US 7640332

US Patent 7640332, titled "System and method for hot deployment/redeployment in grid computing environment," provides a technique for efficient application deployment and redeployment in grid computing environments.

Here is a summary of the patent:

• Title: System and method for hot deployment/redeployment in grid computing environment
• Assignee: Valtrus Innovations Limited
• Inventors: Sanjay Dahiya
• Filing Date: December 20, 2007
• Issue Date: December 29, 2009
• Abstract: A technique for hot deploying/redeploying applications in a grid computing environment to improve operating efficiency and reduced overhead. This is achieved by notifying a client application manager on one or more grid nodes about the data transfer protocol to use when a new version of an application release bundle is received by a repository server. The new version is then hot deployed/redeployed on running application servers in the associated grid node using a suitable hot deployment plug-in based on the specified data transfer protocol by each client application manager.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for "hot" deployment or redeployment of applications in a grid computing environment without interruption. The process involves:

  1. Adding a new version of an application package (release bundle) to a central storage (repository server).
  2. A discovery module then identifies which grid nodes are currently running the application corresponding to this new package.
  3. A client application manager on each identified grid node is informed about the new application version and the specific data transfer method (protocol) to use.
  4. Finally, this client application manager uses an appropriate hot deployment software component (plug-in), chosen based on the specified data transfer protocol, to deploy or redeploy the new application version on the actively running application servers on its grid node.

• Independent Claim 9 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a computer-readable medium that stores program code. When executed by a computer system, this code performs the same hot deployment/redeployment method as described in Claim 1.

• Independent Claim 14 (Computer System Claim): This claim describes a computer system hardware, including a processor and memory, that is configured to perform the hot deployment/redeployment method as described in Claim 1. The memory stores the instructions that enable the processor to execute the method.

Litigation and Reexamination Status (as of April 26, 2026):

The patent 7640332 is Active and is projected to expire on September 1, 2028.

Several litigation cases related to this patent family have been filed across different US District Courts, including:

• Multiple cases in the Texas Eastern District Court (e.g., 2:25-cv-00081, 2:25-cv-00516, 2:25-cv-00517, 2:25-cv-00080).
• A case in the California Northern District Court (3:26-cv-00363).
• A case in the Washington Western District Court (2:25-cv-01859).
• A case in the New York Southern District Court (1:25-cv-06138).

Additionally, a PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2026-00039, was filed but not instituted procedurally.

Regarding reexamination, a Request for Reexamination (RR) was filed on November 25, 2025 (effective date September 3, 2025). A "Reexamination decision confirms claims" (CONR) was issued on March 17, 2026, with a reexamination certificate. The specific details of what claims were confirmed or changed are not detailed in the provided snippets, but it indicates the claims survived the reexamination process.
Given the current date of April 26, 2026, the information about litigation and reexamination from the provided Google Patents page seems up-to-date. I did not perform additional live web searches as the provided authoritative patent text already contained the necessary information.

Known litigation involving US patent 7640332 includes the following cases:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00081
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

2. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00516
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

3. Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

   • Case Number: IPR2026-00039
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2026 (e.g., "IPR2026").
   • Petitioner(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Patent Owner: Valtrus Innovations Limited (current assignee of the patent).
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

4. Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

   • Case Number: 3:26-cv-00363
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2026 (e.g., "26-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

5. Jurisdiction: Washington Western District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-01859
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

6. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00517
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

7. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00080
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

8. Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court

   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-06138
   • Filing Date: The case number indicates a filing in 2025 (e.g., "25-cv").
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided information.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active.

Additionally, the patent underwent reexamination:

1. Jurisdiction: United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
   • Event Type: Request for Reexamination Filed (RR)
   • Filing Date: 2025-11-25
   • Outcome or Current Status: Reexamination decision confirms claims (CONR) with a reexamination certificate (C1) issued on 2026-03-17.

Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 7640332. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by a final written decision. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been tested on the merits at the PTAB, and all claims remain in force as far as PTAB proceedings are concerned.

