Cisco Systems Inc v. KMizra LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00594
• Patent #: 8,965,892
• Filed: March 15, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): BrainSpark Associates, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-7 and 9-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Techniques for Content Filtering
• Brief Description: The ’892 patent relates to computer networking technology that filters an electronic document, such as a web page, based on a computed reputation of a person or identity associated with that document. The reputation is determined by analyzing factors including social connections and group memberships derived from sources like social networks.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are obvious over Shull, Farnham, and Mui

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shull (Application # 2006/0230039), Farnham (a 2006 book titled "MySpace Safety: 51 Tips for Teens and Parents"), and Mui (a 2003 paper titled "Evaluating Reputation in Multi-agents Systems").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of these references taught every element of the challenged claims. Shull disclosed a general system for gathering data from various online sources to calculate a "trust score" for an online entity (e.g., a person associated with a website) based on its associations and then blocking or allowing access to the website accordingly. Farnham described the specific mechanics of the social networking site MySpace.com, a rich data source detailing user identities, friendships, and group memberships. Mui provided a specific, formal model for determining reputation in online communities, teaching that an individual’s reputation could be inferred from "group-derived reputation," which Mui modeled as the average reputation of all members in that group.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to create an improved and more robust reputation system. A POSITA would look to incorporate the specific, valuable social network data described by Farnham into Shull's general data-gathering framework. To make sense of group associations from Farnham, the POSITA would naturally apply a known analytical model like Mui's, which explicitly teaches how to calculate a group's reputation and use it to infer an individual's reputation, especially when direct evidence for that individual is sparse. This combination was presented as a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining a general reputation engine (Shull) with a known, rich data source (Farnham) and a standard analytical model for that data (Mui) represented a predictable implementation of established principles to yield a more accurate reputation score.

Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over Shull, Farnham, Mui, and Adelman

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shull (Application # 2006/0230039), Farnham (a 2006 book), Mui (a 2003 paper), and Adelman (Application # 2006/0095404).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to specifically address the limitation of claim 5, which requires "analyzing the document." Petitioner contended that Adelman explicitly taught this missing element. Adelman described determining a website's reputation by analyzing its content for "illegal or questionable activity" and taught that a site's rating may be "reduced if illegal content is present."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA seeking to improve the reputation system of the primary combination would be motivated to incorporate Adelman's teachings. Analyzing a document's actual content is a common-sense and direct method of assessing its reputation. This direct analysis would complement the indirect, association-based methods taught by Shull and Mui, providing a more comprehensive and reliable basis for the final reputation score.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because combining Adelman's content analysis with the Shull system was merely the application of a known technique to improve a known system. Both references pertained to website reputation systems, and integrating direct evidence (content analysis from Adelman) with indirect evidence (associations from Shull/Mui) was a predictable way to enhance system accuracy.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate because the asserted prior art references and combinations had not been previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution of the ’892 patent.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, contending that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages. Petitioner asserted that the Fintiv factors favored institution because investment by the court and parties was minimal, the court's trial date was scheduled for well after the IPR's statutory deadline for a final written decision, and there was no current overlap of prior art issues between the proceedings.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 9-18 of Patent 8,965,892 as unpatentable.