PTAB

IPR2022-00032

Apple Inc v. MemoryWeb LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Photo Management Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’376 patent discloses methods for managing and displaying digital files, such as photographs, that have associated metadata like geotags and person tags. The invention focuses on user interfaces that include interactive maps and selectable tags overlaid on images to navigate related content.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious over A3UM in view of Belitz and Rasmussen.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: A3UM (the Apple Aperture 3 User Manual, Feb. 2010), Belitz (Application # 2010/0058212), and Rasmussen (Patent 7,620,496).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that A3UM, a comprehensive photo management system publicly available before the ’376 patent’s priority date, discloses nearly all claimed features. A3UM teaches a “Places” view with an interactive Google Map that displays selectable pins at photo locations and a “Faces” view for organizing photos by person. When a pin is selected, A3UM displays thumbnails for that location. The primary distinctions between A3UM and the challenged claims are A3UM’s use of generic pins instead of photo thumbnails on the map and its lack of an explicit display of geographic coordinates on the map view itself. Petitioner contended that Belitz remedies the first deficiency and Rasmussen remedies the second. Belitz discloses an interactive map interface where photo locations are marked with selectable photo thumbnails, which can also have overlaid counts indicating the number of photos at that location. Rasmussen teaches a digital mapping system that displays detailed location information, including latitude/longitude coordinates, in a pop-up window associated with a map marker.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they all belong to the same field of endeavor: managing and displaying digital photos on interactive maps. Petitioner argued that replacing A3UM’s generic pins with Belitz's more informative photo thumbnails is a simple substitution of one known user interface element for another to improve usability, a predictable design choice. A POSITA would be further motivated to incorporate Rasmussen's teaching of displaying geographic coordinates to satisfy known user preferences for accessing precise location data, which A3UM already stored as metadata. The combination merely applies known techniques to a known system to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Implementing Belitz's thumbnail markers in A3UM would have been straightforward, as A3UM was built using the Google Maps API, which was well-known to support custom markers. The function of Belitz’s thumbnail-plus-count marker is identical to A3UM’s pin—to identify the location and quantity of photos and enable their retrieval. This modification represents a predictable substitution of known, equivalent interface elements. Likewise, adding a coordinate display as taught by Rasmussen would be a routine implementation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in an early stage with minimal investment, and the proposed trial date of May 30, 2023, was well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court if the IPR is instituted, mitigating concerns of overlapping issues.
  • Petitioner further contended that the petition presents a strong case for unpatentability, relying on prior art (A3UM and Belitz) that was not before the examiner during prosecution. The examiner’s allowance was based on the specific way information was displayed, a feature Petitioner argues is rendered obvious by this new prior art combination. For these same reasons, Petitioner asserted that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would also be improper.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’376 patent as unpatentable.