Cellco Partnership v. Bridge Post Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00321
• Patent #: 9,659,314
• Filed: December 18, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
• Patent Owner(s): Bridge and Post, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Improving the Selection of Media for Delivery to a Targeted User
• Brief Description: The ’314 patent describes methods for delivering targeted media to a user by intercepting their network traffic at a network routing device. The device tags the traffic with a request identifier (RID) that includes an encrypted user identifier, which a destination site can then request to have decoded to retrieve stored user information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 20-21 are obvious over Harada in view of Roker.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Harada (International Publication No. WO 00/73876) and Roker (International Publication No. WO 2006/081680).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Harada and Roker describe similar systems for intercepting and modifying user web requests to enable targeted content delivery. Harada was alleged to disclose a proxy server that intercepts a user’s HTTP request, retrieves the user’s profile (e.g., username, demographic, geographic data), encrypts this information, and adds it to new fields in the HTTP header before forwarding it to a web server. The web server then decrypts this information to customize content. Roker was argued to teach a similar system where a network device intercepts user traffic, accesses user data, and encodes it into HTTP headers to deliver localized advertising. Petitioner contended that these references collectively teach the core limitations of independent claims 1, 20, and 21, including determining user information, generating a user identifier, tagging traffic with an encrypted identifier, and decoding it at the destination.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Harada and Roker because they address the same problem. Petitioner asserted that Roker’s teachings on using unique identifiers (like a static IP address) and obscuring user data for privacy would be a natural and predictable improvement to Harada’s system. Implementing Roker’s privacy-enhancing features would have improved the security and effectiveness of Harada’s method for tailoring content, a shared goal of both references.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying Roker’s known privacy and identification techniques to Harada’s analogous content delivery framework to achieve the predictable result of more secure, targeted advertising.

Ground II: Claims 12-13 are obvious over Harada and Roker in view of Short.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Harada (WO 00/73876), Roker (WO 2006/081680), and Short (Application # 2005/0172154).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Harada and Roker combination to address claim 12’s limitation of "verifying a right of the client computing device based in part on the unique device identifier." Petitioner argued that Short teaches a system for digital rights management that enables a content provider to regulate content distribution. Specifically, Short disclosed using a unique identifier associated with a client device to govern access to digital content, thereby verifying the device’s right to view it.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Short’s rights management system into the content delivery framework of Harada and Roker to implement rule-based content blocking. Petitioner contended that this was a known technique used to achieve a predictable purpose—controlling the type of content delivered to a user based on their profile and device rights, which is consistent with Roker’s disclosure of filtering and blocking content.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including: (1) claims 8-9 and 17-18 over Harada, Roker, and Parekh (WO 00/67450) to add specific user preference tracking; (2) claim 19 over Harada, Roker, and Mathai (WO 00/67092) to add targeted content related to local events; and (3) claim 11 over Harada, Roker, and Microsoft (a 2001 publication on Windows XP Activation) to add hashing of a hardware-based unique device identifier (e.g., a MAC address).

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner argued the ’314 patent was not entitled to its claimed priority date of March 10, 2007. The petition contended that the provisional application failed to provide adequate written description support for the limitation of encrypting a user identifier into an “alphanumeric string,” a feature common to all independent claims. This challenge, if successful, would establish certain publications, such as Roker, as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Arguments Against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner preemptively argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. While acknowledging that the U.S. application publication corresponding to Roker was cited during prosecution, Petitioner emphasized that the primary reference, Harada, was not before the examiner. Petitioner asserted that this new combination, centered on a reference the examiner never considered, raises issues distinct from those addressed during prosecution and therefore warrants institution of an inter partes review (IPR).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’314 patent as unpatentable.