PTAB

IPR2021-00901

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 ’464 patent discloses a system for connecting mobile device users based on mutual interest. The system determines matches between users based on profile data, displays potential matches to each user, and establishes communication only if both users reciprocally select one another.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Stackpole and Savjani - Claims 1-4, 14, 22, and 31-36 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Savjani.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Stackpole taught the core method of a geosocial network where users create profiles, are matched based on preferences, and can communicate upon "mutual acceptance." Savjani was asserted to supplement this by explicitly teaching a user interface that displays these matches as a "list of user identifications" (termed "pending connections") and provides clear buttons to "accept, decline, or block" each one, directly corresponding to the claimed "option to select or not select."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Stackpole's social matching system would be motivated to consult analogous art like Savjani for a proven and effective user interface design. Both references address the same problem of match-based social networking, making Savjani's UI a natural and predictable solution for presenting Stackpole's matches to a user.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended success would be expected, as combining a known backend matching process with a conventional UI for displaying lists and receiving user input presented no significant technical challenges.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Stackpole and Ishizawa - Claims 1-4, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 31-36 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: While Stackpole provided the underlying mutual-selection system, Petitioner argued Ishizawa taught an alternative UI for making selections that was particularly well-suited for mobile devices. Ishizawa disclosed displaying images in a "stacked" orientation, one at a time, and allowing a user to make a decision by "flicking" the image with a finger. Flicking in one direction (e.g., left) could signify "select" (save), while flicking in another (e.g., right) could signify "not select" (erase), thus teaching a gesture-based input for selection as recited in dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ishizawa's touch-screen interface with Stackpole's system to address the design constraints of small smartphone screens. The stacked, one-at-a-time display and intuitive gesture input taught by Ishizawa offered a space-efficient and popular method for implementing the selection process of Stackpole on a mobile device.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was reasonably expected because applying a known gesture-based UI paradigm to a social networking application was a common and straightforward design choice by the patent's priority date, with no technological obstacles to implementation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Stackpole and Morris - Claims 1-4, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 31-36 are obvious over Stackpole in view of Morris.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stackpole (Application # 2008/0140650) and Morris (Application # 2011/0072470).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Morris as teaching a similar gesture-based, stacked-card interface. Morris disclosed displaying search results as a stack of images on a handheld device, where a user could "grab" and "slide" or "throw" the top image to make a decision. Dragging the image to a star icon would "save" it (select), while dragging it to a trash icon would "delete" it (not select), directly teaching the selection functionality via a gesture-based input.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Morris's UI with Stackpole's system because it provided a well-developed solution for displaying and interacting with items on a small mobile screen. Morris explicitly acknowledged the "small size of the displays on most handheld communication devices" and proposed its stacked interface as an advantageous solution, making it an attractive choice for implementing Stackpole's system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as coding a graphical interface as disclosed in Morris and applying it to the decision-making process of Stackpole involved combining known, compatible technologies to achieve a predictable result.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-4, 14, 22, and 31-36 based on Stackpole alone, arguing its disclosure of letting a user "accept or decline a query" for contact inherently taught the claimed limitations.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors. The core arguments were that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages with minimal discovery or expenditure of judicial resources. Petitioner noted the uncertainty of the court's trial date relative to the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline and stipulated that, if review were 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. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the strong merits of its obviousness case weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 9-11, 14-16, 22, and 31-36 of the ’464 patent as unpatentable.