RIdeco Inc v. Via Transportation Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00286
• Patent #: 9,816,824
• Filed: December 14, 2021
• Petitioner(s): RideCo Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Via Transportation, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computer Transportation System
• Brief Description: The ’824 patent discloses a computer-implemented transportation system that generates routes for a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles. The system uses continuously configurable virtual bus stops to manage passenger pickups and drop-offs.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are obvious over Lambert in view of Poykko and McCall.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lambert (Patent 9,679,489), Poykko (Application # 2008/0270204), and McCall (Application # 2013/0096827).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lambert disclosed the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a computer-implemented ride-sharing system that receives requests, determines a driver to dispatch, and calculates detour times for adding a new rider to an existing route. However, Petitioner contended Lambert did not explicitly teach storing a plurality of virtual bus stops in a memory. To supply this missing element, Petitioner asserted Poykko taught a demand-responsive transport system that accesses a database of possible stopping points within a specific coverage area to find convenient pickup locations. Petitioner further argued that while Lambert taught providing a modified route to the driver, it did not specify displaying it on a screen. McCall allegedly supplied this feature by teaching a system where a server updates a driver’s route on a navigation screen after a new passenger is assigned.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Lambert and Poykko to improve the efficiency and safety of Lambert’s dynamic stop selection by pre-storing known convenient and safe locations in a database. A POSITA would further incorporate McCall’s teaching of displaying the updated route on a screen into Lambert’s system as a well-known and predictable way to communicate routing information to the driver.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining these known elements to improve a ride-sharing system would have yielded predictable results, as storing location data and displaying routes on screens were conventional techniques.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 5, 8, 17, and 18 are obvious over Lambert, Poykko, McCall, and Lerenc.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lambert (Patent 9,679,489), Poykko (Application # 2008/0270204), McCall (Application # 2013/0096827), and Lerenc (Application # 2014/0324505).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Lerenc to address limitations related to adjusting routes for existing passengers and considering walking distance. Petitioner argued that the base combination taught the core ride-sharing system, and Lerenc added the teachings of optimizing a shared ride by consolidating nearby stops (i.e., adjusting a drop-off location for a passenger already in the vehicle). For claims requiring calculation of walking time or distance, Lerenc taught selecting pickup locations based on a passenger’s walking preferences, such as a maximum walking time or distance threshold.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Lerenc’s teachings into the Lambert system to further increase trip efficiency by consolidating stops. Additionally, considering a user's walking preferences, as taught by Lerenc, would improve user satisfaction and reduce delays, providing a clear motivation for its inclusion.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Lambert with Lerenc’s route optimization and user preference features, as these were known techniques for improving ride-sharing services.

Ground 3: Claims 9-11 and 14-15 are obvious over Lambert, Poykko, McCall, and Sweeney.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lambert (Patent 9,679,489), Poykko (Application # 2008/0270204), McCall (Application # 2013/0096827), and Sweeney (Application # 2015/0161554).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built upon the base combination from Ground 1, adding Sweeney to address limitations related to demand-based vehicle determination and dynamic reassignment. Petitioner asserted Sweeney taught determining a particular vehicle based on current passenger demand within a geographic region by selecting an optimization objective based on whether driver supply meets demand. Sweeney also taught using real-time traffic data from external sources to determine travel times. Furthermore, Sweeney disclosed tracking vehicle locations and reassigning a user to a different vehicle if a condition is met, such as another driver becoming available who can arrive sooner.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sweeney’s teachings with the Lambert system to improve the accuracy and efficiency of driver selection by considering factors like real-time passenger demand and traffic conditions. This would lead to more optimal ride matches and enhanced system performance.
  • Expectation of Success: Given the architectural similarities between the Lambert and Sweeney systems, a POSITA would have been able to integrate Sweeney’s demand-based and dynamic reassignment features with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Markush Group Interpretation (Claim 8): Petitioner argued that claim 8, which recites "determining the first virtual bus stop for picking up the user is based on at least one of..." followed by a list of alternatives, should be interpreted as a Markush group. Consequently, Petitioner asserted that demonstrating the prior art disclosed just one of the recited options was sufficient to render the claim unpatentable.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no claim construction or significant discovery having occurred. Petitioner also stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if an inter partes review (IPR) was instituted, thereby avoiding duplicative efforts. The petition emphasized the strength of its invalidity grounds and argued that unreliable trial date projections in the relevant district should not be a basis for denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’824 patent as unpatentable.