PTAB

IPR2017-01993

Apple Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Predictive Delivery of Information Based on Device History
  • Brief Description: The ’199 patent describes methods and systems for delivering information, such as advertisements, to user devices. The system delivers the information after predicting that the likelihood of a user visiting one or more predetermined locations within a predetermined maximum time exceeds a predetermined likelihood threshold.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Blegen in view of Monteverde.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blegen (Application # 2010/0082397) and Monteverde (Application # 2012/0259705).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Blegen discloses a system for "predictive geo-temporal advertisement targeting" that uses time-stamped location history to estimate probabilities and predict future locations. Blegen’s system delivers an ad when a prediction’s "confidence level" (e.g., 80%) exceeds a "confidence level threshold." Petitioner contended this teaches most limitations of claim 1, including predicting a future location with a predetermined likelihood. To the extent Blegen does not explicitly disclose associating ads with a "predetermined maximum amount of time," Monteverde was cited. Monteverde describes a system that sends time-sensitive commercial offers during a specific "offer period" if a "probability score" exceeds a threshold, thereby supplying the missing element. Claim 2, which requires analyzing a location history, was argued to be taught by Blegen's use of a "searchable warehouse of time-stamped location data" to build its predictive model.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they are in the same field of targeted mobile advertising and share the same fundamental approach of using location history for predictive targeting. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Monteverde's concept of an "offer period" into Blegen's system to enhance the relevance and value of advertisements, ensuring they are only delivered when the associated offer is valid.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known advertising techniques would predictably result in an improved system that delivers more timely and relevant ads, which was a well-understood goal in the art.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Charlebois in view of Gillies.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Charlebois (Application # 2009/0125321) and Gillies (Application # 2010/0151882).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Charlebois discloses a system that predicts a user's "likely destinations" and "likely time periods" of arrival based on location history. It then compares this user profile to a target profile for an advertisement, and if a "User Profile match indicator (MI)" "ranks well enough" against a "threshold of acceptance," the ad is delivered. This was argued to meet the core limitations of claim 1. Gillies, which is assigned to the same company as Charlebois, was introduced to explicitly teach the use of a "predetermined likelihood threshold" (e.g., "a probability of at least 50%") and a "predetermined time period" (e.g., "sale hours" on an upcoming Saturday) as part of the ad criteria.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Charlebois and Gillies as they are from the same assignee and address the same technical problem. A POSITA would integrate Gillies' explicit and flexible time and probability criteria into Charlebois's more general "match indicator" framework to improve the efficiency and precision of the ad targeting system, a known design goal.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating Gillies' specific thresholding and time-windowing techniques into Charlebois's predictive system was argued to be a straightforward application of known methods to achieve the predictable result of more effective ad targeting.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including adding Schmidt (Application # 2012/0226554) to the Blegen/Monteverde combination to teach analyzing day- and time-based movement patterns related to a current time and location for claims 3-5. Petitioner also asserted a ground adding Froloff (Application # 2012/0089465) to the Charlebois/Gillies combination to address a potentially narrower interpretation of "predetermined maximum amount of time."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "predetermined likelihood": Petitioner noted that during prosecution, the PTAB construed this term to mean "the probability or the percentage likelihood that a mobile device will be at a predicted location in the future." Petitioner stated its analysis proceeded under this construction, which was key to the patent’s allowance, and argued that the new prior art combinations explicitly disclose this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that institution is proper because the asserted grounds are not redundant and rely on non-cumulative prior art references that were not considered during the original prosecution. It was argued that the new references provide stronger and more direct disclosure for key claim elements—such as a specific probability percentage threshold and the analysis of movement patterns—than the art previously before the Examiner.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’199 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.