PTAB

IPR2024-00200

PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd v. Flip Phone Games Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: System and method for providing updated in-game content
Brief Description: The ’056 patent discloses a system and method for providing updated content, such as advertisements, to a mobile video game. The system involves a server that receives a request for content from a mobile device, identifies appropriate content to send, and transmits a pre-selected message and the content itself based on criteria such as the mobile device's model type, service subscription, or service provider.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hays (Application # 2008/0102947).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hays, standing alone, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Hays describes an "advertisement delivery scheme" for video games played on multiple platforms, including mobile devices. This scheme utilizes an "advertisement management service system" (the claimed server and storage) that receives requests from a game device, stores advertising content, identifies which ad to send based on various factors including "client type" (which Petitioner asserted corresponds to the claimed "model type"), sends metadata about the ad (the claimed "message"), and finally sends the ad content for in-game display.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hays (Application # 2008/0102947) and Choi (Application # 2007/0174490).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative theory, arguing that to the extent Hays does not explicitly teach certain targeting methods, Choi supplies the missing elements. Choi was cited for its express teachings on selecting advertisements based on "demographic information from the carrier" of the mobile device, using "GPS location information to request location-specific advertising," and checking device capabilities like bandwidth. Petitioner contended that these teachings directly map to claim limitations requiring content selection based on a service provider or device location, and to dependent claims requiring a bandwidth check.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Choi's well-known and more specific targeting techniques with Hays’s foundational ad-delivery framework to improve targeting efficacy and yield more relevant advertising, a known goal in the art. Using carrier information as a proxy for demographics was a known, privacy-conscious method for targeting.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying established targeting methods (from Choi) to an existing ad-delivery system (Hays) to achieve the predictable result of improved ad relevance.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Levkovitz (Application # 2007/0088801).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Levkovitz as another single reference that renders all claims obvious. Levkovitz discloses a system for placing contextual advertisements within mobile applications, including games. Its "ad server" receives a "content request" from a mobile device and "selectively serve[s] content items" based on parameters directly related to the mobile phone, such as "manufacturer identifier, model identifier," which Petitioner argued is a direct disclosure of selecting content based on "model type." Levkovitz further discloses sending "presentation rules" (e.g., ad capping rules) along with the content, which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "message relating to the in-game video game content."
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this ground relies on a single reference.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations using Chu (Patent 7,698,178) to teach sending specific in-game ad placement locations, and combining Levkovitz with Choi to teach checking device bandwidth before sending content.

Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under either §314(a) or §325(d).
§314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner provided a Sotera-type stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in parallel district court litigation any ground raised or that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR if instituted. Petitioner further argued the litigation is at a very early stage, with a trial date set for approximately five to six months before the statutory deadline for a final written decision, making the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of institution.
§325(d): Petitioner contended that denial is inappropriate because the primary references (Hays, Choi, Chu, and Levkovitz) are new and were never cited or considered by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’056 patent. Therefore, the PTO has not previously considered these specific invalidity arguments.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 11,117,056 as unpatentable.