Bumble Trading LLC v. KinectUs LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00764
• Patent #: 10,516,979
• Filed: April 7, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Bumble Trading LLC (Real Parties-in-Interest include Bumble Holding Limited, Bumble Inc., Badoo Technologies Limited, Badoo Trading Limited, and Badoo Limited)
• Patent Owner(s): KinectUs LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4 and 10-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Communications Between Mobile Device Users
• Brief Description: The ’979 patent discloses methods for connecting mobile device users. The system registers users with profile data, monitors their locations, identifies potential matches based on location and profile information, and establishes communication only after a mutual selection between users.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Stackpole - Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are obvious over Stackpole

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Stackpole, a single prior art reference, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Stackpole teaches a "dynamic geosocial networking" system where users on mobile devices can create and activate multiple distinct user profiles (e.g., a "social" profile and a "professional" profile) suitable for different social contexts. The system receives location information, identifies potential members within a specified geographic range, and matches users based on their active profile data and preference profiles (search criteria). Petitioner asserted that Stackpole’s disclosure of activating a specific profile (e.g., a professional one via an alphanumeric code) and then processing that profile to find a match directly corresponds to the core limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims were also argued to be obvious, as Stackpole’s professional and social profiles inherently contain professional or social attributes (claims 2-3), and profile activation is initiated by user instruction (claim 4).
  • Key Aspects: The argument centered on Stackpole’s explicit teaching that a user can create and switch between multiple context-specific profiles, and that the system processes the currently active profile to find matches, rendering the claimed invention obvious.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Savjani - Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are obvious over Savjani

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Savjani, as a single reference, also renders all challenged claims obvious. Savjani discloses a match-based social networking system that can be implemented on mobile devices. The system allows users to have multiple active profiles for various categories like "business," "dating," or "hobbies." Savjani’s system performs "location based matching" and uses a two-way analysis comparing one user's profile data ("My Answers") against another user's search criteria ("What I am Looking For") to calculate a match score. Petitioner argued that a user "enabling" a specific profile for "match analytics" in Savjani is equivalent to the claimed "activation." When a user enables a profile (e.g., a dating profile), that first profile is processed to find matches (a first activation). Enabling a different profile (e.g., a business profile) constitutes a second, different activation, after which the second profile is processed.
  • Key Aspects: The core of this argument was that Savjani's system of "enabling" different, context-specific profiles for matching analytics directly teaches the claimed method of activating a first or second profile and processing the selected profile to identify a match.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors related to a co-pending district court litigation. Petitioner asserted that the Fintiv factors weigh against denial because: (1) the district court case was in its early stages with minimal investment from the court and parties; (2) the petition was filed promptly after the patent owner identified the asserted claims; (3) Petitioner stipulated that, if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it would not pursue the same grounds or any grounds that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the district court action; and (4) the petition presents a strong, meritorious case for unpatentability.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 10-13 of the ’979 patent as unpatentable.