Meta Platforms Inc v. Intent Iq LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01281
• Patent #: 10,715,878
• Filed: August 4, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Targeted Television Advertisements Based On Online Behavior
• Brief Description: The ’878 patent discloses techniques for identifying an association between different electronic devices connected to a common network. This association is then used to enable an action taken with respect to one device based on activities performed on another device, such as delivering targeted advertising.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, and Hahn - Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, 19, and 22 are obvious over the combination of four prior art references.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Baig (Application # 2008/0113674), Laidlaw (Application # 2004/0128547), Sitaraman (Patent 6,427,170), and Hahn (The Internet Complete Reference, 1996).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Baig, discloses the core concept of the challenged claims: a method for identifying an association between multiple mobile devices connected to a common WiFi hotspot (a LAN) and using that association for a "cross-device action," such as displaying a list of other nearby users. Petitioner contended that Baig alone meets many limitations but that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have supplemented its teachings with other well-known technologies. Specifically, Laidlaw taught standard web session management, including using cookies as "device identifiers" and storing session data like IP addresses and timestamps in a session table, which maps directly to the data storage requirements of claim 1(a). Sitaraman taught the industry-standard use of DHCP to dynamically assign IP addresses, satisfying the "dynamically assigned IP address" limitation of claim 1(a)(ii). Finally, Hahn taught well-known techniques ("server push" and "client pull") for automatically updating webpage content, which would render the cross-device action in Baig "automatic" as required by claim 1(d).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to create a functional and commercially viable system. Baig’s system for creating "vicinity-based" communities inherently requires a way to manage user sessions, making Laidlaw’s session management techniques a necessary component. Incorporating dynamic IP assignment from Sitaraman was motivated by the need to increase the system's reach, as many public WiFi hotspots used dynamic rather than static IPs. The motivation to add Hahn’s automatic update feature was to improve the user experience, as the list of users connected to a hotspot would change frequently, and users would desire up-to-date information.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating discrete, well-understood, and conventional technologies (session management, DHCP, automatic page updates) into Baig's foundational system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ground 1 Prior Art in Further View of Xu - Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are obvious.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The four references from Ground 1, plus Xu (Patent 7,730,030).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring that behavioral data be collected when a device is not connected to the LAN and later used when it connects to a different LAN. Petitioner argued that while Baig suggests collecting data, it is silent on whether user preferences are stored between sessions at different locations. Xu was introduced because it explicitly teaches storing user preferences, such as privacy or visibility settings, in a persistent global user database for virtual communities.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Xu's teachings to Baig's system to enhance user convenience and privacy control. Storing a user's visibility preference would prevent them from having to reset it each time they log in from a new hotspot. This modification would make the system more user-friendly and would be a predictable improvement.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ground 1 Prior Art in Further View of Gerace - Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are obvious.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The four references from Ground 1, plus Gerace (Application # 2006/0282328).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims where the "automatic action" is selecting an advertisement for a second device based, at least in part, on the user profile of a first device. Baig’s advertising system targets users based on their own demographic data. Petitioner introduced Gerace, which teaches a method for targeted advertising where, if a user's demographics are unknown, the system can deduce them based on the profiles and behaviors of other associated users.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to improve the advertising effectiveness of Baig's system. Many users are reluctant to provide personal demographic data. Gerace's technique would allow the system to still deliver relevant ads by inferring the second user's profile information from the known profile of the associated first user, thereby improving the likelihood of a successful ad campaign.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 11-12 and 20-23 based on the combination of the Ground 1 prior art with both Xu and Gerace, relying on the same rationales provided in Grounds 2 and 3.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate because the parallel district court litigation between the parties is stayed and will remain stayed until the Board issues a Final Written Decision.
• Petitioner further contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the petition presents new prior art references and combinations that were not considered during the original prosecution of the ’878 patent or in previous IPRs filed by other parties against the same patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-23 of the ’878 patent as unpatentable.