Unified Patents LLC v. 2BCom LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00996
• Patent #: 7,127,210
• Filed: May 29, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Unified Patents, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): 2BCom, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 12-17 and 19-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless Communication Apparatus and Method
• Brief Description: The ’210 patent discloses a wireless communication apparatus that, after establishing a connection with a first wireless device, can enter a second, "non-connectable" mode. In this mode, the apparatus is inhibited from establishing a new connection with a second wireless device to prevent interference or disruption to the existing connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 21 are obvious over Bluetooth Profiles in view of Nüsser.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bluetooth Profiles (Bluetooth™ Specification Volume 2, v1.0B, Dec. 1, 1999) and Nüsser (a 2000 technical article on Bluetooth in automotive environments).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bluetooth Profiles, a foundational standard, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, its LAN Access Profile (LAP) describes a mandatory "single-user mode" for an access point. When configured in this mode, the access point establishes a connection with a first device and then automatically rejects all subsequent connection requests from other devices, as it has reached its maximum user limit of one. Petitioner contended this inherent functionality directly teaches the claimed method of establishing a first connection and then entering a second mode where the apparatus is "inhibited" from connecting to a second device.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Nüsser provides a compelling motivation to apply the teachings of Bluetooth Profiles in the manner claimed. Nüsser describes implementing a Bluetooth network in a vehicle and explicitly recognizes the need to limit undesired connection requests to minimize driver distraction. To achieve this, Nüsser expressly points the reader to the official Bluetooth specification, which includes Bluetooth Profiles, for implementation details on discovery and connection mechanisms. A POSITA would therefore combine Nüsser's stated problem with Bluetooth Profiles' known "single-user mode" solution to arrive at the claimed invention.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Nüsser suggests applying the standard Bluetooth protocol, as detailed in Bluetooth Profiles, to a specific, common-sense application (an automotive infotainment system). The combination involves using a standard feature for its intended purpose.

Ground 2: Claims 12, 14, 16, and 19-21 are obvious over Bluetooth Profiles in view of Cooper in further view of Nüsser.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bluetooth Profiles (a 1999 specification), Cooper (Application # 2002/0123325), and Nüsser (a 2000 technical article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative basis for the "inhibition" limitation. Petitioner argued that Cooper explicitly teaches that a Bluetooth device may enter a "non-connectable mode" after having already established one or more connections. As described in both Cooper and the foundational Bluetooth Profiles specification, a device in non-connectable mode does not respond to paging requests and therefore cannot establish new connections. Petitioner asserted this directly teaches setting up a second mode where the apparatus is inhibited from connecting to a second device after a first connection is made. The remaining limitations regarding standard Bluetooth connection protocols were taught by Bluetooth Profiles.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1. Nüsser provided the real-world problem (avoiding unwanted connections in a car) and pointed to the Bluetooth standard for a solution. A POSITA, seeking to implement Nüsser's goal, would look to the known techniques in the Bluetooth standard, such as the non-connectable mode taught by Bluetooth Profiles and reinforced by Cooper. Combining these references involved using a known Bluetooth feature described by Cooper to solve the exact problem identified in Nüsser.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success because the combination merely applies a known, standard technique (Cooper's non-connectable mode) from the Bluetooth protocol to a well-known problem area (Nüsser's desire to limit connections).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Unit" Limitations as Software Features: Petitioner dedicated significant argument to construing the "unit configured to..." terms in independent apparatus claim 20. Petitioner argued these are not means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 (pre-AIA) but should be understood as software features performed by a general-purpose processor executing specific algorithms disclosed in the specification.
• Alternative Means-Plus-Function Construction: In the event the Board were to construe the "unit" terms as means-plus-function limitations, Petitioner identified the corresponding structure for the claimed functions. For the "unit configured to control a connection," the identified structure was a processor (control unit) executing one of three algorithms disclosed in the ’210 patent: the "non-discoverable mode," the "page denial mode," or the "page non-response mode," all of which achieve the function of inhibiting a subsequent connection.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §314(a) or §325(d). The primary reasons provided were that none of the asserted prior art references (Bluetooth Profiles, Nüsser, or Cooper) were cited or considered during the original examination of the ’210 patent. Petitioner asserted this constituted a material error by the Patent Office.
• Additionally, Petitioner noted that the ’210 patent had not been the subject of any previous IPR petition, and that the factors from General Plastic did not weigh in favor of denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 12-17 and 19-21 of the ’210 patent as unpatentable.