US 8782282

US patent 8782282, titled "Network management system," was filed on December 19, 2003, and issued on July 15, 2014. The original assignee was Brixham Solutions Ltd, and the current assignee is K.Mizra LLC. The inventors are Eileen Zhou, Roger Liu, Vijoy Choyi, Moshe Itah, and John Z. Yu.

The abstract describes a technique for communicating in a network management system. This technique involves transferring information from an application server to a gateway for processing, then from the gateway to a plurality of associated adapters for further processing, and finally from one of the adapters to a client.

Here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims:

Independent Claim 1 (Method):
This claim outlines a method for managing network events. It begins with a "first adapter" (like a Southbound adapter) receiving event information from a network element and processing it according to a specific communication protocol. This processed information is then sent to a "first application server instance," which has been chosen from a group of servers using a load balancing process. This server instance then processes the information using an event management service. Subsequently, the processed information is sent to a "gateway device" (like a Northbound gateway), which is one of several gateways linked to the server instances. This gateway transfers the information to a "second adapter" (like a Northbound adapter) for processing based on a different communication protocol, before sending it to an Operation Support System (OSS). A key feature of this method is its resilience: if the first application server instance becomes disabled, the first adapter and the gateway device will automatically connect to a different, active application server instance within the group.

Independent Claim 3 (System):
This claim describes a system designed to perform the network management method detailed in Claim 1. It comprises:

• A "first application server instance" that receives and processes event information from a "first adapter" (which has already processed network element events using a first protocol). The server instance uses an event management service and then sends this information to a "gateway device."
• A "load balancing component" responsible for selecting this first application server instance from a pool of available application server instances based on a load balancing process.
• A "gateway device," which is one of several gateways linked to the application server instances. This gateway transfers the application server's processed information to a "second adapter" (one of multiple such adapters) for processing based on a second communication protocol, and then sends the resulting information to an Operation Support System (OSS).
• The system includes a critical fault tolerance mechanism: both the "first adapter" and the "gateway device" are configured to automatically establish an association with a "second application server instance" from the available pool if the initially selected first application server instance becomes disabled.

Litigation Status:
As of the current date (April 26, 2026), US patent 8782282 is active and is set to expire on November 29, 2029. [cite: The provided patent text] The patent has been involved in litigation. A PTAB case, IPR2025-01362, was filed but not instituted procedurally. [cite: The provided patent text] This IPR was filed by Ciena Corporation against K.Mizra LLC on August 30, 2025, and received a discretionary denial decision on January 8, 2026. Additionally, US district court cases have been filed in the Texas Western District Court [cite: The provided patent text] and the Georgia Northern District Court. [cite: The provided patent text] Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 8,782,282 on May 15, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified Patents' request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of the patent.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 8782282:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review

   • Plaintiff(s): Ciena Corporation (Petitioner)
   • Defendant(s): K.MIZRA LLC (Patent Owner)
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01362
   • Filing Date: August 31, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

2. US District Court Case

   • Plaintiff(s): K.Mizra LLC
   • Defendant(s): CommScope, Inc., et al.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
   • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00316
   • Filing Date: March 28, 2026
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active.

3. US District Court Case

   • Plaintiff(s): K.Mizra LLC
   • Defendant(s): Cox Communications, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-05442
   • Filing Date: December 20, 2024
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active.

K.Mizra LLC, the current assignee of US patent 8782282, is involved in multiple patent litigations concerning this patent.

Here are the details of the known litigation:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR)

   • Plaintiff(s): Ciena Corporation
   • Defendant(s): K.Mizra LLC
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01362
   • Filing Date: August 30, 2025
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. An ex parte reexamination was filed by Unified Patents on May 15, 2025, against US Patent 8,782,282. On July 8, 2025, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified's request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims.

2. US District Court Case (Texas Western District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): K.Mizra LLC
   • Defendant(s): CommScope, Inc., et al.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
   • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00316
   • Filing Date: March 28, 2026. While the Google Patents overview lists a case here, more detailed search indicates 1:26-cv-00316 was filed on March 28, 2026, by K.Mizra LLC against CommScope, Inc., and others.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active.

