Facebook Inc v. Evolutionary Intelligence

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00093
• Patent #: 7,010,536
• Filed: October 23, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Facebook, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 15 and 16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers
• Brief Description: The ’536 patent describes a system for organizing and manipulating digital information using "containers" that serve as logically defined data enclosures. Each container encapsulates data and includes one or more "registers" that store values or code associated with the container.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 15 and 16 - Claims 15 and 16 are anticipated by Zhang under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Patent 6,016,478).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhang, which discloses a software-based Personal Information Manager (PIM) with group scheduling and calendaring functionalities, teaches every element of claims 15 and 16. Zhang’s “group scheduling items” stored in a database were alleged to be the claimed “containers.” The various data fields associated with a scheduling item, such as event ID, date/time, participants, and subject line, were mapped to the claimed “plurality of registers.”
    • The unique 64-bit identifier for each scheduling item (dwEventID1 and dwEventID2) was argued to be the “first register for storing a unique container identification value.”
    • For claim 15, the date, start time, and end time information for an event was mapped to the “second register having a representation designating time.”
    • For claim 16, Zhang’s disclosure of specifying a city and country for an event, which automatically fills in the time zone, was mapped to the “second register…designating space.”
    • The ability to optionally attach a file to a meeting invitation was argued to be the “acquire register for controlling whether the container adds a container from other containers.”
    • Zhang’s “Group Scheduling Module” software, which manages event interactions and communications, was alleged to be the claimed “gateway attached to and forming part of the container.”

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claim 15 - Claim 15 is anticipated by Cooper under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cooper (Patent 5,737,416).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Cooper, which describes a "try-before-buying" software distribution system using temporary encryption, discloses all limitations of claim 15. The combination of an encrypted software product and its associated "file management program" in Cooper was alleged to constitute the claimed “container.” The various information fields managed by the program, such as vendor contact information, customer ID, and product name, were mapped to the “plurality of registers.”
    • A unique, pseudo-random "machine identification" code, which links the software to a specific computer, was argued to be the “first register for storing a unique container identification value.”
    • "Trial interval data," such as a 30-day timer that governs the use of the software, was mapped to the “second register having a representation designating time.”
    • A decryption key ("real key") used by the file management program to control access to encrypted software files was alleged to be the “acquire register.”
    • A resident program (TSR) that intercepts file I/O requests to manage access was argued to be the claimed “gateway.”

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 16 - Claim 16 is obvious over Cooper in view of Fortune and Veditz under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cooper (Patent 5,737,416), Fortune (Patent 6,073,090), and Veditz (Patent 6,496,793).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 16, which differs from claim 15 by requiring the "second register" to designate "space" instead of "time," was obvious over the combination. Cooper was asserted to teach all elements except for a compliant "second register," as its "locale selections" (e.g., for language and currency) are hard-coded by the vendor, not stored as a register within the container. Fortune was introduced to supply this missing element, as it teaches using user-selectable "locale" files that allow software to be tailored for different countries, including formatting for currency and date. This user-selectable locale file was argued to be the claimed "second register designating space."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Fortune’s user-selectable locale system with Cooper’s trial-ware system for predictable reasons. Cooper already recognized the need for locale settings. Fortune provided a known, improved method for implementing localization that offered greater user control. This combination would improve Cooper’s system by making it more adaptable for international distribution, relieving the vendor from having to create different hard-coded versions for each region. Veditz was cited to confirm the powerful market incentives for software internationalization, which would have motivated a POSITA to make this combination.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have involved applying known software localization techniques to an existing software management system, a straightforward modification that would have yielded the predictable result of a more commercially flexible product.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed the broadest reasonable construction for several key terms based on the patent’s specification:

• "Container": Proposed as "a logically defined data enclosure that encapsulates any element or digital segment or set of digital segments, any system component or process, or other containers or sets of containers."
• "Register": Proposed as "a value and/or code associated with a container," noting this differs from the ordinary meaning of a hardware register in computer science.
• "Gateway": Proposed as "code that governs a container's interactions with other containers, systems or processes, or that can modify information within containers and/or registers."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 15 and 16 of the ’536 patent and requests that the Board find both claims unpatentable on all grounds presented.