PTAB

IPR2023-00822

Cisco Systems Inc v. Zilkr Cloud Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Provisioning a Service for Use with a Group Plan
  • Brief Description: The ’047 patent describes methods for provisioning services for a group plan (e.g., for a family or enterprise). The method uses a "unified services platform" that acts as an intermediary, receiving subscription requests from a group administrator and managing service activation with various third-party application service providers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4-7 are obvious over Raleigh.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Raleigh (Application # 2013/0132854).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Raleigh teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Raleigh describes methods for subscribers to manage a "master service account" for a "device group" (the claimed "group plan") comprising multiple users and devices, each with an associated phone number. This master account allows a primary user (e.g., a parent or employer) to purchase and share services like voice, messaging, and data among all members of the group. Petitioner contended that Raleigh’s "third-party service partner system," which provides a marketplace or "application store" for users to select services from different providers, is analogous to the claimed "unified services platform system."
    • Petitioner mapped the multi-step process of claim 1 by arguing Raleigh’s platform receives a "service plan selection" (the "subscription request"), sends an "activation request" to the selected service provider, receives an "activation response," and then associates the new service with the user's account. This association makes the service available to the multiple telephone numbers in the group plan. The petition further argued that Raleigh explicitly discloses selecting services from multiple, different third-party providers, satisfying limitations related to a "second service" from a "second third party" provider.
    • For dependent claim 4, Petitioner asserted that Raleigh’s disclosure of various service operators (including network carriers) that must conform to a common API via a "Sign-Up Request Processor" makes it obvious that the operators' native APIs would be different and therefore "incompatible" with each other. For claim 5, Petitioner argued Raleigh’s platform inherently "integrates" the APIs of both the third-party application providers and the network providers to create a uniform experience for the user.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that although Raleigh is a lengthy disclosure organized into different sections (e.g., group account management, service selection, API integration), a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine these teachings. Raleigh itself described these features as connected parts of a single, cohesive framework and included cross-references indicating that its various figures and descriptions "can apply equally" to different aspects of the system, such as applying API structures to service activation processes for a master service account.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Raleigh’s teachings because the reference presents them as compatible and integrated aspects of a single, comprehensive system for managing group service plans.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary prior art reference, Raleigh, was not cited or considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’047 patent.
  • Discretionary Denial under Fintiv: Petitioner argued the factors from Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. weigh strongly against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with minimal investment from the parties, as key events like the Markman hearing and expert discovery had not yet occurred. Petitioner also stipulated that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds based on Raleigh in the district court, mitigating concerns of overlapping issues. Finally, Petitioner contended that the petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, which weighs in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR trial and cancellation of claims 1 and 4-7 of Patent 9,883,047 as unpatentable.