PTAB

IPR2021-00766

Bumble Trading LLC v. KinectUs LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Communications Between Mobile Device Users
  • Brief Description: The ’070 patent describes systems and methods for mobile device users to establish communication. The system involves users creating profiles, being matched based on profile data, and being presented with potential matches, where communication is enabled only upon mutual selection by both users.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Stackpole - Claims 1, 3-4, 22, 29, 35, and 36 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 all limitations of the challenged claims. Stackpole describes a client application on a mobile device where users create personal and preference profiles (e.g., social, professional, dating). A central server identifies potential matches for a user within a specified location by matching profile data. The server then notifies users of these matches, and upon "mutual acceptance," provides a communications link between them. Petitioner contended this core process maps directly to the steps of independent claims 1, 35, and 36, including registering devices with profile data, designating desired activities through profile selection, determining matches, displaying lists of matched users, and enabling communication only after mutual opt-in.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable for a single reference ground.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Stackpole and Wohlert - Claims 1-4, 22, 29, 35, and 36 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Wohlert.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Wohlert (Patent 9,230,285).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the analysis of Stackpole from Ground 1 and added Wohlert to further teach the limitation of designating a "desired activity." Wohlert discloses a method for arranging social event opportunities where a user creates a profile and indicates interest in specific "event opportunity types" like tennis or kayaking. Petitioner asserted that these "event opportunities" are analogous to the claimed "activities." The combination therefore explicitly teaches a matching system where users can designate interest in particular activities to find other users with similar interests. Dependent claims 3 and 4, which recite selecting activities from a list or menu of graphical elements, were allegedly rendered obvious by Stackpole's disclosure of a GUI with drop-down menus combined with Wohlert's teaching of a list of available event opportunities.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine Stackpole with Wohlert to enhance Stackpole's matching capabilities. Since a primary goal of Stackpole is finding compatible matches, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Wohlert’s teaching of matching based on shared interest in a common activity to better tailor the search and improve user results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Both references are in the analogous field of match-based social networking, and their matching processes are virtually identical, leading to a predictable and successful combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Stackpole and Ishizawa - Claims 1, 14-16, 19-20, 30, and 33-34 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Ishizawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Ishizawa (Application # 2010/0146462).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground argued that the combination of Stackpole and Ishizawa rendered obvious claims related to the user interface for displaying and selecting matches. Ishizawa discloses an information processing apparatus with a touch-sensitive panel where images can be displayed in a "stacked" arrangement, one at a time. A user can interact with these images via a "gesture-based" input, such as "flicking" an image in a specific direction to save (select) or erase (not select) it. Petitioner contended that applying Ishizawa's touch-screen GUI to Stackpole's matching system would result in the claimed features: displaying user identifications in a stacked arrangement one at a time (claim 14) and using a gesture-based action like a swipe to select or not select the identification (claim 19).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA implementing Stackpole's system on a mobile device would have been motivated to use Ishizawa's detailed teachings for a touch-screen GUI. Given the prevalence of touchscreen smartphones with smaller screens by the priority date, Ishizawa's stacked-image configuration provided an attractive solution to display information conveniently. Market incentives and the popularity of the gesture-based interface pioneered by the iPhone would have further motivated this combination.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as programming a touchscreen gesture-based interface as taught by Ishizawa and applying it to the decision-making process of Stackpole presented no technological obstacles.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Stackpole in view of Savjani (for teachings on displaying lists of user identifications and communication windows); Stackpole in view of Robson (for asynchronous user interaction); and various three- and four-way combinations of Stackpole, Wohlert, Savjani, Robson, and Ishizawa.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under Fintiv. The district court trial date was preliminary and uncertain ("as soon as practicable"). The petition was filed promptly after infringement contentions were served, and the district court case was in its early stages with minimal investment of resources. Critically, Petitioner stipulated that if IPR is instituted, it would not rely on any grounds in the district court that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition, a factor weighing strongly against denial. Finally, Petitioner asserted the petition presented a strong case for obviousness on the merits.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-16, 19-20, 22, 24, 26, 28-30, and 33-36 as unpatentable.