Bumble Trading LLC v. KinectUs LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00765
• Patent #: 9,294,428
• Filed: April 9, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Bumble Trading LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Kinectus LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 7-13, 16, 19-31, 35, 37-41, 43, and 45

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Communications Between Mobile Device Users
• Brief Description: The ’428 patent discloses methods and systems for establishing communication between users of mobile devices. The system registers users, determines matches based on profile data and/or location, provides users with an option for mutual selection, and enables communication if a mutual selection occurs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Stackpole and Robson - Claims 1-5, 7-13, 16, 19-31, 35, 37-41, 43, and 45 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Robson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Robson (Application # 2011/0219310).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stackpole discloses the core method of the challenged claims. Stackpole teaches a "geosocial networking" system where users on mobile devices create profiles, the system identifies potential matches within a specified location and range, and a "communications link" is provided upon "mutual confirmation." Petitioner asserted this teaches the limitations of registering devices, determining a match, displaying a list of potential matches to each user, and providing an option to "accept or decline a query for continued contact." To supply limitations related to detailed notifications and privacy, Petitioner argued Robson teaches a virtually identical mobile matching system where, upon a "mutual match," both parties are notified with an alert that can include profile elements (location, attributes, personal info) to refresh the user's memory. Robson also discloses tiered profile data, where private information (e.g., photos) is only revealed after users express mutual interest, which Petitioner mapped to claims requiring anonymity be preserved absent mutual selection.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Stackpole and Robson as they address the same problem of mobile-based social matching. A POSITA would look to Robson’s more detailed disclosure of user notifications and privacy-enhancing features (tiered profiles) to supplement Stackpole’s foundational system. This combination would improve user safety and experience by notifying users of a match when they are not actively using the application and by protecting user anonymity until mutual interest is confirmed.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating known software features for notification and privacy into a standard social matching framework, presenting no technological obstacles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Stackpole, Robson, and Savjani - Claims 1-5, 7-13, 16, 19-31, 35, 37-41, 43, and 45 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Robson and Savjani.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650), Robson (Application # 2011/0219310), and Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the arguments from Ground 1 and added Savjani to provide a more explicit teaching for the user interface (UI) elements of the claims. Petitioner argued that while Stackpole teaches displaying a list of matches, Savjani provides a concrete example of such a UI. Savjani’s Figures 11 and 12 depict a dashboard showing a list of "pending connections," which corresponds to the claimed "list of user identifications." Furthermore, Savjani explicitly discloses UI "buttons for the user to accept, decline, or block a pending connection," directly teaching the claimed limitation of providing an option to select or not select a user. Savjani also discloses initiating communication via a "messaging bubble," which Petitioner argued teaches the claimed "communication window."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA, having combined Stackpole and Robson to create the core matching system, would naturally look to analogous art for exemplary and effective UI designs. Savjani provides such a design for a match-based social networking system. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Savjani's clear and functional UI for displaying pending matches and providing explicit user controls (accept/decline buttons) to improve the usability and implementation of the Stackpole/Robson system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected, as programming a graphical UI to display a list and include interaction buttons was well within the skill of a POSITA at the time and was not a novel concept.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors, asserting that the factors weigh in favor of institution. Petitioner contended the parallel district court case was in its early stages with minimal investment from the court and parties, and the trial date was uncertain. Crucially, Petitioner stipulated that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in the district court the same grounds, or any grounds that could have been reasonably raised in the petition. Petitioner argued this stipulation eliminates concerns of inefficiency and weighs heavily against denial. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the petition presents a strong case for obviousness on the merits, which further favors institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-13, 16, 19-31, 35, 37-41, 43, and 45 of Patent 9,294,428 as unpatentable.