PTAB

IPR2022-01511

RevConTent LLC v. Integrated Advertising Labs LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and system for internet brand management
  • Brief Description: The ’121 patent discloses a system for placing targeted advertisements on web pages, such as forums or fan sites, and monitoring user activity related to those ads. The system is designed to display "sponsored posts" contiguously with "non-sponsored" content in a manner where they scroll together.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Koeppel and Koeppel-II - Claims 1-9 are obvious over Koeppel, alone or in the alternative, in view of Koeppel-II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Koeppel (Patent 6,477,575) and Koeppel-II (Patent 7,567,916).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Koeppel discloses a dynamic web marketing and advertising system that tracks user activities (clicks, scrolling) to build user profiles and present targeted content. Koeppel-II, which Koeppel incorporates by reference, provides specific examples of displaying sponsored advertisements within a web page alongside regular, non-sponsored content. Petitioner contended that Koeppel-II’s figures show advertisements that are not traditional banners or static headers, but are instead integrated with the page’s primary content. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that these integrated ads would be understood by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to scroll with the surrounding non-sponsored content and maintain a fixed relative position, thus teaching the key "scrolling limitation" that the Patent Owner added during prosecution to overcome prior art. The combination was also argued to teach tracking user interactions with the ads (e.g., click-throughs) and using distinguishing features (like background color) to differentiate ads from editorial content.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted Koeppel expressly incorporates the application that became Koeppel-II by reference. In the alternative, a POSITA would combine the references because they share the same inventors, were filed on the same day, and address related subject matter, making it natural to consult both to understand the complete system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as the references describe different aspects of a single, cohesive system for targeted advertising.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Haveliwala and Bharat - Claims 1-9 are obvious over Haveliwala in view of Bharat.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Haveliwala (Application # 2005/0222989) and Bharat (Application # 2005/0131762).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Haveliwala, assigned to Google, discloses a system for providing personalized advertisements ("sponsored posts") alongside personalized search results ("non-sponsored posts") based on a user's profile and search query. Haveliwala teaches combining these two types of content into a single results page. Bharat, also assigned to Google, was argued to provide further detail on creating comprehensive user profiles by tracking user behavior, such as clicks and conversions, to improve ad targeting. Petitioner asserted that the combination teaches displaying targeted, sponsored posts among non-sponsored content. To meet the "scrolling" and formatting limitations, Petitioner relied on Haveliwala's disclosure of "interlineated" ads and general knowledge, evidenced by screenshots of Google search results from 2005, showing that sponsored results were commonly displayed contiguously with organic results and scrolled together with them in a fixed relative position. This common practice demonstrated the obviousness of creating ads that blend with regular content but are still distinguishable, as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because both were developed by Google engineers, filed within months of each other, and address complementary aspects of personalized advertising. A POSITA reviewing Haveliwala’s system for serving personalized ads would naturally look to a contemporaneous reference like Bharat for detailed methods of creating the user profiles that drive the personalization.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected as the references describe closely related technologies with shared components (e.g., ad servers, user profile servers), presenting no technical barriers to their combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “sponsored posts”: For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's apparent position that "sponsored posts" means content from an advertiser, often marked with a label like "Ad."
  • “posting the sponsored posts at each of multiple web pages” (Claim 9): Petitioner argued that a "web page" is a collection of data, not a tangible object to which a post can be sent. However, for the petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's infringement theory, construing this limitation to mean distributing ads from an ad server to a client browser where they are combined with content from a web server for viewing.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. The primary argument was that the co-pending district court trial is scheduled for June 2024, which is well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. Petitioner contended this timeline ensures the IPR would conclude first, promoting efficiency and saving judicial and party resources. The petition's compelling merits and its expeditious filing (approximately six months after service of the complaint) were also cited as reasons to institute review.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’121 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.