GTNX Inc v. INTTRA Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2014-00072
• Patent #: 7756794
• Filed: February 18, 2014
• Petitioner(s): GTNX, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): INTTRA, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-41

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Common Carrier System
• Brief Description: The 7756794 patent relates to a computerized system for creating and managing booking requests for container shipments. The technology is described as a system using known computer components to facilitate freight booking transactions between shippers and multiple carriers via a central portal.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101 - Claims 1-41 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of booking shipments through a third-party aggregator, which amounts to automating the conventional business role of a freight forwarder. The petition asserted that the claims fail to recite an inventive concept, instead adding only vague and generic computer components (e.g., a "server," "computer storage") and routine data-gathering steps. Petitioner contended that these elements, viewed individually or as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application because they merely recite the use of a general-purpose computer to perform functions that were well-known and conventional at the time.

Ground 2: Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §112 - Claims 1-41 lack written description support.

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the limitation "generate a contract reference," which is recited in all independent claims, lacks adequate written description in the ’794 patent’s specification. This limitation was added during prosecution to distinguish over prior art. Petitioner asserted that while the specification discloses a user interface with a field for a user to enter a pre-existing contract reference, it provides no description of a process, system, or act of generating a contract reference. This failure to describe the claimed generation step, according to Petitioner, renders the claims invalid for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Tangkilisan, APL Archive, and Creasy - Claims 1-41 are obvious over Tangkilisan, APL Archive, and Creasy.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tangkilisan (WO 00/46718), APL Archive (a collection of commercial literature and website descriptions from American President Lines), and Creasy (WO 00/46728).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Tangkilisan disclosed an internet-based e-commerce system that provided a bidding environment for multiple shippers and carriers to manage shipping orders. APL Archive described a commercially available web-based system that allowed users to book freight, request rate quotes, and track shipments electronically. Creasy disclosed a comprehensive e-commerce logistics system for placing and tracking shipping orders, including a tracking database and client-server communications for handling customer transactions.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they described complementary aspects of the then-burgeoning field of online freight management. Petitioner argued that combining the multi-party booking and bidding functions of Tangkilisan with the established commercial web portal features of APL Archive and the detailed tracking and logistics capabilities of Creasy was a predictable and common-sense approach to create a more efficient, integrated freight management platform. This was driven by the pervasive industry trend of moving logistics services online.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known internet and database technologies to automate well-understood business practices in the shipping industry.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Tangkilisan, APL Archive, Creasy, and OOCL - Claims 1-41 are obvious over Tangkilisan, APL Archive, Creasy, and OOCL.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The references from Ground 3, in addition to OOCL (Orient Overseas Container Line Archive, describing a website operational before the patent's priority date).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the combination from Ground 3 and added the teachings of the OOCL reference. Petitioner argued OOCL taught a commercial website for booking cargo transportation that included a web interface with a specific input field configured to receive a "service contract number."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the system of the primary combination (Tangkilisan, APL Archive, and Creasy) by incorporating the contract reference input field taught by OOCL. This addition would provide the commercially useful and logical function of allowing shippers to reference pre-negotiated service contracts to obtain discounted shipping rates. Petitioner contended this was a simple and obvious improvement to enhance the functionality of the integrated system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "contract reference": Petitioner argued that this term, which is not explicitly defined in the specification, should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Under this construction, the term would encompass any information sufficient to reference a contract, such as a bill of lading number or a service contract number. This position was critical to Petitioner's §112 argument that the specification fails to describe the generation of such a reference, as well as its §103 argument that OOCL teaches this limitation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Lack of a "Technological Invention": A central contention underlying the petition, particularly in the context of it being a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and the §101 challenge, was that the ’794 patent does not claim a true technological invention. Petitioner asserted that the claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical solution but instead recite the use of generic and conventional computer technology (servers, networks, databases) to automate a longstanding, conventional business practice.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-41 of the ’794 patent as unpatentable.