PTAB

IPR2021-00900

Bumble Trading LLC v. KinectUs LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Establishing Communications Between Mobile Device Users
  • Brief Description: The ’145 patent discloses methods for establishing communication between mobile device users. The system registers users, monitors their locations, and identifies potential matches based on location proximity and overlapping profile data, requiring mutual selection before revealing participants' identities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 21-23 and 26-28 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, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Stackpole describes a server-based system where users on mobile devices register profiles, define a geographic location and range, and identify potential members based on location and matching preference profiles. The system then establishes a communications link upon mutual confirmation. Critically, Petitioner asserted Stackpole discloses the use of multiple, distinct user profiles (e.g., a "social" profile and a "professional" profile) for different social contexts. A user can activate a specific profile (a "first activation"), causing the system to process only that profile to find a match. Activating a different profile (a "second activation") deactivates the first, thereby preventing the first profile from being used for matching.
    • Key Aspects: The argument centered on Stackpole's disclosure of context-specific profiles (e.g., professional vs. social), which a user can switch between, thereby dictating the criteria for identifying matches at any given time.

Ground 2: Claims 21-23 and 26-28 are obvious over Savjani

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Savjani, which describes a "Method, System, and Storage Device For User Matching and Communication Facilitation," renders the challenged claims obvious. Savjani teaches a social networking system where users create multiple profiles for different contexts (e.g., "sports, college, personal, business, dating"). The system identifies matches based on location information and a two-way analysis of user profiles, comparing one user's self-descriptive answers ("My Answers") against another user's search criteria ("What I am Looking For"). Petitioner argued that a user "enabling" a profile for matching corresponds to the claimed "first activation," which causes the system to process that profile to identify potential matches based on its specific data elements. Enabling a different profile type (e.g., switching from a "dating" profile to a "business" profile) constitutes a "second activation," leading to a different set of matches based on the new profile's data.

Ground 3: Claims 21-23 and 26-28 are obvious over Savjani in view of Stackpole

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212) and Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Savjani teaches the foundational system of using multiple, context-specific profiles for matching, it would have been obvious to modify it with Stackpole's teachings. Specifically, this combination addresses the limitations requiring that upon a "second activation" (e.g., activating a second profile), the "first profile is prevented from identifying the match." Petitioner asserted that Stackpole explicitly teaches that activating one profile deactivates others, ensuring that matching is based only on the currently active profile. Savjani's system, which allows for multiple profiles, would be improved by incorporating this feature from Stackpole to provide more targeted, context-specific matching.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to enhance the targeted matching capabilities of Savjani’s system would combine it with the teachings of Stackpole. Petitioner argued Stackpole is analogous art in the field of match-based social networking. Implementing Stackpole's method of activating a single profile at a time would be a simple and predictable way to ensure users are only matched based on their currently desired social context (e.g., professional networking), preventing unwanted matches from other contexts (e.g., dating).
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination, as it involves applying a known technique (single-profile activation from Stackpole) to a similar system (the multi-profile environment of Savjani) to achieve a predictable improvement in matching precision.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. Key reasons included that the parallel district court case was in its very early stages, with minimal investment from the court and parties and no claim construction hearing scheduled. Petitioner also noted the uncertainty of the trial date and, crucially, stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue in the district court any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition. Finally, Petitioner contended the petition presented a strong case for unpatentability, which weighs in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 21-23 and 26-28 of the ’145 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.