PTAB

IPR2021-00780

Snap Inc v. Sanderling Management Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dynamic Promotional Layout and Image Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’986 patent describes a client-server system for distributing "digital media content processing functions" to mobile devices. The system distributes these functions (e.g., image overlays, filters) based on a set of distribution rules that define sensor data conditions, such as the user's geographic location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 25-33 are obvious over Hogeg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hogeg (Application # 2014/0173424).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hogeg, a prior art application, teaches every element of the challenged claims. Independent claims 1 (method) and 18 (system) recite a computerized system for distributing processing functions based on sensor data. Hogeg discloses a nearly identical client-server system (system 100) that provides "visual content editing functions" (e.g., overlays, color filters) from a server repository to client terminals (e.g., smartphones).

    • Petitioner mapped Hogeg's teachings to the key limitations of claim 1. Hogeg's server accesses stored processing functions, each associated with distribution rules (e.g., functions are tagged with relevant geographic locations, defining a "sensor data condition"). The server receives, over a network, sensor data (GPS location) from a mobile device. The core of the invention—distributing functions based on a match—is met by Hogeg's system, which analyzes the mobile device's GPS data to select and send a list of location-relevant editing functions to that device. Finally, Hogeg teaches that these functions are used by an application on the mobile device to process an image (e.g., apply a Nike logo overlay), creating an output digital media content.

    • The mapping for independent system claim 18 was presented as substantially similar, with Hogeg's server having a network interface to receive sensor data, a database (repository 104) to store the functions associated with rules, and a processor to execute the distribution based on a match. Petitioner asserted that all dependent claims are also rendered obvious, as they add limitations that were either explicitly taught by Hogeg (e.g., overlays, location-determining devices, social media sharing) or would have been obvious variations to a POSITA.

    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the Patent Owner’s corresponding European patent application was rejected over a substantially identical Hogeg reference (Hogeg WO), after which the Patent Owner abandoned the application without response.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a specific construction of the term "digital media content processing function" (recited in claims 1 and 18). Based on the patent’s specification and its prosecution history, Petitioner contended this term should be interpreted broadly to encompass both "image branding functions" (e.g., adding an icon or overlay) and "image processing functions" (e.g., modifying sharpness, lighting, or contrast). This construction was central to the obviousness argument, as Petitioner asserted that Hogeg explicitly teaches both types of functions (e.g., applying color filters and adding a logo overlay). Petitioner maintained the claims are obvious even under a narrower construction, but argued the broader construction is correct.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner presented arguments that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both §325(d) and §314(a) (Fintiv).
  • §325(d): Petitioner argued that although Hogeg was before the Examiner via an Information Disclosure Statement, it was never applied or substantively discussed during prosecution. Therefore, the arguments presented in the petition were not previously considered by the USPTO. Petitioner asserted that had the Examiner properly considered Hogeg's teachings, the challenged claims would not have issued, pointing to the rejection and subsequent abandonment of the parallel European application on the same art.
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that the factors weigh in favor of institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with no claim construction or trial schedule set. Petitioner contended that a trial was unlikely before a Final Written Decision (FWD) would issue in the IPR, and that a stay of the district court case was likely. Therefore, considerations of efficiency and fairness supported institution of the IPR to resolve the validity of all asserted claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 25-33 of the ’986 patent as unpatentable.