PTAB

IPR2023-00359

Google LLC v. Flypsi Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method of Providing Telephone Service
Brief Description: The ’554 patent relates to methods for providing telephone service by associating a secondary telephone number with a mobile device's existing primary number. The system uses a server and an associated switch to manage calls, routing communications over separate data and voice channels to enable features like displaying the secondary number on outgoing calls.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Backhaus (Application # 2013/0295892).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Backhaus discloses every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 4. Backhaus describes a "second line service" (SLS) platform that provides a mobile device with a secondary "SLS number" in addition to its primary number, storing this association on a server. For outgoing calls, the user's device dials a "relationship number" (the claimed "access telephone number"), which routes the call through the SLS platform. The platform then connects the call to the third party while modifying the calling line ID to display the SLS number. Petitioner asserted that Backhaus teaches transmitting this relationship number over a data channel, which could be an IP-based channel (as required by claim 2), and establishing the subsequent voice call over a separate PSTN channel, which is not an IP channel (as required by claim 4).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Backhaus (Application # 2013/0295892) and Saksena (Application # 2006/0077956).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Backhaus teaches routing outgoing calls over a "second channel" that is a voice channel on the PSTN but is silent on the specific cellular standard used. Saksena explicitly discloses that cellular networks and mobile devices operate using well-established standards like CDMA or GSM. Claim 3 requires the second channel to be established in accordance with a CDMA or GSM standard.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Backhaus's system with Saksena's teaching of CDMA/GSM standards as a simple, predictable design choice. To ensure the mobile devices in Backhaus's system could function on contemporary cellular networks, a POSITA would have naturally implemented the voice channel using one of the dominant standards, CDMA or GSM.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as implementing known cellular communication standards for a voice channel was a routine and well-understood practice in the art.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Backhaus (Application # 2013/0295892), Taylor (Application # 2009/0052437), and optionally Saksena (Application # 2006/0077956).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative, arguing that if the claimed "switch" is interpreted to require a device separate from the core PSTN, the combination with Taylor renders the claims obvious. Petitioner argued Backhaus discloses switches within the PSTN. Taylor discloses a computer telephony (CT) server that provides enhanced features by connecting to the PSTN via a distinct "PSTN interface" that functions as the claimed switch.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement the service platform taught in Backhaus would have been motivated to use a dedicated interface like the one taught by Taylor. Using a separate PSTN interface was a well-known, conventional method for connecting a service provider's server to the public telephone network to reliably process calls and provide value-added services.
- Expectation of Success: Success would be highly predictable, as interfacing application servers with the PSTN was a standard and established engineering practice.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Under §325, it contended that a prior IPR on the ’554 patent should not bar institution because it was filed by an unrelated third party and was terminated before any substantive review.
Petitioner further argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the early stage of the co-pending district court litigation, the long median time-to-trial in the Western District of Texas, and Petitioner's stipulation not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR is instituted all weigh strongly in favor of institution and patent system efficiency.

Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’554 patent as unpatentable.