Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01212
• Patent #: 8,406,753
• Filed: August 9, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and System for Determining the Location of a Mobile Device
• Brief Description: The ’753 patent discloses a technique for determining the location of a mobile device by using information from Network Measurement Reports (NMRs) within a grid-based pattern matching system. The system aims to improve geolocation efficiency by generating grid points from calibration data to create a denser "map" for matching.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 are anticipated or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 over Spain.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Spain (Application # 2003/0064735), with Agiwal (a 2005 technical publication) cited as corroborating evidence for the knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Spain taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Spain described a system for locating a mobile device using a database of radio frequency (RF) fingerprints (the claimed "calibration data"), where each fingerprint is associated with a location. Crucially, Petitioner contended that Spain disclosed the key limitation of "generating one or more sets of grid points" by teaching the use of intelligent algorithms to interpolate new fingerprints (grid points) at locations between originally sampled points, thereby creating a more robust database. Spain further taught receiving a live fingerprint (a "network measurement report") from a mobile device at an unknown location, which includes signal strength and serving cell ID (a "characterizing parameter"). The system then evaluated the live report by first narrowing the search to a subset of the database based on the reported serving cell ID and then selected a set of the "closest" matching grid points from that subset based on a predetermined criterion (signal strength "closeness"). Finally, Spain determined the device's location by interpolating between the locations of the selected set of grid points. This process directly mapped to the method steps of independent claim 1 and the system components of independent claim 32.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that Spain alone disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, making the claims anticipated or, at a minimum, obvious. Agiwal was not presented as a combinable reference but as evidence of what a POSITA would have known. Specifically, Agiwal was cited to show that using techniques like a k-best search to determine "closeness" between signal strength fingerprints was a well-known and conventional approach for selecting candidate locations, confirming that a POSITA would have readily understood and implemented this step in Spain's system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Spain described a complete, functional geolocation system. The use of interpolation to densify a data map and a two-tiered search (coarse search by cell ID, fine search by signal strength "closeness") were known techniques to improve the efficiency and accuracy of pattern-matching location systems, as confirmed by Agiwal.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "calibration data" (Claims 1, 7, 32, 38): Petitioner proposed the construction "modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a geographic location."
• "calibration points" (Claims 1, 32): Petitioner proposed the construction "geographic points with which calibration data is associated."
• "grid point" (Claims 1, 9, 32, 40): Petitioner proposed the construction "a point associated with representative calibration data for an area." This construction was central to arguing that Spain's interpolated fingerprints qualified as "grid points."
• "network measurement report" (Claims 1, 7, 32, 38): Petitioner proposed the construction "a report used in cellular networks which provides the results of a measurement from a mobile device on one or more cells."
• Petitioner noted that these proposed constructions were consistent with a Markman Order issued in related district court litigation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Petitioner’s central technical contention was that the limitation "generating one or more sets of grid points" was met by Spain's disclosure of using intelligent algorithms to interpolate new fingerprints at locations between sampled locations. This argument was critical because the Patent Owner had distinguished prior art during prosecution by arguing that the prior art (Zeng) only averaged measurements at existing calibration points and did not "generate" new grid points. Petitioner asserted that Spain explicitly taught this generation of new, interpolated points to create a more robust location database.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Discretionary Denial under §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, asserting that the Fintiv factors weighed in favor of institution.
  • The trial date in the parallel litigation had not been scheduled, which Petitioner argued strongly favored institution (Factor 2).
  • While a Markman order had issued, expert discovery was incomplete, meaning investment was not dispositive (Factor 3).
  • Petitioner argued the compelling merits of the petition, based on prior art not substantively considered by the Examiner, weighed heavily in favor of institution (Factor 6).
• Discretionary Denial under §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the Examiner committed material error during prosecution.
  • Petitioner contended that although the Examiner was presented with Spain in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was never substantively analyzed. The Examiner instead based rejections on a related reference (Dressler) but focused on claim features (e.g., omitting erroneous location estimates) not present in the challenged claims.
  • The Examiner's alleged material error was overlooking Spain's explicit disclosure of generating new grid points via interpolation, the very feature that the Applicant used to overcome rejections. Petitioner argued this was not a mere disagreement with the Examiner's findings but a demonstration that the Examiner overlooked dispositive teachings in the art of record. This error, combined with the new expert declaration evidence, was argued to warrant a fresh review.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 of Patent 8,406,753 as unpatentable.