Apple Inc v. Evolutionary Intelligence

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00086
• Patent #: 7,010,536
• Filed: October 22, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 2-14, 16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers
• Brief Description: The ’536 patent describes a data management architecture based on "information containers." These are defined as logically encapsulated data structures that contain an information element, a "gateway" (an interface), and a plurality of "registers" (values or code) that govern the container's interaction with other containers, systems, or processes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 2-14 and 16 are anticipated by Gibbs under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gibbs (Patent 5,836,529).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gibbs, which discloses an object-oriented system for managing a railroad network, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped the fundamental concepts of Gibbs to the claims of the ’536 patent. Specifically, the various "objects" in Gibbs's system—such as train objects, car objects, and map objects—were argued to be the claimed "containers." The numerous data fields and attributes associated with these objects in Gibbs (e.g., unique IDs, physical location, timing attributes, consist data) were contended to be the claimed "plurality of registers."
  • Petitioner provided a detailed, element-by-element mapping for independent claim 2. For instance, the unique ID for each Gibbs object was mapped to the "first register for storing a unique container identification value." The location attributes of Gibbs's objects, used to govern interactions with map and report objects, were mapped to the "second register having a representation designating space." Furthermore, Gibbs's system for triggering alerts when a train's location exceeds a user-set boundary was argued to disclose the claimed "active space register." The system's ability to generate reports on objects within a specific geographic area (e.g., trains in a terminal yard) was mapped to the "passive register." The inherent disclosure of where containers may interact was argued to meet the "neutral space register" limitation. Finally, the program instructions and routines within Gibbs's objects that enable them to interact with other objects and the central computer were equated with the claimed "gateway."
  • For the dependent claims, Petitioner continued this mapping strategy. The storage of performance statistics for a train object in Gibbs was argued to anticipate the "container history register" of claim 3. The interaction between different systems in Gibbs (e.g., workstations and a central computer) was mapped to the "system history register" of claim 4. User-configurable elements, such as a context menu object for setting parameters, were argued to teach the "predefined register" of claim 5 and the "user-created register" of claim 6. System-generated alerts based on predefined criteria were mapped to the "system-defined register" of claim 7.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Container: Petitioner argued for a broad construction encompassing any "logically defined data structure" that contains a digital element, system component, or other containers, consistent with the specification's language.
• Register: Petitioner proposed that a "register" should be construed broadly as "a value or code associated with a container." This construction was based on the specification's description of registers as user- or system-created values that govern a container's interaction and may evolve with system use.
• Gateway: Based on its usage in the patent and the Patent Owner's infringement contentions in parallel litigation, Petitioner asserted that "gateway" should be construed to mean "code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers." Petitioner noted this would include Application Program Interfaces (APIs).
• Means Elements (Claims 9-12): Petitioner contended that claims 9-12, which recite means-plus-function limitations (e.g., "means for acting upon another container"), were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. The basis for this argument was that the ’536 patent allegedly fails to disclose the specific algorithm corresponding to the claimed functions, identifying only a general-purpose processor. However, for the purposes of its anticipation analysis, Petitioner proceeded by assuming the "means" corresponded to a processor performing the claimed function, arguing that the program instructions and routines within the objects of Gibbs provided the structure for these means.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2-14 and 16 of the ’536 patent as unpatentable.