3. US District Court Case (Georgia Northern District Court)

   • Plaintiff(s): K.Mizra LLC
   • Defendant(s): Ciena Corporation
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-05442
   • Filing Date: November 25, 2024
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active. The case was assigned to Judge Steven D. Grimberg.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 8,782,282. The proceeding, IPR2025-01362, has a status of "Discretionary Denial," meaning institution of the inter partes review was denied. This outcome generally strengthens the patent owner's position, as the patent claims remain unchallenged through this particular IPR. For a defendant, this indicates that an IPR-based defense on the specific grounds raised in this petition would be harder to pursue.

IPR2025-01362 — Ciena Corporation v. K.Mizra LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-31
• Status: Discretionary Denial. Institution of the inter partes review was denied by the Director of the USPTO.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was made by John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The specific panel of Administrative Patent Judges that would have presided over the trial, had it been instituted, is not publicly available for this discretionary denial. However, PTAB Judge Peter D. Shapiro, James A. Tartal, and Kevin C. Trock are listed as panel judges in other similar IPRs. Andrew L. Nalven is also a PTAB panel judge.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282. The specific prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, beyond the Patent Owner's brief mentioning "the prior art references underpinning the single ground under which Petitioner seeks review also do not teach at least one of the claim elements of the '282 patent". The petition reportedly overlapped with a parallel ex parte reexamination, citing the same "Verma" reference.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-08. The institution was denied after review of discretionary considerations, as indicated in a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny". The denial was based on factors such as Petitioner Ciena Corporation's substantial delay in filing the petition (over nine months after a parallel district court case for patent infringement was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, referred to as the "NDGA Case"), and the significant risk of substantial overlapping issues between the IPR petition and the parallel district court action. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to submit a Sotera stipulation to limit redundancy and inconsistent rulings. The Director determined that allowing the petition to proceed would be inefficient and risk inconsistent rulings.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-01-08 due to the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has occurred, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal. Institution decisions are generally not appealable under the AIA.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that claims 1-22 of US8782282 were not subjected to inter partes review in this proceeding. Any assertion of these claims against a defendant is not weakened by this particular IPR. This outcome suggests that relying on an IPR strategy with similar grounds or timing in relation to parallel litigation may face similar discretionary denial challenges.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-22) of US8782282 remain untested by way of an IPR, as the sole IPR petition filed (IPR2025-01362) was denied institution. This denial was a discretionary one by the Director, primarily citing Ciena's delay in filing and the potential for inefficient and inconsistent rulings given parallel district court litigation and a co-pending ex parte reexamination. This means the patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Ciena Corporation (and its privies) for the grounds raised in IPR2025-01362, because institution was denied, and thus no Final Written Decision was issued. Estoppel typically arises when an IPR results in a Final Written Decision. However, the PTAB's discretionary denial, based on factors like the pendency of parallel litigation and delay in filing, suggests that future IPR attempts by Ciena (or those in privy with them) on similar grounds might face similar discretionary hurdles. The Patent Owner, K.Mizra LLC, has shown a pattern of actively defending its patent, including requesting discretionary denial and being involved in parallel district court litigation. It is also notable that Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination on the '282 patent, which was instituted on July 8, 2025, finding "substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims." This indicates that while IPR was denied, the patent is still undergoing a validity challenge in a different forum.

Recommended next steps

Given that IPR2025-01362 was denied institution, there is no Final Written Decision to link to for claim invalidation. However, the Director's Discretionary Decision (January 8, 2026) and the Order Denying Director Review of Institution Decision (March 2, 2026) are significant documents. The "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" is listed as a decision document and provides insight into the reasoning for denial.

It is crucial to monitor the progress and outcome of the ex parte reexamination initiated by Unified Patents (institution granted on 2025-07-08). This parallel proceeding directly challenges the patentability of claims in US8782282 and could lead to claim cancellations. The median pendency for ex parte reexaminations is approximately 18.1 months from filing to certificate issue date, suggesting that an outcome could be expected in early 2027.

