Facebook Inc v. Hypermedia Navigation LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01807
• Patent #: 7,383,324
• Filed: September 26, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Facebook, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Hypermedia Navigation LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, and 4

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Creating and Navigating a Linear Hypermedia Resource Program
• Brief Description: The ’324 patent describes a system for navigating web content in a structured, linear sequence, akin to a "guided tour." The technology aims to simplify the user experience by filtering unwanted information and presenting a curated series of websites or media elements along a predefined path, contrasting with conventional non-linear, hyperlink-based browsing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Richardson, Greer, Steele, and Khurana.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Richardson (Patent 5,809,247), Greer (Patent 6,009,429), Steele (Patent 5,884,056), and Khurana (Web Database Construction Kit (1996)).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the primary reference, Richardson, discloses the core concept of the challenged claims: a "guided web tour" system. Richardson teaches a tour operator website that provides a directory of available tours, which a user can select and navigate sequentially. Its interface includes a main viewing area for tour stop content and a separate "map area" listing the URLs for the tour stops. Petitioner argued this combination meets most limitations of independent claim 1.

  To meet the remaining limitations, Petitioner proposed combining Richardson with three other references:

  • Greer was introduced to teach that guided tours can be composed entirely of video elements, presenting the tour as a "movie guided by the user." This addresses claim 1’s requirement for presenting "video media elements," as Richardson primarily described text-based pages that could include video as secondary "media complements."
  • Steele was introduced to teach the use of icons, such as thumbnail images, as selectable hyperlinks for video content. Petitioner argued it would be obvious to replace Richardson’s text-based links for tours with more intuitive icons as taught by Steele, thereby satisfying the claim limitation requiring "icons representative of a first plurality of video media elements."
  • Khurana, a book on web development, was introduced to teach a standard search interface for a website. Petitioner contended it would be an obvious modification to add Khurana’s search functionality to Richardson’s tour directory homepage. This would allow users to search for specific tours, thereby satisfying the "search criteria interface" limitation of claim 1.

  Dependent claims 2 and 4 were presented as obvious extensions. Claim 2, which requires the media elements to be "associated with the Web site," was allegedly met by Richardson's disclosure that the tour operator website stores and manages the tour definitions. Claim 4, which specifies using a "search term" to select media elements, was allegedly met by the combination with Khurana’s search interface.

  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references for predictable and beneficial results. Combining Richardson and Greer was motivated by the desire to enhance guided tours with richer, all-video content, a growing trend at the time. Adding Steele's icons was a well-known design choice to improve user interface clarity for visual media. Finally, adding Khurana's search function was a common-sense improvement to help users find content on a site with a growing directory of tours, making the system more user-friendly.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing well-known and standard web technologies (e.g., HTML forms, hyperlinks, video rendering) to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "map area": Petitioner asserted this term should be construed as "a user interface or a part thereof displaying at least a portion of a linear path," noting this construction was agreed upon by the parties in co-pending district court litigation.
• "linear path": Petitioner identified this term as a point of dispute in litigation.
  • Petitioner’s proposed construction was a "path of serially linked websites."
  • Patent Owner’s proposed construction was a "path having no more than one exclusive forward link and one exclusive backward link."
  • Petitioner argued that the Board did not need to resolve this dispute because the asserted prior art combination renders the claims obvious even under the Patent Owner’s narrower construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), stating that the core prior art combination was never substantively considered during prosecution. Although Richardson was listed on an Information Disclosure Statement in related cases, it was never analyzed by the Examiner. The other references were not before the USPTO at all.
• Regarding the co-pending litigation (implicating Fintiv factors), Petitioner noted that the case was in its early stages, as the court had not yet issued any claim construction rulings and no trial date had been set, suggesting an IPR would be a more efficient resolution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’324 patent as unpatentable.