PTAB

IPR2022-00940

Google LLC v. NoBots LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method for Assessing User Status
Brief Description: The ’008 patent describes methods for assessing whether a user interacting with a server is a human or an automated program ("bot"). The system analyzes user interaction data, such as biometric inputs or passive data, to generate a confidence level of the user's status.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Willner (Application # 2009/0024971).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Willner, which discloses techniques for detecting "click fraud" by automated scripts ("clickbots"), teaches every element of the challenged claims. Willner's method assesses a "confidence level" by monitoring a user's cursor movements (the "monitored data") on a webpage (the "issued data"). This data is then compared to "model data" relating to human interaction, such as the stochastic, non-linear paths characteristic of human mouse movement, to determine if the cursor movement is "human-like." Based on this comparison, Willner generates a "confidence factor" indicating whether the user is a human or a bot, directly corresponding to the limitations of independent claim 1.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Willner’s disclosure of analyzing cursor movement vectors against known human patterns constitutes a complete anticipation of the method described in claim 1 and its core dependents.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Willner (Application # 2009/0024971) and Kitts (Application # 2008/0114624).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Willner’s system, which focuses on "active model data" like cursor movements, would have been combined with the teachings of Kitts to incorporate "passive model data" analysis, as required by claims 4, 5, and 20. Kitts teaches preventing click fraud by analyzing passive "attributes" associated with a web page request, including IP address, geographic location, browser cookies, and web history. Kitts feeds these attributes into a statistical model to calculate a probability that the request originated from an automated system.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they both address the same problem of detecting automated fraud. A POSITA would be motivated to improve the accuracy of Willner’s active data analysis by incorporating Kitts’s complementary passive data analysis to create a more robust and comprehensive bot detection system.
- Expectation of Success: Combining these two known approaches for fraud detection—one based on active user behavior and the other on passive environmental data—was a predictable and straightforward way to enhance system performance.

Prior Art Relied Upon: O'Connell (Application # 2007/0239604).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that O'Connell, which describes detecting fraudulent behavior in e-commerce sessions, independently discloses the claimed invention. O'Connell's method monitors "user-browser interaction data," including keyboard inputs and mouse movements, in response to issued webpage data (e.g., JavaScript). It then compares this monitored data to models of "known fraudulent human or automated program behavior" (e.g., data entry that is too rapid, a mouse pointer that never moves). Based on this comparison, O'Connell generates a "fraud detection score," which Petitioner argued is analogous to the claimed "confidence level" indicating whether the user is human or an automated program.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that O'Connell's detailed description of analyzing various user interaction signals to generate a fraud score meets all limitations of the challenged claims without needing combination with other art.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on O'Connell in view of Kitts. It also asserted that claims 19-20 are anticipated by or obvious over Kitts alone, which teaches assessing a "probability" of fraud based on passive data acquired from a client device prior to the server delivering issued data.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d).
§314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors weigh against denial. It argued the trial date in the parallel district court litigation (W.D. Tex.) is highly uncertain due to a pending motion to transfer and significant court congestion. Furthermore, the district court case was in its early stages with minimal investment, and Petitioner stipulated it would not pursue any instituted IPR grounds in that litigation.
§325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued that the asserted prior art references (Willner, Kitts, and O'Connell) were neither considered by the examiner during prosecution nor are they cumulative of the art that was considered. As the references and arguments are new, Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) is not warranted.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’008 patent as unpatentable.