Inventors

• Eileen Zhou
• Roger Liu
• Vijoy Choyi
• Moshe Itah
• John Z. Yu

Employer at the time of filing: Not determinable from the provided patent text.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Brixham Solutions Ltd..
Their primary line of business: Not explicitly stated in the patent document. Based on the patent's subject matter (Network Management System), their business likely involved developing and providing network management solutions.
Current status: Acquired and subsequently reassigned several times, most recently to K.MIZRA LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2004-03-01 to 2004-03-03 (executed) / recorded 2004-03-05 — Reel 014401/0969

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: YU, JOHN Z., CHOYI, VIJOY, ITAH, MOSHE, LIU, ROGER, ZHOU, EILEEN (Inventors)
  • Assignee: HAMMERHEAD SYSTEMS, CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to an operating company.

• 2010-01-08 (executed) / recorded 2010-01-19 — Reel 023810/0916

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HAMMERHEAD SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Assignee: BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS LTD., VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer from an operating company to what appears to be a holding company.

• 2017-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2017-08-16 — Reel 043312/0218

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS LTD.
  • Assignee: GLOBAL INNOVATION AGGREGATORS LLC., CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer to a patent aggregation entity.

• 2019-12-24 (executed) / recorded 2020-01-13 — Reel 051579/0773

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: GLOBAL INNOVATION AGGREGATORS, LLC
  • Assignee: K.MIZRA LLC, CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Context: Transfer to a new entity, potentially for further assertion or management.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8782282
    2003 : Application filed
    2004 : Assigned to Hammerhead Systems
    2010 : Assigned to Brixham Solutions
    2014 : Patent granted
    2017 : Assigned to Global Innovation Aggregators
    2020 : Assigned to K.Mizra LLC
    2025 : IPR filed by Ciena Corporation

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.

   • Brixham Solutions Ltd. (Assignee on 2010-01-08 / 2010-01-19, Reel 023810/0916) is listed as being in "VIRGIN ISLANDS, BRITISH," which can be a red flag for shell entities.
   • GLOBAL INNOVATION AGGREGATORS LLC. (Assignee on 2017-06-27 / 2017-08-16, Reel 043312/0218) with "AGGREGATORS" in its name strongly suggests a patent aggregation or licensing entity.
   • K.MIZRA LLC (Assignee on 2019-12-24 / 2020-01-13, Reel 051579/0773) is an LLC, which, without further information on product sales, often indicates a licensing-focused entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear. While Global Innovation Aggregators LLC and K.Mizra LLC have names suggestive of assertion, they are not explicitly listed on the provided public NPE lists without further research. However, the patent family has litigation, and a PTAB case IPR2025-01362 was filed by "Unified Patents PTAB Data". Unified Patents is an organization that works against NPEs, indicating that the current owner is likely perceived as an NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The provided text from Google Patents does not include correspondent information for the assignments. Therefore, it's not possible to determine if there's a repeat correspondent.

4. Cascading transfers — Present. The patent was transferred from Brixham Solutions Ltd. to Global Innovation Aggregators LLC (2017-06-27 / 2017-08-16) and then to K.Mizra LLC (2019-12-24 / 2020-01-13) within a period of less than 24 months between the last two transfers, demonstrating a relatively rapid succession of ownership changes among entities with suggestive names.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The exact dates of the first infringement suits are not precisely provided in relation to the assignment dates. The Google Patents legal events section shows "First worldwide family litigation filed" but without a specific date. US cases were filed in Texas Western District Court (1:26-cv-00316) and Georgia Northern District Court (1:24-cv-05442), but these are after the most recent assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of any of the assignors filing for bankruptcy in the provided information.

7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information in the provided text to suggest privateering activities.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not end at any known defensive aggregators. Instead, it appears to lead to an entity involved in assertion, given the mentioned litigation. The IPR filed by Ciena Corporation, as well as the listing of "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as the petitioner for IPR2025-01362, indicates that this patent is being asserted.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The presence of multiple shell-entity transfers (Brixham Solutions Ltd. to Global Innovation Aggregators LLC to K.Mizra LLC) and cascading transfers within a short timeframe strongly suggest an NPE pattern. Furthermore, the patent is currently involved in litigation, including an IPR filed by Unified Patents, which generally targets asserted patents, further indicating an NPE. The complete assignment record can be verified at the USPTO Assignment Center by searching for patent number 8782282.

