Content Square SAS v. Quantum Metric Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01167
• Patent #: 11,036,823
• Filed: June 17, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Content Square SAS
• Patent Owner(s): Quantum Metric, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Accurate and Efficient Recording of User Experience, GUI Changes and User Interaction Events on a Remote Web Document
• Brief Description: The ’823 patent discloses methods for tracking user interactions and graphical user interface (GUI) changes on a web document. The technology uses a client-side "capture agent" to monitor events, including changes to the Document Object Model (DOM), and transmit event records to a server-side system for session replay, aiming to solve data synchronization issues.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hernandez, Guttman, and Bunyan - Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 13, 14, and 19 are obvious over Hernandez in view of Guttman and Bunyan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hernandez (Application # 2014/0137052), Guttman (Application # 2011/0173589), and Bunyan (UK Application # GB 2 425 194 A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hernandez, the primary reference, discloses a system for capturing and replaying user interactions on a client device, including DOM changes. Hernandez’s "capture library" tracks events and sends them to a server-side replay system. Guttman was used to explicitly teach the well-known underlying structure of a DOM as a "tree-style hierarchy" composed of "nodes," features Petitioner contended are inherent in Hernandez’s disclosure. Bunyan was introduced to teach receiving the capture agent in conjunction with the web document, for example, as embedded JavaScript code, a limitation not expressly disclosed in Hernandez.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hernandez with Guttman to supplement Hernandez’s disclosure with explicit, well-known details of DOM implementation. Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine the teachings of Bunyan with Hernandez to improve the system’s reach; embedding the capture agent in the webpage (as taught by Bunyan) avoids the need for users to download a specialized application, thereby allowing tracking on any client device that requests the webpage. This was presented as a predictable design choice to increase user accessibility.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as combining these known elements—a capture system, standard DOM structure, and a common script-delivery method—would predictably result in the claimed invention without requiring undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hernandez, Guttman, Bunyan, and Harris - Claims 3, 4, and 6 are obvious over Hernandez in view of Guttman, Bunyan, and Harris.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hernandez (Application # 2014/0137052), Guttman (Application # 2011/0173589), Bunyan (UK Application # GB 2 425 194 A), and Harris (Application # 2015/0134669).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the core combination of Ground 1 and adds Harris to address claim limitations for uniquely identifying a DOM node when it lacks a unique identifier. Petitioner argued Harris explicitly teaches a solution for this common problem by "travers[ing] upwards through the DOM" from the target node to find an ancestor node that has a unique identifier. Harris then determines and stores the path from that uniquely identified ancestor to the target node, directly mapping to the limitations of claims 3 and 4.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Harris’s teachings with the Hernandez system to solve the common and known problem of DOM elements lacking unique identifiers. Adding this functionality would make the session replay system more robust and reliable. Because the base Hernandez system already implements a DOM, incorporating Harris's DOM-traversal solution was argued to be a straightforward and logical improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Harris provides a clear, algorithmic solution to a known problem within the exact technical context (DOM manipulation) of the primary Hernandez system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations incorporating:

  • Athas (Patent 9,503,540) for its teachings on efficiently handling overlapping DOM modifications by serializing only the highest-level ancestor node change.
  • The DOM Specification for its disclosure of merging adjacent sibling text nodes, a standard DOM normalization technique.
  • Ramamurthy (Application # 2006/0184410) for its teachings on improving user experience by transmitting event records only when the browser is idle and for stripping sensitive information (e.g., passwords) before transmission.
  • White (European Patent No. EP 2,291,745 B1) for its teachings on compressing event data before transmission to reduce bandwidth and sending the original DOM from the client to the server to ensure replay fidelity.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that all factors weighed in favor of institution. Key arguments included that the parallel district court litigation was stayed in its infancy, with no trial date set, minimal investment by the parties or the court, and no overlap of invalidity issues, as infringement and invalidity contentions had not yet been served.
• §325(d): Petitioner contended that denial under §325(d) was unwarranted because the petition raised new invalidity grounds based on prior art and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO. It was argued that the primary combination of Hernandez, Guttman, and Bunyan was never before the examiner. While Harris was cited during prosecution, it was asserted as part of a different combination and its specific teachings on identifying nodes without unique IDs were never substantively addressed by the Patent Owner or the examiner.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-19 of the ’823 patent as unpatentable.