LinkedIn Corp v. Intent Iq LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00709
• Patent #: 10,715,878
• Filed: March 20, 2024
• Petitioner(s): LinkedIn Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-4, 6-12, and 13-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Online Access and Targeted Delivery of Advertisements
• Brief Description: The ’878 patent discloses techniques for recognizing that multiple electronic devices are related (e.g., connected to the same local network) so that online activities on a first device can be used to trigger an action, such as delivering a targeted advertisement, with respect to a second device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, and Hahn - Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, 19, and 22 are obvious over 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Baig (Application # 2008/0113674), Laidlaw (Application # 2004/0128547), Sitaraman (Patent 6,427,170), and Hahn (The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996)).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baig, the primary reference, discloses the core claimed method: identifying an association between mobile devices on a common WiFi hotspot (a LAN) by their shared public IP address and using that association for a cross-device action, such as displaying a list of other logged-in users. To meet further limitations, Petitioner mapped Laidlaw's teachings on standard web session management to the claimed "electronically stored association-detection information." Specifically, Laidlaw's use of a cookie containing a session token provides the "device identifier," and its server-side session table stores this identifier along with the user's IP address and a "timestamp" of the last access. Petitioner asserted Sitaraman's disclosure of the industry-standard DHCP protocol meets the "dynamically assigned IP address" limitation. Finally, to meet the "automatic action" requirement, Petitioner cited Hahn's description of well-known "server push" and "client pull" techniques for automatically updating webpage content, such as refreshing the user list when a new user joins the hotspot.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA building Baig’s system would have been motivated to incorporate Laidlaw's standard session management techniques to track logged-in users, a fundamental requirement for the system to function. Using cookies as identifiers was an industry-standard choice. While Baig mentions static IPs, a POSITA would find it obvious to use or allow dynamic IPs via DHCP as taught by Sitaraman to increase the system's reach to more hotspots, improve IP address utilization, and reduce costs. The dynamic nature of users joining and leaving a hotspot would motivate a POSITA to incorporate Hahn's automatic update methods to ensure the user list remains current, providing a clear benefit to the system's "vicinity-based" community function.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination merely applies a series of well-known, predictable, and industry-standard solutions (session management, DHCP, webpage auto-refresh) to solve common problems in the base system disclosed by Baig.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ground 1 Art plus Xu - Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are obvious over the combination for Ground 1 in further view of Xu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The prior art from Ground 1, plus Xu (Patent 7,730,030).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claims requiring behavioral data to be collected when a device is not connected to the LAN where the ultimate action occurs. Petitioner's theory is that a user sets a visibility preference (the behavioral data) at a first hotspot (LAN 1), disconnects, and later connects at a second hotspot (LAN 2). The system at LAN 2 then acts on the data collected at LAN 1. While this scenario is predictable in the context of Baig, Baig does not explicitly teach storing such a user preference between sessions.
  • Motivation to Combine: Xu discloses a similar virtual community system that explicitly teaches persistently storing user preferences, such as privacy or visibility settings, in a global user database. A POSITA would be motivated to add this functionality to Baig’s system to enhance usability and convenience, obviating the need for users to reset their preferences every time they log in from a new location. This aligns with Baig's storage of other user registration data.
  • Expectation of Success: Storing a user preference in a database was argued to be a trivial and predictable implementation for a POSITA, presenting no technical hurdles.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Ground 1 Art plus Gerace - Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are obvious over the combination for Ground 1 in further view of Gerace.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The prior art from Ground 1, plus Gerace (Application # 2006/0282328).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds limitations for selecting an advertisement for a second device based, at least in part, on user profile information associated with a first device. Baig teaches targeted advertising based on the recipient's (second user's) own profile, but not leveraging a different user's profile.
  • Motivation to Combine: Gerace teaches improving ad targeting by deducing a user's demographic profile from their shared behaviors and relationships with other known users. A POSITA would be motivated to apply Gerace's method to Baig's system. If the second device user declined to provide their own demographic data (which Baig allows), their association with the first user in the same hotspot provides a basis to infer their profile characteristics. Using this inferred profile to select ads would improve targeting relevance and system effectiveness, a clear benefit.
  • Expectation of Success: This combination was presented as a straightforward application of a known data-leveraging strategy for advertising to an existing system, with a predictable result of improved ad targeting.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 11-12, 20-21, and 23 (Ground 4), which relied on combining the Ground 1 prior art with both Xu and Gerace based on the same rationales provided in Grounds 2 and 3.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be improper, asserting that the Fintiv factors weigh strongly in favor of institution. Petitioner highlighted that the parallel district court case is in its infancy, with the complaint filed only four months prior, no trial date set, and no invalidity contentions served.
• Citing statistics for the venue, Petitioner argued the trial would occur well after a potential final written decision (FWD) would issue. Key factors favoring institution included the early stage of the litigation (Factor 3), the lack of overlapping arguments (Factor 4), and the compelling merits of the petition (Factor 6). Petitioner also noted it is seeking joinder with an already-instituted inter partes review (IPR) on the same patent and grounds, further counseling against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 13-23 of the ’878 patent as unpatentable.