IPR2026-00039 — FedEx Corporation et al. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial – The petition for Inter Partes Review was denied institution on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the patentability arguments.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) were presented in the petition by FedEx Corporation et al., but were not adjudicated on the merits due to the discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied (Procedural) – 2026-03-16. The petition for IPR was not instituted. The status indicates a "Discretionary Denial", suggesting the Board opted not to institute the trial based on factors such as parallel litigation, efficiency, or other administrative considerations, rather than the merits of the patentability challenge itself.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding concluded with a denial of institution.
• Appeal: Information regarding an appeal of the institution denial is not publicly available at this time.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of institution means that this particular IPR challenge did not proceed to a full review of the patent's claims. Therefore, all claims of US7640332 remain untested and potentially vulnerable to future IPR challenges by other parties or by FedEx Corporation et al. on different grounds, assuming no estoppel applies.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7640332 remain untested and are considered sustained by virtue of the IPR petition being denied institution, not due to a merits-based decision. As such, all 18 claims (claims 1-18) are currently valid and actionable from a PTAB perspective.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, § 315(e)(2) applies only to claims that have proceeded to a final written decision. Since IPR2026-00039 was denied institution, FedEx Corporation et al. (and their privies) are not estopped from raising the same or reasonably could have raised grounds in future district court litigation or subsequent PTAB proceedings, provided statutory requirements are met (e.g., time bars). For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenging the patent's validity.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings on this patent by the same petitioner, nor has the patent owner pursued PTAB appeals aggressively, as this is the only proceeding and it concluded at the institution stage. Unified Patents is not listed as a petitioner in this specific proceeding.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2026-00039 resulted in a discretionary denial of institution and no claims were invalidated, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should understand that all claims of US7640332 are currently considered valid. The denial means the patent's validity on the merits was not evaluated by the PTAB in this instance.

Given the status of "Discretionary Denial", interested parties can review the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00039 to understand the specific reasons for the denial. This decision document would typically be accessible via the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2026-00039. Understanding the reasoning for the discretionary denial is crucial for informing potential future challenges, as it may indicate specific strategies or arguments to avoid or incorporate in a new petition. Currently, there are no active proceedings pending for this patent. The absence of a merits-based PTAB decision means a defendant has the full range of invalidity arguments available, including those based on prior art.

Note: The detailed ruling for IPR2026-00039 would be found in the institution decision document on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal, as the status specifies "Discretionary Denial" rather than a decision on the merits. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial would be outlined within that document.## Proceedings overview

There is currently one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 7640332. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by a final written decision. For a defendant, this means the patent has not been tested on the merits at the PTAB, and all claims remain in force as far as PTAB proceedings are concerned.

IPR2026-00039 — FedEx Corporation et al. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial – The petition for Inter Partes Review was denied institution on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the patentability arguments.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: The petition submitted by FedEx Corporation et al. would have presented challenges to specific claims of US7640332 based on prior art under statutory bases like § 102 and § 103. However, these grounds were not substantively evaluated due to the discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied (Procedural) – 2026-03-16. The PTAB issued a decision declining to institute the IPR. The status "Discretionary Denial" indicates that the Board exercised its discretion not to proceed with the trial, likely based on factors outside of the merits of the patentability challenge, such as concurrent litigation or other policy considerations.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution and did not proceed to a full trial.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with the denial of institution and was not terminated via settlement.
• Appeal: Information regarding any appeal of the institution denial is not publicly available at this time.
• Defensive value: Since institution was denied, the IPR did not adjudicate the patentability of the claims of US7640332 on their merits. Consequently, all claims of the patent remain valid and enforceable from the perspective of this PTAB proceeding. A defendant still has the full opportunity to challenge the patent's validity in district court or through new PTAB petitions, subject to statutory time bars and potential Fintiv considerations if parallel litigation exists.

Strategic summary

All claims of US7640332 remain untested and are considered currently valid from a PTAB perspective, as the sole IPR petition, IPR2026-00039, was denied institution on discretionary grounds. No claims were substantively evaluated for patentability, and thus, no claims have been canceled or confirmed patentable by a Final Written Decision. This means that all 18 claims of US7640332 are currently active.

Regarding estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), it does not apply in this scenario because the IPR did not result in a Final Written Decision on any claim. Therefore, FedEx Corporation et al. (and their privies) are not estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR in future district court litigation or other proceedings. For any other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenging the patent's validity in a new IPR or in district court.

There is no established pattern of multiple IPR filings on this patent by the same petitioner, and the patent owner has not been required to defend against a merits-based PTAB trial. The information does not indicate any involvement from a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents as the petitioner.

