eBay Inc v. Global Equity Management Sa Pty Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2016-01828
• Patent #: 6,690,400
• Filed: September 22, 2016
• Petitioner(s): eBay Inc., Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd., and Booking.com B.V.
• Patent Owner(s): Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 16, and 28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Graphical User Interface for Managing Virtualized Operating Systems
• Brief Description: The ’400 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables a user to partition secondary storage devices. The invention uses a "virtual cabinet" metaphor to allow users to create, manage, and separate multiple operating systems, applications, and data files on a single computer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over PartitionMagic 3.0 - Claims 1, 2, 16, and 28 are obvious over the PartitionMagic 3.0 User Guide.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: PartitionMagic 3.0 User Guide ("3.0 Guide"), a publicly available user manual copyrighted in 1997.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the 3.0 Guide discloses a sophisticated GUI for repartitioning a hard disk to run multiple operating systems, which it describes as creating separate "file cabinet drawers." This terminology and functionality were presented as directly analogous to the ’400 patent’s claimed "virtual cabinets." Petitioner mapped the elements of the 3.0 Guide's main window to the limitations of independent claim 1, asserting that its menu bar, graphical partition map, and partition list respectively teach the claimed "main menu bar," "cabinet selection button bar," and "cabinet visible partition window." The guide's disclosure of creating partitions for different operating systems (e.g., Windows 95 and a "second operating system") was argued to teach a "virtual cabinet representing a discrete operating system." For dependent claim 2, the guide's functions for formatting or resizing a selected partition were argued to be "means for manipulating" the virtual cabinet record.

Ground 2: Obviousness over PartitionMagic 4.0 - Claims 1, 2, 16, and 28 are obvious over the PartitionMagic 4.0 User Guide.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: PartitionMagic 4.0 User Guide ("4.0 Guide"), a user manual for software publicly available by April 1999.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that the 4.0 Guide, an updated version of the software in Ground 1, similarly renders the challenged claims obvious. The 4.0 Guide's GUI explicitly shows partitions for multiple, distinct operating systems (Windows 95 and Windows NT) in its "Partition Information" window. Petitioner argued this window and its components teach the claimed "cabinet selection button bar" and "cabinet visible partition window." The ability to select and manage these partitions, which function as "file drawers" for separating operating systems and applications, was argued to meet all limitations of the independent claims. Petitioner specifically noted the 4.0 Guide's instructions for creating partitions on a secondary hard disk, mapping this functionality directly to claim limitations requiring a "secondary storage partitions window." The guide's "Resize/Move" operation was highlighted as a specific example of the "means for manipulating" a cabinet record recited in claim 2.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "virtual cabinet": Petitioner argued for adopting the definition of "virtual" from the ’400 patent’s own specification: "physical devices, such as a hard disk and memory, [] mapped repeatedly or partitioned into a number of logical devices, each containing a separate operating system." This construction was used to directly equate the prior art's "partitions" with the claimed "virtual cabinets."
• "secondary storage device": Petitioner contested the Patent Owner’s proposed construction in district court litigation that would require the device to be "separate from the computer device." Petitioner argued this limitation is not supported by the specification of the ’400 patent, which describes such devices as being "found in the computer system," and asserted the broadest reasonable interpretation would include internal hard drives.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Means-Plus-Function Interpretation: Petitioner asserted that claim terms reciting "means for..." (claims 1, 2, 16) and "program code for..." (claim 28) are properly interpreted as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. While contending that the ’400 patent specification lacks sufficient disclosure of corresponding structure, Petitioner argued that the claims are nevertheless obvious. It reasoned that the prior art references disclose the identical functions recited in the claims, and to the extent the patent's functional description implies some underlying structure, the prior art's identical functional description discloses the same structure.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 16, and 28 of the ’400 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.