LG Electronics, Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00558
• Patent #: 9,014,667
• Filed: February 1, 2018
• Petitioner(s): LG Electronics, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Johannes Maria van Loon et al.
• Challenged Claims: 31, 33, and 35

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Telecommunications Network and Method for Time-Based Network Access
• Brief Description: The ’667 patent discloses a telecommunications network and method for regulating network resource usage by managing access for a plurality of terminals. The system uses a "register" that stores unique identifiers for terminals in combination with assigned time intervals, during which network access is either granted or denied, to control access based on factors like network load, particularly for machine-to-machine (M2M) applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 31 and 33 are obvious over Obhan in view of Shatzkamer and Budka.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Obhan (Patent 6,275,695), Shatzkamer (Application # 2008/0220740), and Budka (E.P. Publication No. EP1009176 A2).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Obhan, the primary reference, taught the core of the invention. Obhan disclosed a system for managing access in a wireless network to maximize spectrum usage by monitoring network load. It described an Admission Control Block (ACB)—functioning as the claimed "register"—that stored access rules for different classes of terminals. These rules implicitly defined a "deny access time interval" by setting a "good till" time for granted access, thereby precluding lower-priority terminals from initiating calls during periods of high network load. Obhan specifically identified denying access to low-priority M2M applications (e.g., vending machines) during peak load intervals.
  • Motivation to Combine:
    • Petitioner contended a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Obhan with Shatzkamer to improve Obhan's system. While Obhan used broad "access class" identifiers, Shatzkamer taught using unique terminal identifiers (e.g., IMSI) for more granular, terminal-specific access control. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Obhan's class-based method with Shatzkamer's unique identifier-based method to achieve finer and more flexible control, a well-known design trade-off.
    • A POSITA implementing Obhan’s system would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Budka. Obhan described managing "call originations" in a GSM network but did not detail the underlying mechanism. Budka, describing the standard GPRS/GSM procedure, explicitly taught that initiating a network connection involves the terminal sending an access request containing its unique identifier (IMSI). A POSITA would have naturally turned to this standard, well-known technique to implement the access request functionality within Obhan's framework.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved implementing known techniques (unique identifiers for granularity, standard access request protocols) into a base system for their ordinary and predictable purposes. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in achieving a more flexible and specific access control system without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Claim 35 is obvious over Obhan in view of Taniguchi and Budka.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Obhan (Patent 6,275,695), Taniguchi (Patent 7,505,755), and Budka (E.P. Publication No. EP1009176 A2).
• Core Argument for this Ground: This ground challenged terminal claim 35, which adds the limitation that the terminal receives a message from the network containing information about the "deny access time interval."
  • Prior Art Mapping: Obhan was again asserted as the base system, which disclosed a centralized server sending "service option signals" to terminals to alter their accessibility based on network load. Petitioner argued this message implicitly related to the deny access interval. Taniguchi was introduced to explicitly teach this limitation, as it disclosed sending a "communication restriction signal" to a terminal that includes "communication restriction period information." This signal informed the terminal of the restricted period, causing it to be inhibited from making access requests. Budka's teachings on standard terminal components (processor, memory) and access procedures were incorporated for reasons similar to Ground 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Obhan and Taniguchi to improve overall network efficiency, a goal shared by both references. By explicitly informing a terminal of a deny access interval as taught by Taniguchi, the terminal could avoid sending futile access requests. This would prevent the unnecessary expenditure of both terminal and network resources, directly serving the stated goal of Obhan to manage network loading and preserve resources.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding a notification message containing access restriction timing to an access control system was argued to be a straightforward and predictable enhancement. A POSITA would expect this combination to successfully improve network efficiency by preventing unnecessary traffic from restricted terminals.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "deny access time interval": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to mean "a time slot during which access to the telecommunications network is denied." This construction was supported by the patent's specification, which stated that a "grant access time interval" is the "equivalent" of a "deny access time interval," suggesting the form of the interval (positive or negative grant) is not limiting.
• "machine-to-machine applications": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "applications that allow for data communication between devices and that normally operate without human intervention." This was based on the specification's examples, such as electricity meters, and its description of M2M applications as often not requiring immediate data transfer, making them suitable for access denial during peak hours.
• "register": Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly as "a device with storage." This was based on the claim language requiring the register to "store" identifiers and time intervals, as well as specification examples like a "home location register (HLR)," which is fundamentally a storage device for subscriber information.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 31, 33, and 35 of Patent 9,014,667 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.