Meta Platforms Inc v. SitNet LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00530
• Patent #: 9,877,345
• Filed: February 27, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): SitNet, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-16

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Accessing Situation Related Information
• Brief Description: The ’345 patent discloses methods and systems for managing information during a "situation" like an emergency or natural disaster. The technology centers on forming a "situational network" of participant devices determined to be geographically proximate to the event, presenting a "roll call query" to those devices, and aggregating status responses into a roll call list.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Gage - Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-16 are obvious over Gage.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gage (Application # 2008/0139165).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gage, which discloses a "disaster response system," teaches every limitation of the independent claims. Gage’s system receives an indication of a disaster (the "situation"), forms a network by establishing communication channels with subscribers proximate to the disaster area, and queries their devices for a "status indicator" (e.g., "OK," "NEED HELP"). Petitioner asserted that this query functions as the claimed "roll call query." Gage then receives status responses and aggregates them by storing them in a database and making them available on a website, which Petitioner contended constitutes the claimed "roll call list."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable, as this is a single-reference ground.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that to the extent Gage’s website does not explicitly disclose a "list" format, a POSITA would find it obvious to implement one as a natural and intuitive way to present aggregated user status information to concerned parties.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gage and Mitchell - Claims 2, 9, and 14 are obvious over Gage in view of Mitchell.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gage (Application # 2008/0139165) and Mitchell (Application # 2007/0194938).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims directed at handling non-responsive participants. Petitioner argued that while Gage's system identifies non-responders (by populating their database entry with "Unknown"), it lacks a mechanism for other users to provide status updates for them. Mitchell's "intelligent headcount system" was asserted to cure this deficiency by teaching "backup procedures" for determining the status of unaccounted-for persons. Specifically, Mitchell discloses sending a message to colleagues of a non-responsive user to request information regarding their status.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Gage with Mitchell to improve the accuracy and completeness of the status information in Gage’s system. By enabling responsive users to provide information about non-responsive users, the system could resolve "Unknown" statuses more effectively, which is a critical goal in a disaster response scenario.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references address the same technical problem of tracking individuals during an emergency, and integrating Mitchell's backup procedure into Gage's existing web portal would be a predictable implementation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Shida - Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15 are obvious over Shida.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Shida (Application # 2003/0162557).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shida, like Gage, discloses all elements of the independent claims. Shida’s "center server" receives a "disaster occurrence report" and forms a network by establishing connections with subscriber terminals in the disaster region. The server then transmits "broadcast notice information" containing a "safety confirmation necessity flag," which Petitioner argued is a "roll call query" that solicits a "safety confirmation response" from users. The center server receives these responses and aggregates them by generating and updating a "disaster regional subscriber table," which Petitioner equated to the claimed "roll call list."
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on the combination of Shida and Sinha (Application # 2008/0208605) to teach claims related to providing a message board and enabling responsive participants to view the roll call list and update the status of non-responsive participants.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary reference, Gage, was never presented to or considered by the PTO. Although Shida was cited in a 91-reference Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), Petitioner asserted it was never substantively evaluated or applied in a rejection, and that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking its highly relevant teachings.
• Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court litigation is in its early stages, the scheduled trial date is nearly a year away and unreliable, and discovery is not advanced. Petitioner also stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation, mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 9,877,345 as unpatentable.