PTAB

IPR2021-00364

Quantum Metric Inc v. Content Square Israel Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Monitoring and Tracking Browsing Activity on Handled Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’645 patent discloses a method and system for monitoring a mobile device user’s browsing activity. The system collects data about user interactions and generates a visual "exposure map," such as a heat map, that indicates the salience of different areas of a webpage based on user engagement.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Phillips and Zambonini - Claims 1-24 are obvious over Phillips in view of Zambonini.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phillips (Patent 8,379,053) and Zambonini (WO 2007/113573).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Phillips discloses the core functionality of the ’645 patent, including a system for generating "interest maps" (e.g., heat maps) that visualize user interest on a webpage displayed on a handheld device. Phillips determines interest based on how long a user pauses at certain scroll positions. However, Phillips primarily describes generating these maps based on aggregated data from a group of users. Zambonini, in contrast, teaches a system for recording user interactions with a website and storing the data in "session logs" to enable analysis of a single user's activity. Zambonini explicitly discloses generating reports and heat maps that provide insight into an individual visitor's path and interactions. Petitioner contended that combining these references renders all challenged claims obvious. The combination would result in Phillips's system for generating interest maps on handheld devices being modified to track and generate those maps at the individual "page view" and "visitor" levels, as taught by Zambonini. This combination addresses the key limitations of independent claims 1 and 16, including receiving browsing activity from a user, creating a reference layout, and generating an exposure map at a page-view level.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Phillips and Zambonini to gain the benefits of individual user analysis. Zambonini teaches that tracking individual sessions allows for a deeper understanding of user behavior, such as a visitor's specific route through a site and the exact locations they clicked. Applying this to Phillips’s system would have been a recognized improvement, allowing analysts to determine not just which areas of a page are popular in general, but how individual users interact with the content. This directly aligns with Phillips’s stated goal of helping analysts determine if users are viewing a page efficiently.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The proposed modification—configuring Phillips’s system to store and analyze data on a per-session basis using session IDs as taught by Zambonini—would have required only routine programming skills. It represented the combination of known web analytic techniques to achieve a predictable result: a more granular analysis of user browsing behavior.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate because the parallel district court litigations were in their very early stages. Key factors cited in favor of institution included:
    • The early stage of the court proceedings meant a stay was highly likely if the IPR was instituted, which would conserve judicial and party resources.
    • The Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue months, if not years, before any potential trial date in the parallel litigations.
    • Petitioner acted diligently by filing the petition only six months after being sued, and the parties' investment in the litigation was minimal compared to the substantial investment in preparing the IPR.
    • The grounds raised in the petition were materially different from those that might be raised in district court, and Petitioner stipulated not to assert these same grounds in court if the IPR were instituted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’645 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.