Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00442
• Patent #: 10,820,147
• Filed: January 18, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Traxcell Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 16-19, and 22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless Communication System and Method for Providing Navigation Information
• Brief Description: The ’147 patent is directed to providing navigation and location-based information to a wireless mobile communications device. The system allows for user control over location tracking through the use of "preference flags" for privacy purposes.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Myr in view of Yiu - Claims 1, 5-8, 11-12, and 17-19

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Myr (Patent 6,480,783) and Yiu (Patent 6,928,291).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Myr, a real-time vehicle guidance system, discloses nearly all elements of the challenged claims. Myr teaches a wireless system with mobile units (containing a processor and transceiver) that determine their location via GPS, display it on a map, and communicate with a Central Traffic Unit (CTU). The CTU collects location data from a fleet of vehicles, calculates traffic congestion and travel times for road segments, and provides updated, optimized navigation routes to the mobile units. Petitioner contended the only key element not expressly taught by Myr is the use of "preference flags" to selectively control the acquisition of location information.
  • Prior Art Mapping (Continued): To supply the missing "preference flags" limitation, Petitioner pointed to Yiu. Yiu teaches enabling a user to set "privacy parameter permissions" through a user interface on a wireless device. These permissions (e.g., 'yes', 'no', 'always', 'never') allow the user to dynamically control the release of private information, such as location data, to a network entity. Petitioner asserted these multi-state permissions correspond directly to the claimed "preference flags."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yiu’s privacy features with Myr’s navigation system to address the well-known privacy concerns associated with location tracking. Providing simple, user-selectable privacy controls as taught by Yiu was argued to be an obvious and desirable improvement to Myr's system, which already involved continuous location monitoring.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as incorporating Yiu’s software-based user preference settings into Myr’s processor-based system would have been a routine implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Uehara in view of Yiu and Myr - Claims 1, 5-8, 11-12, and 17-19

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Uehara (Application # 2002/0002036), Yiu (Patent 6,928,291), and Myr (Patent 6,480,783).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Uehara as an alternative base system. Uehara discloses a mobile communication system where a mobile device uses a short-range radio (Bluetooth) to connect with a stationary station to receive location-based "neighborhood information," such as maps and destination guidance. Petitioner asserted Uehara teaches the core components of a mobile device with a processor, transceiver, and display for providing basic navigation.
  • Prior Art Mapping (Continued): Petitioner argued that while Uehara provides basic navigation, it lacks the sophisticated, real-time traffic analysis taught by Myr. Because Uehara expressly suggests its system could be expanded to acquire "traffic information," a POSITA would have looked to a reference like Myr to implement this functionality. Myr provides the missing elements: a central processor that updates navigation based on real-time traffic congestion data calculated from travel times over various road segments. Similar to Ground 1, Yiu was introduced to provide the specific "preference flags" for user privacy control, improving upon Uehara's more basic location sharing activation feature.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to enhance Uehara's system. The primary motivation was to add real-time traffic responsiveness, a feature explicitly contemplated by Uehara, by incorporating the established methods taught in Myr. The combination with Yiu was motivated by the recognized need to provide users with more granular privacy controls over their location data than Uehara's simple on/off mode.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended success would be expected. Uehara already recognized the benefit of considering traffic data. Implementing Myr’s server-side traffic analysis was a known method to achieve this, and adding Yiu’s UI-based privacy settings was a straightforward enhancement to Uehara's existing user preference system.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. Ground 2 challenges claims 2, 6, 13, 16, and 22 as obvious over Myr and Yiu in view of Machida (Application # 2001/0002036), adding Machida for its teaching of querying a device’s local map storage to determine if an update is needed before requesting new data. Ground 4 challenges claim 22 over Uehara, Myr, and Yiu in view of Machida, relying on a similar rationale.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "preference flags": Petitioner adopted a construction from a related district court case, defining the term as "two or more flags to control access to tracking of the user." This construction is central to the argument that Yiu’s "privacy parameter permissions" (offering four options: 'yes', 'no', 'always', 'never') meet the claim limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be improper because the asserted prior art combinations are materially different from and not cumulative to the single reference considered during the patent's expedited Track One prosecution, which involved no Office Actions.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv (§314(a)), stating that the parallel district court litigation was filed only one month prior to the IPR petition, and that no trial date or substantive schedule had been set, nor had claim construction or discovery commenced.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-13, 16-19, and 22 of the ’147 patent as unpatentable.