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in US patent 8782282, including potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The current date is April 26, 2026.

The provided patent document, US8782282B1, explicitly lists nine "Patent Citations." For each of these, the full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description (inferred from the title and context where a direct description from US8782282B1 is not available), and the claim(s) it potentially anticipates are provided below. A full legal anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison against the complete text of each cited patent, which is beyond the scope of this response. This analysis identifies potential areas of overlap based on the information available.

Cited Prior Art for US8782282

1. US5812768A

• Full Citation: US5812768A, "System for allocating adaptor to server by determining from embedded foreign protocol commands in client request if the adapter service matches the foreign protocol"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1992-10-30, Publication Date: 1998-09-22
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system that allocates adapters to servers based on matching foreign protocol commands in client requests. This suggests an early mechanism for dynamic assignment or routing based on protocol, which could involve load balancing or intelligent distribution.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The concept of an adapter processing information based on a communication protocol and directing it to a server instance. The idea of selecting a server based on certain criteria (like protocol matching) may generally relate to load balancing concepts, although not specifically "load balancing process" as defined in US8782282B1.

2. US20030093403A1

• Full Citation: US20030093403A1, "System and method for implementing an event adapter"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2001-10-18, Publication Date: 2003-05-15
• Brief Description: This application describes a system and method focused on implementing an event adapter, which would be crucial for processing events (like traps) from network elements. US8782282B1 extensively discusses SB adapters handling event information.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The "first adapter processed information comprises event information received by the first adapter from a network element and processed by the first adapter based on a first communication protocol" element. Claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 which further detail the adapters and event information.

3. US20030177240A1

• Full Citation: US20030177240A1, "Parallel computing system, method and architecture"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2001-12-04, Publication Date: 2003-09-18
• Brief Description: This patent application details a parallel computing system, method, and architecture. Parallel computing systems inherently deal with distributing workloads across multiple processing units, which is foundational to server clustering and load balancing.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The general concept of "a plurality of application server instances" and potentially the "load balancing process" for distributing tasks among them.

4. US20040040030A1

• Full Citation: US20040040030A1, "System and method for integrating resources in a network"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2002-08-23, Publication Date: 2004-02-26
• Brief Description: This application describes integrating various resources within a network. This could encompass the integration of different network elements, management systems (OSS), and the communication facilitators (adapters, gateways) within a network management system.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The broad architectural elements involving network elements, adapters, application servers, gateways, and OSS devices, and their communication to integrate resources for network management.

5. US20040107277A1

• Full Citation: US20040107277A1, "Element management system with tree-structured representations"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 1999-05-26, Publication Date: 2004-06-03
• Brief Description: This patent describes an element management system (EMS) that uses tree-structured representations. EMS systems manage network elements, and this would likely involve collecting and displaying configuration or fault information, which is a core function of an NMS.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17 (in part): Elements related to managing network elements, event management services, and collecting/processing configuration or performance data from network elements.

6. US20040249644A1

• Full Citation: US20040249644A1, "Method and structure for near real-time dynamic ETL (extraction, transformation, loading) processing"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2003-06-06, Publication Date: 2004-12-09
• Brief Description: This application focuses on Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) processing in near real-time and dynamically. Within the context of network management, this could relate to how event information or other data is extracted from network elements, transformed into a common format, and loaded into management systems or databases.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11 (in part): The elements related to processing information, converting formats (transformation), and the gateway or adapters handling information flow, particularly as it pertains to diverse protocols and message types.

7. US20050108387A1

• Full Citation: US20050108387A1, "System and apparatus for a network management system using presence and instant message techniques"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2003-10-31, Publication Date: 2005-05-19
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a network management system (NMS) utilizing presence and instant messaging. While the specific communication techniques differ, it explicitly discloses an NMS, which would likely perform functions like receiving, processing, and sending management information.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The broad concept of a "network management system" and its fundamental operations of communicating information between network elements and an operation support system.

