Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: Related to IPR2018-00424 and IPR2018-01028
• Patent #: 7,881,902
• Filed: September 4, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
• Challenged Claims: 1-6 and 9-10

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Monitoring Periodic Human Motion with Sleep Mode
• Brief Description: The ’902 patent describes an electronic device for monitoring periodic human motions like walking or running. The device uses an inertial sensor, such as an accelerometer, to detect motion signatures characteristic of these activities and enters a low-power sleep mode to conserve battery life when no relevant motion is detected.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Mitchnick

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mitchnick discloses a mobile monitoring device with an accelerometer that detects characteristic patterns of motion (a "motion signature"). Mitchnick's device compares observed acceleration signals to a template to identify a configured activity. When the configured activity is not detected, the device enters a "low-power sleep state" to conserve power, thus teaching the limitations of independent claim 1. For dependent claim 2, Mitchnick teaches monitoring for future motions by intermittently checking if the activity is continuing.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Mitchnick in view of Sheldon

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848) and Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 3 adds the limitation of, while in sleep mode, "periodically sampling acceleration data at a predetermined sampling rate" over a "predetermined time period." While Mitchnick teaches periodically sampling data, Sheldon was introduced for its explicit disclosure of collecting accelerometer data over a specific, predetermined time period (e.g., 2 seconds) to determine a human activity.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Sheldon's fixed-duration sampling with Mitchnick's system to improve power management and extend battery life, both stated goals of Mitchnick. Using a predetermined time period for sampling avoids ambiguous results and prevents the device from wasting power on indefinite activity checks, allowing for better optimization of battery cost and performance.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable way to enhance the power-saving features of a device like Mitchnick's.

Ground 3: Claim 4 is obvious over Mitchnick, Sheldon, and Tanenhaus

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitchnick (Application # 2006/0084848), Sheldon (Patent 5,957,957), and Tanenhaus (Patent 6,469,639).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 4 adds an "inertial wakeup functionality." The combination of Mitchnick and Sheldon teaches the base method, and Tanenhaus is added to supply this specific functionality. Tanenhaus discloses a low-power apparatus with a MEMS accelerometer that includes a "wake-up sensing circuit" which detects motion (e.g., vibration) passing a predetermined threshold and, in response, switches the device from a low-power sleep state to a higher-power operational state.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would integrate Tanenhaus's wake-up circuit into the Mitchnick/Sheldon device for two primary reasons: to improve the accuracy of activity detection and to further extend battery life. This would allow the device to detect activity that begins and ends between Mitchnick's periodic, timer-based checks and would preserve power by eliminating these checks altogether, only waking the full system when actual motion is detected.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding a dedicated wake-up circuit was argued to be a known technique for improving the responsiveness and power efficiency of motion-sensing devices.

Ground 4: Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are obvious over Fabio in view of Pasolini

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Fabio (Patent 7,698,097) and Pasolini (Patent 7,463,997).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued these claims, which relate to step counting and cadence windows, are rendered obvious by the combination. Fabio discloses a pedometer that validates steps using a "validation interval" (a cadence window). When the step count is below a threshold, Fabio uses a default window. When the count is at or above the threshold (indicating a regular gait), it uses a dynamic window that updates based on the user's pace. For claim 10, Fabio teaches determining orientation by selecting the accelerometer axis "nearest to the vertical" based on the DC component of the acceleration signal (i.e., gravity), which constitutes a "dominant axis."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine Fabio with Pasolini (from the same inventors and filed the same day) to improve step-counting accuracy. While Fabio teaches selecting the dominant vertical axis, Pasolini explicitly teaches an improvement: identifying the main vertical axis "at each acquisition of a new acceleration sample." This dynamic re-orientation accounts for changes in the device's position during use. A POSITA would integrate Pasolini's more robust orientation-correction method into Fabio’s system for the predictable result of more accurate step recognition.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involves applying an improved, known technique (Pasolini's dynamic orientation) to a similar device (Fabio's pedometer) to solve a known problem (inaccurate step counting due to device movement), leading to a predictable improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "dominant axis": Petitioner proposed this term, appearing in claim 10, means "the axis most influenced by gravity." This construction is central to the argument that Fabio and Pasolini teach selecting a specific accelerometer axis for step detection based on its alignment with the gravitational force.
• "cadence window": Petitioner asserted this term, appearing in claim 5, is defined by the specification as "a window of time since a last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step." This construction is used to map Fabio's "validation interval" directly to the claimed feature.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner noted that the petition was filed concurrently with a Motion for Joinder with an already-instituted proceeding, Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2018-00424, suggesting that institution and joinder would be efficient and appropriate.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6 and 9-10 of the ’902 patent as unpatentable.