accessiBe Ltd v. AudioEye Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01493
• Patent #: 11,080,469
• Filed: September 7, 2022
• Petitioner(s): accessiBe Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): AudioEye, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Modular Systems and Methods for Selectively Enabling Cloud-Based Assistive Technologies
• Brief Description: The ’469 patent relates to computer-implemented methods for automating the remediation of websites to make them compliant with web accessibility guidelines. The system involves retrieving remediation code from a remote system and applying it to a webpage to programmatically assign descriptive attributes to untagged elements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Springer, Hendry, and Brown - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Springer in view of Hendry and Brown.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Springer (Application # 2004/0148568), Hendry (Application # 2013/0104029), and Brown (Patent 7,010,581).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Springer taught a base system for automatically checking and fixing web accessibility issues by modifying HTML code to add descriptive attributes (e.g., alt-text) for assistive technologies. To meet the limitation of retrieving remediation code from a remote system, Petitioner asserted Hendry taught a client-server model where remediation software (e.g., JavaScript) is stored on a remote server and retrieved by a client browser to modify a document. To meet the limitations related to a user-managed dynamic user interface, Petitioner asserted Brown taught a proxy machine that injects user-selected browser function controls into a webpage, allowing a user to transform the page into an accessible style based on their preferences.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve Springer's accessibility checker/fixer tools. The combination would expand Springer's functionality by incorporating Hendry's use of remote servers for processing and code delivery and utilizing Brown's interactive UI elements to provide users with direct control over remediations.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known web technologies, as each reference addressed a distinct but related aspect of web accessibility, and their integration involved applying conventional client-server architecture and UI design principles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Springer, Hendry, and Meron - Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10-14, 16, 19, and 20 are obvious over Springer in view of Hendry and Meron.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Springer (Application # 2004/0148568), Hendry (Application # 2013/0104029), and Meron (Application # 2014/0180846).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground leveraged the same base system from Springer and the client-server architecture from Hendry as described in Ground 1. For the user interface and user input limitations, Petitioner substituted Meron for Brown. Petitioner argued Meron taught providing an "initiate accessibility" button on a webpage, which a user could click to enable remediation. Meron also disclosed a toolbar with customization capabilities that allowed a user to dynamically change remediations like font size and color contrast to fit their individual needs, thereby teaching a dynamic user interface for managing remediations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Meron with the Springer/Hendry system to incorporate Meron's user-friendly interface features, such as the accessibility button and toolbar. This combination would improve the system's usability by providing users with quick access to personalized settings and profile management, enhancing the customization capabilities taught by Springer.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of known user interface elements (a toolbar and activation button) into an existing web accessibility framework, presenting no undue technical hurdles.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lehota, Hendry, and Brown - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Lehota in view of Hendry and Brown.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lehota (Application # 2010/0205523), Hendry (Application # 2013/0104029), and Brown (Patent 7,010,581).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: In this ground, Lehota provided the primary system, which taught using an "accessibility widget" embedded in a website to modify the site's Document Object Model (DOM) and improve accessibility for screen readers. Petitioner combined this with Hendry's disclosure of retrieving remediation code from a remote server, arguing that Lehota's widget library could be hosted remotely per Hendry's architecture. The user interface limitations were again met by Brown, whose proxy-based system for injecting user controls was asserted to be combinable with Lehota's widget-based DOM modification.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve upon Lehota's accessibility widgets. The combination would leverage the processing power and data storage of remote servers as taught by Hendry, rather than relying solely on the client machine. Further, Brown's UI features would be added to allow for independent management and customization of the accessibility features provided by Lehota's widget, particularly in managing user profiles.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these systems, as it represented an improvement of a known widget-based system (Lehota) with established client-server techniques (Hendry) and well-understood UI customization methods (Brown).

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Springer or Lehota with Hendry, Brown, and/or Meron (Grounds 3, 5, and 6), but relied on similar combination rationales and prior art mapping strategies.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the scheduled trial date in the parallel district court litigation was uncertain due to a pending motion to transfer. Petitioner further contended that there had been no significant investment in the court proceeding, as no fact discovery had occurred and the claim construction hearing was canceled. Finally, Petitioner argued that the strong merits of the unpatentability grounds presented in the petition weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’469 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.