PTAB

IPR2024-00341

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Headwater Research LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automated Device Provisioning and Activation
  • Brief Description: The ’733 patent discloses an end-user device that receives and processes secure, control-plane communications from a network system. The system uses a secure "service control link" to manage services on the device through a local "service control device link agent" that communicates with multiple other "device agents."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over TS-23.140 and Ogawa - Claims 1-17, 19, 21-27, 29, and 30 are obvious over TS-23.140 in view of Ogawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TS-23.140 (a 3GPP technical specification for Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS)) and Ogawa (Patent 8,195,961).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of TS-23.140 and Ogawa, referred to as "MMS-Ogawa," disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. TS-23.140 taught the fundamental architecture: a user device ("MMS User Agent") communicating with a network server ("MMS Relay/Server") over a defined interface (MM1) to receive messages, including value-added services from various application servers. TS-23.140 further disclosed that the MMS User Agent can route received data to other specific applications on the device using a "destination application identifier." Petitioner mapped the MMS User Agent to the claimed "service control device link agent," the other applications to the "plurality of device agents," and the MM1 interface to the "service control link." Ogawa taught a data encryption system for a client-server environment, including using SSL/TLS for transport security and an additional layer of symmetric encryption using a "shared encryption key" stored at both the client and server. Petitioner contended that applying Ogawa's security methods to the MMS system of TS-23.140 rendered the claimed invention obvious. The shared key taught by Ogawa corresponded to the claimed "encryption key," and the use of SSL/TLS met the limitation of a link secured by an "encryption protocol."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine TS-23.140 with Ogawa to improve the security of the established MMS system. TS-23.140 already contemplated the need for security and mentioned using Transport Layer Security (TLS). Ogawa provided an explicit, well-known method for implementing both transport layer security (SSL/TLS) and an additional layer of symmetric, end-to-end message encryption. Implementing Ogawa’s known security techniques to improve the known MMS system of TS-23.140 was characterized as a simple application of a known technique to a known system to achieve the predictable result of enhanced security, particularly for enterprise applications.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Both references described conventional client-server architectures, and applying known security protocols like SSL/TLS and symmetric encryption was a routine and predictable task for a person of ordinary skill at the time. The integration would involve using components to perform functions they were already designed for.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) - Advanced Bionics: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d) because the prior art references, TS-23.140 and Ogawa, were not previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that the Examiner committed a material error by failing to consider any prior art systems and allowing the patent after only addressing §112 rejections, meaning the core obviousness arguments in the petition are entirely new to the Office.
  • §314(a) - Fintiv: Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. The arguments centered on co-petitioner Google not being a party to the parallel district court litigation (Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung), meaning a stay is not possible for all parties. Further, the litigation was in its early stages, with the trial date being speculative and scheduled well after the IPR's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision. To promote efficiency, petitioner Samsung stipulated not to pursue the same IPR invalidity grounds in the district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-17, 19, 21-27, 29, and 30 of the ’733 patent as unpatentable.