Stodge Inc v. Attentive Mobile Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00069
• Patent #: 11,416,897
• Filed: October 19, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Stodge, Inc. d/b/a Postscript
• Patent Owner(s): Attentive, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 15-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Two-Tap Text Message Subscription
• Brief Description: The ’897 patent relates to a method for subscribing users to text message marketing services using a "two-tap" approach. The system presents an advertisement with a clickable link that, when activated on a mobile device, automatically opens a messaging application with a pre-populated text message, which the user can then send to complete the subscription.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Oliver, Agrawal, and Molinet - Claims 15-19 and 21-30 are obvious over Oliver in view of Agrawal and Molinet.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Oliver (Application # 2015/0178784), Agrawal (Patent 8,015,615), and Molinet (Application # 2016/0142858).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art teaches all elements of the challenged claims. Oliver disclosed the core "two-tap" business method where a user interacts with a "passive entity" in an advertisement to generate a pre-populated text message for opting into promotions. Agrawal taught a standard ad-network system where a server sends an "ad tag" (code) to a publisher's webpage, which then requests and displays a targeted advertisement. Molinet addressed the problem of unreliable mobile app linking by teaching a contextual deeplinking server that receives a request from a web link and returns a device-specific URI to properly open a target application, such as a messaging app.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to create an improved and commercially viable system. It would have been obvious to implement Oliver’s streamlined business method using Agrawal’s well-known ad-network technology to achieve broad, targeted distribution of advertisements. To ensure the critical link from the ad to the messaging app worked reliably across different mobile operating systems (a known problem), a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Molinet’s contextual deeplinking solution.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known software techniques (ad networks, deeplinking) to a known business method, with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Oliver, Agrawal, Molinet, and Ad Serving Technology - Claims 15-30 are obvious over the Ground 1 combination in further view of Ad Serving Technology.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Oliver (Application # 2015/0178784), Agrawal (Patent 8,015,615), Molinet (Application # 2016/0142858), and Ad Serving Technology (a 2014 textbook).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 and specifically addressed the limitations of claim 20, which required the "means for displaying" (the ad tag) to include code for executing a "client business rule" to determine whether to display the ad. While Agrawal taught the use of business rules for ad selection, the Ad Serving Technology textbook explicitly taught that it was common practice for ad tags to contain JavaScript to "make decisions about what ad to display in real time." This disclosure directly mapped to the business rule execution recited in claim 20 being performed by the ad tag itself on the client device.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the system of Ground 1 would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ad Serving Technology to improve efficiency. Placing decision-making logic directly within the ad tag's JavaScript, as was standard practice, would be an obvious way to implement the business rules (e.g., ad frequency capping) taught by Agrawal.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating well-known JavaScript decision logic into an ad tag was a standard, widely used, and predictable programming task for a POSITA at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "means for displaying..." (Claim 15): Petitioner argued this means-plus-function term should be construed as an "integration tag configured to cause performance of the claimed functions." This construction identifies the corresponding structure as the script-based ad tags common in ad networks like Agrawal's, allowing that prior art to be mapped to the claim.
• "means for causing..." (Claim 15): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a "URI deeplinking to a messaging application and configured to cause performance of the claimed functions." This construction links the claimed function to the well-established technology of using URIs for mobile app deeplinking, as taught by Oliver and refined by Molinet.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) (Same or Substantially the Same Art): Petitioner argued against denial, asserting that most of the relied-upon prior art (Agrawal, Molinet, Ad Serving Technology) was never presented to or considered by the patent examiner. For the one reference of record, Oliver, Petitioner argued that the examiner fundamentally misunderstood its teachings by mistaking Oliver's description of the problems in the prior art for Oliver's actual invention, leading to a flawed examination.
• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors weighed heavily in favor of institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with minimal investment from the parties and a trial date projected for well after a Final Written Decision in the inter partes review (IPR) would be due. Petitioner also stated its intent to move for a stay of the litigation if the IPR is instituted.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 15-30 of Patent 11,416,897 as unpatentable.