PTAB

IPR2022-01222

Apple Inc v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: System for Controlling IP Based Wireless Devices
Brief Description: The ’863 patent discloses a system for controlling IP-based wireless devices, such as cellular phones, equipped with multiple transmitters, receivers, and antennas. The system architecture includes servers and network switching boxes to manage communication across multiple networks for enhanced capabilities.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahopelto (Patent 5,970,059) and Matero (Patent 5,768,691).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ahopelto taught the core system architecture, including IP-based wireless devices (mobile stations), various interconnected networks, and servers (GPRS Gateway Support Nodes or GGSNs) that control packet routing. The GGSNs were alleged to function as both a server and a network switch box. However, Ahopelto was said to lack specifics on the mobile device's RF hardware. Matero allegedly supplied these missing details by disclosing a dual-band cellular telephone with multiple transceivers (a plurality of transmit and receive units) and a plurality of antennas and antenna ports, which was necessary for operation on different frequency bands.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing the mobile station endpoints in Ahopelto's GPRS network would combine Matero's teachings to implement multi-band capability. Petitioner asserted this combination was a predictable integration of known technologies to enhance functionality, reduce insertion loss, and improve battery life.
- Expectation of Success: Success was expected because both Ahopelto's GPRS system and Matero's cellular phone were compatible with common wireless protocols like GSM and PCN, making their integration straightforward.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahopelto (’059 patent), Matero (’691 patent), and Hardwick (Patent 5,550,816).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Ahopelto and Matero to address claims 7 and 9, which recite a "virtual switch." Petitioner asserted that the GGSN in Ahopelto functions as a "network switch box." The additional limitation of a "virtual switch" was allegedly taught by Hardwick, which disclosed implementing routing functionality using multiple "virtual switches" or "virtual routers" as separate software instances residing on a single physical hardware platform.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that while Ahopelto's GGSN functions as a router, it does not specify the implementation details. A POSITA would combine Hardwick's virtual switch technology with the GGSN router of Ahopelto to achieve known benefits, such as cost savings from needing fewer physical routers and enhanced security by partitioning user access.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was allegedly predictable, as it involved applying a known virtualization technique (Hardwick) to a known network element (Ahopelto's GGSN router) to achieve expected improvements in cost and security.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ahopelto (’059 patent), Matero (’691 patent), and Sood (Patent 6,697,632).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 12's requirements for a "video streaming application" and "video stream data." Petitioner argued that Ahopelto's system, which routes data packets, was agnostic to the data payload. Sood allegedly provided the missing teaching by disclosing systems for transmitting different data types, including synchronized audio/video streams, over GSM networks to mobile devices. The combination would result in Ahopelto's network carrying video data packets for a video streaming application on the mobile device.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sood's teachings to define the types of data that could be transmitted through Ahopelto's GPRS network. This would enable the system to support multimedia applications, a known and desirable feature for mobile devices at the time.
- Expectation of Success: Success was expected as both Ahopelto and Sood were applicable to GSM systems, making their technologies directly compatible for integrating multimedia streaming into a GPRS packet radio network.

Petitioner argued for construing the term "said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices" (claim 1) to mean that the server is in communication with the network devices, and the server is separately configured with a controller. This interpretation was based on the patent's specification, which consistently described the server (Server C) communicating with network devices, while describing controllers as being part of the mobile device, not the server.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), stating the examiner did not consider any of the asserted prior art references during prosecution, making the petition non-cumulative.
Petitioner also argued that denial under Fintiv factors was inappropriate. The co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages with minimal investment, and the trial date was close to the Final Written Decision (FWD) date. Petitioner further committed to forgoing the asserted invalidity grounds in district court if the inter partes review (IPR) was instituted, thereby eliminating concerns of overlapping issues and conserving judicial resources.

Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-12, 14, 19, and 24 of the ’863 patent as unpatentable.