PTAB

IPR2021-01557

Unified Patents LLC v. MicroPairing Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Vehicle Audio System with Wireless Connectivity
  • Brief Description: The ’816 patent relates to a vehicle audio system that automatically senses the availability of a wireless audio device (e.g., MP3 player, cell phone) within or near the vehicle. Upon connection, the system identifies data codes and applications on the wireless device and downloads a corresponding software application from its own memory to process data from, and interact with, the device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Berry, Ohmura, Gosling, and Nüsser - Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 11, and 13-23 are obvious over Berry in view of Ohmura, Gosling, and Nüsser.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Berry (Patent 6,559,773), Ohmura (Patent 6,937,732), Gosling (Patent 6,618,754), and Nüsser (a 2000 IEEE technical article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Berry discloses the core invention: an in-vehicle system with a display and HMI controller that detects a new wireless device via Bluetooth, identifies its type (e.g., phone or MP3 player), and downloads a corresponding "interface specifier" (driver application) from local or remote memory to control the device. To the extent Berry is deficient, Ohmura was introduced to explicitly teach a vehicle audio system with multiple speakers and a user interface for directing audio output to either the car's speakers or the portable device's speakers. Gosling was introduced to teach storing a registry of previously connected devices in non-volatile memory, allowing the system to recognize known devices without requiring re-registration on each use. Finally, Nüsser was cited for its disclosure of a wireless device transmitting a detailed "device profile"—including hardware, software, and running applications—to the vehicle system during connection, providing the specific data codes claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Berry with Ohmura to offer users flexible and desirable audio routing options, a known method for improving multi-user convenience. A POSITA would incorporate Gosling's teaching on storing device registries to make Berry's system more user-friendly and efficient, which was a common practice in networked systems. The detailed device profiles of Nüsser would be combined to enhance the interoperability of Berry's Bluetooth-based system, a predictable improvement for achieving smoother operation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success was predictable because each combination involved implementing known features (audio routing, device registration, detailed profiles) into a conventional in-vehicle infotainment system to achieve well-understood benefits.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Berry, Ohmura, and Witkowski - Claim 12 is obvious over Berry in view of Ohmura and Witkowski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Berry (Patent 6,559,773), Ohmura (Patent 6,937,732), and Witkowski (WO 00/72463).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claim 12, which adds the limitation of displaying content from the wireless device's integrated display onto the vehicle's display. Petitioner argued that Berry teaches both an in-vehicle display and a connectable wireless device (like a cell phone) that inherently has its own display. Witkowski was added to explicitly teach transmitting "useful information," such as incoming call details, from a portable device to be displayed on the vehicle's in-dash display system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Witkowski with Berry's system to enhance driver safety and convenience. Displaying critical information like caller ID on the larger, better-positioned vehicle display instead of the small device screen was a logical and recognized improvement for a hands-free system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references describe in-vehicle systems that communicate wirelessly with portable devices. Implementing a display-mirroring feature for specific data was a straightforward integration of known functionalities.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that claims 17-22 are obvious over Berry alone, and various other combinations of Berry, Ohmura, Gosling, Nüsser, and Witkowski targeting specific claims, all relying on similar motivations to combine known features for predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that, for the purposes of the IPR proceeding, it adopted the claim constructions proposed by the Patent Owner in co-pending district court litigation to avoid disputes over claim scope.
  • "download a copy of a second/fourth software application": Petitioner adopted the proposed construction of "make the second[/fourth] software application available for execution," arguing this is consistent with the specification's description of loading an application from memory for use by a processor.
  • "application" and "multiprocessor system": Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's position that these terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate.
  • The core arguments were that any trial date in the co-pending litigations was speculative and distant, minimal investment had been made on invalidity merits in court, and Petitioner is not a party to those cases. Petitioner asserted that any overlap in prior art or arguments would be coincidental and that the IPR would be a more efficient and effective forum to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, and 10-23 of the ’816 patent as unpatentable.