Bumble Trading Inc v. Match Group LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-1000
• Patent #: 9,959,023
• Filed: April 30, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Bumble Trading, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Match Group, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-6

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Matching Process System and Method
• Brief Description: The ’023 patent describes a method and system for navigating a user interface for profile matching. The system presents user profiles as a graphical "stack of cards," which a user navigates by swiping left (disapproval) or right (approval) to indicate preference, leading to a "match" upon mutual approval.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-6 over Wernick in view of Norena

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wernick (Patent 9,122,757) and Norena (Application # 2012/0246231).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wernick teaches nearly all limitations of the independent claims. Wernick discloses a mobile user interface for sorting through a "stack of images" (e.g., activity options) where a user indicates preference by swiping a card in a particular direction. The primary element missing from Wernick is the specific context of "online dating profiles." Petitioner asserted that Norena, which discloses a system for online dating where users view profiles and indicate interest to create matches, supplies this missing element.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references for several reasons. Wernick explicitly teaches that its card-swiping interface can be used in analogous contexts, such as assessing "attitudes towards a candidate." Given the well-documented, rapid growth of the mobile dating app market prior to 2012, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to apply Wernick’s user-friendly, mobile-optimized interface to the online dating systems taught by Norena to create a more efficient and popular dating application.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination merely involved applying a known user interface (Wernick's card stack) to a known application area (Norena's online dating) to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-6 over Morris in view of Norena

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Morris (Application # 2011/0072470) and Norena (Application # 2012/0246231).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground is similar to Ground 1, but substitutes Wernick with Morris as the primary reference. Petitioner argued that Morris discloses a graphical user interface for a mobile device that displays media search results as a "stack" of images. A user can "slide" the top image to an icon (e.g., a star icon on the right) to save it to their favorites, which constitutes a positive preference indication. As in Ground 1, Petitioner relied on Norena to supply the specific context of online dating profiles and mutual matching.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is analogous to Ground 1. Morris teaches a user-friendly, mobile-based interface for browsing and indicating preference for items. Morris broadly defines the applicable content as "any information or data that can be represented in a visual format," which would encompass online dating profiles. A POSITA, recognizing the trend toward mobile dating apps, would have been motivated to combine the intuitive interface of Morris with the dating system of Norena to improve user experience and capture market share.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable application of Morris's UI to the dating context of Norena. Swapping Norena's button-based preference system with Morris's sliding gesture was a known design choice that would have been expected to work as intended.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Wernick in view of Chang; Morris in view of Chang; Morris in view of Kulas and Norena; and Morris in view of Kulas and Chang. These grounds relied on similar arguments, using Chang to teach the online dating profile elements and Kulas to further teach that swiping gestures were a known and obvious substitute for button clicks to indicate user preference.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that while no specific constructions are necessary, it addressed constructions from a related district court case for completeness. The key disputed term is "graphical representation."
  • The Patent Owner asserted the term should be construed as "pictorial portrayal."
  • Petitioner argued that if construed, the term should mean a "summary of information displayed on a graphical user interface."
  • Petitioner contended that the prior art cards (e.g., in Wernick and Morris) meet the claim limitation under either construction, as they can be pictorial (containing images) and also function as summaries of information.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), which bars institution if the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the USPTO.
• Petitioner stated that none of the cited prior art references, with the exception of Kulas, were cited during the original prosecution of the ’023 patent.
• Regarding Kulas, Petitioner argued that the Examiner cited it only as a secondary reference to show that swiping could indicate approval. The petition uses Kulas differently, primarily as an alternative or supplementary reference to show that swiping gestures (left/right) were a known substitute for other directional swipes (up/down) or button presses, reinforcing the obviousness of the claimed interface design.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’023 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.