K40 Electronics LLC v. Escort Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00203
• Patent #: 7,999,721
• Filed: March 22, 2013
• Petitioner(s): K40 Electronics LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Escort Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Radar Detector with Navigational Function
• Brief Description: The ’721 patent relates to a radar detector integrated with a navigational system, such as a GPS receiver. The device uses its current geographic location to enhance decision-making, primarily by comparing its position against a stored database of locations for known false alarm sources to suppress or modify alerts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-10 are anticipated by Hoffberg under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hoffberg (6,252,544).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hoffberg discloses every element of the challenged claims. Hoffberg teaches a mobile communications device that integrates a police radar/LIDAR detector, a GPS receiver, memory, a processor, and a communications subsystem. The device stores events, including the locations of false radar signals, in a database. It then correlates newly detected radar signals with these stored false alarm locations to suppress or modify the user alert. Hoffberg also discloses displaying event locations on a map, thereby teaching a navigation and police warning device that varies its alerts based on location information derived from a position determining circuit.

Ground 2: Claims 2-8 and 10 are anticipated by Fleming under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fleming (6,204,798).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Fleming teaches all limitations of claims 2-8 and 10. Fleming discloses a police radar detector with an integrated GPS receiver that minimizes false alarms by utilizing the vehicle's position. An operator can store the location of a known false alarm source (a "rejectable signal"), and the device will not generate an alert when it detects a signal near that stored geographic location. Fleming further discloses obtaining false alarm information gathered by other radar detectors via general-purpose computers, such as cellular phones, which Petitioner argued meets the "communication circuitry" limitation of claim 10.
  • Key Aspects: The viability of this ground hinged on Petitioner's threshold argument that the Patent Owner’s Rule 131 declaration, submitted during prosecution to antedate Fleming, was legally insufficient. Petitioner argued the declaration offered only a conclusory statement of diligence without any corroborating evidence of specific activities or timelines, rendering it facially deficient and establishing Fleming as valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

Ground 3: Claims 2-10 are obvious over Fleming in view of Hoffberg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fleming (6,204,798) and Hoffberg (6,252,544).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that, at a minimum, the combination of Fleming and Hoffberg renders the claims obvious. This ground primarily addressed claim 9, which requires detection of signals in the visible or infrared spectrum (i.e., laser/LIDAR). Fleming provides the base system of a GPS-enabled radar detector that intelligently suppresses alarms based on location. While Fleming focuses on radar, Hoffberg explicitly teaches a combined device with both radar and LIDAR detectors. Therefore, adding Hoffberg’s LIDAR detection to Fleming’s system would result in the invention of claim 9.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hoffberg's LIDAR detection with Fleming's position-based alarm suppression system to create a more comprehensive and reliable police countermeasure device. The motivation was to extend Fleming's intelligent filtering capability to police laser signals, thereby reducing false laser alerts in the same way Fleming reduces false radar alerts.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success. The principle of using location data to filter alerts, as taught by Fleming, is signal-agnostic. Applying this known filtering technique to an additional, known type of police signal detector (LIDAR, as taught by Hoffberg) would be a straightforward integration of known elements to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Signal Information" (claim 10): Petitioner noted that this term, recited in dependent claim 10, lacks an antecedent basis in its parent claim 2. Claim 2 instead recites "information associated with geographic locations." Petitioner stated it "guessed" that "signal information" was intended to refer to this previously recited "information associated with geographic locations."
• "Rejectable Signal" (claim 3): Petitioner observed this term is not used in the patent's specification. Based on the patent’s summary, which describes a capability of "rejecting signals from any given location," Petitioner interpreted "rejectable signals" under the broadest reasonable interpretation to include signals that may be rejected based on their associated geographic location.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’721 patent as unpatentable.