PTAB

IPR2017-01619

Google Inc v. BlackBerry Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Secure Systems for Mobile Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’868 patent is directed to security systems for controlling a software application’s access to an application platform on a mobile device. The system requires an application to be digitally signed by an authorized entity to gain access to sensitive Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Garst and Gong - Claims 1, 13, 76, 78, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90-93, 95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113, 137-39, and 142-44 are obvious over Garst in view of Gong.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garst (Patent 6,188,995) and Gong (a 1999 publication titled “Inside Java 2 Platform Security Architecture: Cryptography, APIs, and Implementation”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Garst taught the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 76, disclosing a system for controlling application access to an application platform by restricting access to "resource libraries" (APIs). This control was enforced through a "per-program" licensing scheme that used digital signatures generated by an API vendor. While Garst did not explicitly disclose implementation on a mobile device, Gong taught that the Java platform, which Garst’s system could be implemented on, was widely deployed on mobile devices like PDAs and cell phones. Gong further described using Java's security models for controlling access to system resources on such mobile devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Garst's access control scheme with Gong's mobile device implementation to achieve the known benefits of Garst's system (e.g., security, license enforcement, revenue generation) on the proliferating mobile devices of the time. The combination was presented as a predictable application of a known access control system to a known platform (mobile devices).
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known software-based security scheme (Garst) to a known computing environment (mobile devices running Java, per Gong) to achieve the predictable result of secure API access.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Garst, Gong, and Davis - Claims 77, 79, 80, and 82 are obvious over Garst, Gong, and Davis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garst (Patent 6,188,995), Gong, and Davis (Patent 5,844,986).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Garst-Gong combination, which taught denying access to an application with a missing or invalid signature. To address the limitations of preventing execution or purging the application, Petitioner introduced Davis. Davis described a procedure to authenticate executable code using digital signatures, and specified that if the code cannot be validated, "it is deleted by the cryptographic coprocessor and is never used."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA, seeking to enhance the security of the Garst-Gong system, would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Davis. Merely denying access left potentially malicious code on the device. Davis provided the logical next step of purging or preventing the execution of such unverified code to address security concerns like "intrusive attacks, such as a virus attack," thereby improving overall device security and data storage utilization.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Garst, Gong, and Chang - Claim 83 is obvious over Garst, Gong, and Chang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garst (Patent 6,188,995), Gong, and Chang (Patent 5,724,425).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 83's limitation of a "global signature" verified prior to allowing access to the sensitive API. While the Garst-Gong combination taught per-API signatures, it did not explicitly teach a global one. Petitioner argued that Chang disclosed a security scheme to "control the accessibility of a platform" where an application must include a verified "platform builder's digital signature" to be executed. This platform-level signature functioned as the claimed global signature.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Chang's global signature concept with the Garst-Gong framework to enhance device security at a platform level. This would provide the mobile device manufacturer (the "platform builder") with the ability to control which applications are authorized to execute on the device at all, offering an additional layer of security and a potential avenue for licensing revenue.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Garst and Gong combination in view of other references to teach specific claim limitations. These included combinations with Sibert (Patent 7,243,236) for signing an "abridged version" of an application, Wong-Insley (Patent 6,131,166) for explicitly including an operating system, and Haddock (Patent 5,657,378) for including an input/output controller.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner dedicated significant argument to the construction of the phrase "determining, at the mobile device, whether the software application is signed..." recited in claims 1 and 76.
  • Petitioner argued that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, requires the digital signature to be generated by an entity with an interest in protecting access to the sensitive API (e.g., the device manufacturer or API author).
  • This proposed construction was based on the specification's consistent disparagement of prior art schemes where the signature originates from the software developer. Petitioner contended that the patent disavowed such schemes, and therefore the claims should be interpreted to exclude them.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 13, 76-95, 98, 100, 104, 108, 112, 113, 137-39, and 142-44 of the ’868 patent as unpatentable.