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2026-00039 concluded with a discretionary denial of institution, all claims of US7640332 remain valid and enforceable from the perspective of PTAB proceedings. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, you should:

• Review the Institution Decision: Obtain and thoroughly review the Board's written decision for IPR2026-00039 (available via the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for "IPR2026-00039") to understand the precise reasons for the discretionary denial. This will provide insights into what arguments or procedural issues led to the denial and help inform any future defensive strategies.
• Evaluate new IPR petitions: Since no claims were adjudicated on the merits, the path for filing a new IPR petition remains open, assuming all statutory requirements (e.g., one-year time bar from service of a complaint) can be met. The previous discretionary denial may offer guidance on how to structure a new petition to increase the likelihood of institution, particularly if the prior denial was based on factors such as Fintiv considerations related to parallel litigation.
• District Court defense: Proceed with, or prepare for, a full invalidity defense in district court, as the patent's claims have not been hardened by a PTAB merits decision. All available prior art can be leveraged.

Inventors

• Sanjay Dahiya (Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.)

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US7640332B2 is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. was a multinational information technology company specializing in developing and manufacturing computing, data storage, and networking hardware, designing software, and delivering services. At the time of filing (2007), HP was the world's leading PC manufacturer. In 2015, the Hewlett-Packard company split into HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is currently an operating company focused on hybrid cloud and IT infrastructure services, including servers, storage, networking, AI, and consulting.

Assignment timeline

• 2007-12-20 (executed) / recorded 2007-12-20 — Reel 020335/0424

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: DAHIYA, SANJAY
  • Assignee: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
  • Correspondent: NOT RECORDED. This is the initial assignment from the inventor to the employer.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to employer.

• 2015-10-27 (executed) / recorded 2015-11-09 — Reel 037079/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
  • Assignee: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP
  • Correspondent: RICHARD S. BALINT, HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, 3000 HANOVER STREET, PALO ALTO, CA 94304.
  • Context: Internal reorg following the split of Hewlett-Packard.

• 2021-01-15 (executed) / recorded 2021-01-26 — Reel 055269/0001

  • Conveyance: Patent Assignment, Security Interest, and Lien Agreement
  • Assignor: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY
  • Assignee: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Correspondent: DECKARD & BRADLEY, LLC, 1600 WEST 38TH STREET, SUITE 100, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731.
  • Context: Securitization/transfer of patents.

• 2021-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-06 — Reel 056157/0492

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Assignee: VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: DECKARD & BRADLEY, LLC, 1600 WEST 38TH STREET, SUITE 100, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731. This correspondent is a repeat-player in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer to NPE.

The USPTO Assignment Center search page for US7640332 can be found at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/assignment/view?id=8050074

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7640332
    2007 : Inventor assigned to HP Dev Co LP
    2009 : Patent granted
    2015 : Assigned to HPE Dev LP
    2021 : Assigned to OT Patent Escrow LLC
         : Assigned to Valtrus Innovations Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP to OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC (Reel 055269/0001) and subsequently to VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED (Reel 056157/0492) indicates a shell-entity transfer. Valtrus Innovations Limited is described as a "specialist intellectual-property licensor" and a "patent assertion entity focused on monetizing legacy technology portfolios". Its primary activity is listed as "Activities of Holding Companies". The address in Dublin for Valtrus, where it shares an Eircode with at least 21 other companies, also suggests a shell entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Valtrus Innovations Limited is identified as a "patent assertion entity focused on monetizing legacy technology portfolios" and has been involved in patent infringement litigation, notably against Digital Realty Trust, Inc., which concluded in a voluntary dismissal. Additionally, Starbucks has filed a lawsuit against Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and its parent Key Patent Innovations Ltd., accusing them of "bad faith patent infringement claims," invoking Washington state's "Patent Troll Prevention Act." This confirms Valtrus Innovations Limited as a known asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. DECKARD & BRADLEY, LLC, with the address 1600 WEST 38TH STREET, SUITE 100, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731, acted as the correspondent for both the assignment to OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC (Reel 055269/0001) and the subsequent assignment to VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED (Reel 056157/0492).

