Apple Inc v. Geoscope Technologies Pte Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00259
• Patent #: 8,406,753
• Filed: December 6, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40

2. Patent Overview

• Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A LOCATION ESTIMATE USING UNIFORM AND NON-UNIFORM GRID POINTS
• Brief Description: The ’753 Patent is directed to a system and method for estimating the location of a wireless mobile device. The technology involves using pre-existing Network Measurement Reports (NMRs) containing calibration data for various locations, generating grid points from this data, and then comparing signal measurements from the mobile device against the data associated with the grid points to determine its location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 are obvious over Bhattacharya in view of Yost.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Bhattacharya (Application # 2006/0211376) and Yost (Patent 6,560,442).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bhattacharya disclosed the core method of the challenged claims. Bhattacharya taught a location system that estimates a wireless terminal's position by comparing its reported signal strength measurements against a database of "expected" signal strengths. This database is created by populating it with expected signal strengths for various locations within a geographic region, effectively creating grid points associated with calibration data. Bhattacharya further disclosed receiving a "Signal-Strength Measurement Report" from a mobile device at an unknown location, evaluating it against the database, selecting a subset of candidate locations (grid points) based on a predetermined threshold, and finally determining the mobile device's location from that selected set. Petitioner contended that Yost provided a known method for collecting the empirical data used to build Bhattacharya's database. Yost taught making calibration measurements at a plurality of positions and averaging them within "small areas" to create a standard, representative signal strength measurement for each area, which corresponds to the generation of calibration data for grid points. For the system claims (32, 38, 40), Petitioner asserted that Bhattacharya's disclosure of a "location system" comprising a processor and memory programmed to perform these exact method steps rendered the system claims obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Yost’s teachings with Bhattacharya’s system to achieve predictable results. Bhattacharya disclosed generating its database using "a plurality of empirical signal-strength measurements" but did not specify how to collect this data, leaving it to the skill of a POSITA. Yost provided a known and advantageous method for this exact task, describing how averaging multiple measurements within small areas removes the effects of fast fading and establishes tolerances. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Yost's superior data collection and averaging technique into Bhattacharya’s framework to improve the accuracy and robustness of the location estimation system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both references operated in the predictable field of computer-based location estimation for wireless systems. The combination involved applying a known technique (Yost's calibration phase) to improve a similar, known system (Bhattacharya's), relying on deterministic mathematics and programming.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner noted that a related district court proceeding adopted constructions for several key terms, which Petitioner argued were consistent with its unpatentability arguments. Key adopted constructions included:
  • "calibration points": "Geographic points with which calibration data is associated"
  • "calibration data": "modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a geographic location"
  • "grid point": "a point associated with representative calibration data for an area"
  • "network measurement report": "a report used in cellular networks which provides the results of a measurement from a mobile device on one or more cells"

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because Yost was never presented to or considered by the examiner during prosecution. While Bhattacharya was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was submitted late in prosecution and its specific, relevant teachings were never substantively analyzed on the record. Thus, the petition presented art and arguments that have never been before the Office.
• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. A parallel district court proceeding had already concluded, with claims 1 and 32 of the ’753 patent found invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. As the case is now on appeal, there is no scheduled trial date that would precede a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board. Furthermore, Petitioner argued there was no overlap in issues, as the district court decision was based on §101, while the IPR petition is based on obviousness under §103.
• General Plastic Factors: Petitioner argued that this petition should not be denied based on a separate IPR filed by Google LLC (IPR2023-01212). Petitioner asserted that Apple and Google are entirely separate entities, did not cooperate, and that this petition relies on completely different prior art references and grounds than those presented in the Google IPR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 7, 9, 32, 38, and 40 as unpatentable.