PTAB

IPR2017-02018

Ruiz Food Products Inc v. MacroPoint LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and Method for Monitoring Vehicle or Freight Location
Brief Description: The ’659 patent describes a system for tracking the location of a vehicle or freight by using a conventional mobile device (e.g., a cell phone with a GPS receiver) located with the vehicle. The system involves a server that requests and receives location information from the mobile device after obtaining user consent, aiming to provide a low-cost tracking solution that addresses privacy concerns.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Enzmann (Patent 7,130,630).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Enzmann discloses all essential elements of the challenged claims. Enzmann teaches a location query service with a "location server" that tracks a "network user" via their "wireless handheld device," which may include GPS. Enzmann's server receives location requests, verifies authorization (consent), requests location information from a network provider, and returns it to the requestor. Petitioner asserted that applying this system from tracking a user to tracking a vehicle carrying that user's device is an obvious modification, especially since Enzmann itself identifies "fleet vehicle tracking" as a relevant application of its technology.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on a single reference. The motivation asserted was to apply Enzmann's disclosed system to the analogous and well-known field of vehicle tracking to reduce costs associated with dedicated hardware, a benefit explicitly touted by the ’659 patent.
- Expectation of Success: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have a high expectation of success, as it involved using a known system for a known and disclosed purpose.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Enzmann (Patent 7,130,630) and King (Patent 8,045,995).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring communication via an Application Programming Interface (API). Petitioner argued that Enzmann provides the base system architecture, including software, applications, and interfaces. King was cited to explicitly teach a centralized location system that uses a "location update API" to receive and process location data from various sources. The combination of Enzmann's system with King's API methodology was alleged to render the API-specific claims obvious.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine King’s API-based approach with Enzmann’s system to create a more efficient, modular, and robust software implementation. Petitioner contended that using APIs to connect software components was a standard and predictable design choice for improving software development and functionality.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of known technologies that would yield expected results, as it represented a common software engineering practice.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Enzmann (Patent 7,130,630) and Dhanani (Patent 8,395,547).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims reciting specific non-GPS location techniques (triangulation, advance forward link trilateration (AFLT), observed time difference (OTD), and Cell-ID). Petitioner argued Enzmann teaches a general network-based location system, including "triangulation." Dhanani was cited for its explicit disclosure of a broader array of location determination techniques for different cellular networks (e.g., GSM, CDMA), including AFLT, OTD, and Cell-ID.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the various location techniques taught by Dhanani into Enzmann’s system to enhance its capabilities and allow it to function across different types of wireless networks. This was presented as a predictable substitution of one known location technique for another to achieve a known result, depending on the available network infrastructure.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in using Dhanani's techniques within Enzmann's framework, as these were well-understood, alternative methods for determining a device's location.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. It asserted that the IPR was not time-barred under §315(a)(1) because a prior, related court case was dismissed without prejudice, which nullified the effective service date of the complaint.
Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), contending the art presented is not the same or substantially the same as art previously considered by the USPTO. It claimed that Enzmann explicitly teaches key limitations the Examiner found missing during prosecution, such as receiving location data from a third-party location information provider and receiving a signal indicating user consent for that data transmission.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 9,429,659 as unpatentable.