4. Cascading transfers — present. There are two consecutive assignments within a short period: 2021-01-15 to OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC (Reel 055269/0001) and 2021-05-03 to VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED (Reel 056157/0492), which are less than 24 months apart. Both of these transfers used the same correspondent, DECKARD & BRADLEY, LLC.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While Valtrus Innovations is known to assert patents, the precise date of the first litigation involving US7640332B2 is not readily available in the provided text. The Google Patents litigation section shows various cases filed in 2025, significantly after the 2021 transfers to Valtrus.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The original assignee, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., underwent a corporate split in 2015, not a bankruptcy. The subsequent assignments were part of a corporate restructuring and later transfers, not a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — unclear. While Valtrus Innovations Limited acquires patents "originating from Hewlett Packard Enterprise" and HPE is an operating company, there is no explicit evidence in the provided information that Valtrus is asserting these patents on HPE's behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with Valtrus Innovations Limited, which is identified as a patent assertion entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent displays multiple strong NPE signals. Valtrus Innovations Limited, the current assignee (Reel 056157/0492), is explicitly identified as a "patent assertion entity" and a "specialist intellectual-property licensor", and has been accused of "bad faith patent infringement claims" by Starbucks. The chain also shows cascading transfers to shell entities (OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC and VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED) with the same correspondent (DECKARD & BRADLEY, LLC) within a short timeframe (Reel 055269/0001 and Reel 056157/0492). These factors strongly indicate an NPE pattern.

The current date is May 25, 2026.

I will now search the USPTO database via Google Patents for the specific patent number 7640332 to retrieve its citations and then analyze them. Note that the full text of US7640332B2, including its list of citations, has already been provided and will be used as the primary source for identifying prior art references.

The Google search results provide information about using the USPTO's Patent Public Search tools. Since the full text of US7640332B2 is already provided and is authoritative, I will directly extract the citation information from there, rather than performing a separate USPTO search for the patent itself. I will then use Google searches to obtain abstracts for the cited prior art documents to enable a more detailed analysis.

The "Citations" section of US7640332B2 lists the following prior art references:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 7640332

Here is an analysis of the prior art cited in US Patent 7640332, with a focus on their potential to anticipate the claims, particularly Independent Claim 1.

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) elements:

1. Adding a new version of an application release bundle in a repository server.
2. Determining by a discovery services module which of the one or more grid nodes are running an application associated with the added new version of the application release bundle.
3. Notifying a client application manager associated with one or more of the determined grid nodes about adding the new version of the application release bundle along with a type of data transfer protocol to use.
4. Hot deploying/redeploying the new version of the application release bundle on running one or more application servers in an associated grid node using an appropriate hot deployment plug-in based on the data transfer protocol by a respective one of the client application managers.

Independent Claim 9 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim) and Independent Claim 14 (Computer System Claim) generally mirror the method of Claim 1 in a different statutory class. Therefore, an anticipation of Claim 1 would also likely anticipate the corresponding elements in Claims 9 and 14.

1. US20050120353A1

• Full Citation: US20050120353A1 (Liang-Jie Zhang), "Method and apparatus of adaptive integration activity management for business application integration"
• Publication Date: June 2, 2005
• Brief Description: This patent application describes methods and systems for adaptive integration activity management within business application integration. It focuses on abstracting integration activities from specific integration logic and adapting them based on changes in services, policies, and requirements. It involves discovering available services and dynamically selecting and binding to them.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While US20050120353A1 discusses discovering services and adapting integration, it does not explicitly detail the "hot deployment/redeployment" of an application release bundle with dynamic selection of data transfer protocols and plug-ins for application servers on grid nodes, as specified in Claim 1 of US7640332. Its focus is on adaptive integration activity management rather than the specific mechanics of hot software deployment/redeployment in a heterogeneous grid environment. It might anticipate the general concept of discovery and adaptation in a distributed environment, but not the specific hot deployment mechanism.

