PTAB

CBM2016-00022

Google Inc v. Zuili Patrick

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Detecting Fraudulent Clicks in Pay-Per-Click Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’763 patent discloses a method for identifying fraudulent clicks in online pay-per-click (PPC) advertising environments. The method involves assigning a unique code to a user's client device and then measuring the duration between clicks made by that client to detect illegitimate activity and enable fairer invoicing for advertisers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over IAB Study - Claims 1-3, 10, 14, 15, and 17 are obvious over the IAB Study.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The IAB Study (a collective reference to two publications from the Interactive Advertising Bureau dated January 2002 and December 2001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the IAB Study, a foundational document on online ad measurement, discloses all elements of the challenged claims. The study explicitly teaches using a "Cookie-Based Method" to identify unique users and track their activity. It further describes "filtering techniques" to detect "robotic activity" by analyzing "Interaction attributes," which include "consistent intervals between clicks or page/ad impression from a user." This directly maps to the ’763 patent’s core concept of measuring the duration between clicks using a unique identifier (a cookie) to detect fraud in an online advertising context.
    • Motivation to Combine: This is a single-reference ground; Petitioner asserted the IAB Study alone renders the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable for a single-reference ground.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Messer in view of AAPA and Laurent - Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are obvious over Messer in view of AAPA and Laurent.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Messer (Patent 7,020,622), AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art from the ’763 patent’s background section), and Laurent (a 1998 publication titled "Cookies").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended this combination teaches every claimed element. Messer discloses a system for "detecting click fraud" by using a unique identifier (ID), which may be a cookie, to track users and "measure[] the interval between successive clicks." AAPA is the patent owner’s own admission that "pay-per-click search engines" were well-known prior art. Laurent is a comprehensive guide on the well-known functionality of cookies, including their ability to store identifiers and website information and transmit that data back to a server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Messer's click fraud detection method with a conventional pay-per-click system (AAPA) to improve the system's functionality, reliability, and commercial fairness. The teachings of Laurent on cookies would be the natural and obvious implementation choice for the identifier and tracking functions described in Messer, as cookies were the standard tool for this purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a known fraud detection technique to a known commercial system using standard web technologies. The result would be a predictable improvement in the PPC system's operation.

Ground 3: Ineligible Subject Matter - Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Not applicable. This ground is based on patent eligibility under §101.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Abstract Idea: Petitioner argued the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "detecting fraud based on the time between two requests by the same client." This was characterized as a fundamental economic practice and a concept that can be performed as a purely mental process (e.g., a pharmacist identifying suspicious prescription requests from the same patient in a short time).
    • Lack of Inventive Concept: Petitioner asserted that the claims add no inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim limitations—such as a "pay-per-click system," "server," "client," and generating a "code"—merely recite a generic and conventional technological environment. These elements represent routine data-gathering and processing steps performed on general-purpose computers, which are insufficient to confer patentability on an abstract idea. The patent itself admits that the claimed method can be implemented with known hardware and software.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the IAB Study in view of Laurent, and the IAB Study in view of AAPA and Laurent, which relied on similar arguments to those presented in the grounds above.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "code": The petition noted that during related district court litigation, both Petitioner and Patent Owner had agreed that the term "code" means "a series of letters, numbers, or other symbols to represent or identify something." Petitioner argued this construction is consistent with the patent's specification and should be adopted, highlighting that a "code" is not inherently technological and can encompass simple serial numbers.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Not a "Technological Invention": A central contention of the CBM petition was that the ’763 patent does not claim a "technological invention" and is therefore eligible for CBM review. Petitioner argued the patent fails to recite a novel and unobvious technological feature. Instead, it merely applies the abstract idea of fraud detection using well-known, off-the-shelf technologies like search engines, servers, and cookies. Furthermore, Petitioner contended the patent does not solve a technical problem but rather a business problem (fairly invoicing merchants), and does so without a technical solution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method patent review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’763 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103.