Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01210
• Patent #: 8,400,358
• Filed: August 10, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 15, 18, 41, and 52

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit
• Brief Description: The ’358 patent discloses methods and systems for determining the location of a mobile station, particularly in indoor environments where location accuracy is a challenge. The technology involves using a database of previously gathered calibration data (e.g., signal strengths), collecting new observed network measurement data from the mobile station, modifying the observed data, and then comparing the modified data to the calibration database to determine the station’s location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Shkedi - Claims 1, 15, and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Shkedi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shkedi (Patent 7,706,811).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shkedi discloses every element of independent claims 1 and 15. Shkedi teaches a "Signal-Comparison Based Location-Determining Method" that addresses poor signal reception in multi-story structures. It discloses providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data by electronically storing signal strength measurements from known locations. It further teaches collecting observed network measurement data by monitoring signals at a mobile device's current location to generate a "unique fingerprint." Crucially, Shkedi discloses modifying this observed data by normalizing the signal strengths using the strongest received signal as a baseline. Finally, Shkedi describes comparing these modified (normalized) measurements with the stored calibration data to determine the mobile device's location. For claim 18, Petitioner asserted Shkedi’s database is built from non-uniform locations, such as user-selected points or extrapolated data points for areas with poor GPS, which constitute "non-uniform grid points."

Ground 2: Anticipation by Zhu - Claims 1, 15, 18, 41, and 52 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Zhu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhu ("Indoor/outdoor location of cellular handsets based on received signal strength," 2005 IEEE 61st Vehicular Technology Conference).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Zhu, a conference paper describing a method for locating indoor handsets, also discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Zhu teaches creating a database of radio frequency (RF) maps containing previously-gathered signal strength vectors for a predetermined area. It discloses collecting observed network measurement data from a handset's Network Measurement Report (NMR). Zhu then explicitly teaches modifying this data by normalizing the signal strength vector, specifically by subtracting the "average dBm-power of all received channels" from each signal. This modified data is then compared to the RF map database to estimate the handset's location. Petitioner argued this process meets all limitations of claims 1, 15, and 41. For claim 52, Petitioner asserted that Zhu's system uses transmitters both inside and outside the primary measurement area, with the outside transmitters qualifying as "not a member of said wireless network."

Ground 3: Obviousness over Shkedi in View of Zhu - Claims 41 and 52 are obvious over Shkedi in view of Zhu under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shkedi (Patent 7,706,811) and Zhu (2005 IEEE conference paper).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shkedi discloses all limitations of claim 41 except for "determining an average value for select ones of said signal characteristics" and using that average to modify the observed data. Shkedi teaches the broader concept of using "mathematical normalizations" to create relative signal strengths for comparison. Zhu was introduced to supply the specific teaching of calculating an average value of signal strengths and using it to normalize observed data.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to apply Zhu's specific averaging and normalization technique to Shkedi's location-determination system. Shkedi establishes the utility of normalization, and Zhu provides a well-known, specific method for achieving it (using an average value) to improve accuracy. Petitioner contended this would have been a simple substitution of one known normalization technique for another to achieve a predictable improvement in Shkedi’s system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both references operate in the same technical field (mobile device location via signal strength fingerprinting) and address the same problem (improving location accuracy). Applying Zhu's known mathematical technique to Shkedi's system would predictably result in a functional and improved locationing method.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Shkedi with Spain (Application # 2003/0064735) to teach non-uniform grid points, Zhu with Spain for the same purpose, and Zhu with Laitinen (a 2001 IEEE paper) to teach using transmitters from different network types.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "calibration data": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a geographic location." This construction is broad enough to encompass both the raw signal strength data stored in a database and data that has already been normalized or otherwise altered, which Petitioner argued is consistent with the patent's disclosure and a Markman Order in related litigation.
• "positioning determining equipment": Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function term for the function of "comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration data." Petitioner argued that the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, rendering the term indefinite. However, for the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner identified the structure alleged by the Patent Owner in litigation (e.g., a processor implementing algorithms) and argued the prior art discloses it.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors, asserting that a trial date has not yet been scheduled in the parallel district court litigation, meaning the PTAB's final written decision would likely issue before a district court trial. Petitioner also noted its diligence in filing the IPR petition shortly after receiving the final infringement contentions.
• Petitioner further argued against denial under §325(d), contending that the primary prior art references, Shkedi and Zhu, are new and were never considered by the examiner during prosecution. Petitioner asserted this lack of consideration was a material error, as the references teach the purported "inventive feature" of the ’358 patent (modifying observed network data), and therefore the petition raises issues that warrant a new review on the merits.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 15, 18, 41, and 52 of Patent 8,400,358 as unpatentable.