Google Inc v. Unwired Planet LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2014-00006
• Patent #: 7,203,752
• Filed: October 9, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Google Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Unwired Planet, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 25-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Controlling Access to Location Information for Wireless Devices
• Brief Description: The ’752 patent describes a method for managing user privacy by controlling access to a mobile device's location information. The system uses a subscriber profile containing a list of authorized client applications and associated permission sets to grant or deny location requests based on predefined rules, such as spatial or temporal limitations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 25-29 are obvious over Havinis in view of Piccionelli.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Havinis (Patent 6,104,931) and Piccionelli (Patent 6,154,172).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Havinis disclosed a telecommunications system for defining location services, including receiving location requests from applications and using subscriber privacy settings to authorize them. However, Petitioner contended Havinis did not explicitly teach a subscriber profile containing a list of authorized applications with a permission set including spatial or temporal limitations. Piccionelli allegedly supplied this teaching by disclosing a system for limiting information distribution based on geographic location using a pre-stored list of products or services with associated geographic restrictions. This pre-stored list was argued to be analogous to the claimed subscriber profile and permission set.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Piccionelli’s granular, list-based geographic access controls with Havinis's general location service framework. The motivation was to enhance user privacy and provide more selective control over which applications could access location data, a recognized goal in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known privacy-enhancing feature (geographic restrictions) to a known location service system, which would have been a predictable integration with a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 25-29 are obvious over Landgren in view of Piccionelli.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Landgren (Patent 6,115,754) and Piccionelli (Patent 6,154,172).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Landgren disclosed a system for appending location information to communications from a mobile unit, which involved accessing a subscriber profile to determine if a requesting application was authorized to receive the location data. While Landgren taught using a subscriber profile for authorization, Petitioner argued it lacked the specific claimed limitations of a permission set with spatial or temporal rules. Piccionelli was again relied upon to teach this element through its disclosure of a pre-stored list of services with geographic limitations, which constitutes a permission set with a spatial limitation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to enhance Landgren’s authorization system by incorporating the specific geographic filtering method taught by Piccionelli. This would improve the system by allowing a user to define not only which applications could receive location data but also under what geographic conditions, providing more refined privacy control.
  • Expectation of Success: Modifying Landgren’s system to include the functionality taught by Piccionelli was argued to be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.

Ground 3: Claims 25-29 are obvious over Havinis in view of Leonhardt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Havinis (Patent 6,104,931) and Leonhardt (a 1996 article titled "Towards a general location service for mobile environments").

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: As in Ground 1, Havinis provided the foundational system for location services with basic privacy settings. Petitioner argued that Leonhardt, which described a general location service with configurable location access policies, supplied the missing detailed permission set limitations. Leonhardt taught applying policies to querying and target objects using "reduction rules" that could modify the scope of access based on constraints like the time of the query and the location of the target. These policies and rules were argued to be the claimed subscriber profile and permission set.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Leonhardt's advanced and flexible access policy framework with Havinis's system to create a more robust privacy management solution. This would further Havinis's goal of tailoring location services to meet the needs of individual users.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating Leonhardt's known methods of privacy management and access control into the Havinis system was presented as a straightforward application of a known technique to achieve the predictable result of enhanced, configurable privacy.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Landgren in view of Leonhardt, and Kingdon in view of Piccionelli. Petitioner also challenged claims 25-29 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and challenged claim 26 for lacking written description support under 35 U.S.C. §112.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Spatial limitation on access to the location information": Petitioner proposed this term means a "limitation on access to location information that depends on the mobile device's current location at the time the request for location information is made." This construction was argued to be supported by the specification's examples of enabling access only when a device is within a specific geographic area (e.g., a state).
• "Temporal limitation on access to the location information": Petitioner proposed this term means a "limitation on access to location information that depends on the time when the request for location information is made." This was based on specification disclosures of permission sets that identify a specific time of day or day of the week for authorized access.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Human Pen-and-Paper Analogy: A central contention supporting the §101 challenge was that the claimed method is an abstract idea because its steps can be performed entirely by a human without a computer. Petitioner provided a "Mr. Access" analogy, where a person could use a physical file binder (as the "memory") and paper records (as the "subscriber profile") to receive a verbal request, check authorization rules, and verbally deny access, thereby mapping each claim step to a manual, non-technical action.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 25-29 of the ’752 patent as unpatentable.