PTAB

IPR2021-01384

Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ad Hoc Network Communication and Control
  • Brief Description: The ’381 patent is directed to establishing an ad hoc communication network of mobile devices, such as cellular phones. The system allows users to join a network, exchange location information via a remote server, and view the locations of other users as selectable symbols on an interactive, georeferenced map display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness Over Ancestor Patent - Claims 1, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, and 75 are obvious over Patent [7,630,724](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01384/doc/1007).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: ’724 patent (Patent 7,630,724)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’724 patent, an ancestor to the challenged ’381 patent, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. The petition asserted that the ’724 patent teaches a system where mobile devices join a communication network by transmitting a group identifier to a server. Once joined, devices transmit their GPS positions to a command server, which retransmits the location data to other devices in the network. The ’724 patent was said to disclose displaying this information on an interactive, georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols representing each user. Petitioner further contended that the ’724 patent discloses a user requesting a second, different georeferenced map from a remote image server, which is then sent to the user’s device. The ’724 patent also allegedly describes user interaction with symbols on the map to initiate actions like a telephone call, with the communication being routed through the server.
    • Motivation to Combine: Although this ground relied on a single reference, Petitioner argued that to the extent the claims require a single server for all functions (network access, location data relay, and map data provision), the ’724 patent discloses these functions using two servers (a command server and a remote image server). Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the functions of these two servers into a single server. The stated motivations were to simplify system architecture, reduce cost and resource consumption, and improve operational performance, yielding the predictable result of a single, more efficient server communicating both location and mapping data.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining server functions was a simple design choice for a POSITA, as servers at the time of the invention were capable of such processing. This modification would predictably result in a more efficient and easier-to-maintain system, leading to a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the term "georeferenced map data" should be construed as "data relating positions on a map to spatial coordinates." This construction was presented as critical because the core of the invention involves accurately placing symbols representing users and other entities on a map based on their real-world geographic locations (e.g., latitude and longitude).

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • The central technical contention of the petition is that the ’381 patent has a broken priority chain and is not entitled to the 2006 filing date of the ’724 patent.
    • Petitioner argued the ’381 patent’s earliest effective filing date is October 31, 2014. This makes the ’724 patent, filed in 2006, qualifying prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.
    • The priority chain was allegedly broken because multiple intervening applications, including the '410 application, failed to incorporate the ’724 patent by reference and deleted essential material from the specification. These deletions purportedly removed written description support for key limitations of the ’381 patent claims, including: (1) obtaining a second, different georeferenced map from a server; (2) the full scope of a "communication network" that includes both open and closed (invitation-only) networks; and (3) server-based remote control of other devices.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny review under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), despite the prior art having been considered in related ex parte reexaminations.
    • The core argument was that the Examiners in those related proceedings committed material errors of law. First, the Examiners allegedly erred by failing to assess the written description support in every application in the priority chain, which is legally required to establish continuity of disclosure. Second, Petitioner contended the Examiners’ findings that the ’410 application provided sufficient written description support were substantively incorrect and directly contradicted the Board's own analysis in prior IPRs involving related patents (the "Apple IPRs"). Petitioner argued that instituting review would correct these errors and resolve inconsistent decisions within the USPTO.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 13, 18, 20, 32, 37, and 75 of Patent 9,706,381 as unpatentable.