Meta Platforms Inc v. Mobile Data Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00248
• Patent #: 9,032,039
• Filed: December 6, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Mobile Data Technologies, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 19-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method, Apparatus and System for Management of Information Content for Enhanced Accessibility Over Wireless Communication Networks
• Brief Description: The ’039 patent discloses techniques for users to manage and access information through "mobile information channels" (M-channels) on a mobile website. A user can activate and configure these channels via a corresponding content management website.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs - Claims 19-20 and 22-23 are obvious over Neibauer in view of Cheng and Squibbs.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Neibauer (a 2000 book, How to Do Everything With Yahoo!), Cheng (Patent 7,574,486), and Squibbs (Application # 2001/0015759).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Neibauer’s disclosure of “Yahoo! Clubs”—web-based communities where users can share photos and messages—teaches the core limitations of independent claims 19 and 23, including a server receiving content for insertion into a “previously established application-based information channel” that permits interaction among users. Petitioner contended that Cheng, which discloses using a proxy server to reformat any standard website for access by a mobile device, renders it obvious to provide Neibauer’s Yahoo! Clubs functionality to mobile users. The combination of Neibauer and Cheng thus allegedly meets the limitation of receiving content “from a mobile device.” To meet limitations regarding “information associated with at least one wireless networking functionality,” Petitioner relied on Squibbs, which teaches associating photos with the geographic location where they were taken (e.g., via GPS) and displaying them on a map. This combination allegedly teaches obtaining location information from the mobile device and integrating it with the uploaded content, as recited in dependent claim 20.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Neibauer and Cheng to meet the growing market demand for mobile access to popular web services like Yahoo! Clubs. Cheng’s proxy server offered a straightforward “bolt-on” solution to adapt existing web content for mobile devices without altering the underlying service. A POSITA would further incorporate the teachings of Squibbs to enhance the user experience of Neibauer’s photo-sharing feature by adding valuable contextual information (location), which improves photo classification and enjoyment. Neibauer’s own disclosure of a “Yahoo! Maps” feature further suggested combining map and location functionalities with its other services.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Cheng and Squibbs relied on well-known and industry-standard technologies, such as proxy servers and GPS, for their implementation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Neibauer, Cheng, Squibbs, and Bandera - Claim 21 is obvious over Neibauer in view of Cheng, Squibbs, and in further view of Bandera.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The prior art from Ground 1, plus Bandera (Patent 6,332,127).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets dependent claim 21, which requires that the “additional content” inserted based on location information comprises “advertising content.” The combination in Ground 1 taught inserting additional content (an electronic map) based on the mobile device's location. Petitioner asserted that Bandera teaches the final element, as it explicitly discloses a method for selecting and delivering advertisements to a mobile device based on its physical location.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Bandera’s teachings to the Ground 1 combination was primarily commercial. A POSITA would be motivated to increase revenue by displaying location-targeted advertisements, which are more relevant to the user and therefore more effective. This was a common and well-understood business practice. The fact that Neibauer already showed advertisements on its club pages made this an obvious extension.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementation would have been trivial, as placing advertising on webpages was a commonplace and well-understood practice at the time.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 3 and 4) that were substantially similar to Grounds 1 and 2, respectively, but added Harvey (Patent 6,487,583) to address a specific, alternative claim construction of "application-based information channel" proposed in co-pending litigation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• The petition noted that the term “application-based information channel” is subject to dispute in parallel district court litigation.
• For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner stated it was willing to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a computer program-based medium for transferring information,” arguing the prior art meets this construction.
• Petitioner also noted its own proposed construction from the litigation is “a virtual location at the content management site at which user-authored content may be added for transmission to the mobile web site.” Petitioner argued the primary prior art combinations met this construction but presented Grounds 3 and 4 (adding Harvey) as an alternative to ensure this construction was fully addressed.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the co-pending litigation is in a relatively early stage with no substantive discovery having occurred. Petitioner also stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it would not pursue in litigation any invalidity defense that was or could have been raised in the IPR.
• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), acknowledging that Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the original prosecution. However, Petitioner contended that the Examiner never used these references in any substantive rejection or provided any analysis of their teachings. Therefore, Petitioner argued the Examiner materially erred by failing to appreciate how these references rendered the challenged claims obvious, and the petition presents arguments in a new light.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 19-23 of the ’039 patent as unpatentable.