PTAB

IPR2020-01668

Apple Inc v. Pinn Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Device With Wireless Earbud
  • Brief Description: The ’491 patent discloses a personal wireless media station that includes a main body (case) for housing and charging a wireless earbud. The system is configured for the earbud to pair directly with and receive audio from a smartphone.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 9 are obvious over Watson-350, Hankey-Rabu, and Lydon

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Watson-350 (Application # 2016/0360350), Hankey-Rabu (a combination of Hankey, Patent 8,401,219, which incorporates by reference Rabu, Patent 8,086,281), and Lydon (Patent 8,078,787).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Watson-350, the primary reference, discloses the core apparatus of claim 1: a case ("main body") with connection holes, a processor, memory, and a user input button, which houses wireless earbuds. The earbuds plug into the case, have wireless communication capability for pairing with a smartphone, and can perform wired communication with the case. To address the limitation of turning off wireless pairing during charging (limitation 1[i]), Petitioner relied on Lydon. Lydon teaches an intermediate charging device with a microcontroller that can tunnel commands from a smartphone to a headset to turn off its Bluetooth transceiver or delete pairings. For claim 9, Petitioner argued Hankey-Rabu and Lydon teach providing battery status to a smartphone for display on a mobile application.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Watson-350 with Hankey-Rabu to add "intelligence" (e.g., advanced power management) from Hankey-Rabu’s charging apparatus to Watson-350’s more basic system. A POSITA would further incorporate Lydon’s teachings to implement the specific function of disabling wireless pairing during charging, which Petitioner asserted is an obvious design choice to conserve power and optimize charging. Combining these known elements from similar devices would yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because all references describe similar components (wireless headsets, charging devices, smartphones) that are designed to work together. Hankey, Rabu, and Lydon are all assigned to the Petitioner, indicating a common technological ecosystem.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 9 are obvious over Watson-510, Hankey-Rabu, and Watson-350

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Watson-510 (Application # 2016/0357510), Hankey-Rabu (Patent 8,401,219 and Patent 8,086,281), and Watson-350 (Application # 2016/0360350).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative primary reference, Watson-510, which Petitioner argued is highly similar to Watson-350, disclosing a wireless earbud case with a depressible button to make the earbuds discoverable for smartphone pairing. The argument then mirrored Ground 1, asserting that Hankey-Rabu supplies the "intelligent" processor for managing charging and communications. Watson-350 was added to this combination for its teaching that earbuds automatically connect to a smartphone upon removal from the case, which Petitioner argued inherently suggests that the connection is turned off while the earbuds are in the case charging.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA would combine the base system of Watson-510 with the known intelligent charging features of Hankey-Rabu. A POSITA would look to a similar system like Watson-350 to implement predictable features like managing the connection state based on whether the earbud is in use or charging, which is a simple matter of design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high for the same reasons as in Ground 1, as the combination involves integrating known features into a familiar system to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1 and 9 over Watson-510, Hankey-Rabu, and Lydon (Ground 2C); claim 9 over Watson-350, Hankey-Rabu, and Jobs (Patent 8,564,544) (Ground 1B); and claim 9 over Watson-510, Hankey-Rabu, Watson-350, and Jobs (Ground 2B). These grounds relied on similar combination rationales, primarily adding Jobs for its explicit teaching of displaying a headset battery status icon on a smartphone screen.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "wireless pairing": Petitioner argued this term has a plain and ordinary meaning of "establishing a trusted relationship between two devices that allows them to connect wirelessly." This construction, which was adopted by a Special Master in the parallel district court litigation, was important to Petitioner's argument that certain prior art commands for "deleting a pairing" met claim limitations requiring the "turning off" of the pairing, as opposed to merely severing a temporary connection. Patent Owner had argued for a simpler "wireless connection" construction.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’491 patent was not entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional application only disclosed a system where the smartphone communicates with the main body, which then acts as a relay to the earbud. In contrast, the challenged claims require direct wireless pairing between the earbud and the smartphone. Petitioner contended this new matter meant the patent's effective filing date was April 4, 2016, not the provisional's April 3, 2015 date. This later date makes the Watson-350 and Watson-510 references, both with priority to June 5, 2015, valid prior art.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was inappropriate. It contended that the scheduled trial date in the parallel district court litigation was unreliable, citing the presiding judge's history of postponing trials and the potential for delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner also distinguished this petition from a previously filed IPR (IPR2020-00999) by noting it relies on different primary references (Watson-350/510 vs. Hankey) and uniquely challenges the patent's priority date.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’491 patent as unpatentable.