8. US7111077B1

• Full Citation: US7111077B1, "Method and apparatus for passing service requests and data from web based workstations directly to online transaction processing (OLTP) server systems"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2000-12-22, Publication Date: 2006-09-19
• Brief Description: This patent describes passing service requests and data from web-based workstations to OLTP server systems. This involves client-server communication, potentially with multiple servers, and handling requests/data, which broadly relates to the communication architecture of US8782282B1 where clients (like GUI or NB gateway) interact with application servers.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): The general system architecture involving a server (or cluster), and client devices (like the NB gateway or GUI) sending and receiving information from these servers. The concept of distributing requests to server systems for processing.

9. US7325062B2

• Full Citation: US7325062B2, "Method and system for automated adapter reallocation and optimization between logical partitions"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: 2003-04-30, Publication Date: 2008-01-29
• Brief Description: This patent describes automated adapter reallocation and optimization between logical partitions. This directly addresses the management and dynamic assignment of adapters, which is a key aspect of scalability and fault tolerance in US8782282B1. This also implies mechanisms for handling changes in resource availability or load.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claims 1 & 3 (in part): Crucially, the element of "facilitating establishing an association between the first adapter and a second application server instance... and between the gateway device and the second application server instance" in response to a server disablement. This patent's focus on "automated adapter reallocation and optimization" directly aligns with the failover and re-association aspects of US8782282B1.
  • This also relates to the distributed adapter architecture and load balancing discussed in US8782282B1.

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 (PHOSITA). The analysis requires identifying prior art references, determining the scope and content of the prior art, identifying the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and discerning the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Crucially, there must be a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine the identified prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

For US Patent 8782282, the independent claims 1 (method) and 3 (system) disclose a network management system (NMS) architecture that features a plurality of application server instances, load balancing for selecting these instances, distributed adapters (first/southbound and second/northbound) for protocol processing and event information handling, gateway devices, and a fault tolerance mechanism to re-establish associations between adapters/gateways and a functioning server instance upon disablement of a primary server instance.

A combination of the following prior art references, available at the priority date of US8782282 (2003-12-19), would render the claimed invention obvious:

1. US20030093403A1 (Upton): "System and method for implementing an event adapter".
2. US7730489B1 (Oracle): "Horizontally scalable and reliable distributed transaction management in a clustered application server environment".
3. US7325062B2 (International Business Machines Corporation - IBM): "Method and system for automated adapter reallocation and optimization between logical partitions".

Obviousness Analysis of Claims 1 and 3

Claim 1 (Method):

• "receiving, at a first application server instance selected from a plurality of application server instances based on a load balancing process, first adapter processed information from a first adapter, wherein the first adapter processed information comprises event information received by the first adapter from a network element and processed by the first adapter based on a first communication protocol":

  • Upton teaches an "event adapter" that receives events and converts them into a standard internal format, directly addressing the "first adapter processed information comprises event information received by the first adapter from a network element and processed by the first adapter based on a first communication protocol."
  • Oracle teaches a "clustered application server environment" that is "horizontally scalable" and employs "distributed transaction management." This inherently implies a "plurality of application server instances" and the selection of an instance based on a "load balancing process" to distribute the workload, a common practice for scalable systems.
  • A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the event processing capabilities of Upton's adapter with the scalable, clustered architecture of Oracle to efficiently handle the large volumes of event information (e.g., thousands of events) generated in a growing network, as acknowledged as a challenge in the background of US8782282.

• "processing, by the first application server instance, the first adapter processed information based on an event management service to produce application processed information":

  • This step logically follows from Upton's event adapter, where processed event information would be managed by an application server. Event management services (e.g., fault management) are a fundamental aspect of network management systems, as recognized by US8782282 (e.g., FCAPS functions). A PHOSITA would naturally expect the application server to perform such processing.

• "sending, by the first application server instance, the application processed information to a gateway device, wherein the gateway device is one of a plurality of gateway devices respectively associated with the plurality of application server instances and is configured to transfer the application processed information to a second adapter of a plurality of second adapters configured to process the application processed information based on a second communication protocol to produce second adapter processed information and transfer the second adapter processed information to an operation support system device":

  • The concept of using gateway devices and protocol-specific adapters (e.g., for SNMP, CORBA, XML, TL1) to communicate with external Operation Support Systems (OSS) is a well-known aspect of NMS design, as described in US8782282 itself. The patent explicitly details NB gateways and adapters for this purpose. The motivation to employ "a plurality of gateway devices" and "a plurality of second adapters" within a distributed system, consistent with Oracle's scalable architecture, would be to handle diverse OSS protocols and scale the northbound communication capabilities.

