Twitter Inc v. Evolutionary Intelligence LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00812
• Patent #: 7,010,536
• Filed: May 23, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 2-14 and 16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers
• Brief Description: The ’536 patent discloses a computer system for managing data using "information containers." These containers are logically defined data structures that encapsulate digital information and interact with each other via "gateways" and are governed by associated "dynamic registers."

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 argued that every limitation of the challenged claims is disclosed in Gibbs, which teaches an object-oriented computer system for monitoring and managing a railroad network. Petitioner asserted a direct correlation between the claimed elements and the components of the Gibbs system. The "objects" described in Gibbs—such as train objects, car objects, and map objects—were identified as meeting the limitations of the claimed "containers," which are defined as logically defined data enclosures. The various data attributes associated with these objects in Gibbs (e.g., unique IDs, locational data, consist attributes, timing attributes, and performance statistics) were argued to be the claimed "plurality of registers."
  • Petitioner further mapped specific features of Gibbs to the different types of registers recited in the dependent claims. For example, the ability for a user to define alerts and reports in Gibbs was argued to teach the "user-created register" (claim 6) and "predefined register" (claim 5). The system's storage of performance statistics was alleged to be a "container history register" (claim 3). The program instructions and routines within Gibbs's objects, which govern how they retrieve data and interact with other objects, were asserted to be the claimed "gateway" that is attached to the container and controls its interactions. For the means-plus-function limitations of claims 9-12, Petitioner contended that the processors and associated programmed instructions in Gibbs provide the structure for performing the claimed functions of acting, interacting, gathering, and reporting.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued for applying the broadest reasonable construction to all claim terms, asserting that many were ordinary English words. It proposed constructions for key terms, noting that consideration should be given to the Patent Owner's interpretations advanced in parallel district court litigation.
• "Container": Proposed as a logically defined data structure that contains a digital element, system component, process, or other containers. Petitioner argued this construction covers the "objects" disclosed in the Gibbs reference.
• "Register": Construed as a value or code associated with a container. This broad construction was used to map the various data fields and attributes of the objects in Gibbs to the claimed register limitations.
• "Gateway": Proposed as code that governs interactions between containers and that can alter registers associated with those containers. Petitioner contended this covers the program instructions and routines that enable object interaction in Gibbs.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Indefiniteness of Means-Plus-Function Claims: A central technical contention was that claims 9-12, which recite "means for" various functions (acting, allowing interaction, gathering information, reporting information), are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Petitioner argued that the ’536 patent specification fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm or specific structure required to perform the claimed functions, instead pointing only to a general-purpose processor. However, for the purpose of its anticipation ground, Petitioner assumed the claims were not indefinite and argued that the processor-based structure for these functions was, in any event, fully disclosed in the Gibbs reference.

6. Relief Requested

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