PTAB

IPR2015-01532

Under Armour Inc v. adidas AG

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Web Site for Recommending a Route for Traversal by an Individual
  • Brief Description: The ’009 patent discloses a method for recommending a route to a user by storing data for available routes, receiving the user's position data (e.g., via GPS), and processing that information to suggest a suitable route from the stored data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 13, 14, and 17 are anticipated by Bouve under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bouve (Patent 5,648,768).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bouve discloses every element of independent claim 13 and dependent claims 14 and 17. Bouve describes a route recommendation system that uses a database of stored travel routes and a processor to compute a route between two points of interest input by a user. This meets the claim 13 limitations of storing route data, receiving position data (the user-input start and end locations), and processing that data to recommend a route. For claim 14, Petitioner asserted Bouve’s system recommends a route based on stored data, such as user-selected route types (e.g., highway, scenic). For claim 17, Petitioner contended Bouve discloses storing route length, as its processors "compute the mileage indication" along a retrieved route, which requires access to stored length data.

Ground 2: Claims 13, 18, and 20 are obvious over Bouve in view of DeLorme under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bouve (Patent 5,648,768) and DeLorme (Patent 6,321,158).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bouve teaches the foundational route recommendation system. DeLorme, which discloses a system incorporating routing software with a personal digital assistant (PDA) and GPS receiver, supplies the remaining limitations. Specifically, DeLorme teaches using a GPS receiver to automatically "download the current position of the GPS receiver and input it as a starting point," which renders the "receiving position data" limitation of claim 13 obvious. For dependent claim 18, DeLorme explicitly discloses recording and storing routes previously traversed by a user ("log actual travel routes, using GPS position information") for later use. For dependent claim 20, the combination of Bouve's system with DeLorme's teaching of using a GPS receiver for position input makes it obvious to receive position data with a global positioning satellite receiver.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bouve and DeLorme because both references address route guidance systems for car travel. A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the user interface of Bouve’s system by incorporating DeLorme’s well-known technique of using a GPS receiver for automated position input, which would be simpler than manual entry. Furthermore, incorporating DeLorme’s feature of saving previously traversed routes would be a simple, logical way to expand the route database in Bouve's system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that applying DeLorme's known GPS and route-logging techniques to Bouve's system would have been straightforward and yielded predictable results, as it involved combining known elements for their established functions.

Ground 3: Claims 13, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are anticipated by Kim under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Patent 5,742,922).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kim, which discloses a vehicle navigation system that recommends a route to minimize fuel consumption, anticipates all challenged claims in this ground. Kim's system performs all steps of independent claim 13: it uses a memory for "storing data representative of local area routes," receives a vehicle's current position via an antenna for "receiving signals from GPS satellites" (claim 20), and uses a controller to process this data to select and recommend a preferred route. Kim anticipates claim 14 because its controller recommends a route based on stored route data, specifically altitude and traffic information. Kim explicitly discloses storing "altitude information for the routes" to recommend a path with minimal altitude variance, thereby anticipating the "elevation profile data" limitation of claim 15. Finally, Petitioner contended Kim inherently anticipates claim 17 (route length) because its controller calculates total fuel required to traverse a route, a calculation that necessarily requires the route's length as a fundamental input.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "position data" (all claims): Petitioner argued that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "position data" is "data relating to geographic position." This construction was proposed in co-pending litigation. Petitioner noted that the patent owner in that litigation had proposed a broader construction that could also include data on the orientation of a human body. However, Petitioner contended its invalidity arguments were sound under either construction, as the prior art's disclosure of geographic position data would fall within both parties' proposed definitions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 of the ’009 patent as unpatentable.