Google LLC v. Seven Networks LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01048
• 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, 34, and 35

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Mobile Device with Power Management Modes
• Brief Description: The ’129 patent discloses methods and systems for managing network traffic on a mobile device to conserve battery power. The technology involves using multiple power-management modes to selectively block or allow outgoing data requests from applications based on factors like whether an application is in the foreground or background, and user activity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Application # 2011/0185202) and Nexus One (Nexus One User’s Guide, dated March 15, 2010).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of Black and Nexus One renders the challenged claims obvious. The core of the argument is that Black discloses the claimed "second power management mode," while Nexus One discloses the "first power management mode."
    • Second Mode (from Black): Black taught a mobile device with "active" and "dormant" power modes. The "dormant" mode, which corresponds to the claimed second power management mode, was entered based on user inactivity, such as when the screen backlight turned off. In this mode, synchronous communication with an application server was disabled for a predetermined period to conserve power, thus blocking outgoing data requests.
    • First Mode (from Nexus One): Nexus One, a publicly available user guide, taught a user-configurable "Background data" setting. Petitioner argued that unchecking this box constituted user input to enter a "first power management mode." In this mode, background applications were blocked from transmitting data (e.g., syncing email), while foreground applications a user was actively working with were unaffected.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine the teachings of Black and Nexus One because both addressed the same technical problem—conserving battery life on a mobile device—using similar, compatible solutions in the form of distinct power-management modes. Integrating Nexus One's user-selectable background data restriction into Black's system would provide an additional, beneficial power-saving feature, giving users more control without altering the function of Black's inactivity-based dormant mode.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known power-saving techniques, as it involved integrating a well-understood user-selectable software feature (from Nexus One) into a device that already employed software-based power management (from Black), a predictable modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "block transmission" (claims 1, 17): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as "to prevent transmission for a period of time." This construction is broad enough to cover deferring or delaying transmissions, not just permanently preventing them. This interpretation was argued to be consistent with the patent specification's disclosure of batching and aligning data, and was critical for arguing that Nexus One's feature of disabling background sync until the user re-enables it or opens an app met the "block" limitation.
• "battery charge status" (claims 6, 22): Petitioner proposed this term meant "a status of the battery's charge state," such as whether the device is plugged in and charging, rather than the specific battery level (e.g., percentage). This construction was based on specification examples that distinguish between being "plugged in to charge" and the battery being "low." This distinction was important for mapping prior art that disables power-saving modes when a device is connected to an external power source.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Entitlement: Petitioner dedicated significant argument to establishing that the ’129 patent was not entitled to the priority date of its provisional applications. It contended that none of the cited provisionals provided sufficient written description support for the claimed "second power management mode," specifically the limitations requiring entry based on a "backlight status" and blocking transmissions for a "predetermined period of time." Therefore, Petitioner argued the effective filing date for the challenged claims was the filing date of the parent application, July 22, 2011, making both Black (filed 2010) and Nexus One (published 2010) prior art.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was unwarranted. Although the patent that issued from the Black application was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution of the ’129 patent, it was never "the basis for rejection." Petitioner asserted there was no overlap between the arguments made by the examiner and the specific manner in which Petitioner relied on Black in its obviousness combination with Nexus One, which was never before the examiner.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 30, 34, and 35 of the ’129 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.