Bumble Trading LLC v. KinectUs LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00763
• Patent #: 10,117,074
• Filed: April 7, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Bumble Trading LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Kinectus LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-7, 11-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Communications Between Mobile Device Users
• Brief Description: The ’074 patent describes systems and methods for establishing communication between mobile device users. The technology involves users registering devices with a collaboration system, which then determines profile matches and displays potential connections to users, who can then mutually select each other to enable communication.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11-13 are obvious over Stackpole

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stackpole, which discloses a "Dynamic Geosocial Networking" system, taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Stackpole's system allows users on mobile devices to create personal and preference profiles, which are transferred to a social networking server. The server identifies potential members within a specified location and range by matching profiles. Upon mutual confirmation from the users, the server provides a communications link. Petitioner asserted this process meets the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13, including registering devices, determining a match, outputting lists of users to each device, receiving selection data from both, and forming communication upon mutual selection.
  • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner further contended that Stackpole taught the limitations of the dependent claims. This included preventing communication if mutual selection does not occur (claim 2) and the use of multiple, distinct user profiles (e.g., "professional" and "social") that can be activated based on different conditions or user-designated preferences (claims 1[h], 1[i], 3, 5-7, 11). For claim 12, Petitioner argued Stackpole disclosed that when matches are conveyed, they would include profile elements like a user’s name or picture to aid in the selection decision.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11-13 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Savjani

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Stackpole as the primary reference and supplemented its teachings with Savjani. Petitioner argued that while Stackpole taught the general concept of outputting matched users, Savjani explicitly disclosed a graphical user interface for a match-based social network that presented potential matches as a "list of user identifications" called "pending connections." This list included buttons for a user to "accept, decline or block" a connection, directly corresponding to the claim limitations of outputting a list and receiving selection data. By incorporating Savjani's user interface, Petitioner asserted the combined system would meet the limitations for outputting a list of user identifications (claims 1[c], 1[d], 13[c], 13[d]) and receiving selection data from users (claims 1[e], 1[f], 13[e], 13[f]).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing Stackpole’s system would have been motivated to look to analogous art, like Savjani, for conventional and effective ways to display potential matches and receive user input. The combination would have been a predictable implementation of a graphical user interface for Stackpole’s known functionality.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a known back-end matching system (Stackpole) with a known front-end user interface design (Savjani) for the same purpose involved no technical hurdles.

Ground 3: Claim 4 is obvious over Stackpole in view of Simkhai

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Simkhai (Patent 8,606,297).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged dependent claim 4, which requires that a user's profile is "linked to or partially populated by a social media account." Petitioner argued Simkhai, which discloses a location-based social networking application, explicitly taught this limitation. Simkhai disclosed a user interface with an "Import/Link Your Facebook Data" option button to facilitate gathering user information during registration. A POSITA would understand that this feature directly teaches linking or populating a profile with data from a social media account like Facebook.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Stackpole with Simkhai was to improve the user experience by making the registration process faster and easier. Petitioner contended that using an existing social media account to sign up for a new service was a well-known and desirable feature at the time of the invention, and a POSITA would have been motivated to add this conventional functionality to Stackpole's system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in this combination because integrating social media login functionality into a web or mobile application was a common and straightforward practice.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge to claim 4 based on the combination of Stackpole, Savjani, and Simkhai, arguing that the motivations to combine were additive and independent.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with minimal investment from the court and parties. Crucially, Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it would not pursue in the district court any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition. Petitioner also asserted that the petition presented a strong case for unpatentability on the merits, which weighs against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 11-13 of the ’074 patent as unpatentable.