Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01497
• Patent #: 6,738,764
• Filed: September 2, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Valtrus Innovations Ltd
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Ranking Search Results
• Brief Description: The ’764 patent discloses a method for ranking search results by combining two types of scores. It uses a static "relevance score" based on time-invariant document characteristics and an adaptive "similarity score" derived from a feature vector that learns from user interactions over time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are obvious over Li

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Patent 7,231,381).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Li, which teaches a web-based image search engine, discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Li’s system calculates and combines two scores: a "low-level similarity score" based on intrinsic image features (e.g., color, size) and a "high-level similarity score" based on surrounding text. Petitioner contended these correspond directly to the ’764 patent’s claimed "relevance score" and "similarity score," respectively. Li’s system is adaptive, using relevance feedback from users to update document "feature vectors" that characterize attributes and prior query words associated with an image. Petitioner asserted that the only modification required to meet the claims was to present links to the web pages containing the images, rather than just the images themselves.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument focused on the motivation to modify Li. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to present search results as links to the containing web pages. This was a standard practice for search engines at the time, and users would have been interested in the context of an image, not just the image in isolation.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this modification, as web search technology was a predictable field and arranging a user interface to include hypertext links was a well-understood task.

Ground 2: Claims 1-19 are obvious over Edlund in view of Li

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Edlund (Patent 6,546,388) and Li (Patent 7,231,381).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Edlund teaches almost all elements of the claims. Edlund discloses a search engine that combines a "content relevance" score (based on matching query terms to document words) with a "popularity" score derived from user behavior (i.e., which documents are selected for which queries). Petitioner mapped Edlund's "content relevance score" to the claimed "relevance score" and its popularity score, which implicitly measures query similarity, to the claimed "similarity score." Edlund uses data structures like hash tables (HASH and QamHash) to store associations between URLs and prior queries, which Petitioner argued function as the claimed "feature vector." Li was cited primarily to teach the specific limitation of adaptively weighing the two scores based on user feedback, a technique Petitioner argued was absent from Edlund but well-known from Li.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Li’s adaptive weighing techniques with Edlund’s ranking system to improve search accuracy. Edlund already teaches combining multiple relevance metrics, and Li provides a known, advantageous method for incorporating user feedback to dynamically adjust the weights of those metrics. A POSITA would recognize that combining these known techniques would predictably result in a more robust and accurate ranking system.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as it involved applying a known improvement technique (Li’s adaptive weighting) to a known system (Edlund’s search framework).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Arguments against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued denial would be improper because the primary prior art was not properly considered during prosecution. Li was never before the examiner. Although Edlund was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement, it was never substantively analyzed or used in a rejection. Petitioner argued the examiner clearly erred by allowing the claims based on a finding that the prior art failed to teach combining a relevance and similarity score—the very combination that Edlund expressly teaches.
• Arguments against Discretionary Denial under Fintiv: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no expert discovery, and no substantive orders issued. Given the median time-to-trial in the district, the Board would likely reach a Final Written Decision before a court trial could occur. Furthermore, the petition challenges all 19 claims, providing a more efficient and complete resolution than the litigation, where only a subset of claims was asserted.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’764 patent as unpatentable.