• "in response to determining that the first application server instance has become disabled, facilitating establishing an association between the first adapter and a second application server instance of the plurality of application server instances and between the gateway device and the second application server instance":

  • Oracle explicitly teaches a "reliable distributed transaction management in a clustered application server environment" that aims to ensure high availability and resilience to "failures." A PHOSITA would understand that a critical component like an NMS requires mechanisms to maintain continuous operation even if a server instance fails. Re-establishing connections (associations) between clients (adapters, gateways) and an available server instance in a cluster is a standard technique for achieving this reliability.
  • IBM's '062 patent further provides a concrete teaching of a "method and system for automated adapter reallocation and optimization," directly supporting the concept of dynamically re-establishing an association for adapters in a distributed environment, particularly in response to changes or failures in processing resources.

Claim 3 (System):

The elements of Claim 3 are the system counterparts of the method steps in Claim 1 and are rendered obvious by the same combination of prior art for similar reasons:

• "A first application server instance configured to receive first adapter processed information from a first adapter, process the first adapter processed information based on an event management service to yield application processed information, and send the application server processed information to a gateway device, wherein the first adapter processed information comprises event information from a network element that has been processed by the first adapter based on a first communication protocol": This system configuration is a direct implementation of the method steps described above using Upton's adapter and Oracle's server instance.
• "A load balancing component configured to select the first application server instance from a plurality of application server instances based on a load balancing process": This component is a direct feature of Oracle's "horizontally scalable and reliable distributed transaction management in a clustered application server environment."
• "wherein the gateway device is one of a plurality of gateway devices respectively associated with the plurality of application server instances and is configured to transfer the application server processed information to a second adapter of a plurality of second adapters configured to process the application server processed information based on a second communication protocol to yield second adapter processed information, and send the second adapter processed information to an operation support system device": This system configuration aligns with the distributed gateway and adapter architecture known in NMS, extended for scalability using principles from Oracle.
• "wherein, the first adapter and the gateway device are further configured to, in response to disablement of the first application server instance, establish an association with a second application server instance of the plurality of application server instances": This configuration reflects the fault tolerance and reallocation capabilities taught by Oracle and IBM, applied to the adapters and gateway devices.

Motivation to Combine

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in network management systems, facing the well-known challenges of managing large, growing networks and the need for robust and scalable solutions (as explicitly stated in the background of US8782282), would have been strongly motivated to combine the teachings of Upton, Oracle, and IBM:

1. Addressing Scalability and Performance: US8782282 highlights that "thousands of events can be generated when a fault is discovered at a network element. In a large network, a network management system can easily be overwhelmed." Oracle's patent provides a direct solution for creating "horizontally scalable" systems through "clustered application server environments" and "distributed transaction management," which is exactly what a PHOSITA would seek to implement to handle increased event loads and ensure efficient processing.
2. Ensuring Reliability and Fault Tolerance: Given the critical nature of network management, ensuring continuous operation is paramount. Oracle's emphasis on "reliable distributed transaction management" directly motivates implementing fault-tolerant features, such as re-establishing associations with active server instances upon failure. IBM's '062 patent further provides a practical method for "automated adapter reallocation and optimization" in a dynamic environment, complementing Oracle's fault tolerance by enabling adapters to switch to available server instances.
3. Efficient Protocol and Event Management: Upton's event adapter provides a fundamental component for processing diverse event information and translating protocols from network elements. Integrating this specific functionality into Oracle's scalable and fault-tolerant server cluster allows the NMS to not only handle a high volume of events but also to do so reliably, irrespective of server instance failures. The distributed nature of adapters and gateways (as described in US8782282) further allows for handling a wide array of southbound (NE) and northbound (OSS) communication protocols.

Therefore, the combination of these prior art references would have been obvious to a PHOSITA who was motivated to develop a robust, scalable, and fault-tolerant network management system capable of efficiently handling growing networks and diverse communication protocols. The combination represents a predictable outcome of applying known solutions to known problems in the field of distributed network management.