accessiBe Ltd v. AudioEye Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01492
• Patent #: 11,061,532
• Filed: September 7, 2022
• Petitioner(s): AccessiBe Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): AudioEye, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Modular Systems and Methods for Selectively Enabling Cloud-Based Assistive Technologies
• Brief Description: The ’532 patent discloses systems for automating website accessibility remediation. The technology involves analyzing a webpage's code (HTML or DOM), detecting compliance issues such as elements lacking descriptive attributes, and applying pre-existing remediation code from a remote server to programmatically assign descriptive attributes that enable audible descriptions by assistive technologies like screen readers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are obvious over Springer in view of Takagi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Springer (Application # 2004/0148568) and Takagi (a 2009 ACM article).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Springer taught a system for automatically checking for and fixing web accessibility compliance issues. Springer’s “checker” tools (e.g., ImageChecker) identified problems like images missing alternative text attributes, and its corresponding “fixer” tools (e.g., ImageFixer) applied remediations. Takagi taught a "social accessibility" service where a community of users (“supporters”) manually created and shared accessibility metadata, such as alternative text for images, which was stored in a central, remote repository. An end user's tool could then access this repository to apply the community-generated remediations to a webpage. The combination of Springer's automated analysis and Takagi's remote, crowd-sourced remediation database allegedly disclosed the key limitations of the independent claims, including analyzing code, detecting issues, and applying pre-existing remediations generated by a remote server based on manual user input.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Springer's automated checker/fixer system with Takagi’s crowd-sourced remediation repository to improve efficiency. Instead of requiring each user to manually fix an issue, the combined system would first query Takagi's shared database for a pre-existing, human-generated solution, thereby reducing redundant manual effort and improving the speed and accuracy of remediation.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as both systems were web-based and designed to interact with servers. Integrating a database query into Springer's workflow before prompting for manual input was argued to be a straightforward modification for a POSITA.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are obvious over Springer and Takagi in view of Hendry.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Springer (Application # 2004/0148568), Takagi (a 2009 ACM article), and Hendry (Application # 2013/0104029).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Springer and Takagi combination from Ground 1, adding the teachings of Hendry. Hendry disclosed systems and methods for improving document accessibility using a flexible, distributed computing architecture. It taught that accessibility remediation steps could be performed on a local client computer, a remote server, or a combination of both, and that data could be stored in a distributed repository.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Hendry's teachings of a flexible, distributed architecture into the Springer/Takagi system. This would allow the combined system's accessibility remediation functions (e.g., analysis, fixing, database access) to be flexibly distributed across client and server machines, enhancing the system's scalability and architectural options.

Ground 4: Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are obvious over Markel in view of Takagi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Markel (Application # 2002/0156799) and Takagi (a 2009 ACM article).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Markel as a primary reference that, like Springer, taught a system for improving web accessibility. Markel disclosed a tool that diagnosed, evaluated, and retrofitted code violations on websites, including missing HTML tags like ALT tags for images. Markel’s system could correct issues automatically, semi-automatically (by prompting a user for input via a wizard), or manually. The combination of Markel's diagnostic and correction modules with Takagi's remote, shared repository of human-generated fixes was argued to teach the claimed invention.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation mirrored that of Ground 1. A POSITA would combine Markel's evaluation and correction system with Takagi's social labeling service to enhance Markel's semi-automatic remediation process. By first querying Takagi’s repository for a known fix, the system would reduce the time and cost associated with prompting individual users for manual input for common accessibility issues.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Springer and Bigham in view of Hendry (Ground 3), Markel and Takagi in view of Hendry (Ground 5), and Markel and Bigham in view of Hendry (Ground 6). These grounds relied on similar theories, using Markel as an alternative to Springer for automated analysis and Bigham (a 2006 ACM article teaching a human-labeling service) as an alternative to Takagi for crowd-sourced remediation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. It contended that the trial date in the parallel district court litigation was tentative and uncertain, that no significant investment had been made in the court proceeding (e.g., no discovery or claim construction hearing had occurred), and that the petition raised different prior art and arguments than those in the district court. Further, Petitioner asserted that it had presented a strong case of unpatentability, which weighs against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 of the ’532 patent as unpatentable.