PTAB

IPR2018-01132

RPX Corporation v. Publishing Technologies LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Managing Information Content in a Network-Based Communication System
  • Brief Description: The ’342 patent describes a method for managing and creating mobile websites. The system involves providing a content management website, identified by a first URL, where a user can designate an external data source. The system then generates a mobile website, identified by a second, different URL, which is configured to automatically receive data from the designated external source for display on mobile devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness of Claim 1 over Underwood

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Underwood (Patent 7,668,913).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 1 is anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over Underwood. Underwood was argued to teach a "Universal Content Manager" (UCM) that functions as the claimed "content management website," allowing a user to create a customized website. This UCM permits the integration of "Definer External Components" (DXCs), which are external data sources that a user can designate. Petitioner argued that the website generated by Underwood's UCM is published to a user-selected domain name, resulting in a second URL different from the URL used to access the UCM/Definer tool. The generated website is configured to automatically receive data from the external DXC at runtime and can be formatted for "reduced capacity" devices, such as mobile phones, thus meeting all limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): In the alternative obviousness argument, Petitioner contended that even if Underwood did not explicitly teach generating a mobile-formatted website, it would have been obvious for a POSA to do so. Given that Underwood recognized mobile devices have "reduced capacity," a POSA would have been motivated to apply Underwood's formatting tools to create websites specifically tailored for effective display on such devices.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in formatting a website for mobile devices using Underwood’s existing tools, as this was a predictable application of known web development principles to accommodate a growing user base.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 4, 14, and 15 over Underwood in view of Phelan

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Underwood (Patent 7,668,913) and Phelan (Patent 6,240,360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Underwood provides the core website generation platform, it does not explicitly disclose a "database source" or the use of location information from a mobile device as recited in claims 4, 14, and 15. Phelan was asserted to cure this deficiency by teaching a system that provides map and other data based on location information sent from mobile devices, including GPS-based navigation devices. Phelan's servers use databases to provide this location-relevant information. The combination, therefore, teaches a mobile website generation system (Underwood) that processes data from a database source (Phelan) based on location information received from a user's GPS-enabled mobile device (Phelan).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine these references to enhance Underwood's platform with location-based services. Creating a location-based DXC using Phelan's teachings would have been a commercially desirable feature, allowing developers to build more functional and relevant mobile websites (e.g., store locators). This modification would increase the platform's utility and revenue potential.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Integrating location-based services from a source like Phelan into a flexible, component-based web platform like Underwood was a predictable implementation that would have yielded the expected result of a location-aware mobile website.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 8, and 12-13 over Austin alone or in view of Chang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Austin (WO 02/03243) and Chang (Patent 7,590,681).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Austin teaches a Content Management System (CMS) for an "Internet Shopping Mall" where retailers can create mobile websites accessible via WAP. Austin's CMS allows retailers to designate external data sources, such as legacy stock control databases. For the limitations regarding separate URLs and independent accessibility, Petitioner turned to Chang. Chang was argued to teach a system that separates a back-end "management server" from a user-facing mobile portal, with each being accessible at a different URL. The combination of Austin’s CMS with Chang’s architecture allegedly discloses all elements of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the teachings of Austin and Chang to implement a logical separation between the retailer's back-end management interface and the shopper's front-end mobile website. Using different URLs, as taught by Chang, is a common design pattern that improves security, usability for non-technical staff, and traffic management, providing a clear motivation to apply it to Austin’s system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as creating separate, independently accessible websites for management and customer-facing functions was a known and routine web development practice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Underwood with Sahota (Application # 2001/0056460) and RSS Paper (IEEE Intelligent Systems, Nov./Dec. 2000) for syndication and RSS feeds, and with Appling (Patent 7,640,512) for device-captured data. Further grounds were asserted based on Austin and Chang in view of references like Sahota and Morris (Patent 6,112,206).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "the mobile web site being accessible independently of the content management web site."
    • Proposed Construction: "pages of the mobile web site are accessible using a URL that is different from a URL used to access pages of the content management web site."
    • Importance: This construction is central to Petitioner's arguments. Petitioner contended this meaning is supported by the patent specification, including figures showing separate home pages for the management site and the mobile site (FIGS. 1D and 4). Further support was drawn from the prosecution history of a parent application and a related patent's reexamination, where the patent owner distinguished prior art by emphasizing that the mobile and management sites had different URLs to allow for independent access.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-15 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable.