Bumble Trading LLC v. Wireless Discovery LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01407
• Patent #: 10,321,267
• Filed: September 15, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Bumble Trading, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Ramzi Alharayeri
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Location-Based Discovery of Network Members
• Brief Description: The ’267 patent describes a server-based system for allowing members of a social network to discover and connect with other nearby members. The system uses a central computing device to receive static and dynamic location information from members' mobile devices, calculate proximity, and present potential matches to users.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Miller and Janssens - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Miller in view of Janssens.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 9,710,483) and Janssens (Application # 2014/0040368).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miller discloses the core features of the challenged claims. Miller teaches a "location-conscious social networking" (LCSN) system where a central server receives user profiles and geolocation data from mobile devices, compares locations to find nearby users, and facilitates introductions. Petitioner asserted this base system teaches the claimed computing device that manages connections, stores profiles, calculates proximity, and sends invitations. Janssens was introduced to teach the specific limitation of discovering members whose devices are turned off or disconnected from the internet. Janssens discloses a social interaction system where users can be "offline" yet remain discoverable and eligible to receive messages.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Janssens's teachings with Miller's system to create a more robust and user-friendly service. The combination would predictably increase the number of potential matches by including offline users, improve the user experience by not requiring constant connectivity, and provide valuable status information (online/offline) about potential connections.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Miller and Janssens operate in the same field of location-based social networking and use similar server-based architectures, making the integration of Janssens's offline discoverability feature into Miller's system a straightforward and predictable modification.

Ground 2A: Obviousness over Miller and Moldavsky - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Miller in view of Moldavsky.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 9,710,483) and Moldavsky (Application # 2012/0088524).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Miller as the primary reference for the same reasons as in Ground 1A. To address the limitation of discovering offline or disconnected users, Petitioner cited Moldavsky. Moldavsky teaches a mobile application designed to be "persistent," allowing a user to remain logged-in and discoverable even if their device is turned off or disconnected. Further, Moldavsky's server does not require continuous location updates and is configured to use a user's last known static and/or dynamic location to generate lists of nearby users, explicitly enabling the discovery of users who are not actively transmitting their position.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Moldavsky's persistent discovery functionality into Miller's system for several predictable benefits. These included increasing the pool of potential matches, enhancing user engagement, improving device battery life by reducing the need for constant data transmission, and removing the burden on users to keep their devices turned on and connected at all times.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable integration of complementary technologies within the same technical field.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges (Grounds 1B and 2B) by adding Chockalingam (Application # 2009/0037279) to the Miller/Janssens and Miller/Moldavsky combinations, respectively. Chockalingam was argued to provide additional explicit support for using both static and dynamic location information together to discover members whose devices are offline.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner disclosed disputed claim constructions from a co-pending district court case but argued that its invalidity analysis applies with equal force under either party's proposed constructions.
• "static location": Petitioner proposed "user's address or other location provided or entered by the user." Patent Owner proposed "relatively fixed location."
• "dynamic location": Petitioner proposed "updated location data received by the computing device from user's application." Patent Owner proposed "real-time location."
• "based on a latest static and dynamic location": Petitioner argued this term requires using both a static and a dynamic location for discovery, a construction allegedly met by adding the Chockalingam reference.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’267 patent is not entitled to its claimed 2008 priority date. Petitioner argued that the fundamental concept of using dynamic location data (e.g., GPS coordinates) from mobile devices to calculate proximity between members of a social network was not introduced into the patent's lineage until a continuation-in-part application filed on December 15, 2014. Therefore, Petitioner contended this is the effective filing date, which renders the asserted prior art references valid.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the examiner did not properly scrutinize the challenged claims during prosecution. It was alleged the examiner made contradictory statements regarding whether certain features were disclosed by prior art and failed to consider art post-dating the incorrectly claimed 2008 priority date.
• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors favored institution. The petition was filed before significant investment in the parallel district court litigation, with fact discovery yet to begin and a trial date over a year away. Petitioner also provided a stipulation that, if IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,321,267 as unpatentable.