Apple Inc v. Speir Technologies Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01512
• Patent #: 7,321,777
• Filed: September 9, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-25

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless Communications System Including a Wireless Device Locator and Related Methods
• Brief Description: The ’777 patent discloses a system for locating wireless devices using active range finding. A locator device exchanges multiple signals with a target device, determines the propagation delay for each signal exchange by accounting for a "known device latency" of the target's device type, and estimates the range based on a plurality of the determined delays.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over McCrady and Raphaeli

Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23, 25 are obvious over McCrady in view of Raphaeli.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McCrady (Patent 6,453,168) and Raphaeli (Patent 7,511,604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McCrady, like the ’777 patent, teaches a position location system that determines the range to target wireless devices. McCrady’s “master radio” (a locator) transmits ranging messages to “reference radios” (target devices), which send reply messages. The system calculates range based on the round-trip time, subtracting a known "turn around time" which accounts for the target's device latency (e.g., a preloaded, constant antenna delay for a given device type). Petitioner asserted that Raphaeli cures McCrady's lack of an explicit teaching of averaging multiple measurements by disclosing a system that transmits a plurality of signals and calculates an average time delay to enhance the precision of the range estimate.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine McCrady and Raphaeli to improve the precision of McCrady's range estimation. McCrady itself suggests using averaging for internal delay calibrations, motivating a POSITA to apply the same well-known statistical technique to the primary range measurement. Raphaeli explicitly teaches that averaging propagation delays increases the precision of the range estimate, providing a clear reason to incorporate its method into McCrady's similar system to reduce errors from noise and interference.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because both references solve the same problem (range finding) using compatible techniques (round-trip time measurement). Applying the common technique of averaging, as taught by Raphaeli, to McCrady's system was argued to be a straightforward and predictable implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over McCrady, Raphaeli, and Kuwahara

Claims 3-4, 11, 14, and 22 are obvious over the combination of Ground 1 in view of Kuwahara.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: McCrady (Patent 6,453,168), Raphaeli (Patent 7,511,604), and Kuwahara (Patent 6,070,079).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the McCrady and Raphaeli combination by adding Kuwahara to teach the limitations of determining a "bearing" to a target device. Petitioner argued that Kuwahara explicitly discloses using a plurality of antennas (an "array antenna") to receive signals and estimate the "incident direction" of those signals, which a POSITA would understand as determining the bearing to the signal's source. This addresses limitations in claims 3, 11, 14, and 22, which require using a plurality of antennas to determine bearing.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Kuwahara with the primary combination to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the location system. Petitioner asserted that adding bearing information to McCrady's range data would allow for more accurate positioning (e.g., via triangulation with fewer reference points). Kuwahara's teachings on using antenna arrays to mitigate multipath interference also aligned with McCrady's goal of achieving accurate positioning.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because implementing an antenna array as taught by Kuwahara into the wireless locator of McCrady was a known technique for improving directional finding and signal quality in wireless systems.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Rofheart and Raphaeli

Claims 1-3 and 5-25 are obvious over Rofheart in view of Raphaeli.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rofheart (Patent 7,058,414) and Raphaeli (Patent 7,511,604).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this as an alternative primary combination, arguing that Rofheart alone teaches most of the limitations of claim 1. Rofheart discloses a "local device" (locator) that determines its distance to multiple "remote devices" (targets). It transmits a message, receives a response, and calculates range based on the round-trip time. Critically, Rofheart teaches that the remote devices have different "radio types" and that the locator uses a lookup table to retrieve a "predefined processing delay" for each radio type to calculate the propagation delay, satisfying the "known device latency" limitation. As in Ground 1, Raphaeli was added for its express teaching of averaging multiple propagation delays to improve precision.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was similar to Ground 1: a POSITA would seek to improve the accuracy of Rofheart's range calculation. Petitioner argued this was particularly important in Rofheart's system, where distance is used as an authentication criterion. Incorporating Raphaeli's averaging technique would predictably reduce erroneous distance estimates, thereby preventing false positive/negative authentications and improving system effectiveness.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success because both Rofheart and Raphaeli describe compatible wireless ranging systems. Applying Raphaeli's well-understood averaging technique to Rofheart's system would predictably improve its precision.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations adding Kuwahara to the Rofheart/Raphaeli base (Ground 5) and adding Rofheart to the McCrady/Raphaeli base (Ground 3), but relied on similar modification theories.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both the General Plastic factors (related to follow-on petitions) and the Fintiv factors (related to parallel litigation).
• General Plastic: Petitioner argued that this petition should not be denied based on an earlier-filed IPR by Unified Patents (IPR2022-00987). Petitioner asserted it is a distinct entity from Unified with no significant relationship, the petitions rely on materially different prior art references and arguments, and this petition was filed with diligence and does not present road-mapping concerns.
• Fintiv: Petitioner contended that the merits of the petition are compelling and that this factor alone should weigh against denial. Furthermore, it argued that a district court trial date is unreliable and a Final Written Decision from the Board would likely issue first, and that the parties' investment in the parallel litigation is minimal as it is still in the early stages.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-25 of the ’777 patent as unpatentable.