PTAB

IPR2021-01014

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 ’075 patent discloses a method for connecting mobile device users. The system registers users, collects profile data, identifies matches based on profiles and search criteria, notifies users of potential matches, and establishes communication upon mutual selection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-21, 27, 29, and 30 are obvious over Savjani in view of Robson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212) and Robson (Application # 2011/0219310).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Savjani discloses the core elements of independent claim 1: a match-based social networking system where users register, create profiles (including gender), and specify preferences. Savjani’s system identifies matches by comparing user profiles to search criteria and notifies users of a “pending connection.” This notification constitutes a “first tier display” of limited profile information, such as a name or picture. While Savjani describes a PC-based system, Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would find it obvious to implement on mobile devices. Robson was introduced to teach a tiered information reveal, wherein a user selecting another authorizes the display of additional, previously private information (e.g., photos), satisfying the “second tier display” limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Robson with Savjani to enhance Savjani’s system with a more explicit, permission-based, gradual information reveal. This combination provides users greater control over their privacy, a known desirable feature in social networking. Adding Robson’s tiered system would be a predictable improvement to Savjani’s functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: Both references operate in the same field of social networking. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining them, as it involved applying a known privacy-enhancing feature (tiered access) to a standard matching system without any perceived technological obstacles.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-21, 27, 29, and 30 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 asserted Stackpole, like Savjani, teaches the fundamental aspects of the challenged claims but in the context of a location-based social network. Stackpole discloses a system where users on mobile devices create personal and preference profiles. The system identifies potential members within a geographic range by matching personal profiles against preference profiles (search criteria) and notifies users of each other's presence. Upon mutual acceptance, the system provides a communication link. Robson was again cited to supply the "second tier display" limitation, where mutual interest unlocks access to more detailed or private profile information not available in the initial notification.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA would combine Robson’s tiered profile configuration with Stackpole’s geosocial network to grant users more control over their personal information before committing to communication. This feature would enhance user trust and control in a system based on physical proximity.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable and straightforward. Implementing Robson's tiered information access into Stackpole's matching system would improve a known system using a known technique from the same technical field.

Ground 3: Claim 28 is obvious over Savjani in view of Robson and Simkhai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Savjani (Application # 2009/0271212), Robson (Application # 2011/0219310), and Simkhai (Patent 8,606,297).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon Ground 1 to address dependent claim 28, which adds the limitation that profile data is populated via a "linkage to a social networking system different from the collaboration system." Simkhai was introduced to teach this specific feature, as it discloses a social interaction application that, upon initial setup, presents the user with an "Import/Link Your Facebook Data" option.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Simkhai's feature to the Savjani/Robson system to streamline the user registration process. Using an existing social media profile to populate a new one was a well-known and desirable method to reduce user friction and simplify onboarding, making the application more user-friendly.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that linking to external social networks like Facebook was a common and well-understood practice by the patent's priority date, a POSITA would have had every expectation that integrating this feature would be successful.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 28 based on Stackpole in view of Robson and Simkhai, relying on a similar motivation to combine for simplifying user registration.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages with minimal investment from the court and parties. Petitioner contended that the scheduled trial date was uncertain and that it would stipulate not to pursue in court the same grounds raised in the inter partes review (IPR), thereby minimizing overlap and preserving resources. Petitioner also argued that the strong merits of its petition weighed in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 27-30 as unpatentable.