Google LLC v. Seven Networks LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01047
• Patent #: 9,516,129
• Filed: May 18, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): SEVEN Networks, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-11, 13-14, 17-27, 29-30, and 34-35

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Mobile Device Power Management for Network Traffic Reduction
• Brief Description: The ’129 patent relates to methods for conserving battery power in a mobile device by implementing distinct power management modes. The system selectively manages outgoing data requests based on application state and user activity, primarily by differentiating between foreground and background applications and monitoring the device’s backlight status.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11, 13-14, 17-27, 29-30, and 34-35 are obvious over Li in view of Black.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Application # 2010/0077035) and Black (Application # 2011/0185202).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Li and Black taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Li was asserted to disclose the claimed "first power management mode" through its system of "adaptive polling." Li teaches adjusting polling intervals based on user behavior; specifically, it reduces the polling frequency for applications that are "less visible" (i.e., in the background), which Petitioner equated to the claimed "blocking transmission," while allowing immediate "one-time polling" requests for foreground applications. Petitioner contended that Black supplied the teachings for the "second power management mode." Black discloses a "dormant mode" where communications are disabled for a predetermined duration to conserve power. Critically, Black teaches that a device enters this dormant mode based on user inactivity, which is detected when the screen or backlight switches off. This directly maps to the claims requiring entry into a second power mode based on the backlight status. Dependent claims reciting features such as exiting the dormant mode when the backlight turns on, or basing power mode entry on connection to an external power source, were also argued to be disclosed or rendered obvious by Black.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Li and Black. Both references address the identical technical problem: conserving battery power on a mobile device by managing network communications. They employ similar, complementary solutions centered on power-management modes that control outgoing data requests. A POSITA would combine Black’s well-known technique of entering a low-power state during user inactivity (signaled by the backlight turning off) with Li’s more granular system of differentiating between foreground and background applications to achieve enhanced, predictable power savings.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. The integration involved applying a known, simple power-saving trigger from Black (backlight status) to the power management framework of Li. The underlying technologies were compatible, and the result—improved battery life—was a highly predictable outcome of combining two known power-conservation strategies.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "block transmission" (claims 1, 17): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "to prevent transmission for a period of time." This construction was argued to be critical for mapping Li to the claims, as it allows Li's teaching of reducing polling frequency for background applications (which prevents transmissions during the extended intervals between polls) to satisfy the "blocking" limitation. Petitioner supported this construction by referencing the ’129 patent’s specification, which discusses delaying and batching transmissions, and Patent Owner's own litigation positions.
• "battery charge status" (claims 6, 22): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a status of the battery's charge state," meaning whether the device is plugged in and charging, rather than the battery's quantitative energy level (e.g., percentage). This construction was based on language in the specification that links power-saving modes to whether the device is connected to a charger, which Petitioner argued was taught by Black as a trigger for entering an "active mode" where power conservation is less critical.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). It acknowledged that both Li and Black were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution of the ’129 patent. However, Petitioner emphasized that the Examiner did not rely on or substantively discuss either reference as a basis for rejection. Therefore, Petitioner contended that the obviousness ground presented in the petition was new, not cumulative to the Examiner's search, and raised substantial new questions of patentability that the Board should consider.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-11, 13-14, 17-27, 29-30, and 34-35 of Patent 9,516,129 as unpatentable.