant messaging, web browsing, social networks), its ability to rationalize diverse security protocols (including SOA/Google Wave), and the use of comprehensive policy tags that consider multiple granular contextual and persona-based factors across these mixed media.

5. US8074288B2: Methods, Systems and Products for Policy-Based Content Classification

• Full Citation: US8074288B2, Invented by Veldhuis et al., Assigned to Symantec Corporation.
• Publication Date: December 6, 2011.
• Filing Date: October 26, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent describes methods and systems for policy-based content classification. It involves analyzing content (e.g., documents, emails) to classify it based on predefined policies and then applying appropriate actions or controls based on that classification. The classification can involve keywords, patterns, or other metadata, and the policies can dictate handling, storage, or transmission rules for different content types.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US8074288B2 potentially anticipates claims in US9215236 that involve the "analysis module" or "policy agent" inspecting communication/content to "identify pertinent policy factors" or "determine metadata relating to the selected communication and content," and subsequently applying policies based on this analysis (e.g., "content description field" in the policy tag). The concept of "tagging" content with policy-relevant information based on its characteristics is central to both. US9215236 might distinguish itself by the breadth of content types and communication modalities it covers, the complexity of its policy tag fields (e.g., combining content classification with real-time contextual factors, personas, and trust levels), and its ability to orchestrate security across incompatible systems and architectures in a unified manner, going beyond mere content classification.

US patent 9215236 describes a comprehensive, policy-based communications security and file sharing system designed to operate across mixed media, mixed communication modalities, and to be extensible to cloud computing environments like Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA). The core of the invention lies in a policy enforcement server coordinating with distributed policy agents located at various enterprise network nodes to monitor, track, enforce, and remediate policy violations related to communications and content. Key features include the use of policy tags containing detailed contextual and security information, the ability to rationalize incompatible security schemes, and dynamic, context-aware policy application.

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 claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." A motivation to combine existing prior art references is a critical component of an obviousness analysis.

The patent itself identifies several limitations of existing prior art, which a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to overcome.

Identified Prior Art and Their Limitations (as stated in US9215236):

1. Secure VPNs: Limit access with authentication and encryption for restricted groups.
   • Limitations: Do not address communication/attachment distribution, access control, use, tracking, external release, or timed distribution with temporal events. Do not extend easily to parties outside the VPN trust circle without additional security risks. Do not consider threat nature specific to communication modes/media. Do not apply to all forms of communications.
2. Document Control Systems: Provide single source document depositories with change management and version control.
   • Limitations: Fall short of overall control of sensitive communications traffic and content because they are not extensible to communications traffic. No tracking of documents once copied.
3. Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise (DLP, device encryption, centralized management): An industry-leading enterprise-wide security system with role-based policy enforcement and data reporting. It is device-based.
   • Limitations: Substantial processing burden (full encryption). Not easily extensible to SOA. Designed more for external threat management and device loss rather than coordinated, policy-based communications across mixed media and collaboration mechanisms. Does not cover all forms of voice/video, social networks, blogs/microblogs, or other non-email communications. Does not integrate with existing document control systems and voice encryption systems.
4. Real-time and Packet-based Voice Communications Security Systems: Provide voice encryption, some for PSTN and VoIP.
   • Limitations: None audit and track complex real-time sessions (e.g., conference calls) or positively authenticate all parties. No known system coordinates with other security products to enforce overall communications security.
5. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Security (e.g., WS-Security, XML Gateways): Address security and identity management for web services, often at the network perimeter. XML Gateways enforce identity and security for SOAP, XML, and REST web services.
   • Limitations: No proposal for integration of such protocols and standards into the overall fabric of communications security or rationalizing the differences required of SOA when considering the full gamut of media, mode, venue, and the like.
6. Google WaveTM: Advanced communications and collaboration paradigm with invite-based security.
   • Limitations: Creates disconnects with administrative or control-based security systems. Provides little protection against participants not adhering to enterprise guidelines. Another disjointed and incompatible security system not under centralized control.

Obviousness Combinations and Motivations:

A PHOSITA, aiming to address the stated deficiencies in existing security solutions, would have been motivated to combine various prior art elements to create a more comprehensive and integrated system, as claimed in US9215236.

