PTAB

IPR2014-00833

FedEx Corp v. IpVenture Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring Status of Articles Being Shipped
  • Brief Description: The ’165 patent discloses an article shipment notification system that uses a wireless tracking device attached to a package. The device gathers status information, including position and shipping conditions (e.g., temperature, force), and transmits it to a remote tracking server that can analyze the data, determine if a violation has occurred, and send notifications to interested parties.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17, 29, and 30 by Richards

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Richards (Application # 2002/0000916).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Richards, which discloses a system for monitoring the location and status of assets like cargo, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Richards' system includes sensors attached to cargo that monitor conditions (e.g., temperature) and a "monitor" that includes a GPS receiver for position data. This data is wirelessly transmitted to a "central station" that stores the information in a relational database. Petitioner contended Richards' central station performs the functions of the claimed "tracking computing device" by processing data to "detect sensed conditions which exceed or fall outside of acceptable limits" (the claimed "environmental violation") and then transmitting a "warning message" to an operator (the claimed "electronic notification"). Richards also discloses transforming position data into an overlay on a computer-generated map or into a street location, which Petitioner asserted meets the limitation of transforming position information into a "point of interest."

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 8 over Richards in view of Joao

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Richards (Application # 2002/0000916), Joao (Patent 7,253,731).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that dependent claim 8, which adds the limitation that an electronic notification indicates that an "acceleration or a force induced on the package has exceeded a predetermined level," was obvious over the combination of Richards and Joao. While Richards teaches monitoring environmental conditions like temperature and humidity, it does not explicitly disclose monitoring for excessive force or acceleration. Joao, however, is directed to shipment tracking and explicitly discloses detecting "an impact or force of impact experienced by the shipment conveyance device (i.e. a mishandling, a dropping, an accident, etc.)" and generating an "appropriate notification message."
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings because both references are in the same field of package tracking. A POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate the known impact-sensing technology of Joao into the comprehensive tracking system of Richards to provide a more complete picture of the shipping conditions and detect potential damage from mishandling.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known sensor type (an accelerometer) to a known tracking system, which would have been a simple and predictable modification with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 11, 16, and 18-28 over Richards in view of Zhou

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Richards (Application # 2002/0000916), Zhou (Patent 6,847,892).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that various dependent claim features absent from Richards would have been obvious additions in view of Zhou. Specifically, for claims 11 and 19 (which relate to user-configurable alert levels and web-based configuration), Petitioner asserted that Zhou teaches a tracking system where authorized users can "set threshold temperature or biological values" and program evaluation rules through secure web pages. For claims 16 and 25 (device can be held in a person's hand), Petitioner pointed to Zhou's disclosure of a "wristwatch size device" for tracking luggage. For claims 18 and 24 (webpage for monitoring), Petitioner relied on Zhou’s teaching of a system website that allows users to view current location and historical information for tracked devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Richards' system with features from Zhou to increase functionality and user control. Adding a web interface for users to set their own alert thresholds (from Zhou) is a predictable improvement over a system with only pre-set thresholds (Richards). Similarly, implementing the tracking technology in smaller, hand-held form factors and providing a web-based monitoring portal were common and obvious ways to make such a system more practical and commercially valuable.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a web interface for user configuration and monitoring into a networked tracking system was a well-understood and routine design choice at the time, ensuring a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Environmental Violation": Petitioner argued this term, which does not appear in the specification, should be construed as "a measurement of the environment of or surrounding a package that exceeds a limit." This construction was based on specification examples of notification conditions, such as temperature, humidity, or force exceeding a desired limit.
  • "Point of Interest" / "Enhanced Location": Petitioner asserted these terms, added during prosecution, should be construed as "information identifying a location or place of interest, which information is derived from position information." This construction was based on specification examples of converting GPS data into map coordinates or street addresses. These constructions were critical to Petitioner's argument that Richards' disclosure of converting location data to street names or map overlays met these limitations.
  • "Package": Petitioner proposed construing "package" as "a physical item that is capable of being shipped," arguing the patent uses "package," "article," and "object" interchangeably and that the term was added during prosecution without any discussion of prior art, indicating it was not a point of patentable distinction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 8,725,165 as unpatentable.