2. US20050138618A1

• Full Citation: US20050138618A1 (Alexander Gebhart), "Grid compute node software application deployment"
• Publication Date: June 23, 2005
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for deploying software applications to grid compute nodes. It includes mechanisms for storing application configuration data separate from the application, allowing for flexible deployment. It focuses on preparing an application for deployment by generating specific configurations and deploying to selected grid nodes.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant as its title directly addresses "Grid compute node software application deployment." It describes deploying applications to grid nodes, which covers the broad concept of "adding a new version of an application release bundle in a repository server" and subsequently deploying it. However, a key distinguishing feature of US7640332's Claim 1 is "hot deployment/redeployment... on running one or more application servers" and the dynamic "notifying a client application manager... along with a type of data transfer protocol to use" for selecting an "appropriate hot deployment plug-in based on the data transfer protocol." Without specific details in US20050138618A1's abstract or description about hot deployment (i.e., without requiring a shutdown/restart of the application container/server) and the dynamic selection of data transfer protocols and plug-ins based on node characteristics for this hot deployment in a heterogeneous grid, it may not fully anticipate Claim 1. However, it certainly covers the general problem space and foundational elements of grid application deployment.

3. US20060005181A1

• Full Citation: US20060005181A1 (International Business Machines Corporation), "System and method for dynamically building application environments in a computational grid"
• Publication Date: January 5, 2006
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for dynamically building application environments within a computational grid. It involves determining environmental requirements for an application, selecting grid resources that meet those requirements, and deploying the application to those resources. It emphasizes dynamic assembly and deployment.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US20060005181A1 is relevant due to its focus on "dynamically building application environments" and deploying applications in a "computational grid." This aligns with elements of US7640332's Claim 1 regarding determining which grid nodes are suitable for an application. Similar to US20050138618A1, the key area for potential distinction lies in the explicit "hot deployment/redeployment" on running servers and the dynamic selection of data transfer protocols and hot deployment plug-ins based on the protocol, specifically for redeployment of a new version of an already running application. If US20060005181A1 only covers initial deployment or requires service interruption, it might not fully anticipate the "hot" aspect and dynamic protocol/plug-in selection for redeployment.

4. US20060195688A1

• Full Citation: US20060195688A1 (International Business Machines Corporation), "Method, system and program product for managing applications in a shared computer infrastructure"
• Publication Date: August 31, 2006
• Brief Description: This patent application describes managing applications in a shared computer infrastructure. It involves receiving a request to manage an application, identifying one or more resources on which to manage the application, and then performing management actions. It could encompass deployment, monitoring, and other lifecycle management tasks.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference generally pertains to "managing applications" in a "shared computer infrastructure," which could include grid environments. While broad, "managing applications" could involve deploying or updating them. However, the abstract does not specify "hot deployment/redeployment" without interruption, nor does it detail the mechanism of dynamic notification of a "type of data transfer protocol" to a "client application manager" for selecting an "appropriate hot deployment plug-in" on running application servers for a new application version, as central to Claim 1 of US7640332. Its generality makes direct anticipation of these specific "hot deployment" and protocol-selection steps less likely without further details.

5. US20070028098A1

• Full Citation: US20070028098A1 (International Business Machines Corporation), "Encrypting units of work based on a trust level"
• Publication Date: February 1, 2007
• Brief Description: This patent application focuses on encrypting units of work based on a determined trust level. It relates to secure execution of tasks in a distributed or grid environment.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference appears less relevant to the core subject matter of hot deployment/redeployment mechanisms. Its primary focus is on data encryption and trust levels for units of work, rather than the process of deploying or updating applications in a grid environment, or the dynamic selection of data transfer protocols and hot deployment plug-ins. It is unlikely to anticipate any claims of US7640332.

6. US20070106773A1

• Full Citation: US20070106773A1 (Callminer, Inc.), "Method and apparatus for processing of heterogeneous units of work"
• Publication Date: May 10, 2007
• Brief Description: This patent application describes methods and apparatus for processing heterogeneous units of work, possibly in a distributed or grid computing context. The heterogeneity might refer to the types of work or the platforms executing them.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While it mentions "heterogeneous units of work," the primary focus seems to be on processing tasks, not on the hot deployment/redeployment of applications or the specific mechanisms for dynamic protocol and plug-in selection for application updates as outlined in Claim 1 of US7640332. It is not directly related to software deployment/redeployment in the context of maintaining running application servers. Thus, it is unlikely to anticipate the claims.