Combination 1: Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise + Document Control Systems + Real-time Voice Communications Security Systems

• Motivation to Combine: The patent explicitly states that Sophos "falls short of a full enterprise security application by not covering all forms of voice and video, social networks, blogs/microblogs, and other non email-based communications" and "does not integrate with existing document control systems and voice encryption systems." Similarly, document control systems "falls short of helping with the overall control of sensitive communications traffic and content within a controlled group because it is not extensible to communications traffic," and "there is no tracking of documents once copied." Voice security systems lack coordination with other security products for "overall communications security" and cannot "audit and track such communication sessions or positively authenticate all parties in a complex real time session."
• Rationale for Obviousness: A PHOSITA would be clearly motivated to overcome these known interoperability and coverage gaps. The objective would be to extend the centralized policy enforcement, data loss prevention (DLP), and reporting capabilities of Sophos to encompass:
  1. Document lifecycle and usage tracking: Integrating document control systems would allow for versioning and initial access policies, while Sophos-like DLP and tracking could extend to content after it leaves the repository and is incorporated into communications.
  2. Voice communication security: Incorporating real-time voice encryption and session tracking would address the deficiencies of standalone voice security systems by bringing them under a unified policy framework, similar to Sophos's approach for data.
  3. Unified Policy Enforcement: The natural progression for an enterprise seeking comprehensive security would be to consolidate disparate security mechanisms into a single, coordinated policy engine. This combination would directly lead to a system like the claimed invention, which features a "policy enforcement server" that "orchestrates and coordinates a myriad of presently incompatible security methods and systems within a complex multi-media, multi-modal... communications environment", leveraging "policy agents" to inspect and tag various communication types (emails, instant messages, live voice, electronic documents). The "policy tag" mechanism in US9215236 provides the necessary portable metadata to carry security provisions across these integrated systems, addressing the "no tracking of documents once copied" limitation of prior art document control.

Combination 2: XML Gateways (for SOA security) + Secure VPNs + Presence Services/Social Networks

• Motivation to Combine: The patent highlights that while XML Gateways provide security for web services, there is "no proposal for integration of such protocols and standards into the overall fabric of communications security or rationalizing the differences required of SOA when one considers the full gamut of media, mode, venue and the like." Secure VPNs, while offering authenticated and encrypted links, "do not extend easily to parties outside of the VPN trust circle (external to the firewall) without incurring additional security risks." The patent also acknowledges that "the overall security problem becomes even more complex" with advanced collaboration paradigms like Google Wave, which creates "disconnects with other security systems" and lacks "centralized control." The disclosure specifically mentions the policy enforcement server receiving input from "on-line communities, social networks, presence services" to provide "additional structural detail and other ad-hoc grouping or collaboration information."
• Rationale for Obviousness: A PHOSITA, tasked with securing enterprise communications in an increasingly interconnected and collaborative environment, would be motivated to:
  1. Extend SOA security comprehensively: Recognizing the fragmentation of SOA security, a PHOSITA would seek to integrate the robust, perimeter-focused security enforcement of XML Gateways into a broader enterprise security fabric that considers all communication media and modalities.
  2. Bridge internal/external security gaps: Given the limitations of VPNs in seamlessly extending trust boundaries, combining them with a more granular, policy-driven approach (like that seen in XML Gateways) would be a logical step to enable secure interactions with external parties while mitigating risks.
  3. Incorporate dynamic contextual awareness: The explicit problems with Google Wave highlight the need for centralized control over collaboration platforms. Leveraging presence information and social network data to enrich contextual understanding for policy decisions would be a clear motivation. This would allow for dynamic adjustments to security based on factors like user location, availability, and group affiliations, going beyond static VPN or XML Gateway configurations.
• Resulting System: This combination would lead to a system where a central "policy enforcement server" could "detect and rationalize (via policy and security transcoding) previously incompatible security schemes, such as those for SOA, Google WaveTM, and others". It would also allow the security mechanisms to "extend readily to parties outside of the VPN trust circle (external to the firewall) without incurring additional security risks", by dynamically defining trusted groups and applying policies based on real-time context and social network information, rather than static network boundaries. The policy tags, with their fields for "subscriber persona and/or role," "other communicant(s) persona and/or role," "degree of trust," and "venue," directly enable this type of context-aware, integrated policy enforcement across diverse platforms and user groups.

In conclusion, the patent itself meticulously lays out the deficiencies of the prior art, thereby providing clear motivations for a PHOSITA to combine existing elements in ways that lead directly to the claimed invention. The drive to achieve a "comprehensive communications security system" that overcomes fragmentation, integrates disparate technologies, and provides context-aware, policy-driven enforcement across all media and modalities, renders the claims of US9215236 obvious in view of the outlined prior art.