PTAB

IPR2018-00392

Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd v. Nomadix Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Content and Services on a Network System
  • Brief Description: The ’899 patent describes a network management system, such as a gateway device in a hotel, that transparently intercepts a user's request for an external network location (e.g., a website). The system redirects the user to alternate content, such as a portal or login page, to manage network access, without requiring any special software to be installed on the user's device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Slemmer in view of Vu - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Slemmer in view of Vu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Slemmer (Patent 6,226,677) and Vu (Patent 5,623,601).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Slemmer and Vu disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Slemmer was asserted to teach all elements of independent claims 1, 10, and 17, except for the specific "handshake" limitation. Slemmer discloses a "forced proxy server" that functions as a gateway to control communications over a network. This server intercepts a user's web request, analyzes it, and can transparently reroute the user to alternate content (e.g., a login page) different from what was originally requested. Slemmer's system does this by providing response data that appears to come from the originally requested destination. Slemmer also teaches many dependent claim features, such as using a MAC address for identification, providing a personalized homepage, and housing the system components in a gateway device.
    • The petition contended that the only missing element—a processor completing a "connection handshake" with the user device while appearing to be the first network location—was explicitly taught by Vu. Vu describes a secure gateway for network communication that, upon receiving a client packet, initiates a process that "responds to the client... as if it were the target machine" to establish a communication session. This, Petitioner argued, is the precise handshake required by the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Vu's handshake technique with Slemmer's gateway system. The goal would be to implement a well-known, transparent authentication method within Slemmer's already-disclosed redirection framework. Petitioner argued that incorporating Vu's handshake into Slemmer's forced proxy server was a predictable design choice to improve the functionality and user experience of a captive portal system. The petition further noted that even though Slemmer uses HTTP and Vu uses Telnet, this difference in protocols would not have discouraged a POSITA from applying the fundamental handshake concept taught by Vu.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Integrating a known handshake protocol (from Vu) into a gateway system that already intercepts and manages traffic (Slemmer) was a straightforward application of known networking principles to achieve the predictable result of seamless user redirection and authentication.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should institute review and not exercise discretionary denial, drawing a direct parallel to a prior proceeding. The petition highlighted that the Board had previously instituted an inter partes review (IPR2016-00077) on the related Patent 8,266,266, which shares a common grandparent application with the ’899 patent. Petitioner contended that the grounds for unpatentability asserted in this petition are identical to those in the instituted ’266 patent IPR, and that the challenged claims of the ’899 patent are essentially a subset of the claims found unpatentable in the ’266 patent proceeding.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’899 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.