7. US20070233827A1

• Full Citation: US20070233827A1 (Mcknight Lee W), "Ad hoc distributed resource coordination for a wireless grid"
• Publication Date: October 4, 2007
• Brief Description: This patent application describes methods for ad hoc distributed resource coordination, specifically in a wireless grid environment. It focuses on the discovery and coordination of resources in dynamic, self-organizing networks.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is about "distributed resource coordination" in a "wireless grid," which involves discovery of resources. This could overlap with the "determining by a discovery services module which of the one or more grid nodes are running an application" step in Claim 1 of US7640332. However, its specific focus on wireless and ad hoc coordination, and lack of explicit mention of "hot deployment/redeployment" of application bundles, dynamic protocol selection, and plug-in invocation for running application servers, makes it less likely to fully anticipate the specific deployment aspects of US7640332's claims.

8. US7305585B2

• Full Citation: US7305585B2 (Exludus Technologies Inc.), "Asynchronous and autonomous data replication"
• Publication Date: December 4, 2007
• Brief Description: This patent describes methods and systems for asynchronous and autonomous data replication, typically for data redundancy and availability.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus is on data replication, not application deployment or redeployment. While moving an "application release bundle" could be considered a form of data transfer, the specific context of "hot deployment/redeployment" on "running application servers" using dynamically chosen "data transfer protocols" and "hot deployment plug-ins" as specified in Claim 1 of US7640332 is not addressed. Thus, it is unlikely to anticipate the claims.

9. US20080123559A1

• Full Citation: US20080123559A1 (Voltaire Ltd.), "Service-oriented infrastructure management"
• Publication Date: May 29, 2008
• Brief Description: This patent application describes managing service-oriented infrastructure, including provisioning, configuration, and monitoring of services and resources in a data center or distributed environment.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference, published after the priority date of US7640332 (December 27, 2006), cannot be prior art for US7640332 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as its publication date (May 29, 2008) is later than the priority date. If it were considered for novelty (e.g., if there were an earlier filing date in an international family that predates 7640332's priority date, which is not immediately apparent), its broad scope of "service-oriented infrastructure management" might generally cover aspects of deploying services. However, the specific "hot deployment/redeployment" of application release bundles with dynamic data transfer protocol and plug-in selection for running application servers as detailed in Claim 1 of US7640332 is not explicitly taught in the brief description. Given its later publication date, it is not primary prior art.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

Based on the titles and general descriptions, US20050138618A1 ("Grid compute node software application deployment") and US20060005181A1 ("System and method for dynamically building application environments in a computational grid") appear to be the most relevant prior art references. They directly address the deployment of applications in grid environments, which overlaps with the initial steps of US7640332's claims.

However, the distinct contribution of US7640332, as highlighted in its claims, appears to be the combination of:

• Identifying running application instances on grid nodes.
• Dynamically notifying client application managers about the type of data transfer protocol to use.
• Utilizing appropriate hot deployment plug-ins selected based on that data transfer protocol for "hot deploying/redeploying" on running application servers (i.e., without requiring shutdown/restart).

The brief descriptions of US20050138618A1 and US20060005181A1, based on their titles and abstracts, do not explicitly confirm these specific "hot deployment" and dynamic "protocol/plug-in selection" mechanisms for updates on running servers in a heterogeneous grid. A deeper analysis into the full specifications of these references would be needed to definitively determine the extent of their anticipation of these specific differentiating features of US7640332.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7,640,332 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Current Date: 2026-05-25

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim 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 to which the subject matter pertains." This analysis requires identifying the scope and content of the prior art, ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A crucial aspect is determining whether there would have been a motivation to combine or modify prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

The independent claims of US Patent 7,640,332 (Claims 1, 9, and 14) generally describe a method, computer-readable medium, and computer system, respectively, for hot deployment/redeployment in a grid computing environment. Key steps include: (1) adding a new application version to a repository, (2) a discovery module identifying which grid nodes are running the associated application, (3) notifying client application managers on these nodes about the new version and the required data transfer protocol, and (4) hot deploying/redeploying the new version using an appropriate hot deployment plug-in based on the specified protocol.

Prior Art Combinations and Motivation for Obviousness

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0138618 A1 to Gebhart ("Grid compute node software application deployment") with the common general knowledge of hot deployment techniques, as acknowledged within US7640332 itself.

