Apple Inc v. ALD Social LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01399
• Patent #: 9,402,158
• Filed: September 12, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): ALD Social, LLC.
• Challenged Claims: 1-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Aggregate Location Dynometer
• Brief Description: The ’158 patent discloses an "Aggregate Location Dynometer" (ALD), an analytical server that uses location-based services (LBS) to predict public safety risks. The system evaluates the positioning and movement of wireless devices in a network to provide an alert of a possible impending crowd-related public safety risk, such as a flash mob or riot.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wolfe, Pfeffer, and Hua - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Wolfe in view of Pfeffer and further in view of Hua.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wolfe (Application # US2011/0040603), Pfeffer (Application # US2009/0284348), and Hua (Application # US2009/0222388).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Wolfe, discloses the core elements of the claimed system. Wolfe teaches a server-based crowd detection system that uses "telemetrics-based location" of wireless devices to determine where crowds are, how they are changing, and their activity levels, and can inform a police force of this information. Petitioner contended this teaches the claimed "aggregate location dynometer" comprising a "network monitor" and a "crowd risk determinant." Pfeffer was asserted to supply the claimed "alert module" functionality, as it describes a first responder dispatch system that analyzes incident information (including crowd control scenarios), determines a "level of alert," and sends dispatch requests if a predetermined threshold is exceeded. For claims requiring analysis of crowd shape, Petitioner argued that Hua teaches analyzing crowd characteristics, including a crowd’s shape derived from a density map, to detect specified behaviors and assess risk.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wolfe with Pfeffer because Wolfe’s system provides detailed crowd data to police but lacks specifics on how to alert and dispatch them effectively. Pfeffer’s detailed incident response and dispatch methodology provides a known solution to this problem, creating a more complete and effective public safety system. A POSITA would further incorporate Hua's teachings because analyzing a crowd's shape—a feature readily derivable from the density maps Wolfe already creates—is a known technique to improve the accuracy of risk assessment, making the combined system more robust.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable. Both Wolfe and Pfeffer describe server-based systems for public safety, and integrating Pfeffer's dispatch logic into Wolfe's data-gathering system uses known software integration techniques. Adding Hua's shape analysis would be a straightforward enhancement, as Hua notes that crowd features like shape are "easily obtained" from density maps like those used in Wolfe.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wolfe and Hua - Claims 8-16 are obvious over Wolfe in view of Hua.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Wolfe (Application # US2011/0040603) and Hua (Application # US2009/0222388).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets the method claims. Petitioner argued Wolfe teaches the core method steps: monitoring wireless traffic by determining the number of devices near access points, aggregating their location data to identify crowd formation and movement, and alerting authorities to a "problematic crowd risk." For limitations requiring the determination of crowd risk based on "crowd shape" (claim 8) or "movement" (claim 10), Petitioner argued that Wolfe discloses tracking motion trends and changes in activity levels. Hua was asserted to explicitly teach deriving a crowd's shape from a density map (which Wolfe creates) and analyzing crowd behavior (e.g., forming, dispersing) to assess potential risks, thus rendering the claimed shape- and movement-based risk determinations obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Wolfe and Hua to improve the crowd risk analysis in Wolfe's system. While Wolfe's system monitors crowd density and location, it would benefit from more sophisticated analytical techniques. Hua provides a known method to enhance such a system by using crowd shape and specific behavioral patterns as additional indicators of risk, leading to a more accurate and reliable alerting method.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because Hua's analytical techniques are designed to operate on the exact type of data (aggregated location data presented as a density map) that Wolfe's system generates. Implementing Hua's shape analysis algorithms within Wolfe's server-based architecture would be a predictable application of known data processing techniques.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "indication of a potential viral event" / "a potential impending viral event": Petitioner argued that based on the specification, these terms should be construed to mean "an indication of a crowd's activity, including the crowd's size, density, movement or other characteristics." This construction is central to Petitioner's argument that prior art references which monitor general crowd activity meet this limitation, even if they do not use the specific term "viral event."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Discretionary Denial under Fintiv: Petitioner argued denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Although a parallel district court case was filed, the amended complaint in that litigation does not assert the ’158 patent. Therefore, Petitioner contended there is no longer a parallel proceeding that would warrant denial.
• Discretionary Denial under §325(d): Petitioner argued denial would be improper because the primary reference, Wolfe, was never considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’158 patent. Petitioner further argued that the Examiner "erred in a manner material to patentability" by failing to issue any rejections based on the prior art of record, despite references like Pfeffer and Hua being cited in an IDS.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’158 patent as unpatentable.