Unified Patents Inc v. Location Based Services LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01965
• Patent #: 7,860,648
• Filed: August 21, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Unified Patents Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Location Based Services, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method for Displaying a Map with Location-Based Interaction Rules
• Brief Description: The ’648 patent discloses a method for a display device to receive and display a map with one or more locations. The map display is altered based on a user's interaction with these locations, governed by predefined "location interaction rules" that are verifiable via one or more monitoring devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Gellberg - Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are anticipated by or obvious over Gellberg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gellberg (International Publication No. WO 01/55994).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gellberg discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Gellberg describes a logistics system, such as for refuse collection, where a driver uses a mobile unit to display a map of an assigned itinerary with specific "visiting points." The driver requests the map, which is transmitted from a base station. The core of the system is updating the map display to reflect the status of tasks at each location. For example, a visiting point is initially shown as an unfilled circle, which changes to a filled circle after the refuse container at that location is emptied. This status change is verified by monitoring devices—a transponder on the container and a communication unit on the vehicle—which automatically transmit a confirmation signal when the task is complete. This directly maps to the ’648 patent’s method of requesting and receiving a map, where the map is altered as a function of "location interaction rules" (e.g., the requirement to visit a point and empty a container) that are verified by "monitoring devices" (the transponder and communication unit).
  • Motivation to Combine (for obviousness assertions): To the extent any minor element was not explicitly disclosed, such as including a specific user identifier in the map request, Petitioner contended it would have been obvious. A POSITA would include a user identifier to ensure the base station returned the correct, individualized itinerary for a specific driver in a fleet, which is a predictable solution for managing multiple users.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing these known elements, as they represented simple, logical design choices to improve system functionality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gellberg in view of Schroeder - Claims 7 and 14 are obvious over Gellberg in view of Schroeder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gellberg (WO 01/55994) and Schroeder (Application # 2003/0069691).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Gellberg to address the specific wireless network types recited in dependent claims 7 and 14 (e.g., WLAN, satellite network). While Gellberg taught using a GSM network and noted that "another radio communication system" could be used, it did not explicitly name satellite networks. Schroeder discloses a navigation device that communicates via a satellite broadcast network to receive map data.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Schroeder’s teaching of satellite communication with Gellberg's logistics system to enhance its reliability and range. Cellular networks like GSM often have poor or nonexistent coverage in rural or remote areas where a logistics vehicle might operate. A POSITA would be motivated to use a satellite network, as taught by Schroeder, as a known and reliable alternative or backup to ensure the system remained operational in such environments.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating a known satellite communication module into a mobile device that already used wireless communication (GSM) was a well-understood and predictable modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness over DeKock - Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are obvious over DeKock.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: DeKock (Patent 6,574,548).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted DeKock, which discloses a system for providing real-time traffic status, renders all challenged claims obvious. In DeKock, mobile user stations request and receive map and traffic information from a central computer system. The system alters the map display by highlighting road segments with different colors or patterns based on measured traffic conditions (e.g., average vehicle speed). This traffic data is collected by "monitoring devices," such as roadside traffic monitors or other GPS-equipped user devices. Petitioner argued that these different visual representations based on traffic speed directly correspond to the ’648 patent’s "location interaction rules"—for example, a rule could be: if the average speed is within a certain range, display the road segment in red. The map is thus altered based on interactions (vehicle speeds) verified by monitoring devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: This is a single-reference ground. For any element not explicitly taught, such as including a unique user identifier with a map request, Petitioner argued it would be an obvious modification. DeKock teaches calculating vehicle velocity using location data from user stations. A POSITA would be motivated to include a unique user identifier with each location transmission to accurately calculate the velocity of individual users, thereby improving the resolution and accuracy of the overall traffic database.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding a known data field (a unique ID) to an existing data transmission to enhance system accuracy was a simple, predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Map": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as its plain meaning: "a representation of an area." This construction was argued to be broad enough to encompass the graphical road displays in DeKock and the itinerary diagrams in Gellberg.
• "Location Interaction Rules": Petitioner proposed this term means "rules for interacting with a location." This construction supported the argument that Gellberg's requirements to visit an itinerary point or perform a task (empty a container) were such rules, as were DeKock's conditions for displaying different colors based on traffic speed.
• "Monitoring Device": Petitioner proposed this term means "a device usable to detect user interaction with a location." This interpretation was crucial for mapping Gellberg’s transponders and DeKock’s traffic sensors and GPS units to the claim language.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the ’648 patent as unpatentable.