Primary Reference: US2005/0138618A1 (Gebhart)
Gebhart teaches a system for deploying software applications to grid compute nodes. Its abstract states, "A compute resource, such as a grid node, can register for software deployment, upon which a deployment service determines what software is authorized for deployment to the resource, what software is currently deployed on the resource, and what software is to be deployed to the resource to satisfy its authorizations. The deployment service then provides an authorized software image and configuration information to a software deployment client on the resource to effect deployment." [cite: US20050138618A1]

Let's break down how Gebhart addresses the elements of Independent Claim 1 of US7640332:

1. Adding a new version of an application release bundle in a repository server: Gebhart's disclosure of a "deployment service" that "provides an authorized software image" implies the existence of a repository where software images (akin to application release bundles) are stored and managed, allowing for new versions to be made available for deployment. [cite: US20050138618A1]
2. Determining by a discovery services module which of the one or more grid nodes are running an application associated with the added new version of the application release bundle upon adding the new version of the application release bundle in the repository server: Gebhart explicitly describes a "deployment service [that] determines... what software is currently deployed on the resource." [cite: US20050138618A1] This directly teaches the function of a discovery module identifying which grid nodes are running a particular application. The context of "grid compute node software application deployment" firmly places this within a grid computing environment. [cite: US20050138618A1]
3. Notifying a client application manager associated with one or more of the determined grid nodes about adding the new version of the application release bundle along with a type of data transfer protocol to use: Gebhart states that the deployment service "provides an authorized software image and configuration information to a software deployment client on the resource to effect deployment." [cite: US20050138618A1] A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), aware of the heterogeneous nature of grid computing environments (as described in the background of US7640332), would recognize that "configuration information" provided to a deployment client would naturally include details essential for successful transfer, such as the specific data transfer protocol (e.g., FTP, HTTP, etc.) to be used. This is a common requirement for interoperability in distributed systems.
4. Hot deploying/redeploying the new version of the application release bundle on running one or more application servers in an associated grid node using an appropriate hot deployment plug-in based on the data transfer protocol by a respective one of the client application managers: US7640332's own background section acknowledges that "Hot deployment refers to a process of deploying/redeploying an application without having to shutdown/restart an application container" and that "Hot deployment is commonly used in containers that run in standalone mode or homogenous cluster environment." The primary problem addressed by US7640332, as stated in its background, is the "significant overhead" incurred by suspending and reinitializing grid systems during application deployment/redeployment due to dynamic application-to-server mappings and heterogeneous platforms. [cite: US7640332B2]

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA seeking to improve upon Gebhart's general grid application deployment system, specifically to address the known problem of system downtime and overhead during application updates in heterogeneous grid environments, would have been motivated to integrate the well-known "hot deployment" technique. The goal would be to allow updates without restarting application containers or entire grid nodes, thereby reducing the "significant overhead" identified in US7640332.

Furthermore, given Gebhart's teaching of providing "configuration information" to the client, and the necessity in a heterogeneous grid environment to handle "different data transfer mechanisms" (as also noted in US7640332's background), it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to implement modular "plug-ins" that correspond to the specified data transfer protocol. The use of plug-ins to handle different protocols (such as ftp, http, gridftp, tcp, and udp, as explicitly listed in US7640332's detailed description) is a standard and predictable software engineering approach for creating extensible and flexible systems in a diverse computing landscape.

Other Supporting Prior Art:

• US2006/0195688A1 (IBM): This reference further reinforces the concept of "managing applications in a shared computer infrastructure" including "deploying the application service based on the application images." [cite: US20060195688A1] This supports the general notion of application management and deployment in a distributed environment, making the motivations to improve such deployment even more apparent.
• US2006/0005181A1 (IBM): This patent describes "dynamically building application environments in a computational grid by specifying application environment descriptions." [cite: US20060005181A1] This highlights the dynamic nature of grid environments and the need for flexible deployment solutions, which would naturally lead a PHOSITA to consider hot deployment.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the combination of Gebhart (US2005/0138618A1) as a primary reference for grid-based application deployment and discovery, along with the widely known practice of hot deployment in application containers (as acknowledged within US7640332), would render Claim 1, and by extension dependent Claims 9 and 14, obvious to a PHOSITA. The motivation would be to predictably improve the efficiency and reduce the downtime and overhead associated with application updates in heterogeneous grid computing environments, a problem clearly articulated by the patent in question. The use of protocol-specific plug-ins for data transfer is a straightforward and conventional engineering choice for handling diverse communication requirements in such environments.