Google Inc v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-00815
• Patent #: 6,480,783
• Filed: February 2, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Google Inc. and Waze Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Real Time Vehicle Guidance and Forecasting System Under Jam Conditions
• Brief Description: The ’783 patent describes a vehicle navigation system using a central computer that receives location data from a fleet of vehicles. This data is used to determine traffic congestion levels, which are then transmitted back to the vehicles to enable optimal route calculation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over TravTek in view of Seda.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: TravTek (U.S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-141 (July 1995)) and Seda (Patent 5,519,619).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that TravTek, a real-world project, disclosed a comprehensive navigation system that meets most limitations of claim 1. TravTek’s system used probe vehicles to collect real-time data, a central Traffic Management Center (TMC) to process it, and provided route guidance based on both real-time (“dynamic link travel time”) and historical data. It also disclosed a “central architecture” option where route calculation was performed at the TMC, not in the vehicle. Petitioner contended that TravTek did not explicitly disclose a “hierarchically computed route search” that prioritizes the fastest roads first. To supply this element, Petitioner relied on Seda, which taught a route searching system using a hierarchical map database with multiple layers of detail (e.g., highways, local roads). Seda’s method improved search efficiency by planning routes on the least detailed layers first (i.e., fastest roads like highways) before moving to more detailed layers.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Seda’s hierarchical search method with TravTek’s system for several reasons. First, it would improve the computational efficiency and scalability of the TravTek system, allowing service for more drivers. Second, it would improve the quality of the planned route. Third, since TravTek did not provide a detailed description of its route calculation mathematics, a POSITA would have naturally looked to conventional, well-known techniques like the hierarchical search taught by Seda to implement the system. Petitioner asserted this was a predictable application of a known technique to an existing system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because applying Seda's known hierarchical search process to TravTek's navigation system would predictably improve search efficiency without altering or hindering the system's fundamental operation.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Xu in view of Matsumoto and Peterson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Xu (Patent 6,401,027), Matsumoto (Patent 5,475,387), and Peterson (Patent 5,845,227).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Xu disclosed a remote traffic data collection and route guidance system that used both real-time and archived traffic data to forecast traffic and compute optimal routes. Similar to the first ground, Petitioner argued Xu lacked an explicit disclosure of a top-down, hierarchical route search. Matsumoto was introduced to teach this common practice, describing a method of finding an optimal route by first searching a coarse, high-hierarchy map (e.g., national highways) and then progressively searching lower-hierarchy maps (e.g., state highways, local roads). Finally, Peterson was introduced to teach performing the route calculation on a central server rather than in the vehicle, a common design choice at the time. Peterson described a central processor that calculates shortest-time routes and transmits the results to users.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for predictable improvements. Matsumoto’s hierarchical search would be added to Xu’s system to increase route calculation efficiency and to supply a specific algorithm where Xu was silent. Peterson’s server-side processing would be incorporated to reduce the computational power, energy, and cost requirements for in-vehicle units, and to reduce the amount of data that needed to be communicated to each vehicle. Petitioner argued that choosing between server-side and client-side processing was a well-known design choice with predictable trade-offs, making the combination obvious.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as an arrangement of old elements, each performing its known function, to yield a predictable result. Applying Matsumoto's search algorithm and Peterson's server-side architecture to Xu's base system would predictably result in a more efficient and scalable navigation system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "road section coefficients": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "coefficients associated with road sections in a route search." The patent specification did not define the term but used more specific examples like "speed coefficients" and "traffic volume coefficients." Petitioner argued the generic claim term was not intended to be limited to those specific examples.
• "GPS data": Petitioner proposed this term be construed broadly as "data that was determined using signals received from GPS satellites or that is related to use of such signals." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification’s examples, which included not just raw coordinates but also derived information like speed vectors, position time, and vehicle IDs. This broad construction was critical to mapping prior art that used GPS for location but transmitted derived data (e.g., latitude/longitude).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the present petition was not redundant with a previously filed IPR (IPR2016-01535) or two concurrently filed petitions against the same ’783 patent. It was emphasized that each petition challenged a different subset of claims based on different prior art combinations and that the instant petition was necessary to address claims 1 and 3, which could not be challenged in the earlier petition due to space constraints.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1 and 3 of the ’783 patent as unpatentable.