PTAB

IPR2021-01430

Twitter Inc v. Palo Alto Research Center LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Collecting Mobile Device Contextual Information
  • Brief Description: The ’439 patent discloses a system for collecting contextual information (e.g., location, sensor data) from a mobile device, using that data to modify a server-side "context graph" that models user behavior and interests, and sending notifications to subscribed "recommender" applications when the graph changes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Huomo and Cheng - Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, and 20 are obvious over Huomo in view of Cheng.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Huomo (Patent 7,603,112) and Cheng (Application # 2013/0018954).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Huomo disclosed all major elements of the challenged claims, including a system with mobile devices ("mobile station") having sensors that collect contextual data, preprocess it into "context atoms," and store it in a central "blackboard" (a storage unit). Huomo also taught that subscribed applications ("context consumers") are notified when these context atoms change. Petitioner asserted that the primary element missing from Huomo was the explicit use of a "context graph." Cheng, however, explicitly taught constructing a "personal interest graph" from mobile device usage and context data to model user interests for recommendations. Petitioner contended that Huomo's "blackboard" containing "context atoms" (facts about user behavior and interests) was analogous to a context graph, and in any event, Cheng supplied the express teaching of using a graph structure for this exact purpose.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Cheng’s formal graph model with Huomo's context-aware system to provide a more structured and powerful way to organize the data in Huomo’s blackboard. Cheng explained that using a graph facilitates better tracking of relationships and user interests, which would have been a known and advantageous method to improve the recommendation capabilities inherent in Huomo’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known data organization technique (a graph, from Cheng) to a known type of data (user context data, from Huomo) for its conventional purpose (improving recommendations). As both references operate in the same technical field, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Huomo and Lawson - Claims 5, 11, and 17 are obvious over Huomo in view of Lawson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Huomo (Patent 7,603,112) and Lawson (Application # 2011/0320550).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claims requiring the receipt of real-time event data through a RESTful WebAPI. Petitioner asserted that Huomo disclosed a system using a generic Application Program Interface (API) for applications to receive event data. Lawson taught a system for real-time eventing that specifically used a "representational state transfer (REST) application protocol interface (API)" to distribute event data.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Huomo’s generic API using the specific RESTful architecture taught by Lawson. Lawson explained that a RESTful API provides a flexible and advantageous way for different applications to communicate and allows subscribers to receive real-time event information without inefficiently polling a server. This would have been seen as a straightforward improvement to Huomo’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing a specific, well-known API architecture (REST) in a system that already disclosed a generic API was a routine design choice with predictable and beneficial results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Huomo and Chauhan - Claim 19 is obvious over Huomo in view of Chauhan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Huomo (Patent 7,603,112) and Chauhan (Application # 2010/0262650).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 19, which required sending a notification asynchronously using a "long-poll persistent push connection." Petitioner argued Huomo taught pushing notifications to subscribers when context data changes. Chauhan taught that asynchronous messaging using a long-poll persistent push connection was a beneficial and well-known technique that enables servers to "push" notifications to clients instead of the client repeatedly polling for updates.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the notification-pushing function of Huomo using the specific long-polling technique from Chauhan. Chauhan explicitly touted this method as a way to achieve low latency and reduce network bandwidth waste, which are universally desired goals in networked applications and would be a clear advantage for the Huomo system.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying a known, efficient communication protocol for push notifications (long-polling) to a system that sends such notifications was a simple and predictable implementation detail for a POSITA.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims were obvious over Huomo alone, as well as over three-reference combinations (e.g., Huomo, Cheng, and Lawson/Chauhan) that relied on similar motivations to combine.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "context graph": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "an in-memory model that stores facts and assertions about a user's behavior and interests," based on the patent's specification and prosecution history. This construction allowed Petitioner to argue that Huomo's "blackboard" met the limitation.
  • "recommender": Petitioner construed this term as "an application that recommends items or activities for a user," based on its definition in the specification. This allowed Petitioner to equate Huomo's "context consumer" with the claimed "recommender."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was inappropriate. Although a parallel district court litigation existed, it was stayed at an early stage before significant discovery, and no trial date was scheduled. Petitioner asserted that a final written decision in the inter partes review (IPR) would issue long before any potential trial.
  • General Plastic Factors: Petitioner argued that this was not an improper "follow-on" petition warranting denial under General Plastic. Petitioner emphasized that this was Twitter’s first IPR against the ’439 patent. A separate IPR had been filed by an unrelated competitor (Snap Inc.), but Petitioner argued there was no relationship or coordination between the companies, the grounds and prior art asserted were different, and Twitter's counsel did not use the earlier petition as a "roadmap."

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-20 of the ’439 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.