PTAB

IPR2021-00530

Quantum Metric Inc v. Content Square Israel Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Tracking and Gathering Multivariate Testing Data
  • Brief Description: The ’365 patent discloses methods for automatically tracking and collecting data related to multivariate testing on websites. The invention describes a tracking server that crawls through the internet, downloads webpages, and analyzes the page code to identify and record data about ongoing multivariate tests being performed on those pages.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Seolas and Krishnamoorthy - Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-23 are obvious over Seolas in view of Krishnamoorthy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seolas (Patent 8,365,062) and Krishnamoorthy (Patent 9,881,318).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Seolas teaches a system for automatically crawling and auditing a website. This system downloads webpages, analyzes their source code to identify executable objects and "tracking pixels," and stores the results of the analysis in a metrics store. Krishnamoorthy separately teaches techniques for multivariate testing where "multivariate test parameters" are embedded into a webpage's code (e.g., HTML, Javascript) using a mechanism analogous to the "tracking pixels" described in Seolas. Petitioner contended that the combination of Seolas and Krishnamoorthy teaches every limitation of the independent claims: crawling websites (Seolas), downloading a page view (Seolas), analyzing the downloaded page to identify data related to a multivariate test (Krishnamoorthy's parameters identified by Seolas's analyzer), and saving the identified data in a data store (Seolas).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to enhance the analytical capabilities of Seolas’s auditing tool. Seolas provides a general framework for analyzing website code, including "third party analytics code," while Krishnamoorthy provides a specific type of analytics—multivariate testing—that can be implemented with such code. Combining them was merely using Krishnamoorthy’s specific technique within Seolas’s broader, compatible system to broaden the scope of information gathered.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references employ similar and well-understood techniques for embedding and extracting data from webpages. Applying Seolas’s parsing engine to identify the multivariate test parameters taught by Krishnamoorthy was a predictable implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Seolas, Krishnamoorthy, and Jain - Claims 6 and 18 are obvious over Seolas, Krishnamoorthy, and Jain.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seolas (Patent 8,365,062), Krishnamoorthy (Patent 9,881,318), and Jain (Patent 8,140,505).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Seolas/Krishnamoorthy combination to address claim limitations requiring the generation of a "unique sample" by removing non-unique elements. Petitioner asserted that Jain explicitly teaches techniques for detecting and ignoring near-duplicate documents (e.g., webpages) during web crawling by generating and comparing hash values or "fingerprints." A POSITA would apply Jain's near-duplicate detection method to the periodic website health audits described in Seolas. This would involve discarding redundant page views captured over time, thereby creating a "unique sample" for analysis as required by claims 6 and 18.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Jain with the primary references to improve system efficiency. Jain expressly teaches that ignoring near-duplicate pages is beneficial for a web crawler to avoid wasting computer, storage, and network resources. This represents a well-known optimization strategy that a POSITA would have been motivated to apply to the crawling and auditing system of Seolas.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable as the combination involved applying a known optimization technique for web crawlers (Jain) to a web crawling system (Seolas/Krishnamoorthy). This would predictably improve efficiency without altering the system's core functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Seolas, Krishnamoorthy, and Paduroiu - Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-23 are obvious over Seolas, Krishnamoorthy, and Paduroiu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Seolas (Patent 8,365,062), Krishnamoorthy (Patent 9,881,318), and Paduroiu (Application # 2012/0259833).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to address a potentially narrower construction of "crawling" that might require starting with "seed URLs" and recursively processing discovered hyperlinks. Petitioner argued that Paduroiu discloses a configurable, multithreaded web crawler that does exactly this: it starts with seed URLs, fetches pages, extracts outgoing links, adds those links to a queue, and processes the queue to a specified depth. Modifying the Seolas/Krishnamoorthy system with Paduroiu's explicit crawling methodology would satisfy this narrower construction of the "crawling" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Paduroiu's teachings to gain the enhanced performance of a multithreaded crawling architecture. Paduroiu explains that using multiple threads allows a crawler to process multiple areas of the web in parallel, making it significantly faster and more efficient at fetching content. This would be a desirable and obvious improvement to the Seolas system.
    • Expectation of Success: The crawling techniques in Paduroiu are functionally similar to those generally described in Seolas. A POSITA would have reasonably expected that implementing Paduroiu’s more advanced, yet compatible, crawling features into the Seolas system would be a straightforward modification leading to predictable performance gains.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 6 and 18 based on the combination of Seolas, Krishnamoorthy, Paduroiu, and Jain, which relied on the same rationale for combining Jain as presented in Ground 2.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the co-pending district court litigations were in their earliest stages. At the time of filing, no scheduling orders had been entered, no significant discovery had occurred, and claim construction had not been briefed. Petitioner stated that a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board would likely issue months, if not years, before any potential trial date. Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the inter partes review (IPR) was instituted, thereby preventing duplicative efforts and advancing judicial efficiency.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’365 patent as unpatentable.