PTAB

IPR2022-01358

Maplebear Inc v. Consumeron LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Remote Acquisition and Delivery of Goods
  • Brief Description: The ’067 patent describes a system and method for remote shopping where a customer orders goods online, and a remote server dispatches a mobile delivery agent. The system provides real-time updates, including video feeds, allowing the customer to track the delivery process and inspect products remotely before acquisition.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Park in view of Kim - Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 14, 18-19, and 25-28 are obvious over Park in view of Kim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (WO 01/11523) and Kim (KR2003-0085802).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Park discloses a real-time, network-based system for ordering and delivering goods, including time-sensitive and perishable items. Park’s system uses mobile delivery agents with wireless computing devices and provides customers a "live video feed" to interactively view the delivery progress. Petitioner contended this teaches most limitations of independent claims 1, 27, and 28, such as a remote server receiving an acquisition request and deploying a mobile delivery agent system. Kim was asserted to teach the remaining key limitation: using a mobile device's digital camera to capture and send an image of an ordered product to the customer for confirmation before delivery. Kim explicitly addresses the problem of customers receiving items that do not match online images.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kim's product confirmation method with Park's delivery system to solve a known problem inherent in Park's system: the inability for a customer to verify that perishable or taste-specific items (e.g., fruit of a desired ripeness) meet their expectations before delivery. This combination would enhance the reliability of Park's system, a benefit explicitly taught by Kim.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references operate in the same field of e-commerce and delivery. Integrating Kim's image confirmation step into Park's existing framework—which already included agents with camera-equipped mobile devices and real-time data transmission—would require only routine software programming.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Park, Kim, and Hileman - Claims 3, 4, 9, and 24 are obvious over Park in view of Kim and further in view of Hileman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (WO 01/11523), Kim (KR2003-0085802), and Hileman (Application # 2003/0040944).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Park/Kim combination by adding Hileman to teach limitations related to providing customers with delivery options and status. Petitioner argued Hileman discloses a system where a server notifies a user of various transportation options, including available routes, associated charges, and vehicle availability status (claim 3). Hileman also teaches that the user can select a preferred delivery option (claim 4), and the system can calculate and provide a price estimate (claim 9). For claim 24, Hileman teaches notifying the user of the delivery vehicle's imminent arrival via electronic message.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Hileman's teachings to provide additional information and flexibility to customers in the Park/Kim system. Providing customers with price estimates and selectable delivery options based on cost or speed would allow the system to serve a broader, more price-conscious customer base, representing a desirable and logical improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because implementing these features involves well-understood network communication capabilities already present in the Park system. Adding options for delivery timing, cost, and agent selection is a straightforward enhancement to an e-commerce platform.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 21 is obvious over Park, Kim, and Mault (for using images to create an order) and that claims 8, 22, and 23 are obvious over Park, Kim, and Pugliese (for receiving remote inspection instructions and handling product rejections/alternatives).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "mobile delivery agent system": This term was identified as requiring construction. For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner adopted the construction proposed by the Patent Owner in parallel district court litigation: "one or more mobile computing devices having image capturing and communications capability which can (1) receive product data over the Internet from a remote server, where the product data corresponds to a customer request, and (2) provide to the customer an image of a product in real-time as well as acquisition and delivery information of the product." Petitioner argued that even under this construction, the claims are obvious, and that if the Board does not adopt it, the dispute can be resolved without an explicit construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The parallel district court case was in its early stages, with no claim construction hearing held, fact discovery not closed, and an uncertain trial date due to the case's assignment to a vacant judgeship. Petitioner asserted it filed the petition promptly after infringement contentions were served.
  • Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the core prior art combinations relied upon in the petition were never considered, applied, or addressed during the original prosecution of the ’067 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 8-9, 12, 14, 18-19, and 21-28 of the ’067 patent as unpatentable.