PTAB

IPR2020-01415

Askeladden LLC v. LighTWire LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Virtual Entity System for Anonymous Online Transactions
  • Brief Description: The ’405 patent discloses a system for creating an anonymous "virtual entity" to shield a real user's identity during online transactions. The system uses a central provider to associate the virtual entity with the user's real-world accounts, allowing for monetary transactions without revealing the user's personal information to third parties.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 3, 4, 14, and 16-19 by Zucker

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zucker (International Publication No. WO 99/66428).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zucker, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Zucker describes a "third party privacy system" that provides users with a "pseudo identity" for anonymous online browsing and purchasing. This "pseudo identity" corresponds directly to the ’405 patent’s "virtual entity." Petitioner asserted that Zucker’s system includes a memory (a third-party privacy server) that stores the virtual identification data ("buyer detail" including the "pseudo identity"), is accessible via the Internet, and is controllable by a real user. Furthermore, Zucker’s system assigns a "pseudo payment identity" to the virtual entity, authorizing monetary transactions without revealing the real user's identity to vendors, thus mapping to all limitations of independent claims 1 and 14.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Zucker’s core purpose of "providing privacy through anonymity" is identical to that of the ’405 patent, and its implementation through a privacy server managing pseudo-identities and pseudo-payments anticipates the claimed invention.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2 and 5-13 over Zucker in view of Brush

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zucker (WO 99/66428) and Brush (Patent 5,884,029).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that to the extent Zucker does not explicitly teach certain dependent claim features, such as a unique name, password, and history of activities (claim 2) or "personality" attributes (claim 5), these features were well-known and disclosed by Brush. Brush teaches the use of "avatars" as proxies for users online, where each avatar possesses characteristics like "shape, color, preference, personality and, credit and financial history." Petitioner argued that Brush teaches storing this information, including passwords and activity history, directly with the avatar to improve security and efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zucker and Brush to improve Zucker's system. Integrating Brush's avatar "personality" features would create a more robust and user-friendly anonymous persona within Zucker's privacy framework. Adding a password and consolidating transaction history with the pseudo-identity, as taught by Brush, would have been a routine and predictable improvement to enhance security and data management. Both references address anonymous online interactions and seek to improve the user experience, providing a clear motivation to combine their respective teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. Both operate in the same field of anonymous online user accounts, and integrating known avatar features (Brush) into a known privacy transaction system (Zucker) would have been a combination of known elements to yield predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 15 over Zucker in view of Rosen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zucker (WO 99/66428) and Rosen (Patent 5,557,518).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 15, which adds the limitation of adapting a server to limit transactions to a prepaid amount of money. While Zucker teaches a "token balance" concept, Rosen explicitly discloses a system for secure e-commerce using "electronic tickets" that function like a prepaid phone card and are specifically "adapted to limit transactions." If the value on Rosen's ticket is insufficient, the transaction is aborted.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zucker’s system using Rosen’s teachings. Rosen's "electronic tickets" represent a well-known and straightforward method for implementing the kind of prepaid or debit functionality already contemplated by Zucker's "token balance." A POSITA would have viewed incorporating Rosen's prepaid mechanism as a simple design choice to implement a known feature in Zucker’s system, thereby improving its anonymous payment capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable, as both references relate to secure online transactions. Applying a known limited-value transaction method (Rosen) to an anonymous transaction system (Zucker) would have been a simple integration of complementary technologies.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’405 patent as unpatentable.