Google LLC v. Seven Networks LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01049
• Patent #: 9,553,816
• Filed: March 18, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): SEVEN Networks, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 9-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Optimizing Mobile Network Traffic
• Brief Description: The ’816 patent describes a system for optimizing network traffic and conserving power on a mobile device. The system adjusts the device's behavior for an inactive application by alternately blocking and allowing its outgoing network traffic, thereby altering the frequency of communications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Li in view of Nayak - Claims 9-14 and 16 are obvious over Li in view of Nayak.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Application # 2010/0077035) and Nayak (Patent 8,015,249).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Li teaches the core of the invention: a system on a mobile device that conserves resources by managing network traffic differently for foreground versus background applications. Li’s "broker stub" intercepts and multiplexes (i.e., blocks and batches) polling requests from background (inactive) applications, while allowing requests from foreground (active) applications to be sent immediately. This, Petitioner asserted, meets the claim limitation of adjusting behavior by blocking outgoing traffic for a first period and then allowing it, while simultaneously allowing traffic from a second, active application. Petitioner contended that Nayak supplies the missing limitation of determining an application's inactivity "based on the time the first application was last accessed." Nayak explicitly teaches mitigating data usage by deeming an application inactive if it has been in the background for longer than a predetermined interval since the user last accessed it.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nayak's method for determining application inactivity with Li's traffic management system as a simple design choice. Li’s system is designed to conserve power when a device is inactive, and Nayak provides a well-understood, explicit method for determining that inactivity based on user access patterns, which would predictably improve the efficiency of Li's system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these elements. Both references describe software-based solutions for common problems on mobile devices using similar hardware, and the combination would require only minimal modification to yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Li, Nayak, and Marcellino - Claim 15 is obvious over Li in view of Nayak and Marcellino.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Application # 2010/0077035), Nayak (Patent 8,015,249), and Marcellino (Patent 8,135,392).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Li and Nayak combination from Ground 1 to address the additional limitation in dependent claim 15: "wherein access of the first application further includes receipt of a notification for display to a user." While Li suggests providing "UI feedback," Petitioner argued Marcellino explicitly discloses a system for managing and displaying notifications. Marcellino describes a notification message manager that receives a message, determines the associated application, and processes it for display to the user (e.g., as an icon badge), even causing the application to execute if it is not currently running.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Marcellino's notification manager into the Li/Nayak system to provide users with explicit notifications about updates for background applications. This would improve the user experience by alerting the user to items of interest without requiring constant polling, a goal consistent with Li’s teaching that users expect UI feedback.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been straightforward and predictable. Integrating a notification display function (Marcellino) into a mobile operating system that manages application states and network traffic (Li/Nayak) was a common and well-understood task for a POSITA at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Blocking outgoing network traffic": Petitioner argued this term, which appears in claim 9, should be construed as "preventing transmission of outgoing network traffic." Petitioner asserted this construction is consistent with the patent specification, which describes techniques like batching and aligning transmissions to reduce radio use, effectively preventing the original, individual transmissions for a period of time. This construction was also supported by the prosecution history and the Patent Owner's own litigation positions, where it allegedly equated "blocking" with temporarily "restricting" or "deferring" network access for background applications.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Not Barred by §325(d): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate because the primary prior art references, Nayak and Marcellino, were never considered during the original prosecution of the ’816 patent. While Li was cited in an IDS, the Examiner never applied it in any rejection, meaning the specific arguments and combinations presented in the petition were not previously evaluated by the Office.
• Not Duplicative of Concurrent IPR: Petitioner acknowledged a concurrently filed petition (IPR2018-01101) against the same patent but argued the grounds were not duplicative. This petition relies on Li to teach the "blocking" element via multiplexing and combining requests, whereas the other petition relies on a different reference (Black-I) that teaches "blocking" by turning off communications for an application entirely.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-16 of the ’816 patent as unpatentable.