Meta Platforms Inc v. SitNet LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00531
• Patent #: Patent 11,470,682
• Filed: February 27, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): SitNet, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Roll Call Based Information System
• Brief Description: The ’682 patent discloses a server-based system for exchanging information related to a "situation," such as a social gathering, natural disaster, or emergency event. The system provides a message board and a "roll call list" to display status responses from users who are geographically proximate to the situation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Burfeind in view of Crowley.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Burfeind (Application # 2007/0233635) and Crowley (Application # 2006/0270419).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Burfeind disclosed a system for scheduling "location-specific events" that included an "event status interface" (a message board) which displayed invitee participation status (a roll call list). However, Burfeind required an organizer to manually select invitees from a contact list. Crowley was argued to cure this deficiency by disclosing "location-based social software" that automatically identifies a user's acquaintances who are geographically proximate to an event venue and sends them invitations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the burdensome and inefficient manual participant selection process in Burfeind. Crowley expressly identified the inefficiency of manual selection from an address book and taught an automated, location-based solution. Implementing Crowley's features in Burfeind would save time and prevent the inadvertent exclusion of nearby contacts.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Burfeind already taught a system that contemplated "location-specific events" and tracked users' GPS locations to determine arrival information. Adapting this existing location-tracking feature to automatically identify and invite nearby users, as taught by Crowley, was presented as a straightforward modification.

Ground 2: Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are obvious over Smith in view of Sinha.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Smith (Application # 2005/0197775) and Sinha (Application # 2008/0208605).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Smith taught a system for warning users about hazardous events by transmitting alerts to devices located in a specific geographic area. Smith, however, lacked a mechanism for users to provide feedback on their status. Sinha was argued to disclose a "business continuity application" for a displaced workforce that included a portal with a message board and an "employee roll call" feature, allowing users to report their status (e.g., "OK" or "not OK") during an event like a hurricane.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to enhance Smith’s one-way warning system with the two-way communication and status-reporting features of Sinha. This combination would create a more feature-rich system, enabling concerned parties (e.g., employers, family) to determine the safety status of individuals affected by a hazard, a clear and recognized benefit.
  • Expectation of Success: Both Smith and Sinha described systems implemented with standard network communications and web-based applications. Therefore, integrating Sinha's message board and roll call functionalities into Smith's hazard warning framework was argued to be a predictable implementation using known techniques.

Ground 3: Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are obvious over Smith, Sinha, and Gage.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Smith (Application # 2005/0197775), Sinha (Application # 2008/0208605), and Gage (Application # 2008/0139165).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Smith-Sinha combination to address claims requiring social connections indicative of family or friend relationships. While Smith-Sinha provided a system for concerned parties (like managers) to check status, Petitioner argued it did not explicitly extend this to family and friends. Gage was argued to disclose a "disaster response system" that expressly allowed "friends and loved ones" to access a subscriber's status and location via a website to determine if they are safe.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Gage's teachings to the Smith-Sinha system to broaden access to the roll call list beyond an organizational context. This would enable friends and family, not just employers, to access the status information, significantly increasing the system's utility in a widespread disaster scenario.
  • Expectation of Success: Since the combined Smith-Sinha system already included a web portal for status checking, modifying its access permissions to include other "concerned parties" like friends and family, as taught by Gage, was presented as a minor and predictable modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner contended that no claim terms required explicit construction and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
• However, acknowledging the prosecution history, Petitioner addressed the Examiner's interpretation of the "network controller configured to" and "central processing unit configured to" limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph. Petitioner provided a mapping of the claimed functions to corresponding structures disclosed in the ’682 patent's specification, thereby preserving its arguments should the Board adopt a means-plus-function interpretation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate because the asserted prior art and arguments were not previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution (Advanced Bionics framework).
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the parallel litigation in the Southern District of New York is in its early stages, with a trial date nearly a year away. Petitioner further stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 11,470,682 as unpatentable.