PTAB

IPR2018-01104

Google LLC v. Seven Networks, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Mobile Device Network Services
  • Brief Description: The ’433 patent describes a system for providing network services to mobile devices, particularly within a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) framework. The invention involves a system where an entity, separate from the underlying mobile network operator (MNO), provides branded content and services, monitors usage, and manages content delivery to end-user mobile devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vu and Kumar - Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, 24, 25, 27, and 29 are obvious over Vu in view of Kumar.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vu (Application # 2008/0133569) and Kumar (Patent 8,971,846).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vu, which describes a content delivery system for an MVNO ("Amp'd Mobile"), discloses most elements of the challenged claims. Vu teaches a "first server" (a combination of its Handset Content Server and Content Server) providing a service to a mobile device over a mobile network (e.g., Verizon, Telus). Petitioner contended that any claim limitations not explicitly taught by Vu would have been obvious additions based on the teachings of Kumar. Specifically:
      • Authentication: While Vu mentions user authentication, Kumar was cited to provide the specific details of receiving a "unique authentication token." Kumar teaches using various subscriber identifiers (IMSI, user ID/password) for authentication in a mobile network context.
      • Branding: Vu discloses the MVNO "Amp'd Mobile" providing services over MNOs like Verizon, inherently teaching a service branded by an entity other than the network operator. Kumar reinforces this by describing the standard MVNO model where services are launched under a separate brand.
      • Usage Monitoring: Vu discloses billing functionality on an "external server." Kumar was used to supplement this by teaching the monitoring of network usage, such as bandwidth, for billing purposes in an MVNO system.
      • Control: The petition asserted that both Vu and Kumar teach that the service-providing servers (for content, authentication, and billing) are controlled by the MVNO (the "entity other than an entity that operates the mobile network"), not the underlying MNO.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Vu and Kumar because both address providing services in a mobile network environment. A POSITA implementing Vu’s content delivery system would have naturally looked to a reference like Kumar to implement well-known and necessary functions such as robust user authentication and usage-based billing, which were desirable for security and commercial reasons.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known components and functionalities (authentication, billing, branded content delivery) was a standard practice in mobile network architecture, and a POSITA would have had a high expectation of successfully integrating Kumar’s teachings into Vu’s system to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vu, Kumar, and Mehta - Claims 2 and 14 are obvious over Vu in view of Kumar and Mehta.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vu (Application # 2008/0133569), Kumar (Patent 8,971,846), and Mehta (Application # 2002/0131404).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Vu and Kumar and introduces Mehta to teach the limitations of claims 2 and 14.
      • Claim 2 (Content Removal): This claim requires that digital content be configured for removal after a period of time. Petitioner argued that while Vu suggests this with "ExpirationDate" and "RemovalDate" fields, Mehta explicitly teaches deactivating or removing downloaded applications after a trial period expires.
      • Claim 14 (File Size Optimization): This claim requires enforcing a service policy that includes optimizing a file's size. Mehta was cited for its disclosure of an "Optimize Application routine" that shortens variable names and removes unused code to reduce the file size of an application before download.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mehta’s teachings to implement desirable and well-known features into the base system of Vu and Kumar. Adding content expiration would be useful for digital rights management, and optimizing file size would be beneficial for reducing network load and improving download speeds.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing content expiration policies and file size optimization were common techniques in mobile application distribution, and their application to the combined Vu/Kumar system would have been straightforward and predictable.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Vu, Kumar, and Knight - Claims 3, 4, and 19 are obvious over Vu in view of Kumar and Knight.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vu (Application # 2008/0133569), Kumar (Patent 8,971,846), and Knight (WO 2006/061587).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground introduces Knight to teach formatting content based on device characteristics, as required by claims 3, 4, and 19. Knight teaches a server that determines a mobile device's physical and computing capabilities (e.g., screen size, resolution, processor speed, memory) and selects an appropriately formatted application for that specific device. This directly maps to the claim requirement of selecting a content format based on a "formatting characteristic."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Knight to enhance the user experience of the Vu/Kumar system. Ensuring content is formatted correctly for a wide range of mobile devices was a common problem with a known solution, and Knight provides an explicit teaching of how to do so.
    • Expectation of Success: Adapting content to device capabilities was a well-known technique to ensure proper functionality and presentation. A POSITA would have predictably integrated this functionality into the base system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against other dependent claims by adding further references to the core combination of Vu, Kumar, and Knight. These included combinations with Morse (for formatting based on network bandwidth), Rafey (for user-selectable and preset preferences), Ray (for resolution based on content type), Baldursson (for user-uploaded content), and Kasriel (for pre-downloading content based on predicted user requests).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted it was concurrently filing a second IPR petition against the ’433 patent that relies on a different primary reference (Kjellberg) and alleges a different system architecture. Petitioner argued that because the petitions present distinct arguments and rely on different prior art combinations, the Board should institute on the grounds in both petitions to consider the different strengths and weaknesses of each invalidity theory.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 9,386,433 as unpatentable.