PTAB

IPR2019-01171

Chegg Inc v. Netsoc LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method And System For Establishing And Using A Social Network To Facilitate People In Life Issues
  • Brief Description: The ’107 patent discloses a social networking system designed to connect users needing assistance with "life issues" (e.g., finding professional services in a new city) with a plurality of participants (e.g., service providers). The system facilitates user inquiries, matching, and communication, while optionally shielding participant contact information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Collins and Walker - Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-11 are obvious over Collins in view of Walker under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Collins (Application # 2005/0038688) and Walker (Patent 5,862,223).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Collins, which describes a "consumer-centric service for matching local consumers with local service providers," teaches most limitations of independent claims 1 and 6. This includes maintaining a list of participants, providing a user interface to select service categories, displaying matching providers with ratings (shown as star images), and tracking vendor response times. Collins’s user interface displays a "Contact!" button instead of direct contact information, thus shielding provider contact details while enabling a system-mediated inquiry.
    • Motivation to Combine: Collins and Walker are in the same field of matching users with service providers. Walker explicitly addresses the problem of users and providers circumventing a matching system to avoid fees. A POSITA would combine Walker’s teachings on enforced anonymity and acting as a “trusted third party messenger” with the Collins system. The motivation would be to improve Collins by ensuring the system retains control over the communication process, thereby securing its ability to collect referral fees and enhancing user privacy, which are known advantages in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Walker's anonymity features into Collins's matching framework, as it involved applying known technologies (shielding contact data, brokering communications) to achieve a predictable result (a more robust, commercially viable matching platform).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Collins, Walker, and Herz - Claims 4 and 9 are obvious over Collins in view of Walker and further in view of Herz under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Collins (Application # 2005/0038688), Walker (Patent 5,862,223), and Herz (Application # 2004/0019579).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Collins and Walker combination to address the "referral" limitations in claims 4 and 9. Petitioner contended that Herz discloses a "professional referral network" where users (e.g., professionals) can refer clients to other specialists to improve the quality of matches. Herz explicitly teaches identifying suitable candidates based on a referral from another user of the network.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to enhance the Collins/Walker matching system, would be motivated to incorporate the referral functionality taught by Herz. The motivation would be to expand the system’s capabilities and improve the quality of matches by allowing participants or other users to refer additional, potentially better-suited, providers. This would provide users with access to a wider pool of quality results, a known design goal in the field.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Collins, Walker, and Abrams - Claims 3 and 8 are obvious over Collins in view of Walker and further in view of Abrams under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Collins (Application # 2005/0038688), Walker (Patent 5,862,223), and Abrams (Application # 2005/0021750).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses the limitations in claims 3 and 8 requiring the display of an "image" associated with each participant. Petitioner asserted that Collins's display of star icons for ratings already meets this limitation. However, should the Board find star icons insufficient, Petitioner argued that Abrams explicitly teaches this element. Abrams discloses a social network where user profiles are displayed in a "gallery" that includes images like photographs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Collins/Walker system to include the display of participant images as taught by Abrams. The motivation would be to provide consumers with more comprehensive information about service providers, allowing them to make more informed decisions. Since displaying images was a well-known method of enhancing user profiles in social networks, incorporating this feature into a matching service would have been an obvious improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "rating" (Claims 1, 5, 6, 10): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a “relative quality score.” This construction is based on the ’107 patent’s description of using "feedback or a quality rating" to select between participants, implying a comparative quality assessment.
  • "inquiry message" (Claims 1 and 6): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “a communication requesting information.” This aligns with the patent’s examples of an inquiry being a question or a request for assistance sent via a web-based message.
  • "social network" (Claim 1): Petitioner proposed the construction “networked computers and applications to facilitate users interacting with other users with similar interests or needs.” This is based on the patent’s general purpose of using a network to resolve issues by connecting individuals.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted that while related district court litigations exist, no claim construction rulings had been issued or trial dates set, suggesting the IPR would not be duplicative of advanced court proceedings. Petitioner also argued that the grounds presented are not cumulative with those in a concurrently filed IPR (IPR2019-01165), which uses different prior art and rationales, and requested the Board consider the petition on its merits.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’107 patent as unpatentable.